# Faith, religion, and the afterlife: A form of denial **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713 "2014-01-02T16:57:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/181 "2014-01-10T14:34:35Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see. My response was half jest Why would I be agnostic about IPU since it’s acknowledged as a created argument rather than proposed as an actual thing. > My point was only that there are plenty of things that I am unsure of thier existance and am open to any new evidence. In the case of a supposed God , I have doubts anything could be actual evidence. Any unexplained events could be just that, rather than God. The IPU is equivalent to ‘God’ in that there is zero objective evidence for either beings existence - and it serves to illustrate the special pleading that people that believe in God exercise in defense of said belief. If you are agnostic as to the existence of the IPU and God, then atleast you are being consistent in that. Its not about being ‘unsure’ - even the average atheist agrees that there are things we don’t know or haven’t learned yet - but that until such evidence arrives, there is no reason to believe in a ‘god’ (or IPU, or Santa Clause, etc). Agnostics are saying they believe but that the existence of said thing is unknown and unknowable - they are sure - they just can’t prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/182 "2014-01-10T14:38:20Z")
All in this thread will cool down. No more personal comments. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/183 "2014-01-10T14:46:21Z")
> [@simster](#): > > The IPU is equivalent to ‘God’ in that there is zero objective evidence for either beings existence - and it serves to illustrate the special pleading that people that believe in God exercise in defense of said belief. > > If you are agnostic as to the existence of the IPU and God, then atleast you are being consistent in that. > > Its not about being ‘unsure’ - even the average atheist agrees that there are things we don’t know or haven’t learned yet - but that until such evidence arrives, there is no reason to believe in a ‘god’ (or IPU, or Santa Clause, etc). > > Agnostics are saying they believe but that the existence of said thing is unknown and unknowable - they are sure - they just can’t prove it. That’s not the definition of agnosticism I know. It seems to me that if someone says they believe they are no longer agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/184 "2014-01-10T14:51:02Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Agnostics are saying they believe but that the existence of said thing is unknown and unknowable - they are sure - they just can’t prove it. Are you sure? I thought they were unsure whether to believe whether God exists or not, because the answer is unknowable. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/185 "2014-01-10T14:51:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That’s not the definition of agnosticism I know. It seems to me that if someone says they believe they are no longer agnostic. I guess it depends on which side of that you are on - there are agnostic deists and agnostic atheists - I may have misread and assumed you were an agnostic deist. (you outright refuse the IPU, but still leave room for ‘God’) [QUOTE=[Agnosticism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)] Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/186 "2014-01-10T14:52:49Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Are you sure? > I thought they were unsure whether to believe whether God exists or not, because the answer is unknowable. see other response - I was speaking to him as the assumption he was an Agnostic Deist - and I should have clarified that a bit. [QUOTE=same wiki article] According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively; but that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/187 "2014-01-10T14:53:29Z")
That doesn’t say they believe. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/188 "2014-01-10T14:55:27Z")
As soon as you say I believe, you have a belief in “something”. That something needs defining, how else can you believe it, or not. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/189 "2014-01-10T15:12:22Z")
Therefore I don’t think, **YoungKusher** , that you have been arguing as an agnostic. A true agnostic cannot hold any belief nor argue for any form of God, however diluted. God hates fags…unknowable…cannot hold that position. God is omnipotent…unknowable…cannot hold that position. God has a backside…unknowable…cannot hold that position. God created the universe, then set evolution in motion…unknowable…cannot hold that position. God is ’ the universe’…unknowable…cannot hold that position. Etc…Etc…Etc ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/190 "2014-01-10T15:38:22Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I guess it depends on which side of that you are on - there are agnostic deists and agnostic atheists - I may have misread and assumed you were an agnostic deist. > > (you outright refuse the IPU, but still leave room for ‘God’) I don’t outright refuse the IPU. I simply recognize it for what it is. It’s an argument and I acknowledged it’s purpose. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/191 "2014-01-10T15:42:06Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > As soon as you say I believe, you have a belief in “something”. That something needs defining, how else can you believe it, or not. [QUOTE=[Agnostic theism - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism)] Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in. [/QUOTE] Not quite sure what is so hard to understand about this… ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/192 "2014-01-10T15:43:25Z")
Forgive me if others have addressed your points, I’m only now catching up with this thread again. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Do you know what this sounds like to a non-believers ear? It sounds just as bad. Why would it be unhealthy? There are studies that show simply believing in something has a DIRECT, positive correlation to your physical health. So, if believers have lower stress levels, sleep better at night, and are more immune to disease, then why are you knockin’ em? > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clear/positive-thinking\_b\_3512202.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clear/positive-thinking_b_3512202.html) > > I would also like to add that there is most certainly a number of delusions you(and every other person for that matter) fall victim to with every waking moment. It’s a coping mechanism by itself. If we didn’t have it, everybody would be a lot more depressed and rendered completely unable to “live in the moment.” Indeed. I know the placebo effect is a very real thing. And I can’t say I was speaking about “unhealthy” in merely the physical sense, but in how it affects your philosophy/world view on the decisions you make. In that regard it’s unhealthy. But could also be unhealthy in your literal sense if you have an illness you fully expect God to heal you from without seeking modern medicine. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/193 "2014-01-10T15:44:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t outright refuse the IPU. I simply recognize it for what it is. It’s an argument and I acknowledged it’s purpose. Its more than an ‘argument’ - it has exactly the same amount of evidence as any deity - So - are you agnostic about the existence of the IPU or are you saying the IPU ‘does not exist’ ? Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/194 "2014-01-10T15:49:54Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t outright refuse the IPU. I simply recognize it for what it is. It’s an argument and I acknowledged it’s purpose. And maybe it is an ancient deity that decided to reveal itself through the internet instead of through a burning bush. Besides the ages of the two concepts and the number of believers in each, can you point out where one concept is any more internally logical than the other? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/195 "2014-01-10T16:04:21Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Not quite sure what is so hard to understand about this… If there are no properties, what the hell is it that you are believing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/196 "2014-01-10T16:34:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > IMO there’s quite a difference between “Is there a God?” and the specifics of different religous traditions and doctrine. The Bahai teach that all religion is man’s imperfect attempt to understand and commune with God. My approach in the lasty few years to discussions with believers is to point out the obvious and undeniable differenes and contradictions in belief and how beliefs have evolved and changed, not to challange their basic gtod belief, but to point out that religious tradition is something entirely different and okay to question. Many believers already understand that. If we are talking about the existence of god - any god - we need to understand where the understanding of god comes from. If we start with a blank slate, we need to ask how do we know anything about god? Traditional religions include something about God speaking to someone - whether a patriarch or a prophet. Or, we can try to learn something about God from first principles - the common ontological arguments, etc. We can evaluate the evidence for god appearing in the first case, and the logical arguments in the second. The third approach is to posit the existence of some god to meet some lack in us - for instance the need for a purpose in life, meaning, etc. We don’t need evidence for that kind of God to meet these needs - it might help, since each believer can get what they need out of it. But it says nothing about the existence of God. Whether God exists or not is totally irrelevant to the benefits derived from belief. Logical arguments for god usually don’t say much about what God wants. Revelation does - but the change in belief you mention is evidence against the existence of an unchanging and perfect god, since god should have gotten it right the first time. > [@](#): > > I still find these arguments somewhat frivilous and essentially pointless. It seems to me that no matter how it’s framed these arguments are applying our own limited perspective to something proposed to be limitless and all encompassing. In that way the foundation of these arguments is flawed and illogical. For example, in your sparrow one you try to hem God in with time, when God is said to be timeless. These arguments only work when they start by applying some finite human measure and perception to a proposed being that is beyond them. Please don’t take my examples as part of the proof. I’m definitely assuming a bi-omni god as timeless and all-encompassing. But while God is timeless he also interacts within time. If your God is not bi-omni then of course my argument is invalid. Could you be more specific about the problems with the argument? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/197 "2014-01-10T16:45:55Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yup, It’s a process that will take generations of effort. Still, IMO the approach that stands a better chance of progress and success is to not challange God belief, which is something that can’t be proved or disproved anyway, but to challange and point out the difference between religious tradition and the individual spiritual journey. IOW, to remind people that they doon’t have to abandon spirituality or belief in in questioning the details of certain dogma, and in fact, seeking the truth requires that they do so. The problem with this is that many people make the jump from some God existing to their specific type of God existing. If everyone was perfectly rational some subset of people would not believe in any god, and some other subset would believe in a spiritual god who is not concerned with our sex lives. And all would be fine. In such a world atheists would not be arguing. Well, there might be some arguing, but it would be on the level of favorite ice cream flavors. As it stands, I wouldn’t care about religious tradition except to the extent that it decreases the freedom of others. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/198 "2014-01-10T17:54:05Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > If there are no properties, what the hell is it that you are believing. again - > [@](#): > > Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism.\*\* An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable\*\*. > [@](#): > > Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown. > [@](#): > > Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. **Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.** The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known. Theist - believes there are god(s) Atheist - does not believe there are god(s). ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/199 "2014-01-10T18:57:02Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Up until recently, the exact explanation for this phenomena was not known. I believe you’ve been arguing all along that it was not known? Regardless, I think it is safe to say the laws of physic and thermodynamics haven’t gone cuckoo, and that there are natural explanations as opposed to supernatural ones of what is occurring and there is no mysterious force reeking havoc upon our cold and hot water. I’m not convinced of any extraordinary phenomena actually going on and that the whole Mpemba Effect isn’t just myth. In the brief time I have started looking at all of this again, people are having a difficult time replicating experiments in which hot water actually freezes faster than cold water. For everyone making this claim that it does, I see many problems with what they are presenting including your link which would also need to be peer reviewed. It doesn’t offer any experiments either, only stating some may have an explanation in the form of molecules which may explain the Mpemba effect. Let’s first establish if it even exists. > [@](#): > > When Cecil says “greatly diminished,” that’s not exactly definitive and there were other competing theories that went along with the one he presented. Such as: mineral deposits in the water, the container you freeze the water in effecting the results, and other variations. “Greatly diminished” of which I gathered probably meant the effect was so small once they contained the evaporation, what minute temperature changes that may still be noted could be explained by other natural means as well. Jearl noted a 9% difference in volume of water from the boiling water and the water at 160 degrees, so this best explains the few minutes of difference in freezing, which is what they would expect to find. If you want to have the last word on this here, I’m fine with it and have no problem with it. If you want a further discussion on it, we will need to get another thread started on just this to prevent getting any hijack warnings to take the discussion elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/200 "2014-01-10T20:46:39Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It is not my intention to impugn your friend. I’m sure she’s every bit the kind of person you believe her to be. I simply want to point out that there are good & bad people in the world. I think the quality of goodness is more a function of a person’s genetic and psychological make-up than it is a function of what they happen to believe or not believe. The corollary is equally true: A bastard is a bastard whether he has faith or not. I never got the sense that you were impugning her, so there was no problem with me on that. And I completely agree with the rest of the above quote. In fact, using the example of my friend’s wife was to make that very point.😉 > [@QuickSilver](#): > > As to whether or not some of the kids benefit from Sunday school - that I’m not so sure about. If it does help some, as you stated, is it also possible that it causes confusion and guilt to some others? God’s a pretty overwhelming concept to a kid, even without all the fire and brimstone. And the concept of punishment by god is not such a foreign concept that a kid wouldn’t catch on pretty quick that he/she better toe the line if they want to get into heaven. But I don’t want to belabor the point except to add that indulging in some fantasies causes less long term harm than others. If a kid feels confusion and guilt, it’s likely that he is more susceptible to it and would have the same reaction to other forms of authority. Of course, the chance of that increases exponentially if he’s bombarded with hellfire and brimstone. I’ve seen a video of a kind of bible boot camp where kids were being pounded with the idea that they’re filthy, dirty sinners. Half of them were crying. Now _that’s_ abuse. I think a lot of negative reaction to religion is based on that extreme, which doesn’t compare in any way to mildly preaching peace and love. Personally, my brief exposure to religion had no ill effects at all. I had to attend church and Sunday school for a couple of years as a kid, and I never felt guilty or confused, but then it was never presented to me in a way that would make me feel that. I remember basically decent people who had no lasting impact on me. My one and only memory from Sunday school was being inspired by the story of Daniel in the lions den, and then totally deflated by the teacher’s interpretation of it. A year or two later I decided for myself that there was no God anyway and the bible was irrelevant, so being exposed to religion as a kid certainly didn’t prevent me from judging it on my own terms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=11)