# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/441 "2014-01-19T16:24:23Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > I had never heard of it until now so I couldn’t have knowingly applied it. After reading and coming to an understanding of Hume’s Law (very interesting btw), I still think that there would be many believers claiming that, within their subjective evidence, a god has revealed themselves in one way or another. I find Hume’s argument against miracles the most reasonable way to go about it, he’ll serve you well. Carl Sagan help popularized the slogan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” although others well before him were saying basically the same thing. Hume, when he did his essay on miracles said, “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” And there was also Laplace, “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” Hume doesn’t dismiss miracles completely outright, all that he asks is that we weigh one miracle (laws of nature being broken) with the other as to what is being claimed. If a man claims to have walked on water, has that miracle occurred by someone claiming actually being able to suspend gravity, or has man bent the facts, and which is the most likely occurrence. Better have some extraordinary evidence with that extraordinary claim before one accepts it as fact. It may not apply to all believers, but from probably nearly all the ones I’ve often encountered, evidence is really not important, it’s optional at best, faith is what they stress. They tend to have a whole new standard of evidence they operate on, and are more easily persuaded by their emotions, anecdotes, fallacious arguments, wishful thinking, peer pressure, power of suggestion, testimonials, hope and fear (Lucian’s two great tyrants), those sort of things. Scientists are human too, but if you do find them falling prey to such things, that’s why other scientists provide a checks and balances on their work in the form of replication. > [@](#): > > But statistically speaking, which is what I said before, people in bars have surely committed more crimes and are more likely to participate in frowned upon activities (on average) than those at a church. I shouldn’t even have to say this, but I guess I have to for you: Not all bars and not all churches will fit the above statements, but on average, they will. I’ve been to both as well. Some of this also depends on the location of the bars too. Want to hang out at bars that are known gang hang-outs, or some notorious biker’s clubs, you’ll find plenty that have been to jail. These people were already messed up before hand, and chose these type of bars to hang out with their own. I’ve also been to bars that were on the better side of town, and actually weren’t bad at all, especially those that served food, and just didn’t make it a beer and/or mixed drinks only type of environment. Statistically speaking though, also ask these bar people if they believe in God or not. Also check the prison records, 93% of inmates are theists in American jails. Having a faith or belief in God doesn’t seem to have deterred them in any way from it. And I’m not saying I think the 93% of theists reflects that they are actually more inclined to commit crimes in our country either, I just think it reflects roughly the amount of Americans that were theists and non-theists from the general population to begin with. What it does show though, to me, anyway, is that if one believes in a god and is supposed to give them a placebo effect or type of positive well-being, it sure doesn’t show up in statistics with the amount of people incarcerated. Europe would be another area that would be worthy of study since now more than at any other time many are identifying with non-religious. They seem to be getting along quite well. For so many that don’t identify in god now, and church attendance is at an all-time low, it would be interesting to check their homicide rates, along with suicide, theft, rape, robbery, teen pregnancy rates, etc. I think actually in many areas, you’ll find them doing quite well when compared to America. There are some nations that have been hit with a large immigration of Muslims, however, and do show to have spikes in their crime rates. France is having a serious problem with them, while Muslims only make up only 5-10% of their general population, their prison cells are made up of 70% Muslims. What other factors are going on, I couldn’t say, I haven’t looked into it that much. Many Muslims are claiming discrimination, and not being allowed to get jobs, and blaming the crime rates spike with Muslims on that. I personally think the influence of radical and extremists Muslims makes it difficult for others with moderate or liberal positions to flourish in that group. Many more would like to have a say or speak out, but often they are threatened with their lives or other loved ones are, and are also possibly killed off especially if they gain popularity. > [@](#): > > It’s just mind-boggling to me to imagine dismissing \*88% of the world’s population as delusional… Ad populum in itself is not sufficient reason to justify accepting it as true just because it’s popular opinion of the day by so many. History has shown it has been wrong about a lot of things before. > [@](#): > > That’s why there are subsections that I mentioned. Agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, a regular atheist (pure) and a regular agnostic (pure). Majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, but some are pure atheists who assert that science has convinced them that there is absolutely no possibility of any deity. This causes them to dismiss any claims that some one has contacted a god on some level. In other words they dismiss an estimated \*50%? of the world’s population as being highly delusional/liars. Assuming that not all religious people have indeed gathered spiritual proof I think 50% is a fair assertion. What science has convinced for many is how unlikely it is to believe in such an entity, particular the personal gods and those that intervene on man’s behalf. Ever wonder why about half of all scientists don’t believe in any gods of any kind? Ever wonder why the most elite leading scientists at the prestigious NAS (National Academy of Sciences) don’t believe in a personal god by a margin of 93% to just 7% for theists? Some 70% identify with atheists, with about 20% agnostic. The numbers are just as strong are slightly stronger for Britain’s leading scientists. The human imagination can muster up an unlimited amount of gods, creatures and entities, just because they can invent these, doesn’t seem like one should give much latitude in contemplating their existence. If it isn’t just a figment of their imagination, they hopefully understand who has the burden of proof and why that is. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/442 "2014-01-19T16:37:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is this a statement you make when amongst those who believe as you do, or do you save it for times like these-when people question your beliefs? > Fact: No one to date has provided verifiable evidence for the existence of any gods, despite wide belief in said gods, thus the proper default position is that until evidence to the contrary comes in there are no gods. The default position for whom? The millions of people that have been taught since childhood that God exists? I understand it from a purely logical and objective point, but people’s belief systems are not purely objective. What happens to all the people who say they’ve had a personal spiritual experiences with God? When you tell them that’s not objective evidence will they care? ---
**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 19, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/443 "2014-01-19T16:53:10Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The default position for whom? The millions of people that have been taught since childhood that God exists? I understand it from a purely logical and objective point, but people’s belief systems are not purely objective. > > What happens to all the people who say they’ve had a personal spiritual experiences with God? When you tell them that’s not objective evidence will they care? _If_ a personal spiritual experience with God(as deliberately vague a term as that is) is to be considered as objective evidence of a god, then someone else’s personal spiritual experience with _another_ god must be considered equally valid as objective evidence as must personal spiritual experience with the same god that seems to contradict other personal experiences, as must someone’s personal spiritual experience with _any_ unevidenced concept. Until we can find a valid method to separate “personal spiritual experiences” from “personal feelings and opinions”, we cannot use them as any sort of objective evidence. edited to add: Your statement makes the assumption that the only deity on the table is your “God”. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/444 "2014-01-19T22:28:28Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Europe would be another area that would be worthy of study since now more than at any other time many are identifying with non-religious. They seem to be getting along quite well. For so many that don’t identify in god now, and church attendance is at an all-time low, it would be interesting to check their homicide rates, along with suicide, theft, rape, robbery, teen pregnancy rates, etc. I think actually in many areas, you’ll find them doing quite well when compared to America. The[evidence](http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/) is that religiosity makes such problems worse; it is neither a positive influence on society nor even neutral. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > What happens to all the people who say they’ve had a personal spiritual experiences with God? When you tell them that’s not objective evidence will they care? Of course not; they are irrational at best. By their own admission their beliefs are a “faith”; which means they deny the importance of objective evidence in the first place. They believe because they believe. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/445 "2014-01-20T00:05:12Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . . . This causes them to dismiss any claims that some one has contacted a god on some level. In other words they dismiss an estimated \*50%? of the world’s population as being highly delusional/liars. . . . I think this number is too high. I very much doubt that 50% of the world’s population would claim to have made contact with a god. I may be wrong; I don’t have working stats. I do know Christians who say they have a personal relationship with Jesus…but I also know many more Christians who don’t. > [@monavis](#): > > And your opinion is the only one? A lot depends on how one translates the word God. . . . This is why I take issue with your overly-facile rejection of God’s existence, on the grounds (which you have repeated a large number of times) that he has to have a place for himself to exist before he can exist. That logic fails for _some_ definitions of God (and some definitions of “place.”) I’m saying to you exactly what you said to me: “And your opinion is the only one?” If you don’t believe that your definition is the only one, then I think you ought to stop making this “must have a place to exist” argument. (By much the same logic, the Big Bang would be impossible, because the universe can’t exist until it first has a place in which to exist. But as we understand the Big Bang, the universe _is_ the place in which it exists.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/446 "2014-01-20T02:03:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > _If_ a personal spiritual experience with God(as deliberately vague a term as that is) is to be considered as objective evidence of a god, then someone else’s personal spiritual experience with _another_ god must be considered equally valid as objective evidence as must personal spiritual experience with the same god that seems to contradict other personal experiences, as must someone’s personal spiritual experience with _any_ unevidenced concept. Until we can find a valid method to separate “personal spiritual experiences” from “personal feelings and opinions”, we cannot use them as any sort of objective evidence. > > edited to add: Your statement makes the assumption that the only deity on the table is your “God”. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that subjective experiences were in any way considered objective evidence. I meant that believers who have had powerful subjective experiences, and interperted them as God, won’t care that it’s not objective. Telling them about the default position is meaningless. ---
**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 20, 2014, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/447 "2014-01-20T05:38:07Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that subjective experiences were in any way considered objective evidence. I meant that believers who have had powerful subjective experiences, and interperted them as God, won’t care that it’s not objective. Telling them about the default position is meaningless. If you are saying that most people have no clue as to how to reason logically and how science is done, then I have to agree. But acknowledging that people are irrational in no way means they are right. People are very committed to their sports teams. Just like religion they often inherit them, though they can be converted. Stepping away from your parents’ team is hard. I think I’m an atheist because my mother, who lived in Brooklyn, was a Giants not Dodgers fan. You get a subjective rush if your team wins. And sometimes people even hurt fans of opposing teams. Religion is much like sports, except that the fanatics have gotten themselves into positions of responsibility. And no one wants to ban drinking during games. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/448 "2014-01-20T06:53:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . You get a subjective rush if your team wins. . . . Atheism has this as a severe drawback: we’ll never get to say “See, I told you!” when there is no afterlife. ---
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/449 "2014-01-20T06:57:52Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Atheism has this as a severe drawback: we’ll never get to say “See, I told you!” when there is no afterlife. We get to say it now when god doesn’t show up to prove itself. 😃 ---
**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 20, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/450 "2014-01-20T07:30:46Z")
> [@randompattern](#): > > We get to say it now when god doesn’t show up to prove itself. 😃 Yeah, you can win any argument with a theist by saying “If I’m not right, then let God strike me down.” If God existed, the theater showing “The Book of Mormon” would be smoldering rubble. Those who have seen that great show know what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/451 "2014-01-20T07:44:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Atheism has this as a severe drawback: we’ll never get to say “See, I told you!” when there is no afterlife. Unless there’s an afterlife, but no gods to run it. Not that I believe in one, but there’s no inherent connection between gods and an afterlife after all; you can postulate gods in a world with no afterlife, or an afterlife with no gods. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/452 "2014-01-20T07:51:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yeah, you can win any argument with a theist by saying “If I’m not right, then let God strike me down.” . . . Grin! Although the sad truth is that, every now and then, people do get struck down (heart attacks, strokes, random bits of satellite debris re-entering the atmosphere, etc.) It’d be just my luck that this would happen right after I made that boast! > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Unless there’s an afterlife, but no gods to run it. Not that I believe in one, but there’s no inherent connection between gods and an afterlife after all; you can postulate gods in a world with no afterlife, or an afterlife with no gods. Valid point. A “materialist” afterlife is not a physical impossibility. SF writer Arsen Darnay posited something like that in his (nasty, but brilliant!) story, “Plutonium.” Obviously, most proposed schemas involving an afterlife depend on supernatural rules of physics that pretty blatantly violate everything we know about physical reality. But no one should ever doubt that physics has some surprises left for us! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/453 "2014-01-20T12:23:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I think this number is too high. I very much doubt that 50% of the world’s population would claim to have made contact with a god. I may be wrong; I don’t have working stats. I do know Christians who say they have a personal relationship with Jesus…but I also know many more Christians who don’t. > > This is why I take issue with your overly-facile rejection of God’s existence, on the grounds (which you have repeated a large number of times) that he has to have a place for himself to exist before he can exist. That logic fails for _some_ definitions of God (and some definitions of “place.”) I’m saying to you exactly what you said to me: “And your opinion is the only one?” > > If you don’t believe that your definition is the only one, then I think you ought to stop making this “must have a place to exist” argument. > > (By much the same logic, the Big Bang would be impossible, because the universe can’t exist until it first has a place in which to exist. But as we understand the Big Bang, the universe _is_ the place in which it exists.) And where does the Universe exist? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/454 "2014-01-20T12:29:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The default position for whom? The millions of people that have been taught since childhood that God exists? I understand it from a purely logical and objective point, but people’s belief systems are not purely objective. > > What happens to all the people who say they’ve had a personal spiritual experiences with God? When you tell them that’s not objective evidence will they care? For them to be honest they should say,“I believe I had an experience with God”. And many people could say that about anything they believe in. Belief is not fact. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/455 "2014-01-20T14:05:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve always said that the requirement to prove God does not exist is meaningless unless a specific god to be disproved is defined. I understand. It occurs to me we’re looking at things in a similar way just different discriptions. I look at specific proposed traits of a possible God. You’re doing much the same but referring to it as specific Gods. Same Process I think, just different termnology. Does that make sense? > [@Voyager](#): > > Any interaction with the natural world has to involve time in some sense. I’m only talking about an omnipotent and omniscient god who in some way interacts with us. If you are talking about a God walled off in a timeless continuum none of this is valid. And it is not meant to be. > My model however allows a timeless god to interact with us in time. What is wrong with it? I’m suggesting that it is only we who percieve time and any interaction as being time framed. > [@](#): > > All I know is that no human defined god with any interaction with us has decent evidence to support it, and most would have been falsified if any reasonable amount of logic is applied. I guess the difference is that I look at it as eliminating certain qualities of a possible God/creator rather than all god belief. As I eliminate certain aspects or qualities I see what remains possible if such a thing exists. > [@](#): > > So it is reasonable to have as a working assumption that no gods exist. Of course. It’s far more reasonable than certain dogma about God. > [@](#): > > I think there are good arguments against all proofs of god. In any case, this is the area I’ve been talking about. So, I’ve been saying that not only is a bi-omni god not necessary, he is not even possible. I understand that. My position is that we cannot really frame logical arguments about a proposed being we can only describe within our limits, which proposed being does not have. > [@](#): > > BTW, maybe you can say something about a God outside of time. I’ve been thinking about it, and while we can talk about the concept it seems incoherent to me, unless you posit some sort of meta-time. Actions imply a change of state, and changes of state imply time, so a timeless God would seem not to be able to act. I’ll try. We imagine God as timeless, without beginng or end. The creator and sustainer of all we percieve. I’ve looked at a lot of religions but just looking at Christianity it seems that God sees not our physical actions as much as what is going on within. Don’t just act as if you love, but truly love. Don’t give just because it’s requested or for show, but truly give freely to address a need. Over and over agasin it seems that what teachers like Jesus are talking about is not labels or lip service but the condition of our hearts and minds. Let’s call that our spiritual condition just to give it a name So any interaction with God is percieved by us as time framed and in some cases having physical results, but God’s perspective is all spirtitual condition and has nothing to do with time. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/456 "2014-01-20T14:08:28Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > For them to be honest they should say,“I believe I had an experience with God”. And many people could say that about anything they believe in. Belief is not fact. Agreed. For me the most honest position of believers is to accept that there is no proof and simply choose their path and allow others to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/457 "2014-01-20T14:15:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you are saying that most people have no clue as to how to reason logically and how science is done, then I have to agree. But acknowledging that people are irrational in no way means they are right. > People are very committed to their sports teams. Just like religion they often inherit them, though they can be converted. Stepping away from your parents’ team is hard. I think I’m an atheist because my mother, who lived in Brooklyn, was a Giants not Dodgers fan. > You get a subjective rush if your team wins. And sometimes people even hurt fans of opposing teams. > Religion is much like sports, except that the fanatics have gotten themselves into positions of responsibility. > And no one wants to ban drinking during games. That wasn’t what I was saying but I agree. I’m saying that it’s not all that productive to try and deal with human belief systems from a strictly scientific approach. That’s not how real humans work. Hell we see atheists here on the board who are irrational and illogical in their approach. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/458 "2014-01-20T14:31:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yeah, you can win any argument with a theist by saying “If I’m not right, then let God strike me down.” > > If God existed, the theater showing “The Book of Mormon” would be smoldering rubble. Those who have seen that great show know what I mean. One of the things that annoys me is believers who assume they know what God thinks rather than just own it as their personal belief/opinion. The phrase “Hey, it’s not me saying it, it’s God” really evokes a heavey sigh. Occasionally my response is, “I asked God about that and he said you were wrong, wanted me to let you know” ---
**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 20, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/459 "2014-01-20T15:42:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > One of the things that annoys me is believers who assume they know what God thinks rather than just own it as their personal belief/opinion. The phrase “Hey, it’s not me saying it, it’s God” really evokes a heavey sigh. Why is it that when I hear a religionist say “You cannot know the mind of God” what is unspoken but almost assuredly being thought by this person is “…but _I_ can.” ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/460 "2014-01-20T16:33:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why is it that when I hear a religionist say “You cannot know the mind of God” what is unspoken but almost assuredly being thought by this person is “…but _I_ can.” Yes, “the mind of God is incomprehensible”, but the thought never dawns on them that maybe they should quit speaking on his behalf then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=24)