# 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:** 13
**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, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/241 "2014-01-11T14:55:29Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 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? I’m not sure’ truth"even applies , but as far as objective evidence that can be shared by everyone , sure, they are the same. That said, the IPU only addresses one aspect of god belief which is, the lack of objective evidence that can be demonstrated to anyone. It demonstrates quite well that the argument “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is a fallacy and is no valid reason to believe. God belief, religion and spirituality encompass much more than that, and people have very personal reasons for believing that have nothing to do with objective evidence. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/242 "2014-01-11T15:05:24Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > I should point out some context here. In the love-and-peace kind of Christianity, which is the only kind I had any direct experience with, I don’t think there’s any talk of eternal damnation and hellfire, at least to kids in Sunday school. It’s pretty much all Jesus loves you stuff, and if that creates confusion and guilt in a kid, he has deeper problems than just religion. In no other societal institution is “love” made out to be as big a deal as it is in church. I remember as a kid hearing over and over that Jesus loves me and not believing it because I couldn’t feel it. Everyone else around me seemed to easily feel it, but not me. I excelled in school. I was a “good” kid at home. I didn’t get in any trouble with the law. In all other respects of my life, I was a solid citizen. But in church, I felt like an absolute failure simply because I couldn’t appreciate Jesus’s love. Which meant I couldn’t make myself love him. Or God. Those are requirements for being a Christian in most denominations. Do I have personal problems? Sure. But not “deep” ones, and it’s kind of insulting for you to say this. “Love” is not something that always wraps one up in warm fuzzy feelings. If a stranger on the street told me he loves me, I would be majorly creeped out. Tell me Jesus loves me, and I’m supposed to be happy and overjoyed? Hmm. I think being creeped out is a good reaction to have. > [@](#): > > …who have more respect for arbitrary rules than they do for real live people, I agree with you, but their religious upbringing must have been by repressed misfits preaching fear and hate, not nice ladies teaching Jesus loves you. That’s the thing, though. A lot of “nice ladies” teach Jesus loves you. But ask them the “right” questions, and they will be quick to tell you all the kinds of people Jesus _doesn’t_ like. It seems that your brief foray into church didn’t expose you to people like this, which is totally fine and believable. But I assure you there are plenty of normal, regular, everyday, “nice”, people who believe in hell just as sure as they believe in a loving Jesus. It’s just they wait for the right moment to spring this information on you. > [@](#): > > (BTW, I really doubt that MLK worried too much about hell, given his record of infidelity. And before anyone jumps all over that, that isn’t snarky criticism of him. He’s one of the greatest figures of our time, but he had his warts, and I’m just pointing out one of them to make a separate point.) I’m sure most of the people sitting in prison right now believe in some form of hell. Either they’e worked it out in their head that they’ve been forgiven. Or they feel that Jesus understood why they had to do what they had to do. Martin Luther King might have fashioned himself to be a modern-day David. He earned himself some extra nookie. > [@](#): > > All I know is that I was exposed to religion directly for a couple of years as a kid, and indirectly throughout my childhood by culture, and yet at around 12 or 13, I still was able to conclude that the bible was irrelevant to me and the concept of God was false. Since then, it hasn’t been a factor in my life at all. If that’s not enough to determine that I wasn’t harmed by religion, then we can’t determine anything. Yes, you are right. But this is much more about you, right? It’s about religion and its harm on believers _in general_. Most believers spend much of their time, energy, and money on religious activities. If religion is non-productive at best, then believers hurt themselves by engaging in wasteful activity. Perhaps the reason the two of us aren’t believers is because we found better things to do with our resources. There are many believers who think they aren’t harmed. But if you looked at their family dynamics, their finances, and their personalities, you’d find all kinds of problems that are the direct result of their religious devotion. I’m not sure your limited experience with organized religion sheds much light on their situation. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/243 "2014-01-11T15:23:43Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > This point is intertwined with the fact an IPU is a ridiculous form for a deity to have. Name any one of those religions that prays to and has a personal relationship with an animal deity. Refresh your memory with the bible, and it including people worshiping and praying to the golden calf which got Jehovah in a hissy fit. So Jehovah instructs Moses to go down and murder thousands that were worshiping and praying to the golden calf. Cattle are quite sacred to Hindu’s, as well as to other religions, but not sure on many praying to it, although many do think they have souls, as do other animals. When I get time, I may share my experience with the church I was raised in. I have some good memories of the people there, but parts of my church experience did have a serious nocebo effect on me. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/244 "2014-01-11T15:40:23Z")
**YoungKusher** , you may want to take a break and read about [animism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism). Not to be TOO snarky, but I have to question just how well you understand the topic at hand given that you possess such a gaping hole in your knowledge. ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/245 "2014-01-11T16:05:16Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > [QUOTE=Simster] > IOW - its delusional and its unhealthy in the long term - regardless of any perceived placebo affect - positive feelings are positive feelings - they don’t do shit for curing cancer, but they can help the recovery and ‘dealing with’ the issue. My Mom went from being a smoker to a marathon runner, she’s much happier, and she is way less of a bitch. Explain how it’s unhealthy please. What evidence do you have? [/QUOTE] Most of the rest of your post has been responded to well enough - I want to deal with this statement. Obviously, stopping smoking and being less of a bitch are positive - giving all the credit to “an invisble sky being” is the part that, in the long run, is unhealthy, as she iss denying herself the _real_ reason she quit smoking and got healther - that she _ **decided** _ to. Just like the guy in the wheelchair that is rehabbing from a broken leg - eventually he has to get out of the wheelchair and learn to walk on his own. Secondly - if she truly believes the ‘sky god’ can heal her anytime she really wants it - how disappointed is she going to be when something happens that can’t be so easily\* dealt with? While her ‘faith’ may give her some comfort in the early days of the problem, as it progresses, she will then feel a loss and anger at this “invisible sky god” for forsaking her - or if she loses a friend - or if some other friend of hers can’t quit smoking with the help of this same sky god… This is why these delusions are unhealthy - because they give credit to the wrong ‘thing’. Your mom should be commended for the positive changes in her life that she accomplished - time to throw off the crutches and accomplish even more. \*not saying quitting smoking is easy, just saying that compared to whatever she may face next ---
**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, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/246 "2014-01-11T16:11:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Where did these sub catagories come from and what gives them any authority as definitions? I saw somethng simialr a few monhs back when another poster tried to tell me I wasn’t really an agnostic. > > Here’s my take , > > I believe in god, but I recognize that god’s existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. There is no objective evidence to establish God’s existence. = > > Theist , one who is a little more open minded and less defensive about their belief. > > I don’t believe in god. because there is no objective evidence that any such things exist, I acknowledge that this can’t be known in an absolute or scientific sense. An athiest, > > I have no opinion on the existence of god. An apathetic. Someone who is uninterested in the question, or chooses not to be drawn into it. > I don’t know if god exists. Maybe yes , maybe no. There isn’t anything conclusive one way otr the other. I suspect this is something we can’t really know. An agnostic. > Let’s note that either atheist or theist might acknowledge “I suspect this is something we can’t really know” They have simply made the personal choice about which side of the issue works best for them. > > I don’t find the sub catagories particularly useful. Again - the ‘true’ agnostic has no opinion on the matter one way or the other - agnostic literally meaning “without knowledge” - the other two categories are those that are falling on one side of the fence or the other, and saying that the lack of knowledge is a reason for it. Theist/Atheist - believe/don’t believe and the knowledge has nothing to do with it. They are helpful becuase the majority of people that say “agnostic” don’t truly mean “no opinion” - they use the term in one of the two subcategories. ‘truth’ in this context simply means verifiable fact - not some nebulous ‘truth’. I didn’t make up the definitions/groupings - in my earlier response in this thread I pointed to the wiki articles describing them. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/247 "2014-01-11T16:22:59Z")
I should add to my earlier post - For the multitude of people that can balance faith/reality this isn’t an issue - maybe your mom is one of those, maybe she isn’t. Its especially unhealthy when they forget reality and go only for ‘faith based’ services (forgoing doctors, etc in favor of “god will heal me if we pray”). In either case - giving up recognition of your own personal strengths in favor of “invisible sky god helping you” is never a healthy thing. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/248 "2014-01-11T17:51:59Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Secondly - if she truly believes the ‘sky god’ can heal her anytime she really wants it - how disappointed is she going to be when something happens that can’t be so easily\* dealt with? While her ‘faith’ may give her some comfort in the early days of the problem, as it progresses, she will then feel a loss and anger at this “invisible sky god” for forsaking her - or if she loses a friend - or if some other friend of hers can’t quit smoking with the help of this same sky god… > > This is why these delusions are unhealthy - because they give credit to the wrong ‘thing’. Over the holidays, I praised my mother for losing weight and getting in shape. She’s always been a big woman, and it seems like she’s finally found the right combination that works for her. Her energy and self-esteem have both been astronomical lately. She wouldn’t take any credit. No, it’s all “Jesus.” When I asked her why Jesus hadn’t helped her before, she blamed herself for not being in the right spiritual mindset. As you say, this kind of thinking is setting her up for a major psychological crisis if she were to ever fall off the wagon (which is quite probable). It also encourages her to give the wrong advice to others trying to lose weight (e.g., “get right with God”) rather than those strategies she’s adopted that have actually done the trick. It also espouses helplessness. “God has helped me lose weight because this is his will for me. Thus, if you’re fat and you’ve tried everything, there must be a reason. Don’t fight. Just accept.” My mother is smart enough not to say something like this out loud (in front of me), but I wouldn’t put it past her to think like 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 11, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/249 "2014-01-11T19:36:41Z")
It’s unhealthy, even if it gives an individual short-term (or even sustained) benefits in “positive thinking” because every decision we make, whether impulsive or deliberated over is done so based off our core philosophies. If that philosophy is a fiction, contrived by someone else’s means for an infinitely far end, then this shapes the course of their own life and the lives affected on scales infinitesimal and grand alike. We don’t have enough collective fingers on hands for lives lost or wars waged in the name of God(s). ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/250 "2014-01-11T21:01:53Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . This point is intertwined with the fact an IPU is a ridiculous form for a deity to have. So is the Trinity. So is Ganesha. > [@](#): > > Name any one of those religions that prays to and has a personal relationship with an animal deity. Ganesha. > [@](#): > > If you would please, read all the comments and have an understanding of the context before barging in. Already have. > [@](#): > > I didn’t know agnosticism is a religion. I never said it was. I don’t believe it is. It doesn’t fit the standard definition; in fact, it falls short of the definition on a couple different grounds. Instead of insulting me, or engaging in rhetorical laughter, you might do better to try to address the actual points in debate that have been raised. Claiming victory by “You haven’t read the thread” or “Ha ha that’s funny” are techniques not held in great respect here. The existence of recent religions such as Mormonism or Christian Science serve to remove at least one of your objections to the metaphorical validity of the IPU. The existence of odd anthropomorphic deities serves to remove another. You need to make your point, rather than just issue snark. ---
**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 11, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/251 "2014-01-11T22:43:12Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > 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. > > 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. I’d guess that you’ve never been involved in scientific discussions in a grad school or high level research center. Trust me, they are full of sarcastic jabs. (These usually don’t get published, but I’ve been on some panels … ) So I appreciate your point, but just like here jabs at an argument (not at a person) are appropriate. The response is to demolish the argument behind the jab. Or jab back better. > [@](#): > > 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. I was nitpicking about the mercury. Certain foods are indeed more dangerous. I’ve seen arguments against the proposition that the prohibition against pork had anything to do with trichinosis, but it is popular that forbidding people from eating shrimp led to better health. No God necessary. My point was that if a God was behind these rules, he could have done a much better job with them. > [@](#): > > 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.” I did miss that. Another interesting argument, but it still doesn’t work. What you are describing is in a sense a wave function of the event, in that there is a probability that it will be resolved one way or another. But - it will collapse into the actual event. If God is omniscient, he must know if Schrodinger’s Cat is alive or dead. Since God can produce nearly infinite actions, in your example he knows nothing. And pre-ordained is incompatible with omnipotent. You have God changing his mind. That is compatible with omnipotence, but not omniscience. > [@](#): > > 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" Another good try, but Goid’s omniscience still holds at time t = - infinity, so if what you say is true there can never be a time where God was truly omniscient. > [@](#): > > 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. Or SDB would vanish in a puff of illogic. You see my argument depends on infinities. A finite though powerful God, like Zeus or Wotan, has not problem with this. Only bi-omni gods. You see it is easy to state something, but hard for it to exist. I can write that a magician summons a demon by inscribing a four-sided triangle on the floor - but woe to the illustrator of that story. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/252 "2014-01-11T22:44:42Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Is this a joke? > There are plenty of religions that worship animals or spiritual animals. > > Why are they more ‘obviously ridiculous’ than your ( generic your, just to avoid another of your condescending remarks) God who got himself executed and now becomes a cookie every sunday, to be eaten by his worshippers. Not really. I understand I made a broad statement that surely has something to prove it wrong, but I guarantee you that a vast majority of ‘believers’ do not pray to and have a spiritual relationship with a deity that is not at least humanoid. My apologies for being condescending, but I’m sure you can understand how frustrating it is to have somebody take a comment out of context that has many implied boundaries that were set in other posts. I just wish that person would have read all of the comments before strawmanning my point. It was very clear that they must not have been reading much in this thread because I mentioned in several different posts that I am agnostic, and here they are talking about my ‘religion’. To me, it was either a snide remark, or a lack of understanding on their part. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > This alone reduces your argument down to, my invisible imaginary friend is better than your invisible imaginary friend. You should do stand-up… > [@monstro](#): > > There are many believers who think they aren’t harmed. But if you looked at their family dynamics, their finances, and their personalities, you’d find all kinds of problems that are the direct result of their religious devotion. I’m not sure your limited experience with organized religion sheds much light on their situation. This statement is subjective at best. I doubt there would be any significant difference between the family dynamic of believers and the family dynamic of non-believers. Problems with any family dynamic can most certainly be explained with other means. Such as: alcoholism, abusiveness, genetics, etc. etc. > [@razncain](#): > > Refresh your memory with the bible, and it including people worshiping and praying to the golden calf which got Jehovah in a hissy fit. So Jehovah instructs Moses to go down and murder thousands that were worshiping and praying to the golden calf. > > Cattle are quite sacred to Hindu’s, as well as to other religions, but not sure on many praying to it, although many do think they have souls, as do other animals. > > When I get time, I may share my experience with the church I was raised in. I have some good memories of the people there, but parts of my church experience did have a serious nocebo effect on me. I was wondering when somebody would refer to the golden calf. Same as I said up-post. People don’t maintain a spiritual relationship or pray to a golden calf anywhere near the way they do to God, if at all for that matter. So this is a moot point. Not to mention the fact that we are talking about modern beliefs. > [@monstro](#): > > **YoungKusher** , you may want to take a break and read about [animism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism). Not to be TOO snarky, but I have to question just how well you understand the topic at hand given that you possess such a gaping hole in your knowledge. I’m sure your a reasonable person, I indeed get a little too condescending with some of my comments, but this is not relevant to my point. (refer to other parts of this post) > [@simster](#): > > Most of the rest of your post has been responded to well enough - I want to deal with this statement. > > Obviously, stopping smoking and being less of a bitch are positive - giving all the credit to “an invisble sky being” is the part that, in the long run, is unhealthy, as she iss denying herself the _real_ reason she quit smoking and got healther - that she _ **decided** _ to. She’s 46 now, not that that’s old, but what is there to be gained if she ‘realizes’ this, and what is there that is so unhealthy about maintaining this belief for the rest of her life? > [@](#): > > Secondly - if she truly believes the ‘sky god’ can heal her anytime she really wants it - how disappointed is she going to be when something happens that can’t be so easily\* dealt with? While her ‘faith’ may give her some comfort in the early days of the problem, as it progresses, she will then feel a loss and anger at this “invisible sky god” for forsaking her - or if she loses a friend - or if some other friend of hers can’t quit smoking with the help of this same sky god… This seems to be noting a certain mental weakness you’re attributing to believers. It sounds like an inherent problem, not one that will be better if a person is a believer or not. Your notion of how much faith she puts into ‘healing’ is just guess-work. She made a deal with God, and he backed up his end of the deal to ascertain her belief.(in her mind) Why would she expect him to grant every single wish? If somebody does believe that, then I can understand how that might be unhealthy, and how a person would become embittered over time. The thing is, what your saying has to do with people using god in a way that he is not meant to be used for. Most Christians I know, don’t feel anything like the way you have described. > [@](#): > > This is why these delusions are unhealthy - because they give credit to the wrong ‘thing’. Sure, but most Christians don’t believe that God is a genie who grants all of their wishes and makes their friends never die. If they do, that is a flaw in their own understanding, and probably a flaw with their psyche in general. > [@](#): > > Your mom should be commended for the positive changes in her life that she accomplished - time to throw off the crutches and accomplish even more. That’s a good thought, but I don’t think she uses God as a crutch for anything. If a person is in need of purpose that is meaningful in the most profound way, why not let them have God as their purpose? If you don’t, it could result in them being more pessimistic, more listless, and just more blah in general. ESPECIALLY when you’re asking someone who was once not a believer(my mom), then became a believer, to go back to being a non-believer. If you succeed, you might just be left with a shell of the person who once was, after all of the psychological stresses a mind would have to go though to do that. > [@simster](#): > > I should add to my earlier post - > > For the multitude of people that can balance faith/reality this isn’t an issue - maybe your mom is one of those, maybe she isn’t. > > Its especially unhealthy when they forget reality and go only for ‘faith based’ services (forgoing doctors, etc in favor of “god will heal me if we pray”). > > In either case - giving up recognition of your own personal strengths in favor of “invisible sky god helping you” is never a healthy thing. To her, God is simply a complement to her strengths. > [@Trinopus](#): > > So is the Trinity. So is Ganesha. > > Ganesha. > > Already have. I see you still haven’t read the other portions of the thread. Ganesha was already used as an example by **Quicksilver** many many posts ago. Ganesha is humanoid, sentient, and obviously capable of understanding human issues. What properties does a unicorn have that make it rationally capable, on a philosophical level, of having a relationship with a human being? NOTHING. You obviously don’t have a firm understanding of what my argument is at all. I have already basically agreed with the thought exercise that the IPU is meant to provide. My beef has been with post #12, how it sarcastically uses it to belittle a person of faith, and with the fact that an IPU is an inherently stupid analogy becaus it does not possess the same qualities(or spiritual evidence) that God has. > [@](#): > > I never said it was. I don’t believe it is. It doesn’t fit the standard definition; in fact, it falls short of the definition on a couple different grounds. If you already read all of the posts, why would you talk about MY religion when I said several times I am agnostic. Are you now saying that you were in fact insulting me by purposely strawmanning me? > [@](#): > > Instead of insulting me, or engaging in rhetorical laughter, you might do better to try to address the actual points in debate that have been raised. Claiming victory by “You haven’t read the thread” or “Ha ha that’s funny” are techniques not held in great respect here. My apologies for being so abrasive, but can you understand my frustration with your approach? You are not the first person to type a long reason why a point of mine, taken out of context so not actually my point, is ‘wrong’. It’s very annoying to have to cater to your lack of understanding, when all of the evidence that I’m not wrong is right in front of you. > [@](#): > > The existence of recent religions such as Mormonism or Christian Science serve to remove at least one of your objections to the metaphorical validity of the IPU. The existence of odd anthropomorphic deities serves to remove another. How so? All of those deity’s possess humanoid forms. And there is really only one aspect of my argument, you just divided it. > [@](#): > > You need to make your point, rather than just issue snark. Sorry if I find it annoyingly redundant to answer questions that you can make sense of by reading the other posts. I understand the discussion has evolved and my point is now in need of a make-over. Okay, the IPU is a logic exercise designed to show believers why there is just as much objective evidence for an IPU as there is for their God. Right? I first took my stance from responding to these posts: > [@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? Replace Tree with IPU. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It is. It’s a perfectly valid analogy; an invisible pink unicorn is no more absurd than God; less so, if anything. That’s the point of using such an impossibility as an invisible pink unicorn; if it’s reasonable to believe in something as absurd as God, then why _not_ believe in the IPU? Except believers obviously don’t use objective evidence to justify their belief(to themselves). They use their deep spiritual relationship with God, whom has no more definition than a humanoid being that is all-powerful. How is anyone in this day and age, no matter how old you have to say the IPU is, supposed to pray to and try and expect a unicorn to show them solutions to their problems? God has no form more than being humanoid, and for most Christians has no form at all. Here is the actual definition of what Ganesha looks like as it is translated into English. > [@](#): > > The physical appearance of Lord Ganesh is described in the Ganapati Upanishad (11-14). > > "He has only one tusk but four arms. Two of the hands hold a noose and a goad. The two other hands display the varada don mudrâ hand gesture > symbolizing a divine power, which grants boons, and the abhaya without fear mudrâ, which dismisses fear from the devotee. > > He is escorted by a mouse or a rat. He is red in color and fat-bellied; his ears have the form of winniwing-baskets. He is red dressed and all is limbs are covered with red sandal paste. One worships Him with red flowers. Unfailing, charitable, He is the Origin of the Universe. He manifests Himself, at the very beginning of the Creation, alone, before the manifested world, before the Cosmic Consciousness (Purusha) The Purusha, the > the Supreme Consciousness ". You will probably have more questions, but I’m rushing the end of this and will have to answer in later posts. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/253 "2014-01-11T23:00:52Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . I see you still haven’t read the other portions of the thread. . . . It is a violation of the rules to call another member a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/254 "2014-01-11T23:25:19Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I was wondering when somebody would refer to the golden calf. Same as I said up-post. People don’t maintain a spiritual relationship or pray to a golden calf anywhere near the way they do to God, if at all for that matter. So this is a moot point. Not to mention the fact that we are talking about modern beliefs. Not sure how you would know that if you’ve never met one personally. I never have, but have watched some PBS shows, and Hindu’s seem to have a strong reverence to a lot of animals, including rats. Gandhi had a very strong reverence for cows. I don’t recall the discussion being limited to modern beliefs until just now, but you’re aware of Christianity’s early beginnings? Onolatry is the worship of a donkey. Christians were being accused of this as well as Jews. And it’s unclear how widespread this was, but others ridiculed believers with it. I believe the earliest known drawing of Jesus is with the head of a donkey in the form of a caricature. There are a few earlier church fathers writing about the donkey head diety with a human body. Tertullian responds to the criticism on several occasions, here is one such time: > [@](#): > > _There is now a new rumor about our God going the rounds. Recently a most depraved individual from Rome, your city, had defected from his own faith and allowed his skin to be shredded by wild beasts. Every day he would hire himself out for viewing while his skin was stripped. He would carry around a picture directed against us with the heading “Onocoetes,” meaning Donkey Priest. It was a picture of a man wearing a toga and the ears of the donkey with a book in hand and one leg ending in a hoof. And the crowd believed this Jewish man. Who else plants the seed of our infamous reputation? As a result the whole city is talking about the Donkey Priest. Since this rumor has been around since yesterday, it lacks any authority of time and is compromised by the character of its author. I shall now gladly use it to refute your charges. > Let us have a look if you are caught up with us in the same folly. If the image we cherish is a freak, it doesn’t really matter what kind of freak. You have gods with the head of a dog, the head a lion, the horns of a cow, a ram, or a horny-headed goat. You have goat-form gods, snake-form gods, gods with winged feet, not to mention wings growing out of the brow and out of the back. Many a donkey priest is lurking in your midst. (Tertullian, Ad Nationes I:XIV)_ > [@](#): > > This is a little different, but I was reading something about everyday people getting into fist fights, and it showed that the person who thinks they are going to win almost certainly does, and not for any obvious logical reason. And when both fighters think they are going to win? Just threw that one in for some levity. 🙂 ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/255 "2014-01-11T23:53:09Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > . . . Onolatry is the worship of a donkey. Christians were being accused of this as well as Jews. . . . Interesting… This helps put into context a slander that Isaac Asimov (I believe) reported on. When Pompey the Great shoved his way into the Temple at Jerusalem, and gazed upon the Holy of Holies, some said that it contained the head (or skull) of a donkey. I hadn’t known this was a more systematic and commonplace slur against the two faiths. ---
**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 12, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/256 "2014-01-12T02:30:22Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > This seems to be noting a certain mental weakness you’re attributing to believers. It sounds like an inherent problem, not one that will be better if a person is a believer or not. > > Your notion of how much faith she puts into ‘healing’ is just guess-work. She made a deal with God, and he backed up his end of the deal to ascertain her belief.(in her mind) Why would she expect him to grant every single wish? If somebody does believe that, then I can understand how that might be unhealthy, and how a person would become embittered over time. The thing is, what your saying has to do with people using god in a way that he is not meant to be used for. Most Christians I know, don’t feel anything like the way you have described. > Sure, but most Christians don’t believe that God is a genie who grants all of their wishes and makes their friends never die. If they do, that is a flaw in their own understanding, and probably a flaw with their psyche in general. Well, since the book has the following advice - [QUOTE=Mathew 17:20] He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=John 15:7] If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [/QUOTE] So - its right in the handbook that “god is a genie” and all you have to do is have a little faith. Now - beyond that - you keep using your mother as an example - which is making this thread just a bit to personal for you. This thread is not really about debating the pros/cons for a single individual - its about the more general notion of 'Faith, Religion… denial" - so - as I said in my followup post - for those that are able to maintain a balance between faith and reality - its not a problem - but there are plenty of examples that go the other way - that cannot keep that balance. As for “death” - it is the hope of seeing friends and family or fear of hell in the afterlife that is the ‘selling’ point of Christianity - it alone is enough to cause people to make really poor decisions - But make no mistake - it is a delusion, it is unhealthy (how unhealthy is an individual thing) and it could very well have long term negative affects. If you encourage the delusion (“in her mind” - which implies you don’t believe), then you’re not really helping her - you’re simply enabling her. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/257 "2014-01-12T13:40:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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.” 🙂 I have a friend who identifies as an atheist and is downright hostile about organized religion but, thinks there may be ghosts in his house. Clearly he entertains the idea of some afterlife. IMO we all have a belief system and some part of it is built on faith in the sense that we accept things that we haven’t personally tested. The questions, is there something after this life, does existance have a purpose other than survival and creating the next generation. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/258 "2014-01-12T14:24:03Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > My quarrel with the evidence of existence in other creatures, or an IPU, being equated to God, is that ordinary people don’t think of those creatures as being plausible or think of them as being significant at all for that matter. Many religious people communicate with God spiritually everyday and **feel** as though there is a genuine connection. That is their proof, not quantifiable but more proof than any of the alternatives you have suggested merit. IMO I think the IPU does address one aspect of belief. That is that “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is , by itself, a fallacy and failed argument for belief. The problem is that I can’t think of anyone who would claim " I believe in God because you can’t prove he dopesn’t exist" As you point out , there are many reasons for belief. I’d guess that indoctrination is high on the list, but for many their personal spiritual experiences lead hem to maintain belief. I’m a former Christian who has had some of those profound experiences , but my questioning has brought me to understand that they may have an explanation that is not other worldly. I reject a lot of the aspects and teachings of religion but accpet that it may be the right vehicle for some people and can lead to both positive and negative results. I tend to address the person and the specific belief rather than a blanket dissing. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/259 "2014-01-12T14:27:42Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I see you still haven’t read the other portions of the thread. Ganesha was already used as an example by **Quicksilver** many many posts ago. Ganesha is humanoid, sentient, and obviously capable of understanding human issues. What properties does a unicorn have that make it rationally capable, on a philosophical level, of having a relationship with a human being? NOTHING. You obviously don’t have a firm understanding of what my argument is at all. I have already basically agreed with the thought exercise that the IPU is meant to provide. My beef has been with post #12, how it sarcastically uses it to belittle a person of faith, and with the fact that an IPU is an inherently stupid analogy becaus it does not possess the same qualities(or spiritual evidence) that God has. No, what are YOU talking about? You assert that god’s mind is beyond human understanding, as are his powers. But you continue to anthropomophize your idea of god while hand-waving away all the other ideas as not being worthy by flatly stating that “obviously” a hybrid looking deity is capable of relating to humans while a unicorn cannot possibly - because that would be phylosophically irrational. Finally, you state with absolute certainty that you have knowledge of the “qualities” of your idea of god. You have no evidence that supports any of your closely held convictions but you dismiss out hand or take offense at those that inconveniently call them into question. That’s a hard position to defend. But, because I’m a nice guy, I can help you with that. When in situations such as this, simply say, “I believe what I believe because I believe it.” It’s solipsistic and it won’t win any debates but it certainly serves to support your personal epistemological framework from further challenge. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > You should do stand-up… Well, your posts are proving to be excellent material. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/260 "2014-01-12T15:22:11Z")
I think, **YoungKusher** , most confusion here stems from that while you, fervently claim to be agnostic, you still are only agnostic about a certain explicit deity. Namely the Christian God. That is the image you keep holding in a special regard, and hold up as what ‘believers’ believe, while dismissing any other God ideas out of hand. You are basically doing the same special pleading as the Christian believer. I worship a tree… ‘Ridiculous!’ Replace the word ‘tree’ with Yaweh…‘What! How dare you compare _my_ God with other gods!’ Basically that is all that it is. Comparing two gods with each other. You are the one \*taking \*offense. The question itself is not offensive, it is simply “Why should I believe in this god and not this one?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=14)