# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/681 "2014-02-07T20:31:59Z")
> [@simster](#): > > (Bolding mine ) - I was actually responding to your argument as well as to other statements you’ve made in this thread - not as much “you” - I should have phrased it better in that “this person would” - as opposed to “you” - but I was responding to your arguments and phrasings. Its very difficult to decide if you are arguing your belief system or some third party. I suppose it could be difficult at times, but I’ve clearly stated before that I have no belief in any deity. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/682 "2014-02-07T20:35:00Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Please don’t ascribe motivations to other posters. Best to just discuss their posts and not their personalities. My apologies, I’ll keep any conclusions I draw about personalities to myself. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/683 "2014-02-07T20:45:27Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > If there were official definitions, this thread and many others would have gone much differently. There are no official definitions. Then why are people so adamant about the definitions if they’re not even official? That doesn’t really make sense. > [@](#): > > I’m not attempting to claim there are only one or certain ways a word can be defined. I’m working with the definitions one poster has already given. > > Again, I’m looking at definitions a particular poster has given. I suppose, but I think you should cut them some slack. Most of what cosmodan has been saying makes sense as a whole. Snipping a bunch of phrases out and highlighting some subtle contradictions hasn’t solved anything in the past 200 posts. I understand what cosmodan has been saying, it’s not that difficult of a concept. > [@](#): > > Almost no one defines an atheist with the requirement that he must think deities are not capable of existing. You even have stated in this thread that most atheists are agnostic atheists. But what’s important is that I’m debating someone that has defined atheism differently than you, so my responses to him have to be taken in that context and not in regards to how you define atheism. Most are _technically_ agnostic atheists, but atheists are more inclined to dismiss theistic ideas than an agnostic. Otherwise the agnostic would already be an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/684 "2014-02-07T20:52:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve had a go round or two with Der Trihs on this subject. I can almost predict what kind of response I’ll get so I often don’t engage. When someone who is complaining about the lack of logic and decent reasoning in others states an unproveable satement is “obviously true” I take exception. When I was engaged with him, I didn’t find it particularly productive. His exaggerated rhetoric was more inflammatory than helpful. In the heat of the moment, I think Der Trihs actually believed wholeheartedly the things he was saying, but when it comes down to it, I think it was just his form of rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/685 "2014-02-07T20:53:45Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > All of my quotes in post 676 should have been attributed to YoungKusher and not cosmosdan. Not sure how that happened. A kind of freudian slip maybe? lol. For a moment, I almost overlooked it, but I figured it out. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/686 "2014-02-07T21:14:29Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > but I think you should cut them some slack Yes, I believe you’ve mentioned this before. I think you should cut me some slack and accept that I will debate things I choose to. I’m not making anyone else continue. > [@](#): > > Most of what cosmodan has been saying makes sense as a whole. I obviously disagree. > [@](#): > > Snipping a bunch of phrases out and highlighting some subtle contradictions hasn’t solved anything in the past 200 posts. I haven’t been taking anything out of context and the contradictions are far from subtle. Please don’t make accusations like that unless you’re prepared to back them up. > [@](#): > > Most are _technically_ agnostic atheists, but atheists are more inclined to dismiss theistic ideas than an agnostic. Otherwise the agnostic would already be an atheist. As you just said, some agnostics are atheists. You’re not making a lot of sense here. Of course atheists are more likely to dismiss theistic ideas as agnostics in general. That’s because some agnostics are theists. You stated that most atheists are agnostic and then stated that atheists think deities are incapable of existing. How are you defining agnostic? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/687 "2014-02-08T15:37:04Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > When I was engaged with him, I didn’t find it particularly productive. His exaggerated rhetoric was more inflammatory than helpful. In the heat of the moment, I think Der Trihs actually believed wholeheartedly the things he was saying, but when it comes down to it, I think it was just his form of rhetoric. YoungKusher, not a few posts prior to this I told you to stop discussing other posters and instead discuss their posts. You chose to ignore that. I’m issuing you a warning. Please take it to heart. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/688 "2014-02-09T06:08:30Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Ah, so circling back to my original statement: “for all a deist claims, a deity might have created the universe the same way we created the internet or computers.” So you basically agree then? Strictly speaking, that would be deism. Most deists don’t believe that, in my experience. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/689 "2014-02-09T12:30:23Z")
The idea of an afterlife is important to many people, they desire there to be one, that belief helps some people, some it does not. Some fear going to a hell if they think differently than they were taught, and it helps them keep out of trouble. There are others who live for now and do not need the thought of an afterlife to enjoy living now. Some religions control people through fear and or guilt. It can be a big divider among people. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/690 "2014-02-09T15:54:23Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I don’t have any expectations. You said specific examples that backed up your claim in full exist in this thread. You haven’t shown any and I have responded why the statements you quoted don’t work. If you have examples from other threads you’d like to submit, I’ll take a look and give you my opinion. No thanks. Anyone who has posted here for long has some idea about Der Trihs posting habits. There was no IMO, included in those statements and they are unproveable as facts. Can you acknowledge or dispute that they are unproveable? > [@](#): > > There are differences and there are similarities. Some differences are relevant and so are some similarities. But we’re not talking about the IPU. That’s where the topic started for me and part of the point. Some atheists decribe god belief as delusional and irrational rather casually and use the IPU argument as a tool for mockery. What if all humans believe things they can’t prove or haven’t personally verified? The other point is that if we are to examine religious beliefs with the same tools and judgements as others then we need to look at how human belief systems work, rather than asign religious faith a seperate catagory. > [@](#): > > This is a point that differs from the statement I asked you to back up so we could discuss it. I went over this point already. And “proof” is an unrealistic standard. It is. Tell that to those critisizing the lack of proof that god exists. IMO it’s relevant and important that people recognize the difference between opinion and facts, or, what is true. Let’s apply logic, reason, and the facts evenly and fairly. > [@](#): > > This is plain silly. Your statement: > > You want someone to be able to prove that when he says something is evil it is when in your opinion evil can’t be measured? Have you asked Der Trihs? Do you think it’s in the same ballpark? If someone thinks all god belief is irrational and delusional, then concluding that something has done more evil than good must be irrational and delusional? That’s a real stretch to my eyes. It’s only silly because you got wrong. This is a habit of yours. You read something into a post that isn’t there, and then respond to your own error rather than seeking to clarify. Of course I don’t expect anyone to prove those statements because they are unproveable. I expect people to give it enough thought to recognize that, and consider it when they are critisizing others for believing something they can’t prove is true. I’ve said several times that believers who quietly practice thier faith without trying to convince or convert others don’t have anything to prove. Der Trihs insists they still do because thier belief is outrageous. He should hold himself to the same standard right? > [@](#): > > Yes, in this case. And I’ve shown why. Not so much. There’s no need for me to ask anyone for proof of something that is unproveable The goal is to get them to acknowledge that fact. That goes for believers and non believers alike. Do we care if someone holds outrageous opinions the same as if they present thenas factual? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/691 "2014-02-09T16:00:50Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > When I was engaged with him, I didn’t find it particularly productive. His exaggerated rhetoric was more inflammatory than helpful. In the heat of the moment, I think Der Trihs actually believed wholeheartedly the things he was saying, but when it comes down to it, I think it was just his form of rhetoric. That’s been my experience as well which is why I tend not to respond very often. Maybe next time I’ll just ask him to acknowledge that his outrageous statements are opinion only rather than facts. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/692 "2014-02-09T17:18:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That’s been my experience as well which is why I tend not to respond very often. Maybe next time I’ll just ask him to acknowledge that his outrageous statements are opinion only rather than facts. And that’s worth a warning, too. You people will STOP with the discussion of other posters instead of their posts. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/693 "2014-02-09T17:33:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s been said agnostic, is about not knowing while theism or atheism is about belief, so that means you can’t just be agnostic. Bull pucky I say. IMO, one of the three is something a person chooses for themselves when the subject comes up. Any reasonably honest person will acknowledge they can’t know. You are making a mistake that believers the world over make all the time, you are assuming there is some sort of equivalence between the existence of the supernatural beings and the lack of said creatures. When you make this mistake for Allah or god you are also, by default implying that it is ok to be agnostic about everything else that falls into this category. Poseidon? No idea. Odin? same thing. Raven? could be. Ghosts? EVP? IPU? FSM? Unipegasusicorns? Agnosticism is a statement that boils down to this, “We cannot know that stuff people says exists doesn’t exist because we just cant” Reasonable people know you cant catch a train to Hogwarts or open a closet door to Narnia in part because we know that the stuff in story books isn’t true because it was made up. Given that 100% of the evidence we have for the existence of every supernatural claim ever made is that it was made up or in some cases a side effect of our known to be flawed brains why would you ever bother acknowledging these claims? How do you come to the conclusion that Gawd is a claim we cannot know is true or not, then turn around and laugh at people who want to travel to Pandora? There is nothing reasonable at all about what amounts to a big argument from ignorance. > [@arielburns](#): > > Why does one have to make up their mind entirely? Sometimes people want the freedom to explore before they determine exactly what they believe in. That’s allowed. Sure it’s allowed, but most people aren’t really allowed to make up their minds. The freedom you talk about isn’t particularly free for the majority of people, (Americans have freedom to be christian mostly, Middle eastern born people are perfectly free to be muslim, Indians Hindu. Sure there are exceptions in all cases but the reality is that this is a very limited form of freedom. Indoctrination starts early for the vast majority of believers. If you wanted to play the game fairly you would have to stop indoctrinating children completely, let them come to their beliefs after the age of 18 and you would have to start teaching critical thinking skills to grade schoolers and continue throughout high school. Children would have to have an understanding of the many ways in which [our brains tell us lies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) as well as an understanding of logical and [argumentative fallacies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). > [@Voyager](#): > > The attempt to define atheism as the position of being absolutely certain that there are no gods is an attempt to accuse us of having an absurd position. > As always, we can only make belief judgments on gods theists propose - which have turned to be either falsified by evidence or totally unfalsifiable. > Going from the failure of theists to offer convincing evidence for any god to believing (provisionally) that none exist is a far cry from claiming with certainty knowledge that none exist. I don’t understand why this distinction is so difficult. QFT. Every single deity ever proposed has been a claim of truth, and every time those claims have failed to meet even the most basic imaginable tests of evidence. Every last supernatural claim is has evidence equivalent to every slice of fiction every written, every tall tale ever told, and every magic trick every performed. IMHO you are a fool to hold one (or more) personal gods as truth because you then either acknowledge that all the others are also true or you are hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/694 "2014-02-10T00:45:32Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > And that’s worth a warning, too. You people will STOP with the discussion of other posters instead of their posts. noted , I actually thought I was discussing his posts, but i will be more cautious ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/695 "2014-02-10T00:55:10Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > You are making a mistake that believers the world over make all the time, you are assuming there is some sort of equivalence between the existence of the supernatural beings and the lack of said creatures. When you make this mistake for Allah or god you are also, by default implying that it is ok to be agnostic about everything else that falls into this category. Poseidon? No idea. Odin? same thing. Raven? could be. Ghosts? EVP? IPU? FSM? Unipegasusicorns? Agnosticism is a statement that boils down to this, “We cannot know that stuff people says exists doesn’t exist because we just cant” Reasonable people know you cant catch a train to Hogwarts or open a closet door to Narnia in part because we know that the stuff in story books isn’t true because it was made up. Given that 100% of the evidence we have for the existence of every supernatural claim ever made is that it was made up or in some cases a side effect of our known to be flawed brains why would you ever bother acknowledging these claims? How do you come to the conclusion that Gawd is a claim we cannot know is true or not, then turn around and laugh at people who want to travel to Pandora? There is nothing reasonable at all about what amounts to a big argument from ignorance. I don’t see your post has anything to do with the post of mine that you quoted, so there’s no response to make. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/696 "2014-02-10T05:13:47Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > YoungKusher, not a few posts prior to this I told you to stop discussing other posters and instead discuss their posts. You chose to ignore that. > > I’m issuing you a warning. Please take it to heart. I thought I was discussing their posts; in general that is. This is what you said in your last post: > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Please don’t ascribe motivations to other posters. Best to just discuss their posts and not their personalities. I really felt as though I was just clarifying a perceived issue **about said person’s posts**. I was basically saying that some of his matter-of-fact statements in this thread are more-or-less just his rhetoric and should be treated as such. IOW, sometimes comments should be taken with a grain of salt and not be taken literally. I certainly didn’t “chose to ignore” what you said. I was speaking generally about his posts in this thread, not his personality or his motivations. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/697 "2014-02-10T05:52:54Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Yes, I believe you’ve mentioned this before. I think you should cut me some slack and accept that I will debate things I choose to. I’m not making anyone else continue. You are obviously free to do as you want, I guess I am more-or-less expressing my confusion about your purpose. > [@](#): > > I haven’t been taking anything out of context and the contradictions are far from subtle. Please don’t make accusations like that unless you’re prepared to back them up. I didn’t really say you were taking things out of context. I described exactly what you have been doing, which is snipping out phrases and sections essentially trying to make the same point over and over again for the last 200 posts. It’s not an accusation, just an observation of the facts. > [@](#): > > As you just said, some agnostics are atheists. You’re not making a lot of sense here. Of course atheists are more likely to dismiss theistic ideas as agnostics in general. That’s because some agnostics are theists. In this comparison I was specifically referring to agnostics that are neither atheist or theist. I thought that was obvious since that is the notion of agnosticism that both cosmodan and I have been referring to. > [@](#): > > You stated that most atheists are agnostic and then stated that atheists think deities are incapable of existing. How are you defining agnostic? No, I never stated that atheists think that deities are incapable of existing. that is an assumption on your part, and as you pointed out, a poor assumption. You are missing the point I’ve been getting at, when I say someone thinks that deities _can_ exist [so not an atheist] I’m saying they differ from atheists because they do not share they same level of confidence in this possibility. A typical atheist will say there is no reason to believe in deities. A typical agnostic would not say that. This is excluding any atheists or theists that might also be agnostics. > [@](#): > > Almost no one defines an atheist with the requirement that he must think deities are not capable of existing. You even have stated in this thread that most atheists are agnostic atheists. **But what’s important is that I’m debating someone that has defined atheism differently than you, so my responses to him have to be taken in that context and not in regards to how you define atheism.** I would like to readdress this comment,bolding mine. My point is that for all intensive purposes, I think my definitions for atheism and agnosticism would line up pretty well with cosmodan’s, or we would agree for the most part if not for the whole part. Any small deviation or “sort-of” contradiction on their part amounts to very little on the whole. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/698 "2014-02-10T06:11:43Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > You are making a mistake that believers the world over make all the time, you are assuming there is some sort of equivalence between the existence of the supernatural beings and the lack of said creatures. When you make this mistake for Allah or god you are also, by default implying that it is ok to be agnostic about everything else that falls into this category. Poseidon? No idea. Odin? same thing. Raven? could be. Ghosts? EVP? IPU? FSM? Unipegasusicorns? Agnosticism is a statement that boils down to this, “We cannot know that stuff people says exists doesn’t exist because we just cant” Reasonable people know you cant catch a train to Hogwarts or open a closet door to Narnia in part because we know that the stuff in story books isn’t true because it was made up. Given that 100% of the evidence we have for the existence of every supernatural claim ever made is that it was made up or in some cases a side effect of our known to be flawed brains why would you ever bother acknowledging these claims? How do you come to the conclusion that Gawd is a claim we cannot know is true or not, then turn around and laugh at people who want to travel to Pandora? There is nothing reasonable at all about what amounts to a big argument from ignorance. I think you are making the mistake of assuming agnostics are teetering on the brink of atheism as opposed to believing wholly in a single religion and no other religion. A lot of agnostics, that I have met, who have a decent knowledge of both religion and science are teetering, if they are teetering at all, on the notion of any deity as opposed to atheism. They are not discriminating as you seem to be suggesting, but more-or-less are finding their way. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/699 "2014-02-10T13:01:23Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I haven’t been taking anything out of context and the contradictions are far from subtle. Please don’t make accusations like that unless you’re prepared to back them up. Taking things out of context being; “The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.” has been your modus operandi. Quoting “I’m not a theist” over and over…and over…and over…while ignoring the fact that "I’m an agnostic " was obviously the main point of that sentence is a textbook example. You’ve done it repeatedly throughout the thread, but you’ll never admit it, and "did not " “did so” is not much of a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/700 "2014-02-10T13:01:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Hmm. Why would an all knowing Being need to test something it already knows the answer to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=36)