# 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:** 19
**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, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/361 "2009-08-03T10:17:37Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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. You seem to think **DSYoungEsq** was trying to argue in favor of God’s existence. He wasn’t. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/362 "2009-08-03T18:00:25Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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? That’s not really the god of the Bible now, is it? What you just did happens all the time as the definition of god keeps changing depending on the person, the interpretation, and what is known about the natural world. My claim of falsifying God rev B.1 says nothing about God rev J.5. Theists really should put in some version control software. > [@](#): > > A: 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. Being Jewish, I can call Christians a bunch of newbies. Clearly tradition doesn’t make anything right, or we’d all still be worshiping big breasted Venus figures (not that we aren’t.) And I’m not denying either the concept of God or the influence of that concept through religion. I’m only concerned with his actual existence. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/363 "2009-08-03T18:07:13Z")
[quote=“RedFury, post:357, topic:504294”] I wrote as much. Again, if need be, I can be fairly labeled a “strong atheist” when it comes to religion. [/qute] It bears repeating, because it is the thing that makes this argument useless for any specific religion. For well over a decade I’ve challenged theists to connect their god with a first cause, and no one has even really tried. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m only certain about well defined gods, not poorly defined or undefined one. I own Smith’s book, and I wasn’t very impressed by it. For example, his argument against first cause was a “proof” that the universe must be eternal - which appears to be wrong. I’d never use that book to convince a theist of anything. There is one which uses rigorous philosophical arguments against reasonably well stated theistic arguments. I forget the author and name. It’s not exactly simple reading, but the reasoning is orders of magnitude better than what you can find in Smith. ---
**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, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/364 "2009-08-03T18:08:17Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I think it’s a perfectly imperfect design…on purpose. I use exactly the same argument to explain away bugs in my code. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/365 "2009-08-03T19:28:04Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Ok… Now I’m a bit confused, earlier you seemed to be saying the opposite. Let me try it this way. There are an infinite number of hypothetical gods, say labeled g1, g2, …gn, … Each of these gods has some definition, even if it is that we know nothing about the god. We can generate these descriptions on the fly, filtering out nonsense ones, or look them up in Borges’ library. We can sort each got into one of a few categories. The first category is a god which has been described some some human or humans, and which has testable characteristics. One example is the god described by the inerrant Bible. We get confused by this set since each theist seems to be claiming that the god he worships is somehow **the** god, but is actually a slightly different god from everyone else. This is what I was getting to in my reply to **Measure for Measure**. I personally can further divide this set into those I have heard of and those I have not. I can say quite firmly that I deny and can falsify to some reasonable level each god in this set I’ve heard of. Since any gods I haven’t would probably get better press if they had solid evidence, I’m pretty certain that the ones I haven’t heard of are bogus too. The next set consists of the gods spoken of by humans which are not falsifiable - they live in that other universe and maybe set things in motion but never have interacted with us. They clearly are unfalsifiable. I believe these don’t exist, because with no evidence the chance of anyone getting it right is very small - but I can’t be sure the way I can be sure that the inerrant god doesn’t exist. The third set consists of gods who no human has described. I don’t think we can say anything much about them. I believe that they don’t exist, due to lack of need for them, but how can I be sure? The problem we face, which I alluded to in my Elmer joke, is that theists claim the first class of god exists, in order to justify their moral code, but switch it to the second class whenever you start asking for evidence. A god can’t be in both classes. These theists are actually polytheists without realizing it. Well, that may be the longest reply to the shortest question in Dope history, but I hope it explains where I am coming from. I can see how people can be sure that gods in class 3 don’t exist, but I’ve been too well trained never to write an absolute without good justification to be sure myself. I suspect anyone who is in the sciences has been slapped down by an adviser or reviewer for making such a statement, and it makes you cautious. I sure have been. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/366 "2009-08-03T21:13:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m only certain about well defined gods, not poorly defined or undefined one. Likewise. Anthropomorphic gods melt under scrutiny. I especially enjoy the gods that are “beyond human comprehension” and are then explained to us in excruciating contradictory detail. > [@](#): > > I own Smith’s book, and I wasn’t very impressed by it. For example, his argument against first cause was a “proof” that the universe must be eternal - which appears to be wrong. I’d never use that book to convince a theist of anything. There is one which uses rigorous philosophical arguments against reasonably well stated theistic arguments. I forget the author and name. It’s not exactly simple reading, but the reasoning is orders of magnitude better than what you can find in Smith. As a primer it ain’t bad. As a guide it sucks due to the rigidity I wrote about before – and the lack of philosophical arguments you mention. IIRC it doesn’t address the Ontological argument either. As for the one you mention, could it be Soel’s [Logic and Theism](http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000161/index.html)? TBH, I put it down a third of the way in least I got addicted to Tylenol. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/367 "2009-08-03T23:58:13Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I think it’s a perfectly imperfect design…on purpose. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature. Ayup. ---
**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 4, 2009, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/368 "2009-08-04T06:47:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s not really the god of the Bible now, is it? What you just did happens all the time as the definition of god keeps changing depending on the person, the interpretation, and what is known about the natural world. My claim of falsifying God rev B.1 says nothing about God rev J.5. Theists really should put in some version control software. Not trying to be difficult, but it could also be a matter of differing _perceptions_ or even differing _aspects_ of the same fellow. An individual can be father, fireman and weekend golfer; there’s no reason why a god can’t have diverse traits. So you can label g1, g2, …gn, but you will also be able to draw circles around versions that are not mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > The problem we face, which I alluded to in my Elmer joke, is that theists claim the first class of god exists, in order to justify their moral code, but switch it to the second class whenever you start asking for evidence. A god can’t be in both classes. These theists are actually polytheists without realizing it. Of course a god could be in both classes: the problem isn’t ontological (a matter of what G-d is) it’s epistemological (a matter of what we can know). If we knew whether the Creator was a researcher, hobbyist, parent or bored adolescent we might be able to speculate about a plausible divine mission; absent that we can only draw our conclusions based upon what we know about the outcome of His efforts. > [@](#): > > Being Jewish, I can call Christians a bunch of newbies. Clearly tradition doesn’t make anything right, or we’d all still be worshiping big breasted Venus figures (not that we aren’t.) Ok, but I was arguing for tradition as something that has salience when combined with faith; it’s a complementary property. However… > [@](#): > > And I’m not denying either the concept of God or the influence of that concept through religion. I’m only concerned with his actual existence. Yes, I think I’ve been a little slippery here. As I said some months ago, the basis for my empirical agnosticism is my discomfort in drawing conclusions about theism in the absence of a firmer understanding of consciousness. Admittedly, we can make some observations without a working model: I’m willing to conclude that a given human consciousness ends with the destruction of the brain. I also accept that human characteristics formed via natural selection. But I wonder whether, say, an ant colony could have a working consciousness, or whether a collection of animals who possess language could have the same. Those are just 2 examples: without a better model I have trouble understanding from where this property can emerge from. ---
**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 4, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/369 "2009-08-04T22:54:48Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > As for the one you mention, could it be Soel’s [Logic and Theism](http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000161/index.html)? TBH, I put it down a third of the way in least I got addicted to Tylenol. That sounds familiar. I have a perverse fascination for excruciatingly complicated discussions like in that book, which is why I hang around in GD. I can hardly fault anyone who is normal not getting through it. ---
**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 4, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/370 "2009-08-04T23:46:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Not trying to be difficult, but it could also be a matter of differing _perceptions_ or even differing _aspects_ of the same fellow. An individual can be father, fireman and weekend golfer; there’s no reason why a god can’t have diverse traits. So you can label g1, g2, …gn, but you will also be able to draw circles around versions that are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, but I’m only interested in the case of contradictory characteristics, not orthogonal ones. A God can’t both have a son and not have a son, and a God both can’t be described by the Bible as literally creating the earth in 6 days and also causing the earth to be created over billions of years from natural causes. Surely you agree that the gods described by some set of religions are mutually contradictory, right? BTW, the definitions I am talking about are determined by the interpretation of the Bible. By selecting different passages as controlling, two people can get contradictory gods out of the same book. Example: Fred Phelps vs sane theists. > [@](#): > > Of course a god could be in both classes: the problem isn’t ontological (a matter of what G-d is) it’s epistemological (a matter of what we can know). If we knew whether the Creator was a researcher, hobbyist, parent or bored adolescent we might be able to speculate about a plausible divine mission; absent that we can only draw our conclusions based upon what we know about the outcome of His efforts. No - a god who stays strictly outside the universe cannot also tell us not to spill our seed upon the ground. We can certainly speculate on the characteristics and motivation of an absent god, but it is unfalsifiable and the purest guesswork. Looking at the universe we can come up with the conclusion that god loves us or god hates us equally plausibly, and have no way of checking. And if people truly believed in that kind of god we wouldn’t have the problem of religion, since no believer could honestly say they knew what god wanted, and so would never attempt to force anyone else to adhere to their beliefs. I emphasize force - we might argue that lemon pie is best, perhaps forcefully, but only a lunatic would force someone to eat it at knifepoint. > [@](#): > > But I wonder whether, say, an ant colony could have a working consciousness, or whether a collection of animals who possess language could have the same. Those are just 2 examples: without a better model I have trouble understanding from where this property can emerge from. Hive minds are a common sf theme. Plus, there is the anti-based processor in Discworld. (Anthill Inside.) So, maybe. ---
**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 5, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/371 "2009-08-05T03:31:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Indeed, but I’m only interested in the case of contradictory characteristics, not orthogonal ones. A God can’t both have a son and not have a son, and a God both can’t be described by the Bible as literally creating the earth in 6 days and also causing the earth to be created over billions of years from natural causes. Surely you agree that the gods described by some set of religions are mutually contradictory, right? BTW, the definitions I am talking about are determined by the interpretation of the Bible. By selecting different passages as controlling, two people can get contradictory gods out of the same book. Example: Fred Phelps vs sane theists. Again though, we need to allow for differing visions of the same God. Suppose two people disagree about whether Joe has a brother. It could be that they are talking about 2 people - Joe Smith and Joe Doe. But it could also be that they both are talking about Joe Smith; it’s just that one of the two characterizations is wrong. Thirdly, there’s the metaphor option – a Unitarian might say that Genesis is a metaphor of the emergence of moral choice. That said, I trust that some definitions of the supreme Deity are contradictory. > [@](#): > > No - a god who stays strictly outside the universe cannot also tell us not to spill our seed upon the ground. I mostly agree with that, except insofar as the Chief runs the afterlife, a phenomenon for which evidence is also lacking. > [@](#): > > And if people truly believed in that kind of god we wouldn’t have the problem of religion, since no believer could honestly say they knew what god wanted, and so would never attempt to force anyone else to adhere to their beliefs. I emphasize force - we might argue that lemon pie is best, perhaps forcefully, but only a lunatic would force someone to eat it at knifepoint.- Ok, but I maintain that’s not so much a problem with religion, as a problem with fundamentalism. There isn’t a lot of armed conflict between the Unitarians and the Baha’i. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/372 "2009-08-05T05:12:13Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Because they are too scared to believe in anything else? From [_Revelation X: The “Bob” Apocryphon,_](http://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Apocryphon-Hidden-Teachings-Deuterocanonical/dp/1560259558/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2010750-0004000?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192999703&sr=8-1) Chapter 8: “Heaven and Hell”: > [@](#): > > Everything written regarding Hell in all bibles, from the Zoroastrian up through Dante to Chick Comics, is literally true (except the name of the author). The traditional Hell exists, complete with Lake of Fire, demons, and eternal torment; they aren’t lying about that. What they don’t tell you is that _only religious people go there._ > > It’s a rare SubGenius that ends up in this Normal Hell, the lowest rung of the Ladder of Beforelives. THE HELL CLAUSE states that _Hell is reserved for those who believe in it, and the lowest Circle is for those who think that if they don’t believe in it, they’ll go there._ Hell is JHVH-1’s revenge on those who insult His intelligence by thinking He is as simple-minded, cruel and vengeful as THEY are. The Devil’s job is to pester them, to milk out every last drop of human faith and credence. Satan manages Hell, and it’s a very busy place these days, but his responsibilities regarding earthly life cover only religious nuts. JHVH-1 assigned him to create some kind of secondary Hell on earth, so Satan devised the idea of multiple religions, all believing in his existence but hating each other even more than they hate him. (In the end it doesn’t really matter whether those Normals are “good” or “bad” in life; Satan and JHVH-1 divvy up the souls 50-50, _at random.)_ > > \ > > Pink Heaven (frequently misidentified as Christian Heaven or Islamic Paradise) is nothing but a more sophisticated Hell, with air conditioning. In many ways, it is far worse. At least in Hell, you know where you stand. The sheep in Heaven can’t even guess how utterly doomed they truly are. > > “Heaven” is only the second rung up the Beforelife ladder, and, like Hell, is reserved for believers. It consists of an _absence_ not only of pain, _but also of pleasure._ > > Great deal, huh? You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Disobedient souls burn in Hell forever, but _obedient_ souls “belong to God.” As if making you an employee all your LIFE wasn’t bad enough, you’re enslaved in the AFTERLIFE as well! You get all the joy of a fundamentalist’s lifestyle, with no hope of release – not even death! > > \ > > In “Heaven” there dwell certain hungry, rapacious predator spirits, called **Theocrats,** which vampirize the PPQF of weaker spirits in order to “live” forever at the expense of their victims. > > > [@](#): > > > > "The Theocrats enslave other spirits to provide psychic energy, just as slaves or employees on Earth provide physical labor . . . They obtain these victims by posing as gods and persuading the religious believers to come to them voluntarily after death thinking they are entering “eternal bliss in Heaven.” > > > > "Many notorious tyrants, conquerors, evil religious leaders, black magicians and criminals have become Theocrats after death, but so have some saints and benign geniuses. Power corrupts and the prospect of achieving immortality corrupts even more. Many people with highly developed souls, whose earthly lives were lived quite ethically, chose to become Theocrats after death . . . This has been especially true for people who were religiously devout, then found out the horrible truth about the gods after death. > > > > "The daily activities of a Fundamentalist Theocratic band organized as Heaven are similar to a church service as such sects hold them on Earth, except that they go on perpetually. The Theocrat in charge poses as the Lord God Jehovah, and subordinate Theocrats pose as Christ, various Angels and Apostles, and so forth. “God” quotes the same Biblical passages and preaches the same sermons as preachers in the same sect do on Earth, and the congregation joins in singing the same hymns. . . . The Theocratic leaders then channel this collective psychic energy . . . For instance, there are dead Christians who think they are in Heaven, sitting around the throne of Jehovah “eternally singing his praises,” when they’re really just his slaves and possibly his dinner as well. Now you understand the real significance of “Holy Communion.” > > > > ". . . As fanatical belief in organized religion declines in the modern era, the Theocrats have even devised ways to persuade atheists and agnostics to join Theocratic bands after death. The most common is simply to invite them to join what appears to be a community of spirits that includes some of their previously-deceased relatives or friends, or some famous person they greatly admire . . . There are also “Heavens” whose “gods” claim to be politicians, movie stars, writers, scientists, rock stars, _or even fictional characters."_ > > – excerpted from Kyle Griffith’s _War in Heaven._ > > The most insidiously cruel aspect of Pink Heaven/Normal Hell is that _it’s all self-inflicted punishment._ Nothing happens to those souls that they didn’t ask for, that wasn’t self-devised down to the smallest detail. And nastiest of all, just as their store of anguish is about to be _used up,_ they are TOLD they _could_ escape _if only they would stop believing – BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT WORSE._ For, there they are, right in the thick of it, with flames searing their skin, or etheric vampires slowly devouring their very essence . . . so _it’s just a bit difficult_ NOT to believe in it. But there is hope! Now you can **save** your soul from Heaven! Just send it with $30 for shipping & handling costs to: [The Church of the SubGenius](http://www.subgenius.com/) c/o Reverend Ivan Stang P.O. Box 181417 Cleveland Heights, OH 44118-1417 Eternal salvation guaranteed – **OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK!** 🙂 ---
**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 5, 2009, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/373 "2009-08-05T07:27:57Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Again though, we need to allow for differing visions of the same God. Suppose two people disagree about whether Joe has a brother. It could be that they are talking about 2 people - Joe Smith and Joe Doe. But it could also be that they both are talking about Joe Smith; it’s just that one of the two characterizations is wrong. But you’re assuming there is a Joe Smith. Unless you can test this contention, you have now way of knowing if there is actually anyone there - and the more contradictory information you get, the less you believe it. If one person tells you Joe has a brother, weighs 300 pounds and is the only resident of 10 Maple Street, and another says Joe has no brother, weighs 200 pounds (today in both cases) and is the only resident of 10 Maple Street, either one or both of them are deluded. If 30 people give you contradictory depictions of Joe at 10 Maple, isn’t it best to assume they all are. (Or, that the shape shifters have arrived.) > [@](#): > > Thirdly, there’s the metaphor option – a Unitarian might say that Genesis is a metaphor of the emergence of moral choice. Already covered that. His god isn’t the same as the god who actually did it. That said, I trust that some definitions of the supreme Deity are contradictory. > [@](#): > > Ok, but I maintain that’s not so much a problem with religion, as a problem with fundamentalism. There isn’t a lot of armed conflict between the Unitarians and the Baha’i. The problem is that once you accept that your leader or founder has a direct connection to the creator of the universe, anything he says goes. That’s true no matter if he believes in the inerrant Bible or makes up his own Bible. A god who is the moral arbiter has the last word, and we can’t judge him or deny him using our human morals. I don’t care if everything he has asked for so far is just dandy. I am just as wrong to blindly obey his commands to feed the poor and heal the sick as I am to obey commands to slaughter his enemies. I may do the same thing he commands from independent moral reasoning, but we don’t need a god for that. ---
**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 7, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/374 "2009-08-07T02:56:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But you’re assuming there is a Joe Smith. Unless you can test this contention, you have now way of knowing if there is actually anyone there - and the more contradictory information you get, the less you believe it. If one person tells you Joe has a brother, weighs 300 pounds and is the only resident of 10 Maple Street, and another says Joe has no brother, weighs 200 pounds (today in both cases) and is the only resident of 10 Maple Street, either one or both of them are deluded. If 30 people give you contradictory depictions of Joe at 10 Maple, isn’t it best to assume they all are. (Or, that the shape shifters have arrived.) Well, actually in that case I would _withhold judgment_, since they all agree at least that _somebody_ lives at 10 Maple. But admittedly that’s not what we’re dealing with here: it’s a case of the invisible pink unicorn vs. the invisible blue water sprite. But getting to the point, we can define G as the Creator of the universe who also currently runs the show in some manner. A Deist would fall would have no problem with the first part, but would qualify the 2nd by saying that while the physical universe runs itself, the spiritual component, the afterlife and other unobservables are another matter. They could meaningfully say that they believe in the same God as Joe Fundi: it’s just that their descriptions differ. Put another way, g1, g2 could refer to descriptions or hypotheses just as easily as discrete entities. > [@](#): > > The problem is that once you accept that your leader or founder has a direct connection to the creator of the universe, anything he says goes. …A god who is the moral arbiter has the last word, and we can’t judge him or deny him using our human morals. But whether that necessarily leads to religious strife is an _empirical_ matter. And basically all of the Christian religions influenced by the enlightenment (as contrast to the ones opposing the same) tend towards ecumenicalism. The problem with Islam is that it hasn’t gone through an enlightenment or reformation. The problem with fundamentalism is that it has rejected the former. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if everything he has asked for so far is just dandy. I am just as wrong to blindly obey his commands to feed the poor and heal the sick as I am to obey commands to slaughter his enemies. I may do the same thing he commands from independent moral reasoning, but we don’t need a god for that. I’m not sure about this, as typically scripture invokes moral reasoning in one form or another. Some of it is merely parental: “Do what I command, I am YHWH.”, but not all of it. That said, there is a problem when one invokes a 2500 year old legal code for reasons other than historical interest. * * * For completeness, I should note my second reason for agnosticism, which unlike the first might be currently resolvable along atheistic lines. There are solid reasons to believe that math is discovered, not created. But if it’s discovered that makes it a phenomenon independent of human mind. And we know that math has no mass or physical properties. Sure it’s an idea, but it’s more than that, insofar that ideas are typically thought of as an aspect of consciousness. What I require here is for a metaphysicist to propose a taxonomy that encompasses everything, as both Descartian dualism and my ordinary materialism seem to be falling short. ---
**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 7, 2009, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/375 "2009-08-07T06:41:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Well, actually in that case I would _withhold judgment_, since they all agree at least that _somebody_ lives at 10 Maple. That’s fair. Until you try to look up 10 Maple to see for yourself, and see the numbers there start at 100. > [@](#): > > But admittedly that’s not what we’re dealing with here: it’s a case of the invisible pink unicorn vs. the invisible blue water sprite. But getting to the point, we can define G as the Creator of the universe who also currently runs the show in some manner. A Deist would fall would have no problem with the first part, but would qualify the 2nd by saying that while the physical universe runs itself, the spiritual component, the afterlife and other unobservables are another matter. They could meaningfully say that they believe in the same God as Joe Fundi: it’s just that their descriptions differ. Put another way, g1, g2 could refer to descriptions or hypotheses just as easily as discrete entities. If all our witnesses only agree on that a human being lives there (and some say Jo does) we’re going to have a hard time deciding what size shirt to get the guy as a present. If religion were only a New Age way of saying the cosmos is awesome, man, this would be fine. But when they start talking about how to live, and what the purpose of life is, we’ll need a bit more information about whatever god they are positing. Your g1 and g2 would work quite nicely also, that’s a good generalization of the problem. > [@](#): > > But whether that necessarily leads to religious strife is an _empirical_ matter. And basically all of the Christian religions influenced by the enlightenment (as contrast to the ones opposing the same) tend towards ecumenicalism. I’m not really concerned with strife. The problem is more what the adherents are told to believe, and is the same whether they are told to kill other religionists, to convert them, or to kiss them - or even ignore them. > [@](#): > > The problem with Islam is that it hasn’t gone through an enlightenment or reformation. The problem with fundamentalism is that it has rejected the former. I’m not sure about this, as typically scripture invokes moral reasoning in one form or another. Some of it is merely parental: “Do what I command, I am YHWH.”, but not all of it. That said, there is a problem when one invokes a 2500 year old legal code for reasons other than historical interest. The reason we like a reformation is that it makes the religion better match what our society has come up with through other means. If there was a god, how do you know the hardest line Islamist isn’t closer to following his will than the wimpiest Unitarian? If God does exist, God said so is a good reason for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/376 "2009-08-07T15:48:53Z")
> [@OP-Title](#): > > Seriously, how can anyone believe in religions like Christianity? For me, there was no choice. It just appeared in my brain, as though it had been there forever. And now I can’t “choose” to pretend it isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/377 "2009-08-07T16:04:22Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > For me, there was no choice. It just appeared in my brain, as though it had been there forever. And now I can’t “choose” to pretend it isn’t there. Why not? You’re choosing to pretend it is there. Of course it’s a choice. You chose to take the easy way out, to not have to think about the hard stuff in life. To never have to face death and never have to rage against an unthinking, uncaring universe. You chose an easy, simple fairy tale to believe in. Good for you. But don’t pretend that you _can’t_ face reality. You just don’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/378 "2009-08-07T16:16:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Why not? You’re choosing to pretend it is there. > > Of course it’s a choice. You chose to take the easy way out, to not have to think about the hard stuff in life. To never have to face death and never have to rage against an unthinking, uncaring universe. You chose an easy, simple fairy tale to believe in. Good for you. > > But don’t pretend that you _can’t_ face reality. You just don’t want to. Gratuitous, pretentious, and idiotic. Ignored. ---
**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 7, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/379 "2009-08-07T16:22:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > For me, there was no choice. It just appeared in my brain, as though it had been there forever. And now I can’t “choose” to pretend it isn’t there. Kind of like some people can’t stop thinking about leather? Got it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294/380 "2009-08-07T16:37:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Gratuitous, pretentious, and idiotic. You’re not that bad. > [@](#): > > Ignored. I guess I was wrong. But since ignoring problems is your specialty I suppose it’s not unexpected. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-how-can-anyone-believe-in-religions-like-christianity/504294.md?page=20)