# Seriously, how can anyone believe in religions like Christianity? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294 "2009-07-26T04:37:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/341 "2009-08-02T13:11:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you sure there are no aliens there? I’m sure that you aren’t sure there are. If you are sure there aren’t any, then how could we be pretty certain that alien life exists anywhere if we are sure it doesn’t exist around each star we enumerate. That reasoning doesn’t work. Say there is a lottery in which the lottery runners print one million tickets, one of which has the winning number rest of which do not. Now say my friend has a ticket. I can be quite sure he doesn’t have the red ticket–the chances are against him by a very wide margin. My ow ticket, also, I can be very sure is not the winner. Each individual ticket I come across, by the same reasoning, is almost certainly not the winner. Yet, it is guaranteed that if I encounter 1,000,000 tickets, one of the ones I encountered must be the winner. This is true even though in each individual case I can be quite certain that the ticket I’m looking at isn’t the winner. > [@](#): > > BTW, after my horrendous experience in a theory of knowledge class, I don’t do absolute certainty. What happened? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/342 "2009-08-02T13:21:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Morals precede laws. > > A nation may adopt a common moral code, but it is rarely the case that nations form around a moral standing. The United States is rather rare in this circumstance as opposed to people in say France or Iran who are bound by geography. > > This is just the language I speak to atheists in. > > A good life is what matters. But we aren’t questioning whether or not atheism is a valid lifestyle, but whether or not Christianity is. > > Christianity is not a political system in the way that communism is a political system. Christianity works just fine with our species. Perfect performance is a ridiculous standard to hold it to. The first Christians were communists ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/343 "2009-08-02T13:29:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not according to one of many anthropologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who are in aggreement: > > We propose an integrative cognitive neuroscience framework for understanding the cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Our analysis reveals 3 principle psychological dimensions of religious belief (God’s perceived level of involvement, God’s perceived emotion, and doctrinal/experiential religious knowledge), which functional MRI localizes within networks processing Theory of Mind regarding intent and emotion, abstract semantics, and imagery. Our results are unique in demonstrating that specific components of religious belief are mediated by well-known brain networks, and support contemporary psychological theories that ground religious belief within evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions. > > “Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief”, _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_, Dimitrios Kapogiannis et al In other words,Humans fear of death and the desire to have some other being take care ,and comfort them, created a desire for a Higher Being and an after life? Like many childern when loney etc, creat an invisible friend. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/344 "2009-08-02T13:45:29Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You make this assertion with a straight face, which is where I wonder about you. > > God, as typically described, exists outside of our supposed universe. Thus, physical laws do not apply. “God” can do what he/she/it/they wants, without being ruled by the so called “laws” of physics, because those “laws” after all are nothing more than tested hypotheses that we have constructed to explain what we see around us. > > Suppose I assert that, nightly, God talks to me? Prove that I am wrong. > > Suppose I assert that I, and only I, have observed otherwise unexplainable phenomena that I ascribe to God. Prove that I am wrong. > What you are really saying is: I see no evidence of this supposed God. Therefore, absent some evidence that God exists, I prefer not to speculate on, let alone accept, the existence of such an entity. This is a very practical approach. For you, it may even be the “right” approach. For others, it’s not what they prefer to do. Did you notice you said you asserted that you, and only you, ascribe what your sensing to be God? There are many people in mental hospitals who ascribe the same things. Because you or some person thousands of years ago ascribed their inner thoughts to God people believed them but it doesn’t doesn’t prove any thing either. I still will ask the question of who created the place for God to be? Any thing or being that exists must first have a place to exist and that place is existence. Belife in a god can only be just faith. Not proof. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/345 "2009-08-02T16:53:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I have the cynical suspicion that this “strong/weak atheist & strong/weak agnostic” classification scheme is being pushed by the theists under the divide and conquer theory. Get all the unbelievers to argue among themselves and make them even weaker. Bullshit. I don’t believe in dogmatisms of any kind – including a non-existent one for non-believers. Gods, as expressed by human religions, logically impossible. First Cause unknown at present time. Thus the best I can say is “I don’t know and neither do you.” Again, logically speaking, a non-intervening sentient creature and none at all = same thing. What label anyone chooses to attach to that makes no difference to me. Simply speaking they are my Own Rules. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/346 "2009-08-02T18:50:10Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > First Cause unknown at present time. Thus the best I can say is “I don’t know and neither do you.” Not true. Based on what we _do_ know - on what we can verify experimentally - we can say that the evidence is very strongly in favor of a physical/naturalistic model (the details of which we need not discuss in this thread). There is _no_ experimentally verifiable evidence for a deity or other non-physical “first cause.” ---
**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:** [August 2, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/347 "2009-08-02T18:59:50Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > There is _no_ experimentally verifiable evidence for a deity or other non-physical “first cause.” Nor evidence that a first cause is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/348 "2009-08-02T19:28:14Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > Not true. Based on what we _do_ know - on what we can verify experimentally - we can say that the evidence is very strongly in favor of a physical/naturalistic model (the details of which we need not discuss in this thread). There is _no_ experimentally verifiable evidence for a deity or other non-physical “first cause.” Fair enough if taken literally – my fault for capitalizing – but I am _not_ arguing for the cosmological argument which, frankly, is BS. So call it “origins” of the Universe of what have you. ISFAI – and I hasten to add that I only have a passing understanding of it; possibly due to lack of interest and/or understanding – the Big Bang posits a “finite time” from said origins and develops the theory from there. I am simply saying that doesn’t compute with me. The “something from nothing” bit. And that’s where I’d like to see some empirical evidence that I can _understand_. So is the Big Bang right or wrong? I’d be the wrong person to answer that – and I strongly suspect that so would the great majority of people. I am giving “god beliefs” and out of sorts. Nope, not really. Read what I wrote about that. All I am saying that a non-believer when it comes to man-made religions and their deities. Beyond that I don’t think anyone can produce any _definite answers._ Once we do find out – very much doubt I’ll be around to see the day – sentient or not makes no difference to me. Why? Easy. Look around you: I can’t imagine a more random existence that our own. And since I’ve already made it clear that I don’t buy into any religions, it’ll make no practical difference in the way I think or live my life: in the very finite here and now with no hopes/delusions whatsoever about an afterlife. Still my point stands. When we speak about origins, I don’t know for certain and neither do you. And anyone who says differently is adopting some sort of dogmatic stand based on faith – be it on religion or science. And I say this as a logical empiricist. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/349 "2009-08-02T19:51:15Z")
Ok we’re just going in circles now. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/350 "2009-08-03T01:00:58Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > And still the question: Why is proof in a court of law sense good enough for the moon, but not good enough for god? It would be plenty good for a god. But with the evidence available, and with the large number of suspects with equally good evidence, no fair jury would ever find that there is a god. Not even close. Fox had a great case against Franken compared to the case for god. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/351 "2009-08-03T01:04:53Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Still my point stands. When we speak about origins, I don’t know for certain and neither do you. And anyone who says differently is adopting some sort of dogmatic stand based on faith – be it on religion or science. And I say this as a logical empiricist. The important thing about origins is not that we know everything, which we don’t but that every single religion with a claimed access to the creator got it wrong. Even if there was some reason to think the universe was created, which there isn’t, why couldn’t the creator be some grad student and not a deity. If it was a deity, he was a piss-poor designer - look at all this wasted space. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/352 "2009-08-03T01:10:07Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That reasoning doesn’t work. Say there is a lottery in which the lottery runners print one million tickets, one of which has the winning number rest of which do not. Now say my friend has a ticket. I can be quite sure he doesn’t have the red ticket–the chances are against him by a very wide margin. My ow ticket, also, I can be very sure is not the winner. Each individual ticket I come across, by the same reasoning, is almost certainly not the winner. Yet, it is guaranteed that if I encounter 1,000,000 tickets, one of the ones I encountered must be the winner. This is true even though in each individual case I can be quite certain that the ticket I’m looking at isn’t the winner. Clearly no one who buys a ticket is sure the ticket can’t be a winner, because only a blockhead would do that. You might even have a lottery where the expected value of a $1 ticket is over $1. > [@](#): > > What happened? There were a bunch of extreme skeptics in the class, who basically said all term “but we don’t know that!” This was well before **The Matrix** - today they’d be all wearing long trenchcoats. It was a highjacked class. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/353 "2009-08-03T01:54:22Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The God of the Bible is reasonably well defined also, and as I said I’m sure that he doesn’t exist. What about the red-letter interpretation of the God of the Bible? (I’m referring to Jefferson, who was a theist, but who took the care to strip out the parts of the bible he considered superstitious or suspect). What’s the proof that Metaphorical God (or metaphorical FSM) doesn’t exist? A: > [@Voyager](#): > > Ah, but all religions talk about some specific god, and once they tell us what that god was supposed to have done, then we can quite happily deny it. I have no problem denying any of the Western gods I know something about and even _sob_ the FSM. Bring 'em on - Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Prince Philip. I’ll deny them all. If someone presents that old higher being who in some way is responsible for it all but keeps so far away from us that you can’t distinguish him existing from not existing, I’ll say I can’t disprove or deny such an unfalsifiable thing, but only a blockhead would change his or her actions in response to its potential existence. While there are conceptual similarities, the difference between FSM and Yahweh is that Yahweh has tradition behind Him. That may be sufficient to modify one’s actions at the margins. For example, tradition provides us with a conceptual infrastructure, so that the moral sentiments preferred by somebody can be couched in the terms of the prevailing religion. I trust there are others. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/354 "2009-08-03T03:09:51Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > God, as typically described, exists outside of our supposed universe. Thus, physical laws do not apply. “God” can do what he/she/it/they wants, without being ruled by the so called “laws” of physics, because those “laws” after all are nothing more than tested hypotheses that we have constructed to explain what we see around us. > > Suppose I assert that, nightly, God talks to me? Prove that I am wrong. > > Suppose I assert that I, and only I, have observed otherwise unexplainable phenomena that I ascribe to God. Prove that I am wrong. Fredrico The Uber-Power Ranger, as typically described, exists outside of our supposed universe. In fact, he exists outside of wherever God is supposed to exist too. So, not only do physical laws not apply, but God-laws do not apply either. Fredrico can do whatever he wants because he is the only thing inside (or outside) of any conceivable (or inconceivable) existence that is more powerful than God. WAY more powerful (little Goddy don’t even come close, y’all). He is neither ruled by the “laws” known to us humans or by the laws known (or even unknown) to God. After all, those “laws” are only hypotheses that we and God have constructed to explain that which was created by Fredrico. Suppose I assert that, daily, Fredrico talks to me, and he has told me that truly, you, everyone else in this thread, Jesus, Mohammad, Rush Limbaugh and God himself are all full of shit? That everything you tried to prove in your post is not only wrong, but also mere gibberish. That you are therefore, indeed, proven quite wrong. In that case, you have been **proven wrong.** QED. Prove that _I_ am wrong. And, suppose that I assert that I, and only I, have observed otherwise unexplainable phenomena that I ascribe to Fredrico that, just to fuck with your puny human brain, prove that you are wrong all over again. In that case, you are proven wrong–again. Prove that I am wrong. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/355 "2009-08-03T03:11:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Where, exactly, is “outside of our supposed universe”? Do you really believe that adding yet another undefined factor to an already undefined entity brings definition to that entity? Turtles. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/356 "2009-08-03T03:15:05Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > This cracked me up! Thanks for making my day! No, it “cwacked” you up. Fredrico told me. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/357 "2009-08-03T04:09:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The important thing about origins is not that we know everything, which we don’t but that every single religion with a claimed access to the creator got it wrong. I wrote as much. Again, if need be, I can be fairly labeled a “strong atheist” when it comes to religion. > [@](#): > > _Even if there was some reason to think the universe was created, which there isn’t, why couldn’t the creator be some grad student and not a deity. If it was a deity, he was a piss-poor designer - look at all this wasted space._ I can’t answer that which I don’t know – and neither does anyone else. Which is the sole point I am making. For the third time now. However, if forced to make an educated guess, I’d agree with you with the caveats stated. So for the most part I think the ‘difference’ between us is one of degrees of certainty – you appear to be [certain] and I am not. As far as I am concerned I don’t see a problem with that, however what prompted my original post, _is_. And that’s **Der Trish’s** militant dissemination of a strict dogmatic interpretation of non-belief. He simply doesn’t speak for me. Hell I read George H Smith’s [Atheism: The Case Against God](http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1) when you’d only find it on Prometheus or some obscure library (mid eighties) and went about making my case for strong atheism as the only “logical” conclusion to non-belief. An atheist bible of sorts at the time and somewhat reminiscent of the poster I alluded to in its rigidity. But as the years passed I came to realize I was holding on to my own dogmatic ways and thus becoming what I criticized. No longer. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/358 "2009-08-03T05:34:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If it was a deity, he was a piss-poor designer - look at all this wasted space. I think it’s a perfectly imperfect design…on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/359 "2009-08-03T06:38:55Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It would be plenty good for a god. But with the evidence available, and with the large number of suspects with equally good evidence, no fair jury would ever find that there is a god. Not even close. Fox had a great case against Franken compared to the case for god. Ok… Now I’m a bit confused, earlier you seemed to be saying the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/360 "2009-08-03T10:16:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Clearly no one who buys a ticket is sure the ticket can’t be a winner, No, not that it “can’t” be the winner, you’re right. But what I said is that they should be sure it _isn’t_ the winner. This is trivially true. The odds are about a million to one against. It’s a sure bet the ticket’s not the winner. > [@](#): > > because only a blockhead would do that. You might even have a lottery where the expected value of a $1 ticket is over $1. Expected value’s not relevant here. The expected value can be over a dollar, and at the same time, the almost certain outcome be that the ticket will lose. > [@](#): > > There were a bunch of extreme skeptics in the class, who basically said all term “but we don’t know that!” This was well before **The Matrix** - today they’d be all wearing long trenchcoats. It was a highjacked class. It’s too bad the prof couldn’t steer things better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294.md?page=19)