# 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:** 15
**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, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/281 "2014-01-13T06:52:52Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 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 - So now your saying the IPU “usually” has certain prerequisites before it is used as a productive “thought exercise.” This sounds like special pleading since it has been implied that you can say it to any Christian anytime and not expect negative feedback/unproductivity in a discussion. > [@razncain](#): > > 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. What?! This is totally besides the point, and no that’s not what I’m saying. You can’t fathom that, but you can fathom an IPU in the donkey headed Jesus’ place? > [@](#): > > 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? It doesn’t matter where their origins are. People don’t hold identical beliefs to what they did in antiquity, that’s a ridiculous assertion. There is a modern form of faith for every religion that is simply based on some antiquated material. That antiquated material is often adapted to fit modern needs for religion. > [@](#): > > 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. This right here is supporting my point. Any mental unhealthiness is mostly the individuals fault, not their faith’s fault. > [@](#): > > 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. Now your just getting away from the point. > [@](#): > > 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. No I think it could cause immense harm on that level, but were talking about psychological health on an individual level, not people’s actions towards society. I have already said that religion can be like a poison, I’m trying to figure out why people think believing in God leads to an unhealthy psyche. > [@simster](#): > > **YoungKusher** - > > 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”? I never said that it is healthy, I’m actually agnostic to the topic. I have simply suggested positive things that happen to show that it would be false to claim that religion is outright “unhealthy” for the psyche. ---
**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, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/282 "2014-01-13T06:55:49Z")
Is a phobia a “delusion?” I’m not sure either way, but at first glance, it feels wrong. Phobias are more of a “structural” mental illness, like panic attacks or bipolar disorder. I tend to use “delusion” for things like believing that the Chargers are the best NFL team ever. (sigh…) Very much a side issue, but just wanted to note it. (I have very intense arachnophobia. Imagine how much fun I had watching The Hobbit, part 2.) ---
**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, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/283 "2014-01-13T07:35:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Is a phobia a “delusion?” I’m not sure either way, but at first glance, it feels wrong. Phobias are more of a “structural” mental illness, like panic attacks or bipolar disorder. I tend to use “delusion” for things like believing that the Chargers are the best NFL team ever. (sigh…) > > Very much a side issue, but just wanted to note it. > > (I have very intense arachnophobia. Imagine how much fun I had watching The Hobbit, part 2.) Lol, haven’t seen part 2 yet, but sounds intense. And yes, having an irrational fear of something is a delusion lol bc your level of fear might be the same as say, a tiger attacking you, which is not rational when most spiders can’t do much to harm you. A lot of people don’t even realize that Black Widow bites aren’t even life threatening, just very painful and can cause complications. The word delusion is actually most commonly used in reference to mental disorders fyi. ---
**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, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/284 "2014-01-13T07:51:41Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . 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. . . . Agreed. It is, however, a rather deadly tool when used against one specific rhetorical fallacy, i.e., “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.” > [@](#): > > 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? Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I can’t help but note that Christianity itself is grossly condescending. “You’re sinful in nature, and only my God can save you.” Hmph. And Christianity does it, day in and day out, 24 hours, nonstop. The IPU only pops up now and then. When Christianity removes the baulk of timber from its own eye, I might think a little more sincerely about removing the dust-speck from mine. But… That, itself, is a fallacy. FWIW, I don’t tend to use the IPU. Nor the FSM. Nor even Russell’s teapot. > [@](#): > > . . . 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. When the heart stops, consciousness disappears pretty darn quickly. After that, the brain may be doing something active, but it isn’t really processing information in any meaningful way. It may be some kind of dreaming, or simply random buzzing of neurons. It has nothing to do with seeing events, and most certainly nothing to do with seeing future events. I agree that near death experiences are explained by science. I’m not at all sure what you were getting at, then, by alluding to an afterlife, or events past, present, and future. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, ultimately, no fault at all pertains to “the faith itself.” It’s an impersonal social artifact, and cannot receive blame or credit. However, in a loose sort of speech, we refer to social institutions as moral entities. It’s a metaphor, really. “Islam saved many books of antiquity from being lost. Christianity emphasized the teaching of reading and writing through the Dark Ages. Judaism is a scholarly and contemplative faith.” None of these is literally true, but they are valid ways of speaking. In formal, technical language, I blame the leadership of organized religion – the priests and ministers and imams and rabbis – for both the good and the evil that the institution does. The ordinary rank-and-file churchgoer bears some of the blame (and gets some of the credit) because of their contribution to the work. Simply by putting a dime in the collection plate, they empower the church. > [@](#): > > 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. I largely agree. Faith is good for some people, bad as hell for others. For me, personally, faith would be the worst possible way to interpret the world. And, to be sure, I do engage in non-rational pursuits, such as reading fiction, playing board-games, and even debating abstract theological points with strangers on the internet. I’ve seen faith (Christian Science, for example, for which I have a very special detestation) destroy lives. But I’ve also seen it give comfort to the sorrowful and the grieving. I’m not the kind of atheist who wants to destroy all religion. (I used to be…but I got past it.) And…doesn’t everyone have a bias? You said that everyone has delusions; biases would also seem logically to be included here. That’s the greatest strength of the Scientific Method, specifically: it is designed to eliminate biases. Hell, “double blind testing” alone is something nearly all forms of human thinking could well benefit from. It’s the second best thing human thought has ever devised! (Self-government by democracy being the first best.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/285 "2014-01-13T12:24:53Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 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. Wiki is not really a source of authority. In poking around it appears a few philosophers have pointed out that atheists and theists can recognize they can’t know in ay real sense and used those terms. If you find them useful that’s fine. For me, not so much. Clearly there are a lot of variations and degrees of belief and disbelief in the real world. For example an agnostic theist might be someone who goes to church twice a week, sings in the choir and, teaches Sunday school, recommends god belief and church to friends but still acknowledges they cannot know or prove God exists. It could also be someone who believes but never goes to church or advocates for belief. Quite a difference , but same label. For me, atheist, agnostic, theist are enough. Beyond that you have to explore the individual to know more details. Also , without knowledge doesn’t have to mean, without opinion. ---
**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 13, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/286 "2014-01-13T12:50:04Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Why would a God allow people to be always happy or to always be good? Why would he not?? Does god love people or does he not? Does he love some more than others? Does he outright hate some? > [@YoungKusher](#): > > How would people ever understand or appreciate anything if nothing was ever bad? Why can’t god just give people a sense of appreciation? Why play games? > [@YoungKusher](#): > > People wouldn’t have a purpose if everything was good. Sure they would. They could go about accomplishing great works of science and art without wars, famine, disease, disasters, bigotry and religious persecutions getting in the way. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > 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.” Pray tell, what is it that you learned from the mentally handicapped? More importantly, what is it that the mentally handicapped can learn from the example god has made of them? ---
**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 13, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/287 "2014-01-13T12:52:52Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Also , without knowledge doesn’t have to mean, without opinion. That would explain Sarah Palin. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/288 "2014-01-13T15:01:30Z")
> [@simster](#): > > My ‘belief system’, such as it is, does not require belief or devotion to ‘supernatural’ entities . I assumed not, but that’s kinda my point. You say this as if believing in anything supernatural is a worse offense than other aspects of a belief system. I haven’t seen anything to demonstrate it is. If we are to evaluate religious , spiritual, and non religious ideas and beliefs on an equal level we have to take a closer look how people establish and maintain belief systems Is it delusional for kids to believe what their parents teach them? Is it delusional for people to have a profound and/or emotional experience and because of their enviornment , attach it to a God that millions believe in? Do noon believers ever accept things as factual based on what others have told them or what is common belief? Do non believers draw eroneous conclusions because their emotions or personal bias is affecting them? > [@](#): > > 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? Nope I don’t. I just don’t believe it’s scientifically accurate to blame human failings are associated with religion specificially on religion or God belief. > [@](#): > > How can maintaining any delusion - no matter if it is harmless or not - be “healthy” in the long term? You see the contradiction here right? > [@](#): > > 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. No it isn’t because my statement was about you and the IPU. If you were speaking more generally that’s another matter. ---
**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 13, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/289 "2014-01-13T15:18:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Nope I don’t. I just don’t believe it’s scientifically accurate to blame human failings are associated with religion specificially on religion or God belief. I agree with this. Religion and faith is a symptom of the human condition, not the cause of it. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/290 "2014-01-13T16:39:06Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I agree. But you aren’t doing anything pleasant by telling a believer that their lifelong faith in god is absolute bullshit. Think they have been so sheltered, and are so sensitive and insecure about their beliefs, that the least bit of light humor is going to scar them for life? If I was a believer and had walked into this discussion, having a non-believer defend us believers, I wouldn’t be thinking how noble and gallant a soul of you are for coming to our rescue, ready to give you Knighthood, I’d be thinking, damn, how delicate of a flower does he think we are. And I admit some are, and if so, I doubt they would be at this place. You’ve basically spent your whole time on this thread, realizing it is pure bullshit, but let’s keep it hush hush, for fear of some losing a placebo effect out of it, so please, don’t use the IPU on them, anything but that! Besides so much of religious beliefs being grossly untrue, encouraging wishful thinking while discouraging critical thinking skills, in your opinion, do you think the placebo effect far outweighs any nocebo effect believers may gain in their beliefs and that it does far more good than harm? I’ve failed to notice. > [@](#): > > 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. More productive than you think. Substitute the [FSM (flying spaghetti monster)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) in place of the IPU or celestial teapot. This has been used effectively in Kansas, Florida, and has won praise from the scientific community for helping play a role in defeating creationists and the ID crowd. Oh, and don’t forget about Bob and the church of the SubGenius. Light hearted humor is good, and I’m not sorry if others are so easily offended, even if you feel like you’re protecting loved ones against such travesties of being exposed to the IPU. > [@](#): > > What?! This is totally besides the point, and no that’s not what I’m saying. > > You can’t fathom that, but you can fathom an IPU in the donkey headed Jesus’ place? Recognize the irony, you specifically stated you can see how believers can relate to a donkey headed Jesus, (I didn’t) but yet you take umbrage if someone uses the IPU analogy comparing it to the Christian God. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter where their origins are. People don’t hold identical beliefs to what they did in antiquity, that’s a ridiculous assertion. There is a modern form of faith for every religion that is simply based on some antiquated material. That antiquated material is often adapted to fit modern needs for religion. Sure they grow out of some of it, but also retain a good portion of it. Let’s see how ridiculous an assertion it is. How many believers in America still believe in Creationism? How many still believe Jesus had a virgin birth, was resurrected, and came here to save the world? Hell, for that matter, how many think the snake actually talked? How many still believe in a Heaven and Hell? Is that sufficient or do I need more examples? There is nothing modern about believing in the supernatural. > [@](#): > > This right here is supporting my point. Any mental unhealthiness is mostly the individuals fault, not their faith’s fault. Qualify mostly, and not their faith’s fault starting with this: When youth are indoctrinated into a faith that believes in suicide bombings, how much of a mental unhealthy role would you place on it being the individual’s fault, say age 13, compared to the faith the adults indoctrinated him with and the role it played on him becoming a suicide bomber? > [@](#): > > 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. Using the IPU is not aggressive. Burning people alive, cutting out their tongues, gouging out their eyes, flaying them alive, now that might be a tidbit over the top, you reckon? I think you’ve fallen victim to a believer’s, “I’ve been offended!” card, which is just simply a red-herring for them to use as an exit strategy when they realize their beliefs are fixing to be exposed to the ridiculous beliefs that they are. I try not to offend either, especially if I find some believers interesting enough. But too often the “I’ve been offended card!” is played, when truly they haven’t been, but will feign injury, and start looking for the exit. It’s a common ploy, not just for religionists, but for other pseudoscientific beliefs as well, an old one, and it’s been played out a thousand times on SD when the believer realizes he was only shooting blanks, and didn’t bring any real ammo to begin with. When many see the many negative effects of what any false belief system has caused, be it paranormal, other pseudoscientific claptrap, or religion, and the amount of ignorance it spreads in the classrooms, the whole world for that matter, there comes a time, when many kind of stop giving a damn about their placebo effect. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/291 "2014-01-13T17:14:03Z")
> [@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. Yes, the book out of time is like the draft, but eventually the events happen within time, and that is like publication. He can say that he is going to change a page either before or after that page, but let’s say the book gets serialized, so it is published (time happens) in chunks. If in part 1 he says he’s going to change part 2, no problem. But if in part 3 he says he is going to edit part 2, and part 2 has already been published without the change, then he is incorrect. Unless that is you thing God is J. J. Abrams, and retcons the entire universe after stuff has happened. The implications of that could be interesting. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/292 "2014-01-13T17:18:31Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > 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. Is God covered by the laws of logic? Can he make something black and white both, at the same time? If not, then my argument, which is based purely on logic holds. if so, then you have to answer the creating a rock too big to lift question, which can be countered by omnipotence not covering paradoxes. What post number? I thought I had responded to everything, but I could have easily missed something in all this traffic. ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/293 "2014-01-13T17:23:01Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > So they could prove a point to **Voyager** when they asked them to change something. You’re correct. It is not that God would have to make edits, it is whether he has the ability to make edits. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/294 "2014-01-13T19:08:12Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 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. So, others weren’t confused by it, but because you were, religion is _de facto_ harmful for everyone? That sounds like the equivalent of a believer saying that because God has been good for him, everyone should believe in God. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m sorry if you were insulted, and I see how you could be, but it was unintended because I never took “Jesus loves you” very seriously, and I don’t think I knew anyone who did. For one thing, I think the idea of an invisible magical being who was everywhere at once, and watching me at all times, was too abstract for me at that age (a lot more abstract than a stranger on the street, for sure). But the real kicker was that if Jesus did love me, it didn’t affect my life one way or the other. I could still con my little sister out of a dime for a chocolate bar and not get punished, and good deeds weren’t always rewarded, like when I tried to help a friend who was being bullied and lost a couple of teeth for it. When I did get punished or rewarded, it was by people, not Jesus, so if he was there, it was irrelevant to me. > [@](#): > > 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. I know that there are believers, little old ladies included, who hold some hateful views. You don’t have to go to church to find them. There’s one living right across the street from me. But I don’t conclude then that there aren’t genuinely good believers, too, who don’t bother with the archaic, mean-spirited parts of the bible. I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with [James McBride](http://www.jamesmcbride.com/), a writer and jazz musician, and son of a white mother and black father. He said church and God have always been a big part of his life, especially when he was growing up because in a time when his parents couldn’t go to a movie or restaurant together, their church accepted them without question. And he doesn’t believe in hell and all that nonsense. Has religion been bad for him? > [@](#): > > 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. My hunch is that, deep down, he either had doubts about some parts of the bible or didn’t pay them any mind, like I suspect most believers do, and let nature take its course. We’re just speculating about that, of course, but since you brought him up, it’s hard to deny that the church didn’t play a significant positive role in King’s life and the civil rights movement. It was practically born and nurtured in the black churches of the South. > [@](#): > > Yes, you are right. But this is much more about you, right? It’s about religion and its harm on believers _in general_. Of course my experience has shaped my attitude toward religion, as has your experience obviously shaped yours. But mine doesn’t seem to have compromised an objective view of it. > [@](#): > > 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. Sorry, but that’s the silliest part of your argument, and I’ve found it hard to know how to respond to it. First, you’re assuming that all religious activity is non-productive which is nonsense. And second, if productivity is the standard by which we measure the value of what we do, there’d be no value in reading books, watching movies, playing or watching sports, sex, pondering the meaning of life, posting on message boards… I became an atheist because the concept of God is false, not because I found something more “productive” to do. As per the last example above, we both have ways of spending time “non-productively” without religion. > [@](#): > > 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. But who’s at fault for that, religion or the believers for letting religion run their lives? If someone leans too heavily on religion as a crutch, I’d say the problem is needing a crutch in the first place. (Whether assigning blame for it is justified or not is another matter.) Take religion out of their lives, and I suspect they’d still have the same problems. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/295 "2014-01-13T20:51:44Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Agreed. It is, however, a rather deadly tool when used against one specific rhetorical fallacy, i.e., “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.” Agreed, there is a time and place for the IPU. > [@](#): > > Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I can’t help but note that Christianity itself is grossly condescending. “You’re sinful in nature, and only my God can save you.” Hmph. Lol, well if a religious person starts out a debate with that one-liner, then by all means, drop the IPU on them. > [@](#): > > And Christianity does it, day in and day out, 24 hours, nonstop. The IPU only pops up now and then. When Christianity removes the baulk of timber from its own eye, I might think a little more sincerely about removing the dust-speck from mine. I agree. > [@](#): > > But… That, itself, is a fallacy. FWIW, I don’t tend to use the IPU. Nor the FSM. Nor even Russell’s teapot. Understandably so. > [@](#): > > When the heart stops, consciousness disappears pretty darn quickly. After that, the brain may be doing something active, but it isn’t really processing information in any meaningful way. It may be some kind of dreaming, or simply random buzzing of neurons. It has nothing to do with seeing events, and most certainly nothing to do with seeing future events. > > I agree that near death experiences are explained by science. I’m not at all sure what you were getting at, then, by alluding to an afterlife, or events past, present, and future. It may have been obnoxious on my part, but during these long posts, I have many semi-related ideas and some of them inevitably get peppered in mostly on impulse. The after-life is commonly associated with NDEs and seeing the past, present, and future is commonly associated with NDEs. > [@](#): > > “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said. > The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed. > “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported. > The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment. > Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said. > **[‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/)** > > A scientist studying near-death experiences wants to know why patients say they’re “even more real than real.” Here’s a website that has compiled many NDE experiencers’ descriptions of what happens to time during an NDE. [http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research13.html](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research13.html) > [@](#): > > Well, ultimately, no fault at all pertains to “the faith itself.” It’s an impersonal social artifact, and cannot receive blame or credit. However, in a loose sort of speech, we refer to social institutions as moral entities. It’s a metaphor, really. “Islam saved many books of antiquity from being lost. Christianity emphasized the teaching of reading and writing through the Dark Ages. Judaism is a scholarly and contemplative faith.” None of these is literally true, but they are valid ways of speaking. > > In formal, technical language, I blame the leadership of organized religion – the priests and ministers and imams and rabbis – for both the good and the evil that the institution does. The ordinary rank-and-file churchgoer bears some of the blame (and gets some of the credit) because of their contribution to the work. Simply by putting a dime in the collection plate, they empower the church. Yes, that may very well be. I blame certain political figures for their wrong-doings that effected the people, but to stay close to the point, I still think if you are normal person of faith who is unhealthy psychologically, in this day and age, you probably own the majority of the blame for that. > [@](#): > > I largely agree. Faith is good for some people, bad as hell for others. For me, personally, faith would be the worst possible way to interpret the world. And, to be sure, I do engage in non-rational pursuits, such as reading fiction, playing board-games, and even debating abstract theological points with strangers on the internet. > > I’ve seen faith (Christian Science, for example, for which I have a very special detestation) destroy lives. But I’ve also seen it give comfort to the sorrowful and the grieving. I’m not the kind of atheist who wants to destroy all religion. (I used to be…but I got past it.) > > And…doesn’t everyone have a bias? You said that everyone has delusions; biases would also seem logically to be included here. That’s the greatest strength of the Scientific Method, specifically: it is designed to eliminate biases. Hell, “double blind testing” alone is something nearly all forms of human thinking could well benefit from. It’s the second best thing human thought has ever devised! (Self-government by democracy being the first best.) I’m glad we can see eye to eye on this matter. You are absolutely right, everyone has biases, but there are some who ‘preach’ their bias as fact. lol ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/296 "2014-01-13T21:04:26Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Why would he not?? Does god love people or does he not? Does he love some more than others? Does he outright hate some? Well, assuming were all still human, we learn well from trial and error, not just being divinely privileged. > [@](#): > > Why can’t god just give people a sense of appreciation? Why play games? What would be the point of this life if we just given something like that? If you want to say that you think God could have done it differently, I won’t disagree, but the answer to these philosophical questions can be found just by looking at human nature. > [@](#): > > Sure they would. They could go about accomplishing great works of science and art without wars, famine, disease, disasters, bigotry and religious persecutions getting in the way. Maybe they would, or maybe they would just sit on their ass and eat cheetos all day because there is no impending reason to do anything at all. > [@](#): > > Pray tell, what is it that you learned from the mentally handicapped? More importantly, what is it that the mentally handicapped can learn from the example god has made of them? I learned to appreciate what I have. As for the mentally handicapped, a believer would tell you that God always gives people the tools they need to achieve their goals in this world, therefore if God gave these people less “tools” they must not need them in order to achieve the purpose they were put here for. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/297 "2014-01-13T21:05:09Z")
Hey, **YoungKusher** -could you possibly do a few posts without all the "lol"s? It’s not like we’re here telling jokes. BTW, did I miss the part where you told us in what way the concept of “God” was more logical and/or had more evidence than the concept of the “IPU”? I’ve seen a lot of dancing, handwaving and "lol"ing…but I don’t think I’ve seen a straightforward answer to that particular question. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/298 "2014-01-13T22:09:33Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Think they have been so sheltered, and are so sensitive and insecure about their beliefs, that the least bit of light humor is going to scar them for life? If I was a believer and had walked into this discussion, having a non-believer defend us believers, I wouldn’t be thinking how noble and gallant a soul of you are for coming to our rescue, ready to give you Knighthood, I’d be thinking, damn, how delicate of a flower does he think we are. And I admit some are, and if so, I doubt they would be at this place. What are you talking about, I’ve acknowledged all along that there is a time and a place for the IPU, especially when a creationist is trying to make political moves asserting creationism OVER evolution. Did you even read how the FSM was created? I can play this same game. I take it you advocate bullying then? You say if a person hasn’t been sheltered, is not sensitive or insecure then it is okay to make fun of them? So just because they have been bullied before it’s okay? Geeze what’s the matter with you… See, your dramatizations of what has been going on are exaggerated and misconstrued. Please take a moment to fully understand what I’ve been arguing, or at least acknowledge that you are making points that are irrelevant to this thread. > [@](#): > > You’ve basically spent your whole time on this thread, realizing it is pure bullshit, but let’s keep it hush hush, for fear of some losing a placebo effect out of it, so please, don’t use the IPU on them, anything but that! Besides so much of religious beliefs being grossly untrue, encouraging wishful thinking while discouraging critical thinking skills, in your opinion, do you think the placebo effect far outweighs any nocebo effect believers may gain in their beliefs and that it does far more good than harm? I’ve failed to notice. I’m agnostic as to whether it is better or worse. I’ve been pointing out to those who think to make some claim that it is definitively worse when there is no scientific proof. And I have simply used positive examples to make my point. > [@](#): > > More productive than you think. Substitute the [FSM (flying spaghetti monster)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) in place of the IPU or celestial teapot. This has been used effectively in Kansas, Florida, and has won praise from the scientific community for helping play a role in defeating creationists and the ID crowd. Oh, and don’t forget about Bob and the church of the SubGenius. Light hearted humor is good, and I’m not sorry if others are so easily offended, even if you feel like you’re protecting loved ones against such travesties of being exposed to the IPU. Who said I’m protecting anyone? I have specifically been arguing about individuals claims and/or uses of the IPU, not the way it was used on a National level. Such as, using it sarcastically then claiming it is THE MOST productive way to get a person of faith to see that their religion is ridiculous. Or people claiming it is an excellent way to start a debate and enlighten a person of faith… Yeah let me start the next debate by saying, your position is absolute ridiculous bullshit, and see how much the opposition is enlightened. CLEARLY, even according to your source, it is used as a rebuttal argument to stop believers from over-stepping their boundaries and/or to stop special pleading. Which, BY THE WAY, I totally agree with. So why don’t you stop sensationalizing my POV about the whole thing with your wild exaggerations of what I’m doing. > [@](#): > > Recognize the irony, you specifically stated you can see how believers can relate to a donkey headed Jesus, (I didn’t) but yet you take umbrage if someone uses the IPU analogy comparing it to the Christian God. I was arguing a mini-point when I said that. Now you’re just taking my meaning out of context. I can see how believers could relate to a donkey-headed Jesus IF this donkey-headed Jesus had the exact same back story of the traditional Jesus. Which is the same argument that was made by others for the IPU. That is what I was saying. > [@](#): > > Sure they grow out of some of it, but also retain a good portion of it. Let’s see how ridiculous an assertion it is. How many believers in America still believe in Creationism? How many still believe Jesus had a virgin birth, was resurrected, and came here to save the world? Hell, for that matter, how many think the snake actually talked? How many still believe in a Heaven and Hell? Is that sufficient or do I need more examples? There is nothing modern about believing in the supernatural. And what makes you think that a lot of those believers don’t believe that it goes hand in hand with science? What does any of this have to do with the main point of the topic? You’re dragging the discussion farther and farther away from what were really talking about. Do you want me to say that religion is ridiculous, it can be like a poison, it can cause some people to act irrationally? Because I have already said all of that. What is your point? > [@](#): > > Qualify mostly, and not their faith’s fault starting with this: When youth are indoctrinated into a faith that believes in suicide bombings, how much of a mental unhealthy role would you place on it being the individual’s fault, say age 13, compared to the faith the adults indoctrinated him with and the role it played on him becoming a suicide bomber? Disqualified completely, we have already stated were not talking about extremists. Why do you think this is relevant at all??? Put a percentage on how much of the world population actually believes what you just said, then try and tell me it’s significant to the general psychological health of the world population… > [@](#): > > Using the IPU is not aggressive. Burning people alive, cutting out their tongues, gouging out their eyes, flaying them alive, now that might be a tidbit over the top, you reckon? What percentage of modern people of faith participate in such vile acts? What does this have to do with a modern individual’s psychological health? > [@](#): > > I think you’ve fallen victim to a believer’s, “I’ve been offended!” card, which is just simply a red-herring for them to use as an exit strategy when they realize their beliefs are fixing to be exposed to the ridiculous beliefs that they are. I try not to offend either, especially if I find some believers interesting enough. But too often the “I’ve been offended card!” is played, when truly they haven’t been, but will feign injury, and start looking for the exit. It’s a common ploy, not just for religionists, but for other pseudoscientific beliefs as well, an old one, and it’s been played out a thousand times on SD when the believer realizes he was only shooting blanks, and didn’t bring any real ammo to begin with. Well the IPU is a red herring itself for the reasons I’ve stated before. There is no God, that I know of, in any major religion that is just an animal. I haven’t fallen victim to anything bud, you just don’t have a firm understanding of what I’ve been arguing about. I bet if you calmed down and really looked at what I’ve been saying, you would probably agree. > [@](#): > > When many see the many negative effects of what any false belief system has caused, be it paranormal, other pseudoscientific claptrap, or religion, and the amount of ignorance it spreads in the classrooms, the whole world for that matter, there comes a time, when many kind of stop giving a damn about their placebo effect. Again, were talking about the individual psychological effects of believing in a deity, not the effects of religion. Go start another topic if you want to debate about that. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/299 "2014-01-13T22:14:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Hey, **YoungKusher** -could you possibly do a few posts without all the "lol"s? It’s not like we’re here telling jokes. > BTW, did I miss the part where you told us in what way the concept of “God” was more logical and/or had more evidence than the concept of the “IPU”? I’ve seen a lot of dancing, handwaving and "lol"ing…but I don’t think I’ve seen a straightforward answer to that particular question. Sry if I’ve been less than professional at times. The straightforward answer, is I’m pretty much neutral on the topic. I have merely been disputing peoples claims that it is most certainly “unhealthy” for the psyche to believe in God whatsoever. That’s an unfounded biased claim, and have simply been trying to show that it cannot be assumed to be that way. I have also introduced some examples of it being positive for mental health to promote discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/300 "2014-01-13T22:35:23Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Sry if I’ve been less than professional at times. > > The straightforward answer, is I’m pretty much neutral on the topic. “Neutral” is not the first word that comes to mind when it comes to your postings about the “IPU” and its comparison to “God” in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=16)