# 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:** 14
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/261 "2014-01-12T15:34:09Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Not to a reasoned mind - the proof you suggest is subjective and ‘irrational’ as it cannot be arrived at thru reasoned manners - secondly - since there is so much division in what qualifies as “connection with god” and or the “message” or who gets what prayers answered - its all to ‘random’ to be valid scientifically. Who said it was scientific? It’s just human and understandable. Furthermore, how many people actually live their day to day life analyzing the facets of their life in a scientific manner? When I read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” I completely agreed with his attititude of , religious beliefs do not deserve special status and need to compete on the same level as other ideas, concepts and philosophies. It often seems to me that some nonbelievers who seem to have some axe to grind against religion and god belief don’t put religious faith on an equal setting but treat it as if it is a far more egregious offense than other concepts. IMO, the human condition has common traits shared by all. Every person has a belief system that may be part genetic , part enviornment, part personal experience and choice. We are intellect and emotion so our belief system reflects both of those aspects of our humanity. What cracks me up is seeing non believers asserting thier personal belief system, that cannot be established as factual, as fact, while mocking and deriding other people for doing the same thing. It’s wonderfully ironic. > [@](#): > > IOW - its delusional and its unhealthy in the long term - and here’s a good example. This is only your opinion and nothing more since you cannot demonstrate it to be factual. > [@](#): > > Why is it that the believers in “God” get special privilege for evidence for this “being”, when they themselves won’t accept my version of invisible creatures? > > Maybe GOD DID come to me in the guise of an IPU - who are _ **you** _ to say my perception is any less valid? This is no argument. No believer is stopping you from worshipping IPU if you choose to. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/262 "2014-01-12T16:22:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Take the Mormon faith, as one example: it was made up just under 200 years ago. Or take Christian Science, which was made up around 140 years ago. > > In their very first years, each was every bit as absurd as the IPU. Today, they are major denominations with tens of millions of followers. Or scientology > [@](#): > > Exactly; and this is where I make my break from **Der Trihs**. In my opinion, such coping mechanisms are either not harmful at all, or so very little harmful that it is pointless for me to combat them. > > If even the great skeptic and above-average philosopher Martin Gardner could hold a personal religious faith because it helped him deal emotionally with the world’s pain, who are we to deny the anodyne of religious faith to anyone? > > If they’ll leave us alone, we’ll leave them alone. > > Using taxpayer money to put crosses on hilltops is not leaving us alone. conflicts are bound to arise. for those individuals who quietly practice thier faith and extend compassion and a helping hand to others , why would we harrass them with “your belief is stupid” For those who want to impose thier personal beliefs on others through the law or in other ways, expect to be challanged. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/263 "2014-01-12T16:47:26Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Voyager](#): > > If we are talking about the existence of god - any god - we need to understand where the understanding of god comes from. If we start with a blank slate, we need to ask how do we know anything about god? Good point. Looking at history we can certainly see god or gods as an attempt to explain what was beyond our knowledge. We also see religion being used as a tool to control societies. When I read Leviticus it seemed so obvious that what happened was , advising people to wash their hands to prevent sickness wasn’t working as just good advice, but if GOD said don’t do it, that’s different. I do think the questions of “Is there something more beyond this limited life?” and “does our life have a purpose beyond simple survival and procreation” do and would persist no matter the form of expression. SSince we simply can’t answer the question of “does something of us continue after our bodies fail?” I prefer to address specific aspects of religious belief rather than just belief itself. > [@](#): > > 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. Or it means mankind has had and still has limited knowledge and is striving to understand. Beliefs change as our overall understanding changes. > [@](#): > > 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? The same one. Does God interact within time or is do we simply percieve the interaction that way? If time is only our perception than the argument fails for the reason I mentioned. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/264 "2014-01-12T17:02:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The problem with this is that many people make the jump from some God existing to their specific type of God existing. If everyone was perfectly rational some subset of people would not believe in any god, and some other subset would believe in a spiritual god who is not concerned with our sex lives. And all would be fine. In such a world atheists would not be arguing. > Well, there might be some arguing, but it would be on the level of favorite ice cream flavors. As it stands, I wouldn’t care about religious tradition except to the extent that it decreases the freedom of others. I’m not proposing we not challange the specifics of dogma that affect society in a negative way. I find the belief that the Bible {or any book} should have some kind of divine authority over us to be harmful so I gladly challange that specific belief. People are free to follow thier own belief system , until it conflicts with others and then we have to find a way , a common language, to work out the solutions, based on facts and principles rather than traditions. IOW, believers have to understand that when they come to the public table of discussion they have no divine authority to cite. They must make thier arguments in another , far more reasonable and compelling way. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/265 "2014-01-12T17:19:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Who said it was scientific? It’s just human and understandable. Furthermore, how many people actually live their day to day life analyzing the facets of their life in a scientific manner? > > When I read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” I completely agreed with his attititude of , religious beliefs do not deserve special status and need to compete on the same level as other ideas, concepts and philosophies. > It often seems to me that some nonbelievers who seem to have some axe to grind against religion and god belief don’t put religious faith on an equal setting but treat it as if it is a far more egregious offense than other concepts. > IMO, the human condition has common traits shared by all. Every person has a belief system that may be part genetic , part enviornment, part personal experience and choice. We are intellect and emotion so our belief system reflects both of those aspects of our humanity. > > What cracks me up is seeing non believers asserting thier personal belief system, that cannot be established as factual, as fact, while mocking and deriding other people for doing the same thing. It’s wonderfully ironic. > > and here’s a good example. This is only your opinion and nothing more since you cannot demonstrate it to be factual. > > This is no argument. No believer is stopping you from worshipping IPU if you choose to. My ‘belief system’, such as it is, does not require belief or devotion to ‘supernatural’ entities. As I already stated - there are a number of believers that are able to balance their faith and reality in a healthy manner - to them I say “god speed” - but that does not make them any less delusional when it comes to belief in the supernatural. It is the ones that cannot maintain that balance that the delusions become decidedly unhealthy - taken far enough, they fall prey to ‘faith healers’ and other charlatans which will undoubtedly cost them in many ways. These same delusions are the reasons for many wars, killings, etc. Perhaps you need a definition of what delusional is? How can maintaining any delusion - no matter if it is harmless or not - be “healthy” in the long term? There are plenty of examples of believers in ‘god’ going to war to stop believers in ‘other gods’ - therefore your last statement is demonstrably incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/266 "2014-01-12T23:05:54Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > . . . What cracks me up is seeing non believers asserting thier personal belief system, that cannot be established as factual, as fact, while mocking and deriding other people for doing the same thing. It’s wonderfully ironic. . . . Oops! Has anyone been doing that in this thread? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > . . . conflicts are bound to arise. for those individuals who quietly practice thier faith and extend compassion and a helping hand to others , why would we harrass them with “your belief is stupid” For those who want to impose thier personal beliefs on others through the law or in other ways, expect to be challanged. Exactly. It doesn’t matter a hang to me if people hold that God is One, or Three, or Three-in-One. It’s when they try to prevent churches from other denominations from being built, using (misusing!) the power of zoning laws, that I start to get cranky. Believe anything you want…so long as you don’t intrude into the rights of others. I specifically accept the right of others to say nearly anything they want, even about me. (“You’re a non-believer? You will burn in hell forever!”) While that is rather offensive speech, it needs to be protected as free speech. Neither I, nor the Christian faithful, have the right to prevent others from saying things that might be felt to be offensive. “You’ll go to hell” is protected, and so is, “Your Invisible Pink Unicorn.” I reject any governmental power that can prohibit either of these stated concepts. ---
**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 13, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/267 "2014-01-13T01:08:42Z")
[quote=“cosmosdan, post:263, topic:677713”] > [@](#): > > Good point. Looking at history we can certainly see god or gods as an attempt to explain what was beyond our knowledge. We also see religion being used as a tool to control societies. When I read Leviticus it seemed so obvious that what happened was , advising people to wash their hands to prevent sickness wasn’t working as just good advice, but if GOD said don’t do it, that’s different. That’s the model of the rational and sneaky priest. But God belief could have been started just as easily by psychotic members of a community who saw things the others did not, and were quite convincing about it. And for every religious dictate that turned out to be useful there are five which are useless or worse. We don’t know. > [@](#): > > I do think the questions of “Is there something more beyond this limited life?” and “does our life have a purpose beyond simple survival and procreation” > do and would persist no matter the form of expression. SSince we simply can’t answer the question of “does something of us continue after our bodies fail?” I prefer to address specific aspects of religious belief rather than just belief itself. It is the easiest thing in the world to imagine we go on after death - sometimes we imagine ourselves extending before birth also. We can’t prove we don’t continue to exist - but given billions of opportunities for contact, and no evidence, and the scientific evidence of where our minds come from, we’re about the same level of confidence for the nonexistence of god. > [@](#): > > Or it means mankind has had and still has limited knowledge and is striving to understand. Beliefs change as our overall understanding changes. It means exactly that, since mankind is responsible for all this stuff. If a god were, it would be very different. And another question: if there were a real god, who interacted with man, why did he not do so all over the world, and why did he not do so from the beginning of recorded history? What we see of our understanding of god and gods is consistent with it being a story arising from a single point, not a real thing. Each tribe had a different explanation for the sun rising - but they all had the same sun. > [@](#): > > The same one. Does God interact within time or is do we simply percieve the interaction that way? If time is only our perception than the argument fails for the reason I mentioned. I’m talking from the viewpoint of god, not us. ---
**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 13, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/268 "2014-01-13T01:20:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not proposing we not challange the specifics of dogma that affect society in a negative way. > I find the belief that the Bible {or any book} should have some kind of divine authority over us to be harmful so I gladly challange that specific belief. People are free to follow thier own belief system , until it conflicts with others and then we have to find a way , a common language, to work out the solutions, based on facts and principles rather than traditions. IOW, believers have to understand that when they come to the public table of discussion they have no divine authority to cite. They must make thier arguments in another , far more reasonable and compelling way. That was the pre-Christian world. Religions were satisfied with making rules for their adherents, and thought that their god(s) didn’t really care what others did. Some of those who thought it good to force conversion did so out of a since conviction that it was for the best for those people, and some did it out of power, but the result was the same. This spread quite nicely to making rules for all, not just the believers. Which book was believed in didn’t matter much. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/269 "2014-01-13T02:02:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It is a violation of the rules to call another member a liar. Sry, I just assumed that if you had read all of the comments, you would have retained the information necessary to not repeat the same point that someone else already made, as if it is somehow new. I did what you asked of me by making my point, and I also addressed your points. Is this all you have to say on the matter now? I’m a fairly reasonable person, and I think this discussion is productive for gaining new knowledge and/or perspectives, so I’d appreciate a response. > [@razncain](#): > > 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. Yes, but ‘strong reverence’ doesn’t compare to what people have for the Christian God. Just because something is sacred, does’t mean they are entertaining a relationship with it. Also, the golden calf in Hinduism called Kamadhenu, is said to have the face of a beautiful woman and is the God of desire. Certainly a beautiful woman would be easy for someone to believe that she knows a thing or two about desire. Again, easy to relate to, unlike an IPU. > [@](#): > > 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: Again, this donkey God is human-like making it easy to relate to. In fact, I believe all of the Gods referred to by Tertullian are human-like. And if the discussion isn’t directly related to modern beliefs, then what validity does it have when were talking about modern people’s health, and whether or not the delusion is unhealthy for the human mind? The possibility that it may be unhealthy is only valid if the person has a working knowledge of the science and history that shows their religion is false. If they are ignorant, there is no foundational paradox to their belief system, which has been implied is the culprit for an unhealthy ‘believing’ mind. In past ages, it was accepted that God was real because there was no big reason to believe otherwise. So there is in turn, no psychological health issues caused, because you are not contradicting any other knowledge. At this point you guys are just trying to present highly unlikely hypothetical situations where the IPU might be a valid point. You guys are forgetting that the original IPU argument/logic exercise was specifically referring to the Christian God and the fact that I agree with the point itself, just not the IPU. If you want to go tell a Hindu that the cow-like God of desire Kamadhenu is akin to believing in an IPU, then go for it. Even though it’s still arguable unless you specify that the IPU is a lesser deity in a polytheistic religion, and can somehow get the Hindu to go along with the idea of an IPU. I cannot believe someone hasn’t just changed the IPU to an “invible pink centaur,” in that case, it’s perfectly reasonable to go make the point to a Hindu. My original point before all these side points started popping up is that the IPU is ridiculous when compared to the Christian God. It is derogatory in nature, and NOT some pleasant thought exercise designed to get people to realize that the religious notion of god is ridiculous, like some have been claiming it is. > [@](#): > > And when both fighters think they are going to win? Just threw that one in for some levity. 🙂 Whichever one believes more truly lol > [@simster](#): > > Well, since the book has the following advice - > > So - its right in the handbook that “god is a genie” and all you have to do is have a little faith. Well it’s taught with a rational approach, or the problem of people defecting would be a lot more prevalent. People of faith don’t generally think of God as a genie. And just to be clear, this conversation has to refer to the majority of Christians, not some extremist version. Otherwise the point is obvious that the person is flawed, not the religion they use to justify their actions. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree, this debate is essentially about whether religion causes more harm than good on a personal psychological level, as specified by the **cmyk** in the OP and post #192. There are some on here, not you, that are claiming it is an obvious health hazard and a danger to have religion no matter what. I brought up my mother to point out the obvious, that religion can’t possibly only generate negatives. > [@](#): > > 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 - Poor decisions on a practical level maybe, but the quality of life is in the eyes of the beholder, so if they believe they are doing the right thing, then that’s all that matters. They aren’t hurting anyone or doing unhealthy things in that case. You are generalizing when you should be addressing a specific branch of people. What poor decision making are all ‘believers’ victims of? Also, on a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that there is not an afterlife, in fact there is evidence that suggests there is something after life. At least in the form of the brain becoming highly active after the heart stops, and possibly creating the effect of an afterlife. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/surge-of-brain-activity-may-explain-near-death-experience-study-says/2013/08/12/47026016-0105-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/surge-of-brain-activity-may-explain-near-death-experience-study-says/2013/08/12/47026016-0105-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html) Up until this study a few months ago, it appeared to many that there was in fact an afterlife where they were able to see all things simultaneously past, present , and future. Interesting how science is still making discoveries about something like this with all of modern day science’s technology. > [@](#): > > 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. I absolutely agree it’s a delusion, but that alone does not make it unhealthy. “Could very well have long term negative affects” could be said about any number of things people do everyday. Not to mention that they do those things knowing full well it ‘could be bad.’ ‘Believers’ certainly don’t know(or believe at least) anything about their religion being a ‘bad habit.’ People delude themselves virtually every waking moment of their life regardless of religious virtues. You might as well say people need to be stripped of all individual thought and think in one precise manner, to one precise goal. Communism anyone? Just a joke, not saying you’re promoting communism. Point is, there are myriad other delusions that everyone suffers from everyday, is everybody psychologically unhealthy because of it? No, they are not. They might be unhealthy compared to some future evolved standard of perfection, but were doin the best we can with what we got right now. > [@](#): > > 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. Well it’s the lesser of two evils. She started out a non-believer then became devout. How on Earth am I supposed to tell her the last 15 years of her belief have been under false pretenses and that she actually devolved by becoming a ‘believer’? I’d rather enable and keep the peace. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. I pretty much agree with this. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > 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. I don’t claim to have knowledge of the qualities of God. I simply have an idea of some characteristics that God would certainly have to have to be God. Those ideas are not limited to the way I choose to describe them. They are more accurately just an interpretation of mine. Are there demi-gods and omega-gods? I have no effin clue, but I think there would certainly be a “top dog” and that would be the god I’m referring to. > [@](#): > > 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. I haven’t been getting offended and I’m not dismissing any valid points. The only points I’ve dismissed have been ridiculous overstatements, or very specific and nearly irrelevant points. What closely held convictions are there that I’ve shared that need supporting evidence? > [@](#): > > 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. I have said more than once that it is IMO that the IPU is an invalid argument, and is derogatory to believers, at least in the way it is presented in post #12. I’ve yet to see someone post a version of the IPU point that is not derogatory. And my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. If it was scientifically proven that faith was an unhealthy thing to have, I would back down, but until then, I’m going to question the shit out of anyone claiming such a thing. This is good advice in general though, thank you. And if it’s worth anything at all, you have the honor of being the first person I’ve ever seen use the word “solipsistic” or refer to solipsism in general, ever. > [@Latro](#): > > 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. Let it be known that I think the notion of the Christian God existing in all of it’s detail is absolute bullshit. I am not dismissing other God ideas in general, only in relevance to the point I was making. > [@](#): > > 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!’ Isn’t Yaweh Jesus’ actual name anyways? > [@](#): > > 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?” I’M not taking offense specifically. I’m saying that the IPU is derogatory in nature to believers. I have already agreed that the point of the IPU is valid, but the delivery method is less than savory. This is my original point: do you really think that it is a productive way to ask a believer, “Why should I believe in this god and not this one?” by saying this: > [@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? You could simply ask “why your God and not a Hindu God?” if that is the only point you want to make. Why do it like this?^^^ It’s not special pleading for a believer to ask an atheist to not be a jackass about it in a discussion that is supposed to be productive. > [@simster](#): > > How can maintaining any delusion - no matter if it is harmless or not - be “healthy” in the long term? Using this train of thought, every person on Earth is guilty of being unhealthy, because everyone is delusional in their own way. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/270 "2014-01-13T02:10:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m talking from the viewpoint of god, not us. So you’re proposing to bottle up something that is infinite into a human’s perspective to show that it’s wrong? Doesn’t this only suggest that the human perspective is wrong? Not the logic of said Omniscient and Omnipotent being? Also, you never did respond to my most recent argument to eliminate the sparrow paradox. ---
**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 13, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/271 "2014-01-13T02:15:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The same one. Does God interact within time or is do we simply percieve the interaction that way? If time is only our perception than the argument fails for the reason I mentioned. More about this. Say God is outside of time, that is, he sees all of eternity as one moment. Then he sees exactly what has been done as you see all that happens in a novel by flipping through its pages, not constrained by reading it in sequence. No problem, right? God, being omnipotent can write the novel of the universe any way he wants, unconstrained by laws, just as I can write a novel any way I want. But I can revise. If God see it all, it is like the novel has been published and then even I, as the omnipotent author, can’t change anything. I’m not longer omnipotent then, I’m constrained by the words on the page. If he revises, then his knowledge of what was on page 47 is no longer correct, and he is no longer omnipotent. And if he switches back - it is infinite loops all the way down. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/272 "2014-01-13T02:26:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > More about this. Say God is outside of time, that is, he sees all of eternity as one moment. Then he sees exactly what has been done as you see all that happens in a novel by flipping through its pages, not constrained by reading it in sequence. > No problem, right? God, being omnipotent can write the novel of the universe any way he wants, unconstrained by laws, just as I can write a novel any way I want. > > But I can revise. If God see it all, it is like the novel has been published and then even I, as the omnipotent author, can’t change anything. I’m not longer omnipotent then, I’m constrained by the words on the page. If he revises, then his knowledge of what was on page 47 is no longer correct, and he is no longer omnipotent. And if he switches back - it is infinite loops all the way down. Yes, but this book would be written outside of time right? So it would essentially just come into existence. So this divine author may change something that has been written on page 47, but on page 100, he has already acknowledged that he will edit the book before he actually does it. This being would have to write the book and exist in the book at the same time, therefore making any change not part of some sequence, but part of one infinite moment. This is perfectly within the realm of omniscience and omnipotence. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/273 "2014-01-13T02:55:38Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Sry, I just assumed that if you had read all of the comments, you would have retained the information necessary to not repeat the same point that someone else already made, as if it is somehow new. Saying, “You may have overlooked a point made earlier” is valid. Saying, “You didn’t actually read the thread,” after I have told you I have done so, is not valid. > [@](#): > > . . . I’m a fairly reasonable person, and I think this discussion is productive for gaining new knowledge and/or perspectives, so I’d appreciate a response. You may be a reasonable person, but your points and claims are, unfortunately, not reasonable ones. I will respond, but the obvious fact is that we disagree, at a very basic level. > [@](#): > > Yes, but ‘strong reverence’ doesn’t compare to what people have for the Christian God. Just because something is sacred, does’t mean they are entertaining a relationship with it. Also, the golden calf in Hinduism called Kamadhenu, is said to have the face of a beautiful woman and is the God of desire. Certainly a beautiful woman would be easy for someone to believe that she knows a thing or two about desire. Again, easy to relate to, unlike an IPU. Strong reverence is the most that anyone has for the Christian God. People may believe they have a “personal relationship” with it, but I am not bound to accept that. > [@](#): > > . . . My original point before all these side points started popping up is that the IPU is ridiculous when compared to the Christian God. The point of the IPU is that the Christian God is also ridiculous. > [@](#): > > It is derogatory in nature, and NOT some pleasant thought exercise designed to get people to realize that the religious notion of god is ridiculous, like some have been claiming it is. This is your opinion. Others here, myself included, disagree. The IPU is a pleasant thought exercise, spotlighting the absurdity of all faith-based claims. > [@](#): > > . . . Also, on a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that there is not an afterlife, in fact there is evidence that suggests there is something after life. . . . Disagree. No evidence has ever been presented that is in any way meaningful. There are the images and hallucinations of people with near-death experiences. There are claims of reincarnated persons having memories of their past lives, but these have never passed muster. > [@](#): > > Up until this study a few months ago, it appeared to many that there was in fact an afterlife where they were able to see all things simultaneously past, present , and future. Interesting how science is still making discoveries about something like this with all of modern day science’s technology. Why has no-one having such visions reported actual future events? If they could see “all things,” then they should be able to see next weeks lottery winners. > [@](#): > > . . . People delude themselves virtually every waking moment of their life regardless of religious virtues. You might as well say people need to be stripped of all individual thought and think in one precise manner, to one precise goal. Communism anyone? Agreed. The human mind is a messy place, filled with unconscious motivations, emotional digressions, flawed memories, and mistaken assessments. > [@](#): > > . . . I don’t claim to have knowledge of the qualities of God. I simply have an idea of some characteristics that God would certainly have to have to be God. Those ideas are not limited to the way I choose to describe them. They are more accurately just an interpretation of mine. Then you can’t object too strongly that others of us have other interpretations, including “He isn’t there at all.” > [@](#): > > I haven’t been getting offended and I’m not dismissing any valid points. The only points I’ve dismissed have been ridiculous overstatements, or very specific and nearly irrelevant points. Once more, I exercise my freedom to disagree with this. You have tried to carve out regions of exceptionalism for Christianity, and then to use those exercises as foundations for further claims. The IPU exists to demolish that kind of reasoning. > [@](#): > > I have said more than once that it is IMO that the IPU is an invalid argument, and is derogatory to believers, at least in the way it is presented in post #12. I’ve yet to see someone post a version of the IPU point that is not derogatory. Again, I disagree. You’re taking, “Your opinion is wrong” as derogatory. That’s bad rhetoric. It’s assuming an exalted status for your opinions. It’s declaring yourself above disagreement and demanding that your opinions be revered. The fact that the IPU offends you is, in itself, a big part of your problem here. > [@](#): > > . . . Let it be known that I think the notion of the Christian God existing in all of it’s detail is absolute bullshit. And the IPU is also absolute bullshit. And for very much the same reasons. > [@](#): > > . . . Isn’t Yaweh Jesus’ actual name anyways? No. Yeshua or Y’sua or variants thereon. “Joshua.” Yaweh or Yahweh or Yhwh or variants thereon are the names of God. > [@](#): > > This is my original point: do you really think that it is a productive way to ask a believer, “Why should I believe in this god and not this one?” by saying this . . . > > You could simply ask “why your God and not a Hindu God?” if that is the only point you want to make. Why do it like this? If you could actually answer that question, you would be in a much stronger rhetorical position. (Formatting notes: the matters you quoted in the above quote did not filter down into this post.) > [@](#): > > It’s not special pleading for a believer to ask an atheist to not be a jackass about it in a discussion that is supposed to be productive. It is special pleading insofar as you cannot define how the IPU is “jackassery.” It’s aggressive, I agree. But since the exact same function could be fulfilled by invoking Odin or Zeus, then that would also have to fall under the same condemnation, as “jackassery,” since it raises a question that has not yet been answered. The IPU is intended to be less offensive, by staying away from Odin and Zeus, deities that actually are believed in by some. Since no one actually believes in the IPU (that I’ve ever known of) it has the virtue of abstraction. It hurts your feelings exactly as much as Odin and Zeus do, without hurting the feelings of Odinists and Zeusists. Is “Russell’s Teapot” derogatory? > [@](#): > > Using this train of thought, every person on Earth is guilty of being unhealthy, because everyone is delusional in their own way. To the degree that their delusions diminish their quality of life, and the quality of life of others around them, yes, delusion is unhealthy. Vaccination opponents are, perhaps, the best (and worst) possible example of this. The delusion that “God loves us” is a fairly harmless one. The delusion that “I can’t be physically harmed because God watches over me” is a very, very harmful one, and has done vast hurt (Christian Science) in this world. ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/274 "2014-01-13T04:30:59Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Yes, but this book would be written outside of time right? So it would essentially just come into existence. So this divine author may change something that has been written on page 47, but on page 100, he has already acknowledged that he will edit the book before he actually does it. This being would have to write the book and exist in the book at the same time, therefore making any change not part of some sequence, but part of one infinite moment. This is perfectly within the realm of omniscience and omnipotence. Why would an omniscient god need to make edits? > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Well it’s taught with a rational approach, or the problem of people defecting would be a lot more prevalent. People of faith don’t generally think of God as a genie. > > And just to be clear, this conversation has to refer to the majority of Christians, not some extremist version. Otherwise the point is obvious that the person is flawed, not the religion they use to justify their actions. Thy myraids of ‘prayer’ requests for god to heal person X, stop hurricane Y, grant Z a job, help someone else do something else - etc and so on - say that you are entirely incorrect here. Maybe you’re own experience is with a more ‘reasonable’ church. Many of your other comments show that you have little real world knowledge here. (No animal gods, Yahweh = Jesus, etc) Facebook and even CNN are my cite for these near constant requests for God to be a genie. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Also, on a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that there is not an afterlife, in fact there is evidence that suggests there is something after life. At least in the form of the brain becoming highly active after the heart stops, and possibly creating the effect of an afterlife. > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/surge-of-brain-activity-may-explain-near-death-experience-study-says/2013/08/12/47026016-0105-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/surge-of-brain-activity-may-explain-near-death-experience-study-says/2013/08/12/47026016-0105-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html) > > Up until this study a few months ago, it appeared to many that there was in fact an afterlife where they were able to see all things simultaneously past, present , and future. Interesting how science is still making discoveries about something like this with all of modern day science’s technology. Way to entirely misread an article - the article is specifically talking about finding the potential cause for “near death experiences” - it has zero to do with “the afterlife” - and where are these “future” events you talk about? > [@YoungKusher](#): > > I absolutely agree it’s a delusion, but that alone does not make it unhealthy. “Could very well have long term negative affects” could be said about any number of things people do everyday. Not to mention that they do those things knowing full well it ‘could be bad.’ ‘Believers’ certainly don’t know(or believe at least) anything about their religion being a ‘bad habit.’ > > People delude themselves virtually every waking moment of their life regardless of religious virtues. You might as well say people need to be stripped of all individual thought and think in one precise manner, to one precise goal. Communism anyone? Just a joke, not saying you’re promoting communism. Point is, there are myriad other delusions that everyone suffers from everyday, is everybody psychologically unhealthy because of it? No, they are not. They might be unhealthy compared to some future evolved standard of perfection, but were doin the best we can with what we got right now. Concrete examples of how people delude themselves “virtually every waking moment of their lives” - otherwise, drop the hyperbole. Why is individual thought a delusion? Why does exposing delusional thoughts equal “communism” - way off base here. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Well it’s the lesser of two evils. She started out a non-believer then became devout. How on Earth am I supposed to tell her the last 15 years of her belief have been under false pretenses and that she actually devolved by becoming a ‘believer’? ‘Devolved’ ? She made a deal with “God” - its time she learned that she really made the deal with herself - Its a common thing people do when they are breaking an addiction, and as they grow - they should be able to come to terms with that. She has “devolved” in the sense that she’s giving up her responsibility and success by granting it to “god” instead of congratulating herself for the strength, courage and conviction it took. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > I’d rather enable and keep the peace. Said by the friends and family of every alcoholic or other type of addict - it’s not a good thing. And yes - religion and faith can very much be an addiction - and it can consume ones life in much the same way. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Using this train of thought, every person on Earth is guilty of being unhealthy, because everyone is delusional in their own way. I’d like a few concrete examples of delusions that “non-believers” commonly hold that compare with religious delusions - I would also counter that as compared to the religious delusions, if I am confronted with an obvious delusion - I am free to change my mind without any fear of repercussions. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/275 "2014-01-13T04:41:18Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Again, this donkey God is human-like making it easy to relate to. You really think so? I can’t fathom believers finding it easy to relate to myself, but think it would be amusing for a church member to wear a donkey head to services on a Sunday Easter when he came to play Jesus in the local play. If they can accept this, I hardly think they should feign injury with the IPU and it cause them any concern. > [@](#): > > And if the discussion isn’t directly related to modern beliefs, then what validity does it have when were talking about modern people’s health, and whether or not the delusion is unhealthy for the human mind? The fact that there are still many worshipping these antiquated beliefs today is difficult for me to relate to it as modern beliefs since all of the major popular religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) are from antiquity. You’ve mentioned it can give them a placebo effect. What about those who believe that there is also an eternal fiery Hell after some pass with this life? Think that might have a nocebo effect? Depression? Unhealthiness is going to depend how literally they want to take many of the verses, while ignoring other parts altogether or reinterpreting and spinning it in such a way that they or others speaking for them can make it say whatever their heart desires for it to say. For the Christian religion, do they have to hate their mom, dad, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even their own life before they come to Jesus to be his disciple? How healthy is that for someone to believe in? Do they want to take the ending in Mark literally by drinking poisons and picking up deadly snakes which isn’t supposed to harm them if they have faith in Jesus? Do they truly believe they should give no thought for tomorrow? How do you feel about the scriptures in Matthew which caused many a believer to lose body parts, including self-castration? Origen took those scriptures to mean just that. > [@](#): > > My original point before all these side points started popping up is that the IPU is ridiculous when compared to the Christian God. It is derogatory in nature, and NOT some pleasant thought exercise designed to get people to realize that the religious notion of god is ridiculous, like some have been claiming it is. You find it derogatory and ridiculous to compare the IPU to the Christian God, but thinking nothing of a donkey headed Jesus saying Christians can relate to it because it still has some other human parts. Think Creation science and the young-earthers is another belief that really doesn’t cause any harm to anyone? If a group is getting a placebo effect from it, shall we let them go with this when they vote and when many want it taught in our schools? Science writers are up against a great deal when textbooks talk about evolution and they go up for many school board reviews, often having to rewrite parts, or be pressured into putting disclaimers in it. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/276 "2014-01-13T04:45:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Saying, “You may have overlooked a point made earlier” is valid. Saying, “You didn’t actually read the thread,” after I have told you I have done so, is not valid. Again, my apologies. I was a little heated from some other comments made by another poster which caused me to react the way I did. > [@](#): > > You may be a reasonable person, but your points and claims are, unfortunately, not reasonable ones. I will respond, but the obvious fact is that we disagree, at a very basic level. What exactly is it that we disagree on? At the core of what I’m saying, I think that the IPU is not the most productive way to get a believer to see the ridiculousness of their faith. By saying otherwise you are condoning the act of being derogatory towards something personal in an attempt to enlighten. That’s a fundamental contradiction. How can someone take your point seriously when it is condescending in nature? > [@](#): > > Strong reverence is the most that anyone has for the Christian God. People may believe they have a “personal relationship” with it, but I am not bound to accept that. No you are not bound to accept that, but denying it is basically calling the believer a liar… We all know how productive that is in a debate. > [@](#): > > The point of the IPU is that the Christian God is also ridiculous. I understand that, but how is making someone feel stupid for believing productive? If the main goal is to make them psychologically healthier, as this topic dictates, then why would you make them feel ridiculous for holding such beliefs? > [@](#): > > This is your opinion. Others here, myself included, disagree. The IPU is a pleasant thought exercise, spotlighting the absurdity of all faith-based claims. That just depends on the context, whether you acknowledge it or not, the IPU is fundamentally flawed in doing what you claim it does. Why not just use a Hindu God instead of the IPU?(when talking to a Christian) That would bring things home a lot better than directly making them feel foolish. > [@](#): > > Disagree. No evidence has ever been presented that is in any way meaningful. There are the images and hallucinations of people with near-death experiences. There are claims of reincarnated persons having memories of their past lives, but these have never passed muster. You can’t really disagree with this on a logical basis. Once the heart stops you are clinically dead, once you are dead the brain continues neurological activity giving you an afterlife experience. This is believed just to be something the brain does in it’s last moments, not an afterlife in the sense of the divine. > [@](#): > > Why has no-one having such visions reported actual future events? If they could see “all things,” then they should be able to see next weeks lottery winners. Because they weren’t seeing the future, they were having a near death experience that is explained by science. > [@](#): > > Agreed. The human mind is a messy place, filled with unconscious motivations, emotional digressions, flawed memories, and mistaken assessments. Which is exactly why it’s wrong to blame someone’s unhealthy faith on the religion itself. In this day and age, it is more than likely at least 51% your fault if you’re delusionally unhealthy from your faith. It’s not the fact that you have faith that makes you psychologically unhealthy. > [@](#): > > Then you can’t object too strongly that others of us have other interpretations, including “He isn’t there at all.” I don’t object too strongly IMO. I just think you guys as atheists have rationalized the IPU into being okay because of your personal biases, when in fact it hasn’t been shown to be productive at all like it is claimed to be. I think it’s more of a joke meant to amuse atheists and make theists feel ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Once more, I exercise my freedom to disagree with this. You have tried to carve out regions of exceptionalism for Christianity, and then to use those exercises as foundations for further claims. The IPU exists to demolish that kind of reasoning. The context of Christianity was set before I ever started posting in this thread, other religions were only brought into this to attempt to prove one aspect of my point wrong. Have any of you ever actually used the IPU argument to someone who is not Christian? > [@](#): > > Again, I disagree. You’re taking, “Your opinion is wrong” as derogatory. That’s bad rhetoric. It’s assuming an exalted status for your opinions. It’s declaring yourself above disagreement and demanding that your opinions be revered. The fact that the IPU offends you is, in itself, a big part of your problem here. What?! That’s like saying “Learn how to drive you ridiculous idiot!” then saying “I just meant you should watch where your going, I wasn’t being an asshole, I didn’t mean to offend, what are you talking about?” The IPU does not say “Your opinion is wrong,” it says you are as foolish as a child, you might as well believe in Santa Clause, your delusional, and you might be stupid. If you want to say something like that, that’s fine, idc, but don’t act like your not being offensive. I’m not exalting my opinions, I just thought they were obvious to anyone whose not biased towards the issue. You already agreed that it’s an aggressive argument, why be aggressive unless your in an embittered debate already? There is no reason to aggressively pursue the demonstration of someone’s faith to be ridiculous, unless you have antagonistic motivations or you are using it as a defensive argument to get off the hot-seat. > [@](#): > > And the IPU is also absolute bullshit. And for very much the same reasons. I agree. But you aren’t doing anything pleasant by telling a believer that their lifelong faith in god is absolute bullshit. > [@](#): > > No. Yeshua or Y’sua or variants thereon. “Joshua.” Yaweh or Yahweh or Yhwh or variants thereon are the names of God. Ah. > [@](#): > > If you could actually answer that question, you would be in a much stronger rhetorical position. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, my point is subjective, but it’s also pretty obvious. If you can get through to a theist (better than other means) by breaking down their belief to the equivalent of believing in an IPU, without them thinking that you’re making fun of their belief, I would be surprised. It would take a lot of tact and understanding that isn’t embodied by the aggressive IPU standard. And I think it’s pretty much common sense that if you’re derogatory or condescending or aggressive while trying to make a point, your point isn’t going to be absorbed as well as if it was presented in a reasonable context. > [@](#): > > It is special pleading insofar as you cannot define how the IPU is “jackassery.” It’s aggressive, I agree. But since the exact same function could be fulfilled by invoking Odin or Zeus, then that would also have to fall under the same condemnation, as “jackassery,” since it raises a question that has not yet been answered. Odin and Zeus don’t fall under my definition of jackassery. Both of those would be valid substitutes for the IPU. I’m glad you at least agree that it’s aggressive, at least you can see what I’m getting at. > [@](#): > > The IPU is intended to be less offensive, by staying away from Odin and Zeus, deities that actually are believed in by some. Since no one actually believes in the IPU (that I’ve ever known of) it has the virtue of abstraction. It hurts your feelings exactly as much as Odin and Zeus do, without hurting the feelings of Odinists and Zeusists. I agree, it does have the virtue of abstraction, and it doesn’t hurt my feelings at all lol. The IPU is more likely to cause unnecessary up-rise in a discussion than it is to make a theist agree with you. Bottom line. And if your point is to disprove faith, then why would you care if believers of Greek and Norse mythology are compared with a God from a major religion? If they will get offended by being seen as unbelievable compared to the Christian God, then why wouldn’t Christians get offended when their God is compared to an IPU? You don’t make sense on this point. > [@](#): > > Is “Russell’s Teapot” derogatory? No because it doesn’t carry the same baggage as this subject does. That and a teapot doesn’t really imply anything. It seems absurd, but neutral. > [@](#): > > To the degree that their delusions diminish their quality of life, and the quality of life of others around them, yes, delusion is unhealthy. Vaccination opponents are, perhaps, the best (and worst) possible example of this. > > The delusion that “God loves us” is a fairly harmless one. The delusion that “I can’t be physically harmed because God watches over me” is a very, very harmful one, and has done vast hurt (Christian Science) in this world. Well I can’t speak for all forms of faith, but a third of the world is Christian, and I really don’t think the average Christian would believe something like that. I do agree on your definition of an unhealthy delusion, but there is nothing supporting the claim that faith is generally an unhealthy delusion. There are people who suffer unnecessarily for their faith, and there are those who are happier and healthier because of it. There is no reason to say that faith is generally more unhealthy to the psyche than being an atheist is. If you have an opinion on the matter, it is a biased one. ---
**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 13, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/277 "2014-01-13T04:59:04Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > There is no reason to say that faith is generally more unhealthy to the psyche than being an atheist is. Well - lets count the delusions - “Faith” == entirely based on believing things without evidence, belief in an afterlife, belief in the supernatural, sometimes to the extent of visible fear of “demons” and “Satan”, faith healing, at best, has a “placebo” affect on a persons ability to deal with stress, primarly by shoving that stress off thru prayer or having other people praying to the same invisible god for you and “waiting, hopeing” that “gods will” is done (in your favor, of course) and when it doesn’t go your way “well, god acts in mysterious ways” — “Atheist” = requires none of the above - hmmmm… ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/278 "2014-01-13T05:11:32Z")
**YoungKusher** - [QUOTE=YoungKusher] You might as well say people need to be stripped of all individual thought and think in one precise manner, to one precise goal. Communism anyone? [/QUOTE] The irony of this comment just hit me - when you consider that is exactly what the religions of the world attempt to do - they continually try to squash individual freedoms and thought, quick examples would be over birth control, what you read (Harry Potter book burning, anyone), Human Rights and freedoms (Gay/Lexbian marriage), and even exposure to ‘other’ religions. Don’t even get me started on what some sects of the muslim side tries to enforce - Within the Christian church there is so much division over what “the bible” says… its hilarious - I could actually find quotes from the bible that says this is the EXACT goal of the faith and religion. And you think this is “healthy”? ---
**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 13, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/279 "2014-01-13T05:20:53Z")
[QUOTE=YoungKusher] And if your point is to disprove faith, then why would you care if believers of Greek and Norse mythology are compared with a God from a major religion? If they will get offended by being seen as unbelievable compared to the Christian God, then why wouldn’t Christians get offended when their God is compared to an IPU? You don’t make sense on this point. [/QUOTE] You again miss the point - Christians by and large do not discount that people once believed in the Norse/Roman Gods - so by comparing the Christian God to one of these, the response is “we learned thhat there was only one true god - no one believes in those “myths” anymore.” (irony, there it is again) By using the IPU - its not now, nor has it ever been, considered “God” - so it is an illustration to point out that you cannot prove “non-existence” - which is usually how the IPU gets brought into the question - when the believer says “You cannot prove that GOD does not exist” - Its not about disproving “faith” - you cannot “disprove” something that requires no evidence to have - ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/280 "2014-01-13T06:18:14Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Why would an omniscient god need to make edits? So they could prove a point to **Voyager** when they asked them to change something. > [@](#): > > Thy myraids of ‘prayer’ requests for god to heal person X, stop hurricane Y, grant Z a job, help someone else do something else - etc and so on - say that you are entirely incorrect here It just shows they are rational to not expect every prayer to be answered. Why would a God allow people to be always happy or to always be good? How would people ever understand or appreciate anything if nothing was ever bad? People wouldn’t have a purpose if everything was good. When I was younger, I once asked the question, “Why did God make retarded people?” because I felt bad for them. I was answered with the reply, “So that people as a whole can learn from them. We can learn things about ourselves from the mentally handicapped that we might otherwise be ignorant to.” > [@](#): > > Maybe you’re own experience is with a more ‘reasonable’ church. Many of your other comments show that you have little real world knowledge here. I’m not ignoring the bad things that religious people do and religions have done throughout history. But I’ve made a different point about why God would grant some wishes and not others(so to speak). Simply put, it’s not necessary. > [@](#): > > Way to entirely misread an article - the article is specifically talking about finding the potential cause for “near death experiences” - it has zero to do with “the afterlife” - and where are these “future” events you talk about? Okay, a little of my comment required some understanding of what a lot of people have claimed to experience during an NDE. Not just what was in that article. I didn’t misread shit, and it was a side-note. Way to entirely misread my statement. Did you not catch this part of it? “there is evidence that suggests there is something[emphasis on “something”] after life. At least in the form of the brain becoming highly active after the heart stops, and possibly creating the effect of an afterlife.” The only reason this article was relevant to what I was saying is that it dismisses the supernatural idea of an afterlife in regards to peoples NDEs. My comment was actually some really dry humor, not some vast misinterpretation. > [@](#): > > Concrete examples of how people delude themselves “virtually every waking moment of their lives” - otherwise, drop the hyperbole. > [@](#): > > Why is individual thought a delusion? > > Why does exposing delusional thoughts equal “communism” - way off base here. The communist thing is a joke, clearly. This is a random example off the top of my head, but say someone is suffering a petty delusion that somebody is doing something passive aggressively, when they are in fact not, then it is an unhealthy stresser on the mind and according to you needs to be eliminated. For example, when **Trinopus** claimed to have read all of the posts, but twice displayed ignorance of something they should have known, I thought they were mocking me. This was an unhealthy delusion and should be eliminated, therefore eliminating an individual thought of mine. Majority of individual thoughts that cross someones mind, especially in regards to social interaction, are totally subjective, therefore could be delusional on how they interpret it. Another example, people with self-deprecating attitudes are often over critical of themselves, and therefore delusional. I’m not advocating that all thought is delusional, I just did that to make a bad joke in the last post I guess. > [@](#): > > ‘Devolved’ ? She made a deal with “God” - its time she learned that she really made the deal with herself - Its a common thing people do when they are breaking an addiction, and as they grow - they should be able to come to terms with that. How am I supposed to explain how she never wanted another cigarette again? That’s not something that typically happens when attempting to kick the habit. Why is it time to learn she made the deal with herself? What benefit would that serve for her? There are to many strings attached. She teaches Bible study, spends many many hours a week studying the Bible. What could she have been spending all that time on for all those years that you can prove would have made her psychologically healthier? > [@](#): > > Said by the friends and family of every alcoholic or other type of addict - it’s not a good thing. > > And yes - religion and faith can very much be an addiction - and it can consume ones life in much the same way. So can ambition, so can the desire of money, anything can be an addiction. It’s only unhealthy if the person makes it quantifiably unhealthy on an individual level. You cannot seriously compare alcoholism to faith as a whole. It would be nothing more than opinion and a poor one at that. > [@](#): > > I’d like a few concrete examples of delusions that “non-believers” commonly hold that compare with religious delusions - I would also counter that as compared to the religious delusions, if I am confronted with an obvious delusion - I am free to change my mind without any fear of repercussions. First of all I’d like to state that technically faith cannot be defined as a delusion, because confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception disqualify something from being defined as a delusion. > **[Delusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion)** > > A delusion\[a\] is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence. However: > "The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depend... As for my examples, I have already given a couple above but here are some more. I know some of these don’t apply to everyone, but the list is endless anyway in it’s specificity. Check out the book _Delusions of Everyday Life_ by Leonard Shengold M.D. Read the text in this link to get a general idea of what the book is about, you have to read the book for any specific examples, which I have not, so I’ll add some common delusions here. > **[Delusions of Everyday Life](https://books.google.com/books/about/Delusions_of_Everyday_Life.html?id=0WkIbsnadf0C&hl=en)** > > We are all more primitive and irrational than we care to acknowledge, says Dr. Leonard Shengold in this profound and eloquent book. We all suffer to some degree from delusions--vestiges of infantile mental functioning that continue into adult life... -Phobias -Delusional jealousy: A person with this delusion falsely believes that a spouse or lover is having an affair, with no proof to back up their claim -Delusional guilt- This is an ungrounded feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity -This one is only relevant because it shows that your mind can have a direct impact on your physical body(the bad placebo effect). Somatic delusion: A delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations, or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal, or changed.[5] A specific example of this delusion is delusional parasitosis: a delusion in which one feels infested with insects, bacteria, mites, spiders, lice, fleas, worms, or other organisms. Affected individuals may also report being repeatedly bitten. In some cases, entomologists are asked to investigate cases of mysterious bites. Sometimes physical manifestations may occur including skin lesions. -Delusion. Stone Age humans lived in caves. Truth. They lived in huts and tents. The caves, decorated with hunting scenes and animal pictures, were used for ritual ceremonies. -Delusion. Geishas are always female. Truth. They are professional entertainers, and the first ones were exclusively male. -Delusion. Marie-Antoinette told her subjects to eat cake. Truth. When Marie-Antoinette was still a child, a fictional princess in a story said, “If they have no bread, let them eat brioches.” Later this was attributed to Marie-Antoinette. -Delusion. A frightened ostrich will bury its head in the sand. Truth. An ostrich lays its head on the ground to detect vibrations. If its young are threatened, however, it will play dead and draw in its neck. -Delusion. The Hundred Years War lasted 100 years. Truth. The clash between France and England actually lasted 114 years, from 1339 till 1453. -Delusion. Bagpipes were invented in Scotland. Truth. They were introduced into the British Isles by Caesar’s legionnaires and originated in Asia Minor. None of my examples apply to everyone every single day, but everyone is inherently guilty of delusional beliefs, it’s a common flaw in people, and according to you is unhealthy and needs to be eradicated. You might be right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if religion wasn’t at the top of the list for most detrimental to the individual psyche. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=15)