# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/201 "2014-01-10T21:23:52Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > 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. I disagree very much with this. There are plenty of ultra religious people who have no problem defying earthly authority. In fact, having the “backing” of God motivates and emboldens them to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Like, they may believe that while killing an abortionist is violation of the law, it’s just a secular law. A Godly law always trumps secular laws. Human concerns are inherently trivial, to a person with this mindset. A kid who worries about eternal hellfire does not necessarily grow up to be a kid who worries about jail or prison. And this actually isn’t a bad thing necessarily. Martin Luther King didn’t submit to authority. > [@](#): > > Personally, my brief exposure to religion had no ill effects at all. You really don’t know this, though. It’s like saying that because you didn’t get lung cancer from smoking, it didn’t harm you in any way. You’re only looking at what happened but not at what could have been. Maybe if you hadn’t smoked, you would have been able to run a marathon. You could have met the girlfriend or boyfriend of your dreams. I know that for me, personally I spent way too much time during my formative years sitting behind a pew being preached at. That was time I could have spent learning something useful. Perhaps my parents could have used 10% of their monthly income on enriching their children’s education rather than fattening Pastor’s wallet and gaining heavenly favor. Maybe we wouldn’t have had to go into family counseling if we had spent Sunday mornings eating pancakes and waffles in our PJ’s rather than falling asleep behind a pew. Opportunity costs, in other words, should be factored into “harm.” But because it’s really difficult to assess “what could have been”, they are usually forgotten in the discussion. Religion’s opportunity cost is substantial, IMHO. It wastes resources (time, energy, and manpower) that could be used for productive and meaningful work. (Although I do concede that it is also provides opportunties too.) ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/202 "2014-01-10T21:45:59Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > This, as much as any wall of text you’ve posted in this thread illustrates quite well that you are quite the advocate for the God of the Gaps argument. If history and science shows us anything it’s that god is running out of places to hide in the universe. But you believe otherwise. Furthermore, you believe this without the smallest shred of evidence in support of that belief. Absolutely not. You entirely misinterpret my argument. If SDB exists, it would have to go hand in hand with science. My point is that we are merely scratching the surface of science when compared to what we would need to know to try and understand, disprove, or prove SDB. > [@](#): > > You go further to suggest that atheism is simply another belief system - different from yours. Here is another place you are deeply mistaken. Atheism is the absence of a belief system. An atheist is one who understands that there is no evidence for god and therefore has no intrinsic need to believe in such a being. He or she doesn’t hedge bets or hold his breath or cross his fingers while making that statement. An atheist is typically more likely to accept the fact that there are questions to which he or she may never have answers but there is no reason to think that god must be the explanation for the, as yet, unknown. That’s actually more or less the definition of an agnostic, which is what I am. Most atheists have come to the conclusion that there is no possible way that SDB, or God exists whatsoever. That is atheism at it’s heart. But there are gray areas which have been defined by other posters in this thread. > [@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. I absolutely agree with this. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, I agree with you. > [@Latro](#): > > 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 The thing is, I don’t hold any true belief. I would be arguing just as fervently in the opposite direction if someone were arguing that it is “stupid” to not believe in God and “blatantly ridiculous and obnoxious” to think that God does not exist. A lot of this has been me trying to figure out why some people are so dead set in their beliefs when there is no reason to be that way. All of my descriptions and so-called “advocations” of SDB have simply been me trying to illustrate how science has NOT proven that SDB cannot exist; as some people seem to assume that science has. > [@cmyk](#): > > Forgive me if others have addressed your points, I’m only now catching up with this thread again. Understandable. There have been 20+ posts in the last 12 hours alone. lol > [@](#): > > 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. I see. I do wish you would have cleared that up sooner because “unhealthy” has been a point of debate. lol IMHO, having a spiritual belief or a reasonable religious belief is benign when it comes to the individual. Therefore, not exactly unhealthy. As for criss-crossing negative influences from biased religious beliefs, that is far to subjective to take a stab at. > [@simster](#): > > Its more than an ‘argument’ - it has exactly the same amount of evidence as any deity Now it just seems like you’re putting the IPU up on a pedestal. It IS just an argument to make a point. Why would a limitless God or SDB have a singular corporeal form of an IPU? It wouldn’t. The IPU argument is akin to telling a little boy that their imaginary badass friend who protects and loves them, is actually just a sissy ballerina. Why would their imaginary friend who doesn’t actually have any form, be a freakin ballerina? Are you trying to make the little boy angry? lol My point is, the argument is instigative in nature and has already been admitted, by **Voyager** , that the argument originated to fend off religious zealots who were trolling an atheist forum! Keep up! geeze > [@Voyager](#): > > 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. Whose to say that we aren’t the ones causing the problems. Bear with me here, say the Bible is true relative to it’s time. There were no contraceptives, so God said, “Hey jackasses,” don’t screw each other in the butt yet, you haven’t invented condoms so you might get aids!" The Bible also says, in eight different places, that people are not to eat shrimp, maybe shrimp at the time had high levels of Mercury or something, who knows. I’m making the point that the Bible is antiquated, but maybe it served it’s purpose and is in need of a modern rewrite. Another point is that ALL discrimination, and harm for that matter, that has come from religion has done so due to flawed human characteristics, not because of God. > [@](#): > > 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? This argument is thought provoking and definitely worth repeating to others, but I thought I basically eliminated it, by making the same point as **cosmodan** , only in a more detailed manner. > [@razncain](#): > > 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. Absolutely, I think everything is explainable by science. I just think that the science required to explain, prove, or disprove SDB is far and beyond what we are capable of and probably will forever remain that way. My apologies if this wasn’t a very good example to illustrate my point. > [@](#): > > 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. As stated previously in this post, that is not what I meant. I never implied that the Mpemba effect is a myth. I was simply making the point that we can only observe and deduce to a finite extent, and can’t even agree on a _theory_ that explains the Mpemba effect. > [@](#): > > “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. Alright that’s fair enough. You may start another thread if you want. Post the link and I will participate, but I really just have one more question. Why exactly was Jearl comparing hot water to very hot water? ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/203 "2014-01-10T21:58:14Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Now it just seems like you’re putting the IPU up on a pedestal. It IS just an argument to make a point. Why would a limitless God or SDB have a singular corporeal form of an IPU? It wouldn’t. Please state the objective evidence for your SDB or ‘God’ or 'any deity". Please state the objective evidence for the IPU. (note nowhere has anyone stated that the IPU must be “corporeal”) Compare. Now, try to understand that according to the null hypothesis - or the scientific method - we do not try to prove something does not exist - the default assumption is that “X does not exist” X can be God, Pink Unicorns, Horses or anything else. The first step is then to look for evidence that X exists - until you find some, the default assumption holds true. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > The IPU argument is akin to telling a little boy that their imaginary badass friend who protects and loves them, is actually just a sissy ballerina. Why would their imaginary friend who doesn’t actually have any form, be a freakin ballerina? Are you trying to make the little boy angry? lol If I were trying to help the little boy understand the nature of imaginary friends - he would eventually understand that his “pink ballerina” was just as powerful as his “baddass friend” against actual physical danger - I’m not trying to make you angry - I’m trying to get you to understand plain and simple logic and/or reason. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > My point is, the argument is instigative in nature and has already been admitted, by **Voyager** , that the argument originated to fend off religious zealots who were trolling an atheist forum! > > Keep up! geeze “keep up” yourself - the argument is a simple exercise in logic and reason - that you can’t quite grok that is not a problem 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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/204 "2014-01-10T22:54:12Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > My point is, the argument is instigative in nature and has already been admitted, by **Voyager** , that the argument originated to fend off religious zealots who were trolling an atheist forum! > > Keep up! geeze No, **simster** is exactly right. The IPU was to demonstrate that special pleading was a fallacy. It was not to keep anyone away - this was not a moderated group, and we didn’t want to anyhow. Evidence that a group worships X is not evidence that X exists. That involves detectible interaction with the rest of the world. No evidence that this has happened with the IPU or with God. As usual, anyone disagreeing is welcome to give this evidence - and defend it. > [@](#): > > Whose to say that we aren’t the ones causing the problems. Bear with me here, say the Bible is true relative to it’s time. There were no contraceptives, so God said, “Hey jackasses,” don’t screw each other in the butt yet, you haven’t invented condoms so you might get aids!" The Bible also says, in eight different places, that people are not to eat shrimp, maybe shrimp at the time had high levels of Mercury or something, who knows. I’m making the point that the Bible is antiquated, but maybe it served it’s purpose and is in need of a modern rewrite. Another point is that ALL discrimination, and harm for that matter, that has come from religion has done so due to flawed human characteristics, not because of God. But God is timeless, remember? Maybe the people then had relatively primitive morals, but God didn’t. Do you think that a God would worry about it being too hard? As for shrimp, nothing to do with mercury. If God had said, raw shrimp and undercooked shrimp is an abomination, it would have been just as good, right? Hell, if God had commanded the use of decent sewers and not to take crap in streams he would have eliminated lots of illness. If the hypothesis that the Bible contains only things that the people who wrote it could have known without supernatural advice is not falsified, there is no reason at all to introduce a supernatural element. I agree with your last sentence - since God does not exist, nothing comes from him. However a lot of evil comes from belief. But that is neither here nor there - that no more falsifies god than the fact that good things comes from belief sometimes is evidence for God. It might be an argument against religion, but I thought you were against that anyway. > [@](#): > > This argument is thought provoking and definitely worth repeating to others, but I thought I basically eliminated it, by making the same point as **cosmodan** , only in a more detailed manner. Your elimination has already been eliminated. If God knows that in Universe A horse B wins race C, how does his ability to make the horse lose in Universe Z refute the fact that he cannot make the horse lose in Universe A? ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/205 "2014-01-10T23:22:01Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I never implied that the Mpemba effect is a myth. I was simply making the point that we can only observe and deduce to a finite extent, and can’t even agree on a theory that explains the Mpemba effect. If I wasn’t clear, I was saying I think the Mpemba effect is probably a myth; not you. No need for a theory explaining it until it has been satisfactory proven it does exist. It kind of reminds me of the bar trick in getting a bottle of beer to go from liquid to freezing solid with just a simple solid tap. > [@](#): > > Post the link and I will participate, but I really just have one more question. Why exactly was Jearl comparing hot water to very hot water? Not sure, but after he, Cecil, and countless others to date not been able to replicate hot water freezing faster than cold water of which others kept making this claim, I suppose he’d try to get to the varying degrees of hot water, and I think he was dead-on with his explanation of the evaporation and smaller volumes of water freezing faster. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/206 "2014-01-10T23:25:37Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Now it just seems like you’re putting the IPU up on a pedestal. It IS just an argument to make a point. **Why would a limitless God or SDB have a singular corporeal form of an IPU?** It wouldn’t. (bolding mine) This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. I read past it in my earlier reply or I would have pointed it out then. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/207 "2014-01-11T00:19:35Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Please state the objective evidence for your SDB or ‘God’ or 'any deity". > > Please state the objective evidence for the IPU. (note nowhere has anyone stated that the IPU must be “corporeal”) > > Compare. There’s no need. I really have no objection to the argument in itself. I have been objecting all along to the specific way it has been presented. I have already agreed with **Voyager** in post #158 about this matter. And what do you suppose an IPU is if it is not corporeal? If you need to sit here and amend the original statement or provide a detailed explanation showing how the IPU is too vague to have a corporeal form, then you are just serving to make my point. That point being, that given the sarcastic nonchalant way it is presented, it is really meant as an instigative remark, not a viable point. > [@](#): > > Now, try to understand that according to the null hypothesis - or the scientific method - we do not try to prove something does not exist - the default assumption is that “X does not exist” > > X can be God, Pink Unicorns, Horses or anything else. > > The first step is then to look for evidence that X exists - until you find some, the default assumption holds true. That’s great, but the argument was not presented in any type of scientific manner. It was presented in a sarcastic manner designed to aggressively delegitimize a ‘believers’ POV by presenting a red herring argument. > [@](#): > > If I were trying to help the little boy understand the nature of imaginary friends - he would eventually understand that his “pink ballerina” was just as powerful as his “baddass friend” against actual physical danger - What does being powerful have to do with it? The point is that the little boy’s imaginary friend is indefinable, then someone comes in and sarcastically compares his friend to something random that implies his friend is from “fairy neverland- a tale of rainbow unicorns.” A pink unicorn having most associations with little girls. So in reality, your point is a red herring and is politically incorrect. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to make you angry - I’m trying to get you to understand plain and simple logic and/or reason. Lol. Why would I be angry. The little boy in the analogy is a person of faith, not me… > [@](#): > > “keep up” yourself - the argument is a simple exercise in logic and reason - that you can’t quite grok that is not a problem with the argument. That’s great, IF it is presented that way, which it was not presented that way in this discussion that I know of. From what I have seen, it seems to have been used more as a snarky remark to distract from the topic at hand. So, given the context of my POV on the IPU, I am keeping up and you are not. > [@Voyager](#): > > No, **simster** is exactly right. The IPU was to demonstrate that special pleading was a fallacy. It was not to keep anyone away - this was not a moderated group, and we didn’t want to anyhow. Evidence that a group worships X is not evidence that X exists. That involves detectible interaction with the rest of the world. No evidence that this has happened with the IPU or with God. As usual, anyone disagreeing is welcome to give this evidence - and defend it. That’s fine, and I recognize your guys’ points being valid on that level. But read this and tell me it serves as a productive logic excersize and not as a sarcastic jab at people of faith. > [@randompattern](#): > > I have a Tree in my backyard that I talk to often. I ask it to grant me wishes, sometimes it does, sometimes not. I believe this Tree has the power to do this because I was brought up that way. I have no proof it does, I just know it. My Tree listens to me, loves me, and sometimes asks for money. Am I delusional? Virtually everything I have said about the IPU can be traced back to this post(#12). Am I wrong in suggesting that a different, more tactful, fluid approach be taken? > [@](#): > > But God is timeless, remember? Maybe the people then had relatively primitive morals, but God didn’t. Do you think that a God would worry about it being too hard? > As for shrimp, nothing to do with mercury. If God had said, raw shrimp and undercooked shrimp is an abomination, it would have been just as good, right? > Hell, if God had commanded the use of decent sewers and not to take crap in streams he would have eliminated lots of illness. > If the hypothesis that the Bible contains only things that the people who wrote it could have known without supernatural advice is not falsified, there is no reason at all to introduce a supernatural element. When I said bear with me, it was indeed just an attempt to explore another area of thought. And I know it is trivial, but shrimp does have mercury, just low amounts compared to other fish and shellfish. My point was maybe it was really high back then in that region. Totally subjective, but possibly scientifically determinable. > [@](#): > > Your elimination has already been eliminated. If God knows that in Universe A horse B wins race C, how does his ability to make the horse lose in Universe Z refute the fact that he cannot make the horse lose in Universe A? You must not have seen my most recent response to your logical problem. Post #163 provides a new argument about the limitlessness of SDB and how SDB would inherently be infallible in your argument and in general when given all other attributes associated with an SDB. I don’t blame you if you didn’t see it. It was mixed in with a gigantic post. Here’s what I said: “I suppose you are right when looking at it that way, but God would have to be infinitely omniscient to exist under these pretenses right? So in your scenario and others like it, God would have an infinite loop for this and would simply be able to say, “well I knew I would change that,” then, “well I knew that i knew I would change that,” and so on and so on. Even if he did alter something, it would already have been part of the preordained plan.” Or maybe, once God had created everything, God then temporarily took away it’s own omniscience to the level of “almost omniscience” so that they could enjoy the dabbling on a lower level of consciousness. Kinda like how people get drunk to forget about their problems. lol" My point is that any test we can come up with to show the fallibility would fail, there would always be an explanation behind the explanation. Omniscience would be infinite. I would think that if anyone was ever given a chance to present a problem like yours to SDB, SDB would simply blow the persons mind by showing them how it would all play out before the words ever left their mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/208 "2014-01-11T00:19:56Z")
> [@simster](#): > > . . . agnostic is “unknown AND unknowable” . . . I’ve said this before, and so I apologize for repetition, but this always bothers me on Godelian grounds. If something is firmly declared to be “unknowable” that is equivalent to firmly declaring it “false.” If I could prove that a certain proposition in math, or logic, or science was “unknowable,” then I have just proven it “false.” In theism, if I can demonstrate that no one can ever know whether there is a God, then I have demonstrated that no evidence for God’s existence will ever come to light. I prefer a more moderate definition, in which God’s existence is unknown, and, at this point in time unknowable. A stronger declaration is making claims about the future, and is (in my opinion) much too strong. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/209 "2014-01-11T00:21:17Z")
> [@simster](#): > > (bolding mine) > > This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. > > I read past it in my earlier reply or I would have pointed it out then. Along these lines, I would say that the argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of God, or SDB. ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/210 "2014-01-11T00:25:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’ve said this before, and so I apologize for repetition, but this always bothers me on Godelian grounds. If something is firmly declared to be “unknowable” that is equivalent to firmly declaring it “false.” If I could prove that a certain proposition in math, or logic, or science was “unknowable,” then I have just proven it “false.” > > In theism, if I can demonstrate that no one can ever know whether there is a God, then I have demonstrated that no evidence for God’s existence will ever come to light. > > I prefer a more moderate definition, in which God’s existence is unknown, and, at this point in time unknowable. A stronger declaration is making claims about the future, and is (in my opinion) much too strong. Thats why its a ‘philosophical’ statement and not a scientific one - “agnostic” - without any qualifies is basically stating that they have no belief - either way - on a particular subject. When you add deist/theist/atheist qualifiers to it - then you are adding the “because unknown or unknowable” - etc. ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/211 "2014-01-11T00:27:03Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Along these lines, I would say that the argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of God, or SDB. You clearly still don’t ‘get it’. [QUOTE=YoungKusher;] And what do you suppose an IPU is if it is not corporeal? [/QUOTE] Do you not know what “invisible” means? IPU = (and always has) “Invisible Pink Unicorn” [QUOTE=YoungKusher] That’s great, IF it is presented that way, which it was not presented that way in this discussion that I know of. From what I have seen, it seems to have been used more as a snarky remark to distract from the topic at hand. So, given the context of my POV on the IPU, I am keeping up and you are not. [/QUOTE] I never use it as snark - and its not been used in this thread as snark - as stated multiple times, it is used to show the special pleading that “God” gets that is not given to other “beings” that have the same amount of evidence (ie “none”) for their existence. The snark comes from the responses - as yours adequately demonstrates. Your POV on the IPU has been demonstrated as incorrect - or you are being deliberately dishonest - which is it? ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/212 "2014-01-11T00:39:57Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Thats why its a ‘philosophical’ statement and not a scientific one - > > “agnostic” - without any qualifies is basically stating that they have no belief - either way - on a particular subject. > > When you add deist/theist/atheist qualifiers to it - then you are adding the “because unknown or unknowable” - etc. IE - I believe in god(s) - the evidence for them is unknown and/or unknowable to man - the agnostic theist I don’t believe in god(s) - and if there are such the evidence for them it is unknown or unknowable (at this time) - the agnostic atheist I have no opinion on the existence of god(s) - (as the truth to the claims made by either side are unknown) - agnostic. For/Against/Neutral - the existence of god(s). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/213 "2014-01-11T01:20:02Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 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? Maybe you should read a little more of the thread. I already answered this question. Also Votager kindly explains that the IPU argument was constructed specifically to deal with special pleading from believers. ---
**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 11, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/214 "2014-01-11T01:24:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Maybe you should read a little more of the thread. I already answered this question. Also Votager kindly explains that the IPU argument was constructed specifically to deal with special pleading from believers. and if you continue reading - you’ll understand more about the question itself. I’ve even clarified what ‘agnostic’ means since that response. If you answered the question - as to the belief or not in the IPU (and why) - be so kind as to repeat the answer or point to the post in which you answered it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/215 "2014-01-11T01:37:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? Why would I? I’m agnostic about both. ---
**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 11, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/216 "2014-01-11T01:45:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Why would I? I’m agnostic about both. So - then you agree that there is exactly the same amount of truth (and/or evidence) to the claims for the IPU as there is for GOD? (In case you think I’m hounding you - I’m simply trying to make sure I understand if you are truly “agnostic” or if you believe in GOD) ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/217 "2014-01-11T02:04:43Z")
> [@simster](#): > > You clearly still don’t ‘get it’. No, you don’t get the context it’s being discussed in in this thread. > [@](#): > > Do you not know what “invisible” means? IPU = (and always has) “Invisible Pink Unicorn” Do you not see how that is irrelevant to my point? The fact that it has been given form at all means it doesn’t matter if it is invisible. AND, invisible doesn’t mean it’s not there, it means you can’t see it. > **[Theory of forms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms)** > > In philosophy and specifically metaphysics, the theory of Forms, theory of Ideas, Platonic idealism, or Platonic realism is a theory widely credited to the Classical Greek philosopher Plato. The theory suggests that the physical world is not as real or true as "Forms". According to this theory, Forms—conventionally capitalized and also commonly translated as "Ideas"—are the non-physical, timeless, absolute, and unchangeable essences of all things, which objects and matter in the physi Scripture... [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > I never use it as snark - and its not been used in this thread as snark - as stated multiple times, it is used to show the special pleading that “God” gets that is not given to other “beings” that have the same amount of evidence (ie “none”) for their existence. That’s great, I never said you use it as a snark. ? Lol, it doesn’t matter if you _say_ it hasn’t been used as a snark, because it _has_ been used as a snark. Read post #12, or just read my posts in their entirety instead of snipping out segments that don’t capture my point. It has not once been used to productively show how special pleading is wrong in this topic. That idea was only introduced into this thread more recently by **Voyager**. As I have already said, I don’t object to an analogy that would demonstrate such a point, but I don’t think the IPU does a very good job of that. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, if you replace IPU with the “Universe,” it will likely sit much better with people than an Invisible…Pink…Unicorn… Therefore sending the point home instead of essentially insulting their belief in an indirect manner. > [@](#): > > The snark comes from the responses - as yours adequately demonstrates. False. You obviously haven’t read all of my posts. > [@](#): > > Your POV on the IPU has been demonstrated as incorrect - or you are being deliberately dishonest - which is it? Incorrect in the sense that my POV does not include generations of discussions from other forums that I took no part in? Other than that, my POV is perfectly legitimate. Why don’t you at least take the time to read my entire last post, specifically my comments to **Voyager**. Maybe then you will understand where the debate has come from. ---
**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 11, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/218 "2014-01-11T02:16:13Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > No, you don’t get the context it’s being discussed in in this thread. > > Do you not see how that is irrelevant to my point? The fact that it has been given form at all means it doesn’t matter if it is invisible. AND, invisible doesn’t mean it’s not there, it means you can’t see it. > > [Theory of forms - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms) > > That’s great, I never said you use it as a snark. ? Lol, it doesn’t matter if you _say_ it hasn’t been used as a snark, because it _has_ been used as a snark. Read post #12, or just read my posts in their entirety instead of snipping out segments that don’t capture my point. > > It has not once been used to productively show how special pleading is wrong in this topic. That idea was only introduced into this thread more recently by **Voyager**. As I have already said, I don’t object to an analogy that would demonstrate such a point, but I don’t think the IPU does a very good job of that. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, if you replace IPU with the “Universe,” it will likely sit much better with people than an Invisible…Pink…Unicorn… Therefore sending the point home instead of essentially insulting their belief in an indirect manner. > > False. You obviously haven’t read all of my posts. > > Incorrect in the sense that my POV does not include generations of discussions from other forums that I took no part in? > > Other than that, my POV is perfectly legitimate. Why don’t you at least take the time to read my entire last post, specifically my comments to **Voyager**. Maybe then you will understand where the debate has come from. The reason you simply don’t get the IPU argument - You keep implying that people are saying the IPU == GOD - that by ‘equating’ GOD with the IPU we are being insulting to the believers - this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the IPU argument. Which is that the IPU simply represents “another creature” that believers in GOD quickly dismiss without question (similar to Santa Clause, Vampires, Zombies, etc) - for the same reason that atheists dismiss GOD - “lack of evidence” for the critter in question. That you keep saying that if you substitute “universe” for IPU shows you don’t understand the argument - as the Universe clearly and objectively exists - GOD does not - if you are trying to say that “GOD is the Universe” is just more special pleading - to the point that the argument that ‘GOD EXISTS’ becomes completely nonsensical. Calling it the “invisible” pink unicorn is to put it in the same realm as the “invisible” (ie “non observable”) GOD that many others believe in. It gives it “no form” or “solidity” - the ONLY reason it gives it form is because we have images and an idea of what a unicorn looks like based on mythology and fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/219 "2014-01-11T02:26:08Z")
At the risk of sounding like a broken record – and maybe I’m just being obtuse – I have to raise once again the vast difference between abstract spiritual belief and organized religion. To the question “does God exist?” I answer that the question isn’t meaningful because there is too broad a range of definition. On one hand there is God as an abstraction inferred from the belief that science has intrinsic limitations, sort of analogous to the Gödel incompleteness theorem in mathematics. On the other hand there is the God of dogmatic scriptures whose existence is a fabrication rooted in political motives and the desire to control behaviors. There certainly seems to be general agreement among serious Biblical scholars that much of the Gospels were essentially revisionist history written for the express purpose of reinforcing a belief system. The same semantic ambiguity exists with the definition of atheism. If an “atheist” is someone who regards most of the dogma of organized religion as unscientific claptrap, then I probably am one, too. But if an atheist is someone who rejects **any** definition of God because it can’t be accommodated in [present-day] science, then I am reminded of Hamlet’s rebuke to Horatio that “there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/220 "2014-01-11T02:26:30Z")
> [@simster](#): > > IE - . . . I have no opinion on the existence of god(s) - (as the truth to the claims made by either side are unknown) - agnostic. . . . The statement that the truth-value of the claims is “unknown” is a perfectly valid thing to say. But I’m quibbling over anyone saying “The truth or falsehood of the claims is unknowable.” To me, declaring something “unknowable” is indistinguishable from declaring it to be false. It’s saying, “We don’t know today…and we will never know.” That would rule out, as an impossibility, any future discovery of convincing evidence. It says, in effect, “There will never be a worldwide revelation.” Such a thing would make God known…and if his existence is “unknowable,” that can’t happen. Unknown today? Valid. “Unknowable?” Too strong a thing to say…IMO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=12)