# 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:** 9
**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 10, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/161 "2014-01-10T01:47:46Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > . > > Not necessarily. My beef with the IPU is with the specific way it was first presented. Now that all these amendments have been made to it, or “goalpost shifting” and “redefining” as **Der Trihs** would put it, it’s not that big of a deal. EXCEPT, an IPU is still not a reasonable replacement for the Christain God, because most Christians believe their God has no corporeal form, so praying, making wishes, and giving money to an IPU would be RETARDED compared to something that only takes on the form that an individual conceptualizes about it. What part of invisible don’t you get? 😃 As for the Western god, things are not clear. While later versions have no corporeal form, Moses saw his backside. And then there is Jesus. Clearly God can make himself physical if he wishes to. In any case, no one has wasted too much time doing IPU version 2s the way they’ve done Jehovah V2. I agree that giving money to the IPU would be stupid. So is giving money to the Western God. God needs neither a starship or cash. Those whose career involves the claim that they know what god wants on the other hand … > [@](#): > > So what if the argument had validity in those other discussions? What does that have to do with this one? This entire above^^^ paragraph serves to make my point for me. I have already been very clear in my other posts about why the IPU is inappropriate. In your example, the IPU is clearly not inappropriate given those specific circumstances. It would intellectually valid, but it would also be trolling. Atheists hold themselves to a higher standard. (I’m sure some atheists troll theist groups - none involved in those though.) > [@](#): > > Okay, I see the difference now. I also said this: > > "Our perception of time is essentially an illusion. Why would God share the same limited mind for understanding this world as we do? If the Universe were created by God, everything would have been preordained from the moment of creation. Meaning, God would not actively participate in anything(in a way). But, being the all-powerful being he is, he could orchestrate every possible scenario to happen simultaneously at all times in an infinite number of universes. " First, I’m assuming he knows what he will do from the very beginning. Even before the moment of creation, in fact. That comes with omniscience. But he can’t change anything without violating omniscience, so there goes omnipotence. And multiple universes don’t help. He still can’t do it in a given universe. If I claim to be able to control a die, and force it to a 6, I don’t get to throw down 50 die, pick out a 6, and say I’ve proven my power. > [@](#): > > He would essentially never be wrong on some minute level of fallibility like the one you have described. Or wrong at all for that matter. The fact that he is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time would mean that he would have to be capable of what i have described in the above paragraph. No, he must know in one universe. Say his omniscience lets him know which horse wins the sixth race at Belmont one day. In some universe, every horse in the race wins. How is that truly omniscient? Good try, though - that is a better counterargument than I usually hear. > [@](#): > > (within the context of my argument which seems to be lost on all the cross-commenting that goes on from multiple posters) The point is that God COULD exist and that science has indeed not proven anything for certain. I was saying this to **Der Trihs** at the time when he claimed that science has somehow without a doubt made any notion of God “ridiculous, and blatantly obnoxious,” when in fact, science has not done that. I was just making a point in that regard, not asserting in any way that that very specific avenue of my point which you have latched on to, is significant to religion. As usual, it depends on your definition of God. Some gods science has made absurd. Some are invisible and unfalsifiable. But no humanly defined God with any supposed interaction with us has stood up to scientific or historical scrutiny. George Adamski, in the '50s, claimed that he got a ride on a UFO and visited Venus. He described it quite well. Venus as he described it of course bears no relationship to what we have found with our probes. We now laugh at him. But if he were in the God biz someone would be writing about how his description of Venus was of course not literal, but could be interpreted as being exactly correct. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/162 "2014-01-10T02:03:28Z")
As a believer I see fortune and misfortune much the same way an athiest does. I just believe that life was created by god using evolution as his method of choice. I also believe that we have some form of energy that will live on after we dies and that it has some purpose. I admit that I pray and meditate often even though I am not sure anyone is listening I feel like god is listening and I often feel like prayers are answered. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/163 "2014-01-10T04:03:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s the truth; and rather obvious truth at that. No different from a theist claiming that God is the truth and rather obvious at that. This has basically become a battle of you reasserting your opinion over and over again while I ask you to demonstrate some sort of verifiable proof, so I think this has just about run it’s course. > [@](#): > > “God” is irrational in blatantly obvious ways, not in complicated ways we might be wrong about. To use the comparison that you keep ignoring, it’s just as silly as an adult in believing in Santa Claus (even sillier, actually); are you going to try to claim that Santa Claus might actually exist? It’s a red herring, it doesn’t even merit a response. > [@](#): > > And if our “current logic” doesn’t apply to god, then we can’t say anything meaningful about him. No one really means it when they use arguments like this anyway, it’s just a rhetorical device; as soon as the skeptics shut up, suddenly everyone knows exactly what God is like and what God wants. And he is, yes, the Christian god and not the generic for-rhetorical-purposes-only-God that you keep trying to pretend this conversation is about. I’m not pretending anything. You are obviously just a pretentious jerk when it comes to this topic. You strawman me at every turn, put words in my mouth, and can’t provide any significant proof to back up your own claims… > [@](#): > > He’s only vague and ultra-incomprehensible when someone is expressing doubt. God is inherently incomprehensible. Are you so arrogant you would presume to be able to comprehend something of that nature, if it exists? That’s kin to a microbe comprehending our existence. > [@](#): > > Your comparisons are ridiculous even if they were true. You are trying to compare something that is logically and scientifically impossible, something that is probably the most implausible, impossible and blatantly false concept ever created - God - to things that are known to exist and aren’t even all that mysterious. Strawmanning me again Comparisons? Those are simply examples used to illustrate a point, not comparisons to ANYTHING. And they are true. Is this what you consider a productive discussion? Where you bend my points and meaning to whatever suits the thought you are typing at the moment? How is it not mysterious that history claims the Great Pyramid of Giza was built in 20 years, even thought that would mean that they would have had to lay a giant brick about every 14 seconds? How is it not mysterious that modern experts honestly don’t have the foggiest idea how ancient Egyptians built it? It’s all speculation. How is it not mysterious that we don’t understand why water functions the way it does? Water is fundemaental part for all life on Earth and we would not exist without it afterall. > [@](#): > > If we can’t say that God is imaginary then we can’t say that _anything_ is imaginary, because there just isn’t\* anything\* less plausible, more impossible or more _obviously_ not true. Again; if God, why not Santa Claus? Why not elves? You keep outright ignoring questions like that - because they underline just how silly believing in God is. Which of course brings us back to the IPU, and why it is a good comparison to God. Strawmanning and red herring You have perpetrated more logical fallacies than you have claimed God’s existence has. lol None of those supernatural beings have any relevance in this conversation. What is your reasoning for claiming that if someone believes in God, then they must also believe in fairy tale creatures? > [@](#): > > The laws of physics. I can only take this to mean you actually don’t have any idea what specific laws of physics God would have to break to exist. You seem to like to snip my statements to suit your responses generally in a misleading way. Just saying’ “The laws of physics,” is akin to a theist saying, “Because the Bible says so… somehwhere in there.” Our laws of physics aren’t even all that sound. Quantum mechanics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity both contradict each other. QM only applies to things on a quantum level, and ETR only applies to things in the macro-world. Not vice a versa So, are you going to validate your argument by providing an explanation? Or are you just on the atheist bandwagon? It seems to me, from what I’ve seen so far, that all you have done is spend some time on message boards where you learned about the debate against theists, and now you’re just regurgitating cliche arguments that don’t even fit the scenario very well. > [@](#): > > Nonsense; religion causes immense harm, and it causes harm from the actions of non-extremists at least as much as from extremists. Not only do they participate directly, but they lend practical and moral support even when they don’t personally get their hands dirty. And the idea that the world would be worse off without something as incredibly evil, destructive and useless as religion is just silly. I think there is another message board that you may be more suited for. It’s called IMHO… > [@](#): > > And a morally bankrupt position to take; you might as well claim that the world would be worse off racism or some other equally evil belief system; you have just as much evidence and logical support for such a position after all. You are just making the unsupported assertion that despite the immense and obvious evil caused by it, that we can’t actually call it a bad thing because we can’t prove mathematically that it doesn’t do some secret hidden good that balances it all out. A position that if actually taken seriously means that we can’t criticized _anything at all._ I’m just making a point. There is no sense in making a claim either way. It might have been a necessary evil to get us to where we are now. And now, that we have all of this knowledge at our fingertips, we can shed religion, and evolve as a civilization. > [@](#): > > Really? I’ve never fired anyone, beaten them, or murdered them for being religious. I’ve…argued with people on message boards about it. Truly, my evil knows no limit. :rolleyes: Huh, well why were sharing random, irrelevant facts, I’ll add this, my Mom quit smoking, became an extremely health conscious person, and stopped being a bitch when she became religious. Now to my real point, which you also strawmanned, you are essentially accusing every single person who is religious in any way, of having a stupid belief, and perpetrating evil across the globe. That’s discrimination bud. [QUOTE] No, because “God” is purely religious concept, and because we are all really just talking about the Christian god anyway. No were not. You just want to make it about the Christian God so that it is easy for you to bash. I admit the Christian God has been the basis of certain sub-levels of this discussion, but has generally been specifically referred to in those instances. > [@](#): > > Religion doesn’t put up “boundaries”, it corrupts people and grants them the moral license to commit any evil they wish if they scream the name of their god first. The first step towards any genuine moral code if to reject or sideline religion. Those are negative things that have happened under very specific circumstances, not something that the average religious person partakes in on a significant level. I’ll add that those people must have been predisposed to committing evil to do so. So basically, you want to administer some sort of new mass form of control over people, because religion is silly? Some form that doesn’t give people the moral license or ability to commit evil acts? Huh, you’re a revolutionary. Maybe you can call it g o v e r n m e n t or something. Good Luck! 😃 > [@](#): > > No, they have never perceived any miracles. And there’s nothing admirable about fraudulent solace. That’s a blatantly ignorant response. Do you know what the definition of perceived is? Here I’ll help you. per·ceive pərˈsēv/Submit verb 1. become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand. “his mouth fell open as he perceived the truth” synonyms: discern, recognize, become aware of, see, distinguish, realize, grasp, understand, take in, make out, find, identify, hit on, comprehend, apprehend, appreciate, sense, divine; More become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, esp. that of sight. “he perceived the faintest of flushes creeping up her neck” synonyms: see, discern, detect, catch sight of, spot, observe, notice More 2. interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as. “if Guy does not perceive himself as disabled, nobody else should” synonyms: regard, look on, view, consider, think of, judge, deem, adjudge To perceive something is uniquely in the eyes of the beholder. Admirable? what’s your point? And besides, almost every moment of solace someone has is fraudulent in some way. Who cares how they got there? Just be happy there not all up-tight and a spaz. > [@](#): > > Because it has a better chance of working than more “polite” methods. Which is why the believers hate it so much. Thanks for reiterating your opinion about your abrasive debate tactic. > [@](#): > > No it wouldn’t; the more wrapped up someone is in religion, the more they are living in a fantasy world and therefore the more dangerous they are to themselves and others. Oh my God, I better stay away from churches with all of those dangerous people that live in a fantasy world. I might get killed, or worse they will try and socialize with me! Bahahahahahaha What’s a better place to meet a new friend or a date, a bar or a church? In my experience, you run into a more dangerous and hedonistic crowd at a bar than you ever might at church. Your statement has no practical application to an average religious American whatsoever. It’s just you voicing some discriminating opinion once again. > [@](#): > > Then you haven’t been paying attention. It’s a constant fight to keep them from putting Creationism into schools, and they are constantly pushing their hatred; for example, there’s the bans and attempts to ban same sex marriage. There’s the death/life imprisonment for homosexuals laws passed in Uganda, ion large part backed by American Christians. No, you must not be paying attention. Or you’re so biased you jump to the first fantastical conclusion you think of. I was asking where are all of the theists in this discussion right here, right now with us? > [@](#): > > The attempts of the believers to turn America and the world into a theocracy is constant and unrelenting. It’s not _my_ fault that you apparently don’t notice that even when it makes front page news. Like I said, religion is based on money and power. So is nearly any other organization that you can compare to a religion. > [@Voyager](#): > > First, I’m assuming he knows what he will do from the very beginning. Even before the moment of creation, in fact. That comes with omniscience. But he can’t change anything without violating omniscience, so there goes omnipotence. > And multiple universes don’t help. He still can’t do it in a given universe. If I claim to be able to control a die, and force it to a 6, I don’t get to throw down 50 die, pick out a 6, and say I’ve proven my power. I suppose you are right when looking at it that way, but God would have to be infinite to exist under these pretenses right? So in your scenario and others like it, God would have an infinite loop for this and simply be able to say, “well I knew I would change that,” then, “well I knew that i knew I would change that,” and so on and so on. Even if he did alter something, it would already have been part of the preordained plan. Or maybe, once God had created everything, God then temporarily took away it’s own omniscience to the level of “almost omniscience” so that they could enjoy the dabbling on a lower level of consciousness. Kinda like how people get drunk to forget about their problems. lol > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > As a believer I see fortune and misfortune much the same way an athiest does. I just believe that life was created by god using evolution as his method of choice. I also believe that we have some form of energy that will live on after we dies and that it has some purpose. I admit that I pray and meditate often even though I am not sure anyone is listening I feel like god is listening and I often feel like prayers are answered. This is helpful, thank you. It shows that their are modern forms of believers, not all of them or even very many of them are radicals or extremists. ---
**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 10, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/164 "2014-01-10T04:31:16Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > No different from a theist claiming that God is the truth and rather obvious at that. This has basically become a battle of you reasserting your opinion over and over again while I ask you to demonstrate some sort of verifiable proof, so I think this has just about run it’s course. :dubious: What is the world _would_ be “verifiable proof” for the IPU being a valid comparison to God? God showing up and telling you to stop insulting his buddy the unicorn? > [@YoungKusher](#): > > It’s a red herring, it doesn’t even merit a response. Because you don’t have one. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > God is inherently incomprehensible. Are you so arrogant you would presume to be able to comprehend something of that nature, if it exists? Yet another rhetorical handwave that essentially no one believes. Virtually no one believes in an incomprehensible God; that’s something that only comes up in discussions like this one. _Outside_ of such discussions God is very comprehensible, with his followers telling everyone exactly what he’s like, what he does, and what he wants. _And_ that he’s male. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > How is it not mysterious that history claims the Great Pyramid of Giza was built in 20 years, even thought that would mean that they would have had to lay a giant brick about every 14 seconds? How is it not mysterious that modern experts honestly don’t have the foggiest idea how ancient Egyptians built it? It’s all speculation. How is it not mysterious that we don’t understand why water functions the way it does? But none of that is true. And none of that is the utter denial of physics and logic that God is. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > None of those supernatural beings have any relevance in this conversation. Oh, they do. You just don’t want to address them because like Santa Claus you have no answer to the question “If God, why not them?” You want a special standard to be applied to God, but you don’t want to even try to justify it. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > I can only take this to mean you actually don’t have any idea what specific laws of physics God would have to break to exist. No, I just didn’t want to produce a long list of them. God breaks everything from the speed of light to all of quantum mechanics. Arguably thanks to omnipotence he breaks all of them. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Our laws of physics aren’t even all that sound. Compared to the total baselessness of religion they are extremely sound. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No, because “God” is purely religious concept, and because we are all really just talking about the Christian god anyway. > > No were not. You just want to make it about the Christian God so that it is easy for you to bash. No; you just want to justify the Christian God around without admitting to the baggage of the Christian religion. But you are referring to the Christian god; you are _describing_ the Christian God, not Zeus or Anu or Set. The very fact that you use the _Christian_ term “God” helps show that. As does the fact that you refuse to even address anything supernatural except that God; you aren’t agnostically reserving judgement due to a lack of evidence, or you’d apply the same standard to them. You are clearly looking for away to justify believing in capital-G God, and _only_ that God. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > So basically, you want to administer some sort of new mass form of control over people, because religion is silly? Some form that doesn’t give people the moral license or ability to commit evil acts? Huh, you’re a revolutionary. Maybe you can call it g o v e r n m e n t or something. I do call it govenrment. Government works, where religion fails. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Admirable? what’s your point? And besides, almost every moment of solace someone has is fraudulent in some way. Who cares how they got there? I do. Preying on grieving people is disgusting. > [@YoungKusher](#): > > Like I said, religion is based on money and power. No; religion is based on faith, on the denial of reality and of logic. And on spreading the religion that dominates the people it has infected. Money and power are simply the tools religion uses to spread itself with. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/165 "2014-01-10T05:21:58Z")
I just want to acknowledge here that [the response by Trinopus](http://http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17000060&postcount=153) very nicely delineates exactly what I was saying, and the challenge of “how are you going to persuade the organized churches today?” was well answered [in the reply by simster](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17000072&postcount=154). In brief: Organized religions at various points in history have been been either political forces, cults, or businesses – or combinations thereof. And they have mostly (though not always) been harmful, and very often dangerously so. The history of organized religion in human affairs is a mostly violent and most unpleasant one. The only point that I wanted to make here is that personal spirituality is a different concept altogether and should not be attacked on the same basis. ---
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/166 "2014-01-10T05:23:32Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > So basically, you want to administer some sort of new mass form of control over people, because religion is silly? Some form that doesn’t give people the moral license or ability to commit evil acts? There’s always self control. If it takes the threat of hell to make you a moral person, then you are not at all moral, you are just a coward who responds well to threats. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/167 "2014-01-10T05:52:43Z")
> [@randompattern](#): > > I have a Tree in my backyard that I talk to often. I ask it to grant me wishes, sometimes it does, sometimes not. I believe this Tree has the power to do this because I was brought up that way. I have no proof it does, I just know it. My Tree listens to me, loves me, and sometimes asks for money. Am I delusional? Write back and tell us when you’ve had a treesome. Then again, maybe not. Sex with innominate objects was never what it was hyped to be…in any event, I’d imagine you’d have to be careful with the branches. Wear…a Kevlar cup? ---
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/168 "2014-01-10T05:56:04Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Write back and tell us when you’ve had a treesome. > > Then again, maybe not. Sex with innominate objects was never what it was hyped to be…in any event, I’d imagine you’d have to be careful with the branches. > > Wear…a Kevlar cup? It DOES have a knothole in it.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/169 "2014-01-10T08:09:20Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > True, it doesn’t _always_ occur, but when it does, what causes it? We don’t know exactly. I think we have read the data differently. Setting anecdotes aside, where is the data that has conclusively proven that hot water freezes faster than cold water and can be replicated by others? Cecil’s column that commented on Jearl in the article in Scientific American was this: > [@](#): > > He found that water heated to, say, 195 degrees would freeze three to ten minutes faster than water at 140-175 degrees. (There were differences depending on how much water was used, where the thermocouple was placed, and so on.) Jearl suggested that the most likely explanation for this was evaporation: when water cools down from near boiling to the freezing point, as much as 16 percent evaporates away, compared to 7 percent for water at 160 degrees. The smaller the amount of water, of course, the faster it freezes. In addition, the water vapor carries away a certain amount of heat. To test this theory, Jearl covered his lab beaker with Saran Wrap to prevent water vapor from escaping. The freezing rate difference was greatly diminished. Conceivably convection (motion within the water) also plays a role. So the evaporation causes the hotter water to be of lesser volume. If you took a drop of water, a pint, a quart, a gallon, all of the same temperature before setting in the freezer, the smaller amount will freeze faster. When the water vapor was contained with Saran Wrap, the freezing rate was “greatly diminished.” It doesn’t give numbers here, but again, I just don’t think any of this is a big mystery. Cecil only concluded from this that very hot water freezes more slowly than VERY hot water. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/170 "2014-01-10T09:47:36Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > :dubious: What is the world _would_ be “verifiable proof” for the IPU being a valid comparison to God? God showing up and telling you to stop insulting his buddy the unicorn? lol Oh I’m sorry… Are you missing the point again? I guess you will just hve to figure this one out on your own. > [@](#): > > Yet another rhetorical handwave that essentially no one believes. Virtually no one believes in an incomprehensible God; that’s something that only comes up in discussions like this one. _Outside_ of such discussions God is very comprehensible, with his followers telling everyone exactly what he’s like, what he does, and what he wants. _And_ that he’s male. What do you mean “virtually no one believes?” Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Any religious person has absolutely sat down at one point or another in their life, and pondered and conceptualized what God is like. There is also many spiritual people who have done the same thing. Of course the human mind is going to fabricate some sort of relatable, imagined form so they don’t blow their mind every time they think of God. That doesn’t mean that they believe they can comprehend or understand the magnitude of God. Most people consider God to be the Supreme Being, which inherently has all of the attributes I have been talking about. You are simply trying to funnel the discussion into an area we both already agree is absurd. You do understand this is an agnostic arguing with an atheist right? The discussion is definitely going to encompass a different area of thought than a discussion between an atheist and a theist. I can understand why that might take you out of your comfort zone, someone telling you why your atheism is just a belief, not a proven fact. > [@](#): > > But none of that is true. And none of that is the utter denial of physics and logic that God is. It is true to the exact extent which I have stated, although apparently as of 2013 they have developed a new, promising theory as to why hot water freezes faster than cold water. It is still not perfectly clear how the pyramids were built either. My point is that there are many basic things that we haven’t figured out yet. It is premature to conclude that God can not exist based on our current knowledge and understanding of the world. What does “the utter denial of physics and logic” have to do with it? Like I said, those are not comparisons. They illustrate the point that we don’t know diddly squat compared to what we would need to know about God to make the assertion that it does not exist. Since you can’t prove that God does not exist, you are just assuming it, you also are a believer in a sense. > [@](#): > > Oh, they do. You just don’t want to address them because like Santa Claus you have no answer to the question “If God, why not them?” You want a special standard to be applied to God, but you don’t want to even try to justify it. Ask’s **Der Trihs** why he won’t provide an explnation. > [@](#): > > No, I just didn’t want to produce a long list of them. God breaks everything from the speed of light to all of quantum mechanics. Arguably thanks to omnipotence he breaks all of them. LOLOLOL so you get to have a special standard for your argument now? lololol It’s not even a special standard in my case. IT IS A RED HERRING. It is simply a way for you to distract from the real point by bringing in some convoluted non-sense. I’m sure I could put together a precise list of reasons why other mythical beings are inadmissible in this discussion. You keep trying to take the discussion to a place where it has no need of being. > [@](#): > > Compared to the total baselessness of religion they are extremely sound. It’s not unreasonable or uncommon for believers to think that science and God go hand in hand. They are rational people who understand the Bible is antiquated and it’s exact words are merely an accurate representation of the time they were written, not an accurate representation of what God is like or what God wants. > [@](#): > > No; you just want to justify the Christian God around without admitting to the baggage of the Christian religion. But you are referring to the Christian god; you are _describing_ the Christian God, not Zeus or Anu or Set. The very fact that you use the _Christian_ term “God” helps show that. I have already said that I have my own thoughts about what God would have to be like if it existed. Whatever similarities it shares with a Christian God are of no significance because it has been altered so dramatically. Also, you are flat out wrong that using the word “God” is a representation of me implying the Christian God. It’s a neat simple word based on words that predate Christianity, but it obviously has a totally different meaning to you. So, I’ll start using supreme divine being or SDB so that you can shed all of your religious biases. > [@](#): > > As does the fact that you refuse to even address anything supernatural except that God; you aren’t agnostically reserving judgement due to a lack of evidence, or you’d apply the same standard to them. You are clearly looking for away to justify believing in capital-G God, and _only_ that God. What do you mean apply the same standard to them? Whose to say I wouldn’t apply the same standard and those mythical creatures would all reach their destined conclusion? All of those supernatural beings have a corporeal form… something that SDB would not have unless it was somehow temporarily conducive to the situation. They would all need detailed explanations as to why each one is different, which is doable, but really pointless as there is not much to gain in this discussion. I am NOT looking for a way to justify believing in God. I am simply trying to show that to assert that SDB does not exist, is equally as presumptuous as claiming that SDB does exist. > [@](#): > > I do call it govenrment. Government works, where religion fails. lol It’s a work in progress… Government allows for just as many evils to be perpetrated as religion. > [@](#): > > I do. Preying on grieving people is disgusting. Preying? WTF are you talking about. Do you consider telling someone that “everything will be alright,” when you know it will probably not be “alright,” a form of fraudulent preying? According to these assertions, you would rather tell them to “suck it up” than to comfort them? > [@](#): > > No; religion is based on faith, on the denial of reality and of logic. And on spreading the religion that dominates the people it has infected. Money and power are simply the tools religion uses to spread itself with. What I meant to say and have already said before is, religion is ABOUT, not based on money and power. The rest of what you’re saying here is slanderous nonsense. Money and power are the GOAL, not a means to simply proliferate religion. > [@randompattern](#): > > There’s always self control. > > If it takes the threat of hell to make you a moral person, then you are not at all moral, you are just a coward who responds well to threats. So basically, it’s the person, not the laws or the religion that make them do the things they do? Why would religion bear any of the responsibility at all then, if a moral person knows when it is okay and when it’s not? Maybe it’s because many of the flaws religion has, are actually reflections of the flaws we as people have had all along regardless of religion. > [@razncain](#): > > Cecil’s column that commented on Jearl in the article in Scientific American was this: So the evaporation causes the hotter water to be of lesser volume. If you took a drop of water, a pint, a quart, a gallon, all of the same temperature before setting in the freezer, the smaller amount will freeze faster. When the water vapor was contained with Saran Wrap, the freezing rate was “greatly diminished.” It doesn’t give numbers here, but again, I just don’t think any of this is a big mystery. Cecil only concluded from this that very hot water freezes more slowly than VERY hot water. Up until recently, the exact explanation for this phenomena was not known. When Cecil says “greatly diminished,” that’s not exactly definitive and there were other competing theories that went along with the one he presented. Such as: mineral deposits in the water, the container you freeze the water in effecting the results, and other variations. I found this article showing exactly why it occurs. But from what i gather, this is a fairly new discovery. I can’t find anything pre-2013 with this explanation so I suppose I’m using an out of date example. > **[Why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold—Physicists Solve the Mpemba Effect](https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-hot-water-freezes-faster-than-cold-physicists-solve-the-mpemba-effect-d8a2f611e853)** > > Aristotle first noticed that hot water freezes faster than cold, but chemists have always struggled to explain the paradox. Until now Even with this new theory, it is not a 100% sound explanation. It still requires further verification on a different level to be deemed valid. It’s kind of like solving a math problem with the wrong method, because that method is not able to solve other related problems it should be able to. ---
**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 10, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/171 "2014-01-10T12:41:57Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Up until recently, the exact explanation for this phenomena was not known. When Cecil says “greatly diminished,” that’s not exactly definitive and there were other competing theories that went along with the one he presented. Such as: mineral deposits in the water, the container you freeze the water in effecting the results, and other variations. I found this article showing exactly why it occurs. But from what i gather, this is a fairly new discovery. I can’t find anything pre-2013 with this explanation so I suppose I’m using an out of date example. > > [Why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold—Physicists Solve the Mpemba Effect | by The Physics arXiv Blog | The Physics arXiv Blog | Medium](https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d8a2f611e853) > > Even with this new theory, it is not a 100% sound explanation. It still requires further verification on a different level to be deemed valid. It’s kind of like solving a math problem with the wrong method, because that method is not able to solve other related problems it should be able to. This, as much as any wall of text you’ve posted in this thread illustrates quite well that you are quite the advocate for the God of the Gaps argument. If history and science shows us anything it’s that god is running out of places to hide in the universe. But you believe otherwise. Furthermore, you believe this without the smallest shred of evidence in support of that belief. You go further to suggest that atheism is simply another belief system - different from yours. Here is another place you are deeply mistaken. Atheism is the absence of a belief system. An atheist is one who understands that there is no evidence for god and therefore has no intrinsic need to believe in such a being. He or she doesn’t hedge bets or hold his breath or cross his fingers while making that statement. An atheist is typically more likely to accept the fact that there are questions to which he or she may never have answers but there is no reason to think that god must be the explanation for the, as yet, unknown. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/172 "2014-01-10T12:53:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d ask someone who believed this question: say we have five groups each believing in a mutually contradictory and singular god. Each of these gods have been worshiped for quite a while, and has a set of quite devout believers. How do we determine which, if any, of these gods exist? How can any believer in one god disprove the others? And, is the argument for existence different in any way from that for the IPU? IMO there’s quite a difference between “Is there a God?” and the specifics of different religous traditions and doctrine. The Bahai teach that all religion is man’s imperfect attempt to understand and commune with God. My approach in the lasty few years to discussions with believers is to point out the obvious and undeniable differenes and contradictions in belief and how beliefs have evolved and changed, not to challange their basic gtod belief, but to point out that religious tradition is something entirely different and okay to question. Many believers already understand that. > [@](#): > > . Now here is the argument for a bi-omni god being logically impossible. > > Say God, in his omniscience, knows that he is going to make a sparrow fall at the corner of Main and First next Friday at 1 pm. He obviously can do this. No, if he is omnipotent he can also not do it. But if he does not do it, he is incorrect in knowing that he will do it, and is not omniscient. If he is indeed omniscient, and correctly knows it is going to happen, then he is not omnipotent, since he can’t make it not happen. > > Say he is almost omniscient, and actually omnipotent. Then he is no longer logically necessary. God is the greatest - but it is logically possible to have another God who is omniscient and almost omnipotent. Which God is greater? > Don’t tell me that God just chooses to not keep the sparrow from falling, since this is about what God is able to do, not what God actually does. Ignoring omniscience, God being able to only make a coin come down heads or tails - not both - in no way shows he is not omnipotent. Ditto for the making a pizza too big to eat nonsense. I still find these arguments somewhat frivilous and essentially pointless. It seems to me that no matter how it’s framed these arguments are applying our own limited perspective to something proposed to be limitless and all encompassing. In that way the foundation of these arguments is flawed and illogical. For example, in your sparrow one you try to hem God in with time, when God is said to be timeless. These arguments only work when they start by applying some finite human measure and perception to a proposed being that is beyond 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 10, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/173 "2014-01-10T13:10:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I still find these arguments somewhat frivilous and essentially pointless. It seems to me that no matter how it’s framed these arguments are applying our own limited perspective to something proposed to be limitless and all encompassing. In that way the foundation of these arguments is flawed and illogical. For example, in your sparrow one you try to hem God in with time, when God is said to be timeless. These arguments only work when they start by applying some finite human measure and perception to a proposed being that is beyond them. The biggest flaw I find in these arguments is: Look at all this stuff we don’t know and science can’t explain, therefore, god. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/174 "2014-01-10T13:17:04Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I like the idea…but how are you going to persuade the organized churches today? > > For me, defining God as “The unknowable abstraction that exists outside of time and space and may have set off The Big Bang” is acceptable. But the nice Baptist Minister down the street is going to react pretty badly. He still claims to have a “personal relationship” with God (and Jesus.) He is not going to accept a redefinition of religion as abstract deism. He still insists the Devil is a real person and Hell is a real place. > > That’s where **Der Trihs** and I differ (although I admire him very much.) I hold that the prevailing, conventional, popular form of organized religion in the world is harmful, but that more laid-back alternatives are not harmful. > > In my ideal, religious beliefs are like preferences in flavors and cuisine. You might not like Chinese food, while I might not like Italian food. But who cares, since neither of us is going to try to compel the other to partake of what we like. > > The American right-wing-dominated fundamentalist religious establishment is very much trying to compel outward compliance with their doctrines and dogmas. So, there at least, I stand close by **Der Trihs** ’ shoulder. Those guys are goddamn dangerous to us. > > And to you! If your ideas of reformed definitions of religion and God started to catch on, they’d aim their machinery of hatred at you. (Just look at how they hate “New Age” interpretations of Christianity.) > > This is the Ogre in the living room. Yup, It’s a process that will take generations of effort. Still, IMO the approach that stands a better chance of progress and success is to not challange God belief, which is something that can’t be proved or disproved anyway, but to challange and point out the difference between religious tradition and the individual spiritual journey. IOW, to remind people that they doon’t have to abandon spirituality or belief in in questioning the details of certain dogma, and in fact, seeking the truth requires that they do so. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/175 "2014-01-10T13:19:43Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > The biggest flaw I find in these arguments is: Look at all this stuff we don’t know and science can’t explain, therefore, god. which is something I never said or even implied. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/176 "2014-01-10T13:31:02Z")
> [@simster](#): > > well - you can’t be agnostic about things like the loch ness monster’ by definition - unless you are giving that critter ‘supernatural’ gifts - > > agnostic is “unknown AND unknowable” - we could drain that lake and be 100% sure - given the efforts at searching it so far there really is little doubt as to the existence of the critter - but we do find new critters every so often, so its not unpossible. > > Its just not ‘agnostic’ - I see. My response was half jest Why would I be agnostic about IPU since it’s acknowledged as a created argument rather than proposed as an actual thing. My point was only that there are plenty of things that I am unsure of thier existance and am open to any new evidence. In the case of a supposed God , I have doubts anything could be actual evidence. Any unexplained events could be just that, rather than God. ---
**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 10, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/177 "2014-01-10T13:34:09Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > which is something I never said or even implied. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see. My response was half jest Why would I be agnostic about IPU since it’s acknowledged as a created argument rather than proposed as an actual thing. > My point was only that there are plenty of things that I am unsure of thier existance and am open to any new evidence. In the case of a supposed God , I have doubts anything could be actual evidence. Any unexplained events could be just that, rather than God. I apologize. I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/178 "2014-01-10T14:21:11Z")
[quote=“QuickSilver, post:149, topic:677713”] > [@](#): > > It is not my intention to impugn your friend. I’m sure she’s every bit the kind of person you believe her to be. pay attention, it was not about a friend of mine but another poster. My response was not a personal defense of a friend as you seem to have read it. > [@](#): > > I simply want to point out that there are good & bad people in the world. I think the quality of goodness is more a function of a person’s genetic and psychological make-up than it is a function of what they happen to believe or not believe. The corollary is equally true: A bastard is a bastard whether he has faith or not. Again, pay attention, I acknowledged that in my response to you so there was no need to point out the obvious. Nobody claimed she was perfect. You seem to have missed the point in your desire to make one of your own. for over 20 years the poster saw her as a great human being without ever knowing she was a believer. That means she didn’t preach her faith to others buut merely practiced it in what appears to be a positive way. That in no way applies that an atheist can’t be an equally good person. The point is that for some people their faith is their vehicle that results in their life being largely positive for those lives they touch. Who can say if they, or we, would be better off if they didn’t believe? Nobody can. You commented that she’s spreading ignorance. Again I ask, what ignorance do you propose she’s spreading? Some people hold the opinion that the world would be better off without religion and God belief. They are welcome to hold that opinion but should be aware it is only idle speculation and something they themselves have no realisitic way to establish. Personally I find it humorous and ironic when those who complain about the illogic of God belief want to defend an opinion they cannot really prove in any way. > [@](#): > > As to whether or not some of the kids benefit from Sunday school - that I’m not so sure about. If it does help some, as you stated, is it also possible that it causes confusion and guilt to some others? God’s a pretty overwhelming concept to a kid, even without all the fire and brimstone. And the concept of punishment by god is not such a foreign concept that a kid wouldn’t catch on pretty quick that he/she better toe the line if they want to get into heaven. But I don’t want to belabor the point except to add that indulging in some fantasies causes less long term harm than others. This is pointless speculation since neither you or I know what class she teaches or her approach. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/179 "2014-01-10T14:22:21Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I apologize. I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. Apology accepted. this seems to be something of a habit with you in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713/180 "2014-01-10T14:22:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The standard concept of God is _also_ full of paradoxes, thanks to its followers insistence on attributing so many infinite and absolute qualities to it. > > Also, an invisible object _can_ be meaningfully said to be pink, if it’s pink when it’s _not_ invisible; rather like how one can say that Marvel’s Invisible Woman is a blonde even when she’s invisible. It’s just never _not_ invisible; just like God-believers attribute all sorts of qualities to their god that would be easy to perceive if it ever showed up, which it never does. There are some people who believed God had sides, and was not invisible, Moses was said to have been told by God he could only see his backside, that no one could see his face and live! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-religion-and-the-afterlife-a-form-of-denial/677713.md?page=10)