# Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159 "2003-10-29T03:14:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/381 "2003-11-25T01:29:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > I’m not sure why you got so upset, though - You seemed to have wanted to ask atheists some tough questions, and up to now you had been a good sport about answering tough questions yourself. I’m sorry you feel put-upon now.☹ I’m really, really, really, sorry. Humbly, completely sorry. Yes, I kind of felt pushed into the corner. Put up or shut up. But it wasn’t unreasonable for you to do that in a debate setting. It was really kind of a rude awakening to me to realize that I was embarrassed about “God paying a visit” or at least about telling anyone. Not one of my prouder moments of self-discovery. I have always been horrified by the “zealous” in your face Christian and so have always kept pretty private about my beliefs. This has been a huuuuge stretch for me. On the up side, you, Priceguy, DtC and a few others who kind of ticked me off;), actually helped me learn and figure out the most. So again, I’m really sorry. You’ve been great.:o IWLN ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/382 "2003-11-25T07:54:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **Just a question, not an argument; So do you never in science have to presuppose something is true, in order to prove or disprove the theory?** Not in the way I think you mean, no. Do you have an example of some sort? > [@](#): > > **I don’t agree. I think we’re eventually going to discover some really different “rules”.** But how could that even be possible? 1+1=2 is not something humans have come up with. It’s a natural law, a basic fact of the universe. If you put one thing together with another thing, you’ve got two things. It’s not vague, it’s not subjective, it just is. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/383 "2003-11-25T10:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > Not in the way I think you mean, no. Do you have an example of some sort? Well I can go simple, which is in my comfort zone and say that people are looking for Bigfoot, because they presuppose that he may exist. Or going with something I don’t understand at all, the example below. They’ve come up with a theory on why their calculations for the location of Pioneer10,11 and the Ulysses solar probe are off. Aren’t they having to make assumptions or presuppose to work through these answers? They’re guessing that gravitational waves exist, but can’t measure or detect them. It’s an old article, but the principle is still there. Am I not getting it? Isn’t a theory just an extremely educated "presuppose"or hypothesis? "The general model now being used to describe the gravitational field proposes that gravitational waves run transverse to the direction of propagation of the gravitational energy. To date, no experiments have been able to directly measure gravitational waves or even detect them."[cite](http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm) > [@](#): > > But how could that even be possible? 1+1=2 is not something humans have come up with. It’s a natural law, a basic fact of the universe. If you put one thing together with another thing, you’ve got two things. It’s not vague, it’s not subjective, it just is. \*\* But if you put 1 minute and 1 minute together while traveling really fast, doesn’t that equal to something besides 2 minutes. I am in way over my head here, but I think the possibilites are endless. I do think it’s a basic fact of earth, but once you leave earth, doesn’t seem as definite. And doesn’t science admit that it’s all provisional fact due to our point of reference? [cite](http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_law.htm) Isn’t natural law only true because of our perception? Is it natural laws or just absence of fact that makes you doubt God’s existence? Impossible or improbable? If that doesn’t make sense, you can just pat me on the head and I’ll give up.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/384 "2003-11-25T11:10:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **Well I can go simple, which is in my comfort zone and say that people are looking for Bigfoot, because they presuppose that he may exist.** Not exactly. They go looking for Bigfoot to see _if_ he exists. There are some valid presuppositions we could make about Bigfoot, for example that he has to eat, since every other even slightly advanced organism we know of has to. We can’t, therefore, assume that Bigfoot doesn’t need to eat and use that as evidence of or against his existence. In the same way, we can’t assume that God is impervious to logic, and not only because there’s no conceivable way to be impervious to logic. > [@](#): > > **They’ve come up with a theory on why their calculations for the location of Pioneer10,11 and the Ulysses solar probe are off. Aren’t they having to make assumptions or presuppose to work through these answers?** Yes, in a way. They make assumptions and then test if their assumptions bear out. If they don’t, they’re discarded. There’s also the big factor that the calculations are in fact off. That means that we have something that we desperately need to explain. If we were trying to prove whether those spacecraft even exist, the gravity theories would be no help. > [@](#): > > **They’re guessing that gravitational waves exist, but can’t measure or detect them.** But gravity does exist. We just don’t know how it works, exactly. Theories about gravitational waves are there to explain gravity, which undeniably is there. > [@](#): > > **But if you put 1 minute and 1 minute together while traveling really fast, doesn’t that equal to something besides 2 minutes.** Not really, no. One unit of time plus another unit of time still equals two units of time. The units are just differently sized than they are here on Earth. Kinda. > [@](#): > > **Isn’t natural law only true because of our perception?** Not really either. The cite you provided shows that “law” may be a misnomer, but that doesn’t make natural laws any less valid or existent. They exist objectively, independently of us. > [@](#): > > **Is it natural laws or just absence of fact that makes you doubt God’s existence?** Absence of fact. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/385 "2003-11-26T00:26:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > Not exactly. They go looking for Bigfoot to see _if_ he exists. There are some valid presuppositions we could make about Bigfoot, for example that he has to eat, since every other even slightly advanced organism we know of has to. We can’t, therefore, assume that Bigfoot doesn’t need to eat and use that as evidence of or against his existence. In the same way, we can’t assume that God is impervious to logic, and not only because there’s no conceivable way to be impervious to logic. People go looking for God to see _if_ he exists too. It’s just since it’s unlikely there’s such a thing as God poo, it changes the equation. So what you’re saying is God has to have a physically measurable comparison? If someone were convinced there were ghosts, wouldn’t they be looking for energy or some sort of atmospheric disturbance or something. Okay, don’t go there, I realize that as far as physical proof, God and Caspar aren’t extremely different.🙂 Why don’t millions of people have a ghost seeking feeling as opposed to being God seeking? I realize neither is particularly logical, but to a logical person; doesn’t the fact that so many people are God seeking at the very least seem puzzling? Don’t pull your fallacy bag out, I realize I just skimmed over one, but I’m not trying to use it to prove God, so ignore it. It’s unlikely that so many people would have an anatomical defect. > [@](#): > > Yes, in a way. They make assumptions and then test if their assumptions bear out. If they don’t, they’re discarded. There’s also the big factor that the calculations are in fact off. That means that we have something that we desperately need to explain. If we were trying to prove whether those spacecraft even exist, the gravity theories would be no help. > But gravity does exist. We just don’t know how it works, exactly. Theories about gravitational waves are there to explain gravity, which undeniably is there. But aren’t they clueless about the actual make up of gravity and their only evidence is the effect? They can prove gravity exists, but don’t really know what it is or why it works? I’m not trying to parallel gravity’s existence with God’s, just the process of accepting that it exists and then the work involved in defining it. > [@](#): > > Not really, no. One unit of time plus another unit of time still equals two units of time. The units are just differently sized than they are here on Earth. Kinda. > Not really either. The cite you provided shows that “law” may be a misnomer, but that doesn’t make natural laws any less valid or existent. They exist objectively, independently of us. Well I kinda understand that, but think we probably are limited by what we are sure is always true. I don’t know enough to understand why 1 unit of time plus 1 unit of time is still 2, but differently sized. Uncle! > [@](#): > > Absence of fact. That’s fair. Thanks for being patient with some really dumb questions. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/386 "2003-11-26T06:06:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*I have a few questions that I’m sure have been asked before, but since I’m new here, I didn’t get the answers. This is not part of a quest for me to answer, prove on disprove anything about God. I have no doubts about him. I know what I believe, but it has become really obvious I don’t know what you believe or why. This is not any sort of challenge. I promise I won’t try to “witness” to you. I respect your right to believe what you do. The first one I’ve asked in one or two of my posts, but don’t think anyone answered. > > 1. What is the harm in believing in God (pick a God, any God) if it gives the believer comfort. Do you think it’s right to try and convince them that their comfort is a sham? Do you think it implies, gullibility, less intelligence or less growth? > > \*\* > Not so much gullibility, but a dead end in the critical thought process. Dieties can exist to explain phenomena which are not easily explainable by other means, introducing the possibility that the search for answers will stop there. > \*\* > 2. How do you explain, not just the origin of man, but the origin of all. What was before that. I realize you don’t have the answer to that and you only really believe what is proved, so I guess I’m asking for your best guess scenario. You can give me the short version. Real short. > \*\* > I make no attempt to explain the origin of all, because I don’t think we currently have all the tools to develop a thorough and self-consistent explanation. Leaving things unexplained, however, does not bother me. I think that the explanations will come with time. > \*\* > 3. If you’ve brought up evolution at all in the previous sentence, when you got to the origin of man part, how is it explained that there are no true remains of mixed species (part way through some transition), or are there? I don’t think evolution as I know of it disproves or proves a creator, but I’m sure my information on it has had a religious slant. > \*\* > Not sure exactly what you’re asking here. Evolutionary trends in species (physical evidence) are quite contiguous, and the DNA record is also a good indicator of lineage. In any case, this doesn’t do much to prove or disprove a creator. All it disproves is a literal interpretation of the Bible. > \*\* > 4. When you look into your children’s eyes, does it ever cross your mind that they’re just going to be dust in a few decades. Does all of that lost brightness, joy, potential, just gone, seem sad or just matter of fact or doesn’t it cross your mind? > \*\* > I don’t have children, but I think this question is probably analagous to a fear of death. Being atheist, I’m of the opinion that once you are dead you are nothing more than daffodil fertilizer, but that thought doesn’t disturb me at a fundamental level. I just try to enjoy life while I’m alive. > \*\* > 5. Not really going to go here, just barely. Doesn’t there being no life after this one make abortion even more horrible, since this little person’s one chance for life is being snuffed. Or does it matter? > \*\* > Pro-choice here, so I’m not entirely sure how to answer that, except to say that if you look at murder as a general case, it is no more right to kill someone if you believe in an afterlife than if you don’t. > \*\* > 6. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable? > \*\* > I don’t know about wishing that God exists, as the deeply ingrained conceptions I have about life and the universe necessarily require the non-existence of God to be sensical. I do, however, often wish that God’s existence could be either proven or disproven conclusively, as to do so would solve a major topic of human debate, and likely avert a major war or two. > \*\* > 7. When you’re in the depths of sorrow or pain, with no one to pray to or hold you up; what do you do? > \*\* > Experience sorrow and pain. This is a part of life. Eventually, these feelings will pale in comparison to the rational realization that it is detrimental to let them consume me, and I suck it up and get on with my life. > \*\* > 8. I realize there are a lot of people out here hedging their bets and saying they believe in God and it has about the same meaning as I believe in eating right. For the people you’ve come across who truly do seem to believe, do you see any difference? More at peace? Happier? Or just more irritating? > \*\* > I don’t understand this question. How would I know if someone believes in God or not - I can’t say that that sort of thing is a typical topic of conversation. I don’t mind discussing matters of religion when asked, but since it doesn’t matter to me, I don’t take much notice of the inclinations of others, except when religion is used as justification for otherwise questionable behaviour. > \*\* > 9. Have you ever understood why a lot of “believers” talk so weird (almost a Christian version of baby talk) when they’re discussing religion. Okay, I threw that one in for me. Irritates the hell out of me when someone takes on that weird “do you know Jesus” voice. I’ve always wondered why they do it, when it is so likely to clear a room in under a minute. > \*\* > I have never encountered this phenomenon, but then I live in an area which does not have a strong religious influence. > \*\* > 10. When I’ve heard so many universe theories and explanations about time, space and everything having different rules than we understand; why when we say you can’t really apply man’s laws of nature to God does it seem to irritate the non-believer. When so much about the universe is unexplainable, why do you think God should have to be proven or rationalized? > \*\* > At this point, we aren’t even capable of applying man’s laws of nature to nature. The nature of things at their most fundamental level (in the realm of subatomic physics, multidimensional physics, and quantum mechanics) eludes us due to the tools we have available to observe the world around us. Just as those laws of nature of which you speak have evolved since they were first recorded, so they will continue to evolve as we come closer to a thorough and self-consistent explanation of everything. Will we ever actually get there? Doubtful. There are many theories which have yet to be proposed, many theories which have yet to be proven, and many which have yet to be disproven. The irritation arising from the declaration that some things may never be known due to the inapplicability of science to explain the ways of God, is due to the implication - once again - that the search for answers which are within our grasp is unnecessary. Ever heard the phrase “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”? This is the crux of the problem. As an atheist, and a scientist, I can not accept the existence of magic, thus precluding the existence of God, or rather, of any phenomenon or effect which can not be explained. Note, however, that I did not say “which can not be explained **now** ”. I am content to accept the fact that there are some things which defy explanation by current means. Rather than looking to religion to fill the gap, I merely suppose that such answers will come in time. > \*\* > 11. Do you ever look around at the beauty of nature, how complex even the function of our bodies are and think, how could this be some unplanned event? > \*\* > The probability of our existence is very low. Having said that, the adage that truth is stranger than fiction probably applies. > \*\* > 12. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it? > \*\* > I don’t see why that would be the case. If you believe in some sort of afterlife, it can either be good or bad. If you do not, as I do not, upon the event of your death life is over, at which point nothing matters since I no longer exist to contemplate it. (with appropriate kudos to Descartes). > > Okay, I’m going to stop for now. I realize some of these should be their own topic, so I’m just looking for the condensed version. Remember I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes. Just want to know what you think. Respectfully (really), IWLN \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/387 "2003-11-26T14:41:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **People go looking for God to see _if_ he exists too.** Yeah, but the Bigfoot deal was you saying that people assume Bigfoot exists. > [@](#): > > **It’s just since it’s unlikely there’s such a thing as God poo, it changes the equation. So what you’re saying is God has to have a physically measurable comparison?** Close, but not exactly. We at least have to assume that he follows the laws of nature, since we’ve seen nothing break them so far. We have to assume that he’s bound by logic, since we cannot even understand how something couldn’t be. > [@](#): > > **Why don’t millions of people have a ghost seeking feeling as opposed to being God seeking?** “Why” is a very difficult question to answer. Why do men have nipples? Why don’t humans have blue hair? There may be a reason, there may be no reason. > [@](#): > > **It’s unlikely that so many people would have an anatomical defect.** I think I missed something. What anatomical defect? > [@](#): > > **But aren’t they clueless about the actual make up of gravity and their only evidence is the effect? They can prove gravity exists, but don’t really know what it is or why it works?** Yep, that’s about the size of it. Gravitons have been posited, and so have gravitational waves. Neither has been proved. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/388 "2003-11-26T15:24:22Z")
First, I’ve not read any but the very first two responses in this thread. Since **IWLN** is asking for opinion, if the topic were anything else, I’d expect it to be in IMHO. But here’s my respectful responses to each question: 1. What is the harm in believing in God (pick a God, any God) if it gives the believer comfort. Do you think it’s right to try and convince them that their comfort is a sham? Do you think it implies, gullibility, less intelligence or less growth? Answer: There is no harm in this belief, save where people tend to murder each other to show how right there god is. The righteousnous that some religions/religious people display is nauseating. However I know of religious people who are better people for having religion in their lives. If it brings only comfort and joy then I have no problem with this belief set. 1. How do you explain, not just the origin of man, but the origin of all. What was before that. I realize you don’t have the answer to that and you only really believe what is proved, so I guess I’m asking for your best guess scenario. You can give me the short version. Real short. Answer: How do you explain the existence of a god? Just one of life’s unsolvable mysteries, I expect. Where man came from is a small one compared to that. 1. If you’ve brought up evolution at all in the previous sentence, when you got to the origin of man part, how is it explained that there are no true remains of mixed species (part way through some transition), or are there? I don’t think evolution as I know of it disproves or proves a creator, but I’m sure my information on it has had a religious slant. Answer: To have evolution does not presuppose mixed species. But notice that embryonic development does point in this direction, not in the direction of a rib from Adam. 1. When you look into your children’s eyes, does it ever cross your mind that they’re just going to be dust in a few decades. Does all of that lost brightness, joy, potential, just gone, seem sad or just matter of fact or doesn’t it cross your mind? Answer: when I look in my children’s eyes, I see beauty and joy. Some day I hope to look in my grandchildren’s eyes, the eyes of my children, and see the same. This is beautiful, not sad. 1. Not really going to go here, just barely. Doesn’t there being no life after this one make abortion even more horrible, since this little person’s one chance for life is being snuffed. Or does it matter? Answer: Abortion is normally not the snuffing of a little human being. It’s the removal of unwanted tissue, sometimes possibly detrimental to the host. It would be much more sad to add more misery to the world. 1. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable? Answer: Sure, why not. But the god I might want would probably be different to the one you worship. He would be non-judgmental, for starters. And maybe a she, just for irony. I’d also like to have a real Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny and world peace. Wishing doesn’t make it so; therefore it’s up to me to make the world the best place that I can. 1. When you’re in the depths of sorrow or pain, with no one to pray to or hold you up; what do you do? Answer: Usually, hopefully, there are real, tangible people in my life for these moments. If not then I’ve done a lousy job of living my life, and have possibly earned what I have sewn. 1. I realize there are a lot of people out here hedging their bets and saying they believe in God and it has about the same meaning as I believe in eating right. For the people you’ve come across who truly do seem to believe, do you see any difference? More at peace? Happier? Or just more irritating? Answer: Many of the people that I have met that believe in a Christian God seem to have a simplistic view of life. Not everyone, of course. But a sort of smug righteousness (I’m Christian, ergo, I cannot be wrong. Even if I am then I’m forgiven, so heaven help you.) In my Islamc friends it seems to often be similar. My Jewish friends seem to be a bit more pragmatic and less dogmatic, which is kind of refreshing. My Buddhist and Hindu friends seem to be more resigned to whatever may come. So it varies a lot by religion. But I have been generally been more exposed to, and set upon, by Christians, so I’ve had more of a chance to form a pessimistic view of them. Also the whole proselytizing(sp?) thing doesn’t help. 1. Have you ever understood why a lot of “believers” talk so weird (almost a Christian version of baby talk) when they’re discussing religion. Okay, I threw that one in for me. Irritates the hell out of me when someone takes on that weird “do you know Jesus” voice. I’ve always wondered why they do it, when it is so likely to clear a room in under a minute. Answer: Have to say I’m not sure what you mean on that one. 1. When I’ve heard so many universe theories and explanations about time, space and everything having different rules than we understand; why when we say you can’t really apply man’s laws of nature to God does it seem to irritate the non-believer. When so much about the universe is unexplainable, why do you think God should have to be proven or rationalized? Answer: I’m not sure that I understand this one, either. As a fairly rational being I like to have just about everything proven or rationalized. I don’t particularly care whether the existence of a god can be proven or not. 1. Do you ever look around at the beauty of nature, how complex even the function of our bodies are and think, how could this be some unplanned event? Answer: No. 1. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it? Answer: No, I believe that I’m more optimistic. If there is a supreme being and _this_ is the best we can do then I’d probably be suicidal. So, not sure what the point of this whole exercise is, but hope that my answers may have helped some poor Christian to see the light. (;)) ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/389 "2003-11-26T18:58:15Z")
1. What is the harm in believing in God (pick a God, any God) if it gives the believer comfort. Do you think it’s right to try and convince them that their comfort is a sham? Do you think it implies, gullibility, less intelligence or less growth? We make whatever we make of our lives through our decisions and the actions they lead to. Whether there is a God is an important piece of the puzzle, and if we are incorrect about that we make decisions based on faulty information, which decisions tend to be less worth making. Whether to convince believers it’s a sham is a difficult judgement but I think it depends somewhat on our standing to influence the person - so it’s more appropriate to convince my own kids than a co-worker. I think belief implies gullibility, less intellegence and less growth, but belief is hardly proof of all these things dominating a person. 2. How do you explain, not just the origin of man, but the origin of all. What was before that. I realize you don’t have the answer to that and you only really believe what is proved, so I guess I’m asking for your best guess scenario. You can give me the short version. Real short. There’s possibly limitless amazing and astounding explanation behind the most trivial things, which we’d see if we were smart and observant enough. But I’m not smart enough to have a tidy answer to the origin of everything. I am impressed with the progress cosmologists and physicists keep making on some specific points (I’m a physicist myself). 3. If you’ve brought up evolution at all in the previous sentence, when you got to the origin of man part, how is it explained that there are no true remains of mixed species (part way through some transition), or are there? I don’t think evolution as I know of it disproves or proves a creator, but I’m sure my information on it has had a religious slant. All species are in transition and most have soft boundaries, in my understanding. I haven’t ever heard of anything that is hard to reconcile with evolution, though I also don’t study the subject much. 4. When you look into your children’s eyes, does it ever cross your mind that they’re just going to be dust in a few decades. Does all of that lost brightness, joy, potential, just gone, seem sad or just matter of fact or doesn’t it cross your mind? That thought crosses my mind - not just when I gaze at their eyes, either. The pointlessness of life, such as it is, is a sad thing. We have emotions and motivations that feel important inside, but are hard to justify on the outside. It would sure be comforting to learn otherwise. 5. Not really going to go here, just barely. Doesn’t there being no life after this one make abortion even more horrible, since this little person’s one chance for life is being snuffed. Or does it matter? It doesn’t matter. Lives grow out of almost nothing, and abortion stops life so early in the process that nothing important is lost. Said another way, a young unmarried couple practicing restraint and thereby avoiding pregnancy cause the same loss that an abortion causes. 6. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable? Sure, I do - I’d love to think such a happy dream were real. 7. When you’re in the depths of sorrow or pain, with no one to pray to or hold you up; what do you do? It varies. I think of the things I care about, such as the role I play in others’ lives. I rely on my sense of humor. I let myself think the blackest thoughts and resist making any decisions while doing so. 8. I realize there are a lot of people out here hedging their bets and saying they believe in God and it has about the same meaning as I believe in eating right. For the people you’ve come across who truly do seem to believe, do you see any difference? More at peace? Happier? Or just more irritating? It’s a mystery to me - the people with faith whom I’ve talked with the most are hard for me to figure out. I get the idea sometimes that they don’t really think what they believe - that is, they pretend. But it’s hard to tell, and of course my idea may be way off. 9. Have you ever understood why a lot of “believers” talk so weird (almost a Christian version of baby talk) when they’re discussing religion. Okay, I threw that one in for me. Irritates the hell out of me when someone takes on that weird “do you know Jesus” voice. I’ve always wondered why they do it, when it is so likely to clear a room in under a minute. I don’t understand why Christians sound as annoying as they sometimes do. I find it tedious. 10. When I’ve heard so many universe theories and explanations about time, space and everything having different rules than we understand; why when we say you can’t really apply man’s laws of nature to God does it seem to irritate the non-believer. When so much about the universe is unexplainable, why do you think God should have to be proven or rationalized? If you’re going to educate others about God or about anything else, you’ve got an ethical obligation to be correct, which implies that somebody has proven things along the way. This is a slippery slope and certainly hypothetical things should get discussed as such without proof (obviously). But theistic belief gets a blank check - it’s some enormous faux pas to apply the same standards of correctness to this, this, well I think it’s nutty jabber. 11. Do you ever look around at the beauty of nature, how complex even the function of our bodies are and think, how could this be some unplanned event? No. Actually, I imagine my lifetime so far, 46 years. And 46 years out of the age of the universe is 5 seconds out of 46 years (the same proportional sample, I mean). I would no more expect a baby 5 seconds old to understand what could have happened within my life to date than I would expect myself to understand what could have happened in the life of the universe. 12. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it? Yes, I think we’d be more pessimistic. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/390 "2003-11-27T00:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > Yeah, but the Bigfoot deal was you saying that people assume Bigfoot exists. Okay maybe Bigfoot’s more reasonable, but same principle for attempting to find. You wouldn’t look for something unless you at least had a question about whether it existed or not. > [@](#): > > Close, but not exactly. We at least have to assume that he follows the laws of nature, since we’ve seen nothing break them so far. We have to assume that he’s bound by logic, since we cannot even understand how something couldn’t be. It’s pretty obvious that (a). God doesn’t follow the laws of nature as we know them. or (b). There is no God (ouch, that’s hard for me to type), since there really is no logical way to prove anything. (I’m resisting the compelling urge to edit out choice “b”.) Trying to look at all this from your side causes me an immediate emotional reaction that I have to hammer down in order to attempt to think objectively. It ain’t easy. > [@](#): > > “Why” is a very difficult question to answer. Why do men have nipples? Why don’t humans have blue hair? There may be a reason, there may be no reason. I think I missed something. What anatomical defect? But there should be a scientific theory for all of the above. Where would they put their nipple rings? Sludge was brown? Anatomical defect was in reference to hardwiring, epilepsy, some explanation for some people’s minds being open to possibilites outside of natural law and for others, it’s impossible. I know, not so open our brains fall out.🙂 > [@](#): > > Yep, that’s about the size of it. Gravitons have been posited, and so have gravitational waves. Neither has been proved. But because it’s effect is obvious, even though we really don’t know what causes it, that makes it compatible with natural laws? Still haven’t edited out choice b., must hit submit quickly. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/391 "2003-11-27T01:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fuji Kitakyusho \* > Not so much gullibility, but a dead end in the critical thought process. Dieties can exist to explain phenomena which are not easily explainable by other means, introducing the possibility that the search for answers will stop there. I don’t think a deity has to put an end to critical thought process. Even my belief in God doesn’t keep me from wanting to know _how_ the universe and man were made. God might answer who for me, but still looking for all the explanations you are. > [@](#): > > All it disproves is a literal interpretation of the Bible. Agree completely. > [@](#): > > The irritation arising from the declaration that some things may never be known due to the inapplicability of science to explain the ways of God, is due to the implication - once again - that the search for answers which are within our grasp is unnecessary. Ever heard the phrase “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”? This is the crux of the problem. As an atheist, and a scientist, I can not accept the existence of magic, thus precluding the existence of God, or rather, of any phenomenon or effect which can not be explained. I don’t think a search for answers is ever unnecessary and since magic isn’t real, we’ll eventually find the real answers that will explain or disprove the “magic”. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why that would be the case. If you believe in some sort of afterlife, it can either be good or bad. If you do not, as I do not, upon the event of your death life is over, at which point nothing matters since I no longer exist to contemplate it. (with appropriate kudos to Descartes). This was one of my more unfortunately worded questions and has come back repeatedly to haunt me. Needless to say, I learn from my mistakes. I have only read a little of Descartes, but the part I read on “hypothetical doubt” was useful in trying to objectively look at and understand people not believing in God. I had not realized how inflexible even my thought processes were on the topic (understatement:)). Thanks for your answers. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/392 "2003-11-27T02:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ShibbOleth \* > Answer: There is no harm in this belief, save where people tend to murder each other to show how right there god is. The righteousnous that some religions/religious people display is nauseating. However I know of religious people who are better people for having religion in their lives. If it brings only comfort and joy then I have no problem with this belief set. Can’t disagree there. I’m not real fond of murderers or smug self-rightousness. > [@](#): > > Answer: How do you explain the existence of a god? Just one of life’s unsolvable mysteries, I expect. Where man came from is a small one compared to that. I can’t answer that one either. > [@](#): > > Answer: To have evolution does not presuppose mixed species. But notice that embryonic development does point in this direction, not in the direction of a rib from Adam. When a change takes a million or two million years, it’s probably kind of hard to spot anyway. I think somehow what was supposed to be a symbolic story (Adam) became orthopedic surgery as the story was retold.☹ > [@](#): > > Answer: Sure, why not. But the god I might want would probably be different to the one you worship. He would be non-judgmental, for starters. And maybe a she, just for irony. I’d also like to have a real Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny and world peace. Wishing doesn’t make it so; therefore it’s up to me to make the world the best place that I can. Hey, I want a non-judgmental God too, I’ve not had good experience with woman in positions of power, so let’s keep it a He. I’m ambivilant about the Easter Bunny, but in favor of Santa and world peace. > [@](#): > > Answer: Many of the people that I have met that believe in a Christian God seem to have a simplistic view of life. Not everyone, of course. But a sort of smug righteousness (I’m Christian, ergo, I cannot be wrong. Even if I am then I’m forgiven, so heaven help you.) In my Islamc friends it seems to often be similar. My Jewish friends seem to be a bit more pragmatic and less dogmatic, which is kind of refreshing. My Buddhist and Hindu friends seem to be more resigned to whatever may come. So it varies a lot by religion. But I have been generally been more exposed to, and set upon, by Christians, so I’ve had more of a chance to form a pessimistic view of them. Also the whole proselytizing(sp?) thing doesn’t help. Well I already agreed that smug was unattractive and I guarantee you Christians are just as wrong as anyone. Because I believe something that you don’t doesn’t give me some magic advantage. I rarely accost strangers and try to force my beliefs on them either.😃 > [@](#): > > Answer: No, I believe that I’m more optimistic. If there is a supreme being and _this_ is the best we can do then I’d probably be suicidal. When I hear this, I always want to say, “He’s not here right now, can I take a message”.🙂 I believe we’re pretty much left to our own devices during this part of our lives. It’s kind of vain and self-absorbed to think we’re enough to keep God entertained. I am being flip, but sort of serious too. > [@](#): > > So, not sure what the point of this whole exercise is, but hope that my answers may have helped some poor Christian to see the light. (;)) One of my children asked me what atheists (in general) thought about life, big stuff and day to day. She wondered if “no God” changed very many “regular” ideas. I had no clue. So I posted 12 very carefully worded questions(or so I thought) and found out what a bigot I really was. Now if I could only change my user name, so no one would know I was the idiot that asked those questions.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/393 "2003-11-27T04:03:57Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Napier \* > [@](#): > > We make whatever we make of our lives through our decisions and the actions they lead to. Whether there is a God is an important piece of the puzzle, and if we are incorrect about that we make decisions based on faulty information, which decisions tend to be less worth making. Whether to convince believers it’s a sham is a difficult judgement but I think it depends somewhat on our standing to influence the person - so it’s more appropriate to convince my own kids than a co-worker. I think belief implies gullibility, less intellegence and less growth, but belief is hardly proof of all these things dominating a person. I’m fairly sure that most of the decisions I’ve made in life would still be the same without God. Okay, maybe I’d have wasted an hour a week in church, but that just takes the place of meditation. My moral beliefs about how to treat people, etc. seem to have been firmly installed by my parents, before I was old enough to remember. My children were given exposure to various religions and then left to make their own decisions. We believers like to call it faith as opposed to gullibility, but hey it was my word, so I can’t complain and I do understand. > [@](#): > > There’s possibly limitless amazing and astounding explanation behind the most trivial things, which we’d see if we were smart and observant enough. But I’m not smart enough to have a tidy answer to the origin of everything. I am impressed with the progress cosmologists and physicists keep making on some specific points (I’m a physicist myself). I’m impressed too. I am in awe of the degree of intelligence it takes to do what you do. This is an “untidy” world. Every answer we get shows more that we need to learn. Great, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > That thought crosses my mind - not just when I gaze at their eyes, either. The pointlessness of life, such as it is, is a sad thing. We have emotions and motivations that feel important inside, but are hard to justify on the outside. It would sure be comforting to learn otherwise. If I didn’t believe, I would still be comforted by the thought of my children going on through theirs, but unhappy about the fact that this life is not so gentle to a lot of other people. More so than I already am, believing this is just a short part of the trip. > [@](#): > > Sure, I do - I’d love to think such a happy dream were real. I’m counting on it and if I’m wrong(no way), then no one gets to tell me “I told you so.”🙂 One thing is for sure, we’ll all find out and I have a hard time believing there’s a penalty for late submission(heehee). > [@](#): > > It’s a mystery to me - the people with faith whom I’ve talked with the most are hard for me to figure out. I get the idea sometimes that they don’t really think what they believe - that is, they pretend. But it’s hard to tell, and of course my idea may be way off. There are a lot of people out there that want to believe, have been raised to believe, but aren’t really quite sure. I believe very strongly, but since I’ve been at SDMB realized that my beliefs were pretty vague and undefined as far as what I believed religiously. Most Christians haven’t done as much research and “soul” searching as the Atheists I’ve met here. Shame on us. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why Christians sound as annoying as they sometimes do. I find it tedious. Makes me squirmy, kind of like watching a bad musical. > [@](#): > > If you’re going to educate others about God or about anything else, you’ve got an ethical obligation to be correct, which implies that somebody has proven things along the way. This is a slippery slope and certainly hypothetical things should get discussed as such without proof (obviously). But theistic belief gets a blank check - it’s some enormous faux pas to apply the same standards of correctness to this, this, well I think it’s nutty jabber. I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but that’s also why I kept getting busted here for saying “I know”, instead of “I believe”. I believe “I know”, but you better believe I’m _not_ going to say that here anymore.😃 > [@](#): > > No. Actually, I imagine my lifetime so far, 46 years. And 46 years out of the age of the universe is 5 seconds out of 46 years (the same proportional sample, I mean). I would no more expect a baby 5 seconds old to understand what could have happened within my life to date than I would expect myself to understand what could have happened in the life of the universe. I’m almost 6 seconds old, so you should listen to me.🙂 Thanks for your answers. I have to go away and think about that blank check (seriously). It’s true obviously, but how did it come to be that way? Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/394 "2003-11-27T08:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **Okay maybe Bigfoot’s more reasonable, but same principle for attempting to find. You wouldn’t look for something unless you at least had a question about whether it existed or not.** Not quite what I meant either. We were talking assumptions. Bigfoot searchers do not make the assumption that Bigfoot exists. > [@](#): > > **It’s pretty obvious that (a). God doesn’t follow the laws of nature as we know them. or (b). There is no God** I can’t see it. Can you explain why these are the only two choices? > [@](#): > > **But there should be a scientific theory for all of the above.** Maybe there is and maybe there isn’t. The point is, the question “why” can never be satisfactorily answered in this area. That’s because evolution has no purpose and no goal. It just plods along. > [@](#): > > **But because it’s effect is obvious, even though we really don’t know what causes it, that makes it compatible with natural laws?** Gravity _is_ a natural law. It has been tested time and time and time again. It has withstood countless experiments and calculations. It’s there. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/395 "2003-11-27T11:21:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > Not quite what I meant either. We were talking assumptions. Bigfoot searchers do not make the assumption that Bigfoot exists. 1. If: In case that; granting, allowing, or supposing that; – introducing a condition or supposition. 2. Presuppose: take for granted or as a given; suppose beforehand. Augh!! Okay, I don’t think I used the word assume, it was presuppose and before that with God, it was if. But they do assume there’s a possibility or they wouldnt be out there. I do realize that you can investigate something you don’t believe in. If for no other reason than to refute false statements and claims. My original point was that you can’t use the same tools of logic and natural law when hunting for a deity. At least I think that’s what my point was. I already burned the pie crust looking for where I said assume. It’s not easy to argue with the half of my brain that’s left and make a flakey crust too.🙂 > [@](#): > > I can’t see it. Can you explain why these are the only two choices? > (a). God doesn’t follow the laws of nature as we know them. (b). There is no God (still hard) I’m pulling a blank here. Okay, how about, (c). We have totally misinterpreted the nature of God. He lives in Seattle and has his own computer company. (d). He was real, but not immortal. (e). He exists only in our minds, a tangible thought. (f). There is scientific proof of God, but since 92% of scientists are atheists, it’s was immediately concealed and all info was sent to Area 51. The president doesn’t know, since he’s intolerable enough as it is. Okay, only the first two seem like logical conclusions. Natural law is not a static concept. It will change as we learn more. Logic is merely a system of reasoning. That’s subject to change also. The reason those are the only two choices is he either is or he isn’t real. The fact that science can’t detect him means that we don’t yet have the capability or there’s nothing to detect. What other choices could there be? > [@](#): > > Maybe there is and maybe there isn’t. The point is, the question “why” can never be satisfactorily answered in this area. That’s because evolution has no purpose and no goal. It just plods along. So the adaptations or change that we see are random or caused by environmental influence? People are getting taller. Is that part of evolution? I really have been reading up on this, but they lose me or have differing opinions. Not on evolution as a whole, but it’s characteristics. Maybe I shouldn’t read Descartes at the same time. Having to understand what I’m reading and wondering if I’m really sitting in this chair reading it, is just too much.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/396 "2003-11-27T12:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **My original point was that you can’t use the same tools of logic and natural law when hunting for a deity.** And my point is still that the only reason you say this is that you have already presupposed certain things about deities that we have no reason to presuppose. No-one would take me seriously if I were out hunting for Bigfoot and explained away the lack of excrements with Bigfoot not needing to poop because he’s not bound by logic. To pull another fallacy out of my hat, you seem to be in the middle of a [special pleading](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html). Not that you’ve ever stated that you think Bigfoot hunters should assume Bigfoot is bound by logic, but I believe you do. > [@](#): > > **I’m pulling a blank here.** Spell it out to me. You said it was obvious that either God doesn’t exist or God doesn’t obey natural laws. I don’t understand why. > [@](#): > > **Natural law is not a static concept. It will change as we learn more.** Yes, but not before. > [@](#): > > **Logic is merely a system of reasoning. That’s subject to change also.** No, only our perception of it. > [@](#): > > **The fact that science can’t detect him means that we don’t yet have the capability or there’s nothing to detect.** Yes. > [@](#): > > **What other choices could there be?** © God exists and obeys natural laws. What’s so impossible about that? > [@](#): > > **So the adaptations or change that we see are random or caused by environmental influence?** Yup. > [@](#): > > **People are getting taller. Is that part of evolution?** Could be. We’re (at least in the developed parts of the world) getting taller partly due to better nourishment, better conditions growing up and so on. There could also be, I suppose, a factor of natural selection, but I don’t have any statistics to back that up. > [@](#): > > **I really have been reading up on this, but they lose me or have differing opinions. Not on evolution as a whole, but it’s characteristics.** Ask any questions you have in General Questions. We have some of the brightest minds in the world here. > [@](#): > > **Maybe I shouldn’t read Descartes at the same time.** Don’t read Descartes at all. The guy is full of shit. Opinion. ---
**Author:** ![sweetfreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@sweetfreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweetfreak)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/397 "2003-11-27T14:29:45Z")
There probably is no actual harm in believing in a god (or goddess). As an Atheist (sometimes Agnostic), I find religion to be the problem. Too many people limit themselves in what they can experience because of their beliefs. Even more troubling, strong religious beliefs cause mental illness, and unwillingness to take responsibility for ones own actions, and wars. Check out your history, guys. Religion was created to explain the unexplainable. Science was as well. Both comfort people when they question their existence. When you take anything to extremes, you create problems. All I can say is if their is a supreme being, I can picture him laughing at our futile attempts to understand a universe so vast we only make up one miniscule iota of it. We, as humans, are so desperate to know things. It is imperative that we keep our sense of humor in the process. So… Thank God I am an Atheist. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/398 "2003-11-27T20:36:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \*And my point is still that the only reason you say this is that you have already presupposed certain things about deities that we have no reason to presuppose. No-one would take me seriously if I were out hunting for Bigfoot and explained away the lack of excrements with Bigfoot not needing to poop because he’s not bound by logic. To pull another fallacy out of my hat, you seem to be in the middle of a [special pleading](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html). Not that you’ve ever stated that you think Bigfoot hunters should assume Bigfoot is bound by logic, but I believe you do. You’re absolutely right. I do think Bigfoot hunters should think he is bound by logic, subject to natural law. He’s been described as a big huge smelly animal. These things lead me to assume what seems obvious. Since they reported seeing him, he has a physical nature, since they reported smelling him, he has the required bodily functions. I would apply this type of rationale to any physical creature that I was looking for. The hunter goes looking armed with whatever information given to him or seen by him. The only reason I drew the parallel to hunting for God was there needs to be a reason, correct or incorrect, to even begin the search. I knew there was a fallacy around the corner. Wouldn’t the Principle of Relevant Difference apply for God? > [@](#): > > Spell it out to me. You said it was obvious that either God doesn’t exist or God doesn’t obey natural laws. I don’t understand why. Setting aside my own personal experiences and begging the dictionary for support: “Deity - [n] any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.” "Supernatural - [adj] not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; “supernatural forces and occurrences and beings” Add to that the few instances that someone saw and described God as wonderful, beautiful and terrible to look at, all in the same sentence and I’m thinking that he just doesn’t fit the same search methods. I guess _I_ believe he is unexplainable by natural law, simply because rumor has it that he was the beginning, that he is the creator, but had no creator, timeless. I can’t prove any of that though. “B” can’t equal “G” when it comes to logic. That would be like looking for a pig in the sky. The pig can’t exist in the sky, so you have to look down. God can’t exist physically on the ground, so you have to look up. I’ll bet my britches that was a fallacy, but I don’t know how else to put it. I’m thinking the Modal Fallacy, because if God can’t exist physically on the ground, then he’s not omnipotent. Okay, let me change that. God has chosen not to live on the ground, not to live a physical existence. If he wanted to fit in the parameters of natural law, he could. God is hiding and we can only find him if he wants us to. You know it does sounds a lot better to just say “God works in mysterious ways”. > [@](#): > > Yes, but not before. But not close-minded to changes. > [@](#): > > No, only our perception of it. Our perception is all we have. Even other people’s experiences, experiments all have to filter through our perception. Logic itself may not exactly be subjective, but our perception is the only way to view this. > [@](#): > > Yes. Fine. > [@](#): > > (c) God exists and obeys natural laws. What’s so impossible about that? Because in the last 2 or 3 thousand years, we would have come up with some physically measurable evidence. Oops, if he wanted us to. Back to deliberately elusive or “mysterious”. > [@](#): > > Ask any questions you have in General Questions. We have some of the brightest minds in the world here. Yah, like I’m going to do that. The typical response is to tell the poor unfortunate poster to go read, that he’s an idiot, then someone tells everyone else to be nice and someone else starts finally answering questions. Wait, I can do that, I have previous experience.🙂 But is it an ancient Atheist ritual or just a good way to weed out the sissies? Okay, kidding, sort of. I do realize it gets tedious to people to have the same questions come up repeatedly, but reading old posts doesn’t answer all those questions you get as you are trying to assimilate it. I’ll try it, but if they make me cry, it’s all on your head. I do appreciate your answers. Even when I feel like we’re going in a huge circle, I always get something out of it. > [@](#): > > Don’t read Descartes at all. The guy is full of shit. Opinion. I agree on most of it, but the part about hypothetical doubt did somehow make me see that I didn’t have to believe an idea to attempt to objectively look at it. That it wasn’t some sort of betrayal of my faith. I was pretty stuck in my instantaneous emotional denial. It kind of took the shock factor out of it. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/399 "2003-11-27T20:46:51Z")
**sweetfreak** I pretty much agree with everything you said. Hmmm…tha’ts strange. A believer agreeing with an Atheist. Go figure. I’m not a big fan of most religion and they don’t care that much for me either. Win-win. I agree on how vital a sense of humor, especially a good sense of the absurd. And if I didn’t screw the whole thing up by believing in God, I wouldn’t mind being an Atheist either.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/400 "2003-11-28T02:04:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Ask any questions you have in General Questions. We have some of the brightest minds in the world here. > > **Yah, like I’m going to do that. The typical response is to tell the poor unfortunate poster to go read, that he’s an idiot, then someone tells everyone else to be nice and someone else starts finally answering questions.** Sorry for the hijack, but this is just wrong. Posters in the GQ section are routinely very helpful and friendly, and I would be willing to bet you will get most any question answered without being called an idiot or otherwise being made fun of. Please try posting a question in the forum before you make statements regarding the “typical response” of the posters there. You might be pleasantly surprised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159.md?page=21)