# What does it make sense to believe without evidence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007 "2005-10-06T04:51:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/81 "2005-10-08T14:36:54Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > What I dont see is how you are saying that God wrote the Bible is a myth. A clear distinction I am noticing is the knowledge of a spirit or the lack of knowledge(or right out disbelief) of a spirit. It’s easiest to refer to our own spirit. I know there are some of the smartest people in the world who know(believe) there is a spirit. The hard thing is trying to describe or put it scientifically. When I touch something hot, I feel that its hot. In the same way I can feel my spirit. The problem is that it is not as easily explained. It is hard to explain and impossible to verify in any scientific sense. It is something that most people feel although we don’t all agree on what it means. I believe in our spirit and in the Holy Spirit as our link to God and each other and our access to all the answers as we strip away the misconceptions and illusiions we have embraced. It would be a major highjack to get into the authorship of the Bible here. There have been numerous threads on the subject and I will try and provide some links. Perhaps we could start a new thread and those Dopers who are so knowledgeable about that would be kind enough to participate. I will say that after studying in various areas my conclusion is that it was never God’s plan that we have one final authoratative collection of writings to go by. The source is the Holy Spirit and it is available to anyone who seeks truth and love. It can speak to us through any medium which would include the Bible and other so called holy books, nature, each, other, anything at all. I think it holds people back to hold onto the need for some external authority rather than look within themselves as Christ taught. The final straw for me was a passage in Leviticus 12: > [@](#): > > 1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 She shall then continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. > 5 ‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days. I just can’t understand how rational intelligent people can read that passage and those like it and say, “Yeah God said that.” No disrespect intended. I revere Jesus and his teachings and after studying the New Testament quite a bit my conclusion is that he taught us to seek God, love and truth, by learning to listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit within ourselves. We can share our ideas and feelings with each other, but we should never let any person or group make a decision for us on “God’s will” > [@](#): > > I dislike the connotations people have put on the word sin. Mostly extreme religious people using the word to further themselves. I agree with your definition of sin, yes. Agreeing with it in principle is one thing. Really thinking about it and how it relates to our day to day, is much harder. It requires seperating accepting social tradition from our spiritual beliefs. One example. The general Christian attitude about the gay community. Two people loving each other cannot be sin. A physical act in and of itself cannot be a sin. It is the condition of the spirit behind the act that determines sin ---
**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:** [October 8, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/82 "2005-10-08T16:54:19Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Meaningless in proving your point. Just a list. Your claim is that the evil done by religion far outweighs the good. That means showing _both_ sides not just the one that supports your assertion. For example. You mention the Holocaust. Was it mainly Christians that stopped Hitler? You mention supression of evolution in schools. Does religion get credit for being instrumental in establishing our educational sustem? How much of that qualifies as “good” ? Religion does not promote true charity or compassion; the point is to act nice in order to convert people. To use your examples : The Allies fought Hitler in self defense; they didn’t fight because they were Christian. Anti semitism exists due to millenia of religious propaganda; you don’t get to wash your hands of it and pretend the Nazi’s hatred came from nowhere. I can’t comment much on the history of education, but I do know the Catholic school system was created because the early school system wasn’t much more than a tool for promoting Protestantism and harassing/converting everybody else. Not much to admire there. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > By your standards then every act of kindness by any person that professes to believe should be in the plus column. Every meal served by the salvation army. Every nickle given by a believer to a begger on the street. If the guy who developed penicilin happened to believe in God then that goes into the plus column right? Only if the primary motivation was religion. If he just happens to be religious, that’s like giving his hair color credit. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Religious belief has been so intertwined with the history of humanity in general that it seems like most major accomplishments and catastrophies might be traced to religion. You’ve thrown out Occums Razor a few times. He was religious so I guess that goes in the plus column for religion right? Was the motivation for the idea religious ( no idea ) ? Was religion necessary for it to be created ( no ) ? Does it make up for the evils of religion ? ( not even close ) ? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I assume no such thing. I merely mentioned America’s _accomplishments_. We do have some don’t we? Some; I don’t think it makes up for the damage we have caused, much less the damage we will cause in the future. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > To me\* tends to \* means more likely than not. That would mean that over 50% of all believers in this country would exhibit those awful traits you mentioned. Sometimes, or occasionaly, would be different. Does it count that believers will be instrumental in gaining rights for gays, just as they were in the civil rights movement and womens rights. They are outnumbered by the ones who oppose such rights. Why do you think we lag behind Europe in such things ? We are religious, therefore we are backward and morally corrupt. Why do you think Bush and the Republicans are in charge ? Religion. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Ah… This might even be progress. So the pluses and minuses of science have to do with the choices people make and how they use it. Let’s see if that applies to religion. Hmmm Christ says love thy neighbor as thyself but people pervert that and then tell others that their perversion is the word of God so it would seem that the choice to pervert his teachings has something to do with it. Now we see different religious groups so we know that not all religious people choose the same thing. Some choose to use their religion for good. Others use it for evil purposes. > Eureka!! **Der Trihs** As unlikely as it sounds, you and I, who agree on very little, have discovered the crux of the problem. It isn’t science and it isn’t religion. It’s **choice**. That’s the problem. There seems to be inherent evil built into chooseing. The solution seems obvious. We just make sure people can only choose good things while still respecting their rights. Hmmmm…that may be trickier than I thought. 😃 Part of the point of religion is the elimination of choice and thought. That’s why it centers on faith; faith is a form of mindlessness. You are supposed to _believe_ and _obey_ and never, ever think. Besides which, religious people base their actions on a set of delusions; any choices they _do_ make will likely be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/83 "2005-10-08T18:39:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It is hard to explain and impossible to verify in any scientific sense. It is something that most people feel although we don’t all agree on what it means. I believe in our spirit and in the Holy Spirit as our link to God and each other and our access to all the answers as we strip away the misconceptions and illusiions we have embraced. > It would be a major highjack to get into the authorship of the Bible here. There have been numerous threads on the subject and I will try and provide some links. Perhaps we could start a new thread and those Dopers who are so knowledgeable about that would be kind enough to participate. > I will say that after studying in various areas my conclusion is that it was never God’s plan that we have one final authoratative collection of writings to go by. The source is the Holy Spirit and it is available to anyone who seeks truth and love. It can speak to us through any medium which would include the Bible and other so called holy books, nature, each, other, anything at all. I agree that a source is the Holy Spirit. However,I I feel that the Bible is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rigtheousness”. I seem to put much more emphasis on the Bible and believe that it is the authorative writing. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think it holds people back to hold onto the need for some external authority rather than look within themselves as Christ taught. > The final straw for me was a passage in Leviticus 12: > > I just can’t understand how rational intelligent people can read that passage and those like it and say, “Yeah God said that.” No disrespect intended. I revere Jesus and his teachings and after studying the New Testament quite a bit my conclusion is that he taught us to seek God, love and truth, by learning to listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit within ourselves. We can share our ideas and feelings with each other, but we should never let any person or group make a decision for us on “God’s will” Can you explain the reason for your quote of Leviticus. I dont know which direction you are trying to take it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Agreeing with it in principle is one thing. Really thinking about it and how it relates to our day to day, is much harder. It requires seperating accepting social tradition from our spiritual beliefs. One example. The general Christian attitude about the gay community. Two people loving each other cannot be sin. A physical act in and of itself cannot be a sin. It is the condition of the spirit behind the act that determines sin Sure a physical act can be a sin (but yes it is the condition of our spirit that causes our drive to sin). We are given our bodies from God. We are to treat it as such. I find the way certain christians react to the gay community as uphauling. Christ says "“Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite!” Yes, being gay is a sin. So is having sex before you are married. I know I am guilty of having sex before I am married although I am not proud of it. I am no better than anyone else so I do not act as if I am. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/84 "2005-10-08T18:52:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Part of the point of religion is the elimination of choice and thought. That’s why it centers on faith; faith is a form of mindlessness. You are supposed to _believe_ and _obey_ and never, ever think. Besides which, religious people base their actions on a set of delusions; any choices they _do_ make will likely be wrong. Christ tells us to test everything. One would think that that would even apply to the Bible itself. Where do you come up with these extreme ideas? I am honestly curious as to these extreme religious people you base your judgements on. ---
**Author:** ![enitocinnlonahte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3bc359/32.png) [@enitocinnlonahte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enitocinnlonahte)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/85 "2005-10-08T18:55:37Z")
Metaphor is always true. Anything can be metaphorical. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/86 "2005-10-08T19:48:02Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Come to think of it isn’t God portrayed in Genesis as having created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? > > On the other hand there is the question - Where did the virtual particles come from? Just like there is the question - Where did God come from? > > The religious answer to the second question is that God didn’t come from anywhere, He always existed. But if anything always existed it might as well be virtual particles as to be God. I don’t think so. There are two possible worlds: the natural and the supranatural. The natural is subject to the law of causality, meaning if something happens—anything—we know that it was caused by something else. So any particle had to be the result of something else. Even a virtual particle needs some type of agent for it to cease being virtual and begin becoming real. The only thing that would not be subject to this constant look backward would be something operating outside the laws of the natural: something supranatural. Ascribing eternal existence to something of the natural world—even _virtual_ particles is not the same as ascribing it to a Creator. **Der Trihs** , I have rarely encountered someone so hostile to Theism. I mean, it’s one thing to not believe, but you are downright evangelical about it. I venture that one quality that you (and I) probably despise in many people who profess to be religious and where it on their sleeve is their hubris. I respectfully submit to you, as I have done with them, that isn’t it possible, just _possible_, that you may be wrong? I mean if it is NOT possible that you are wrong about something for which you have no first-hand knowledge, then wouldn’t that make you perfect? You know, like a god? I do not understand the need to go into every thread that touches on the issue and spew venom about religion. I share much of your observations concerning organized religion, but I know I’m not going to change people’s minds on the issue of faith. You claim that belief in God is a-rational (which I don’t fully agree with), but then you attempt to use _reason_ to subvert someone’s decision of _faith_. And by the way, although I am no fan of organized religion, to claim that there was no good done by it is, as I think you relaized with your backstep, ridiculous. Aside from the overt good done through countless charities, think about all the people over all the centuries that have found solace in their times of pain and loss. Yes, wars have been fought because of religion, but religion has also acrted as a controlliing force and prevented warfare and bloodshed. I’m just saying that if you’re going to focus on the bad, you need to take a long, hard look at the good, as well. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/87 "2005-10-08T23:04:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Even a virtual particle needs some type of agent for it to cease being virtual and begin becoming real. If there is one thing I don’t know much about it is quantum field theory. However, what little bit I’ve read about it tells me that virtual particles don’t need no stinkin’ agent. The equations, or maybe it’s their solutions, tell those who understand them (and I only read about them) that both particle production and particle anihilation are necessary if the equations are valid. Which of course leads to the question where did the quantum field that is described by the equations come from? As **Dr Trihs** said, at this point there isn’t enough data. And that is not a justification for jumping way ahead and postulating that it must have come from a supernatural agent. As to God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/88 "2005-10-09T00:37:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think so. There are two possible worlds: the natural and the supranatural. The natural is subject to the law of causality, meaning if something happens—anything—we know that it was caused by something else. So any particle had to be the result of something else. Even a virtual particle needs some type of agent for it to cease being virtual and begin becoming real. Like **David Simmons** implied, effects without causes occur on the quantum level. That’s a basic implication of true randomess. > [@magellan01](#): > > **Der Trihs** , I have rarely encountered someone so hostile to Theism. I mean, it’s one thing to not believe, but you are downright evangelical about it. I venture that one quality that you (and I) probably despise in many people who profess to be religious and where it on their sleeve is their hubris. I respectfully submit to you, as I have done with them, that isn’t it possible, just _possible_, that you may be wrong? I mean if it is NOT possible that you are wrong about something for which you have no first-hand knowledge, then wouldn’t that make you perfect? You know, like a god?. First, I’m hardly “evangelical” about it. I only talk about it when it comes up as a debate subject. I don’t burst into a thread on, say, a fantasy novel and rant about how it’s a bad book because it contains gods. When someone like **Siege** talks about how her faith comforts her, I don’t try to argue with her ( that’s a purely subjective claim anyway, and beyond arguement ). When people start claiming religion is good for the world, when they start talking like it’s objective fact; that’s when I feel the need to speak up. No, I do not believe there is any possibility I’m wrong; not about this. Religion is so absurd and so destructive that it being right and good is simply too implausible for me to take seriously. The only reason most think otherwise is because they are propagandized from infancy; otherwise I’m sure most people would find religion as silly as most now find belief in unicorns and fairies. > [@magellan01](#): > > I do not understand the need to go into every thread that touches on the issue and spew venom about religion. I share much of your observations concerning organized religion, but I know I’m not going to change people’s minds on the issue of faith. You claim that belief in God is a-rational (which I don’t fully agree with), but then you attempt to use _reason_ to subvert someone’s decision of _faith_. Perhaps I give people too much credit then; you seem to be saying that theists are beyond reason. > [@magellan01](#): > > And by the way, although I am no fan of organized religion, to claim that there was no good done by it is, as I think you relaized with your backstep, ridiculous. Aside from the overt good done through countless charities, think about all the people over all the centuries that have found solace in their times of pain and loss. Yes, wars have been fought because of religion, but religion has also acrted as a controlliing force and prevented warfare and bloodshed. I’m just saying that if you’re going to focus on the bad, you need to take a long, hard look at the good, as well. I never said that _no_ good came from religion; that would be hard to accomplish even if you tried. I also said the good done by religion could be accomplished by other, better means. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/89 "2005-10-09T01:01:09Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > How much of that qualifies as “good” ? How much of what? Stopping Hitler? Quite a bit of it I think. > [@](#): > > Religion does not promote true charity or compassion; the point is to act nice in order to convert people. Really? So no religious person ever did anything genuinely charitable or compassionate? Well that’s handy info, thanks. > [@](#): > > To use your examples : The Allies fought Hitler in self defense; they didn’t fight because they were Christian. I see. So if if a religous person does something out of greed or a lust for power, it’s the fault of their religious beliefs. However if they do something positive, it’s probably for some other reason than them being religious so religion gets no positive points. Also handy info. I think I see where you’re coming from. > [@](#): > > Anti semitism exists due to millenia of religious propaganda; you don’t get to wash your hands of it and pretend the Nazi’s hatred came from nowhere. Silly me. I thought it was because power mad leaders use the “it’s their fault” tactic repeatedly through history. Hey wait! Since Judism is a religion, wouldn’t anti semitism be against religion? Isn’t that agood thing? > [@](#): > > Only if the primary motivation was religion. If he just happens to be religious, that’s like giving his hair color credit. I see. But primary motive doesn’t seem to be a consideration when looking for things to blame on religion. > [@](#): > > Some; I don’t think it makes up for the damage we have caused, much less the damage we will cause in the future. Yeah, Saving Europe from Nazi domination was no big deal. I think Merle Haggard has a song he wants you to hear. > [@](#): > > They are outnumbered by the ones who oppose such rights. Why do you think we lag behind Europe in such things ? We are religious, therefore we are backward and morally corrupt. Why do you think Bush and the Republicans are in charge ? Religion. Again, I thought that was a greed and power hungry thing. What was I thinking? > [@](#): > > Part of the point of religion is the elimination of choice and thought. That’s why it centers on faith; faith is a form of mindlessness. You are supposed to _believe_ and _obey_ and never, ever think. Besides which, religious people base their actions on a set of delusions; any choices they _do_ make will likely be wrong. Dam it!! I thought we had this all figured out. It’s _choice_ that is to blame. You say science is good because it allows choice, yet people choose to use science for evil purposes. But religion is evil because it doesn’t allow choice. Now I am totally confuse. Even though science shows us people can’t choose correctly still it’s evil to not let them choose. We are so screwed. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/90 "2005-10-09T01:45:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Was it mainly Christians that stopped Hitler? Now that you mention it, probably not. The bulk of the German army was destroyed on the eastern front. Various numbers are given for German casualties. For example[this site](http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_6.html) lists total German killed and prisoners of war on the eastern front as about 3.5 million. > [@](#): > > In sheer material and human destructiveness the Russian campaign had no equal in World War II. The total German dead, either as battle casualties or as prisoners of war, probably numbered about 3,500,000. > > Earl F. Ziemke > Historian, Office of the Chief of Military History > Department of the Army Most of the sources I have read estimate that 2/3 of German military combat deaths occurred on the eastern front. And it must be remembered that the Germans were largely Christians and they not only didn’t stop Hitler but avidly supported his government up to and including operating the extermination camps. So it does seem a bit of a stretch to say that mainly Christians stopped Hitler. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/91 "2005-10-09T02:19:01Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > I agree that a source is the Holy Spirit. However,I I feel that the Bible is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rigtheousness”. I seem to put much more emphasis on the Bible and believe that it is the authorative writing. The Bible is an awesome and very useful tool for us to use _with_ the guidence of the Holy Spirit. I think it’s crucial that we recognize the Holy Spirit as the ultimate authority not any person or book. I think thats what preachers or any spiritual leaders should teach. That’s what Jesus taught. My objection is that people treat the Bible as if it was God’s intention that we have these particular writings and \*only \*these, as the final authorative guide to God’s will for mankind. I find no evidence that this is true other than within Christian tradition. There is nothing within the Bible to indicate that this was God’s plan. We know that there were other writings that we don’t have. We know there were other writings that were rejected by those who compiled the Bible. We have discovered other writings such as the gnostic gospels that speak of Christ and his teachings. Why shouldn’t we expect the Holy Spirit to move people today to write their experience and have it be just as meaningful as books of the Bible? Other cultures have sought God and spiritual meaning. Why wouldn’t we expect a loving God to respond to them. As I mentioned, Buddha taught many of the things Christ taught 600 years before Christ. It’s all Christian tradition and in my view is often contrary to what Jesus actually taught. > [@](#): > > Can you explain the reason for your quote of Leviticus. I dont know which direction you are trying to take it. The Bible is heavily influenced by the culture of that day and the opinions of the authors. The quote in Lev 12 shows that better than any other scripture although there are others. In the NT woman are told to cover there heads and not speak in church. The quote in Lev. 12 plainly says “The Lord spoke to Moses” and said a woman child makes a woman more unclean than a man child. Honestly, Thinking of God as a God of love who is no respector of persons, can you look at that passage and say, “Sure God really said that”? To me it makes a very clear statement about nature of the Bible and inspiration and why popular Christian tradition about the Bible is just plain ole wrong. as in, not it line with the truth that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us to. > [@](#): > > Sure a physical act can be a sin (but yes it is the condition of our spirit that causes our drive to sin). We are given our bodies from God. We are to treat it as such. Honestly I’m still figureing this out, but it seems to me that it is the intent of our hearts that parcipitates sin, according to the definition we agreed on. The Bible says, God is a spirit and those who worship him must do so in spirit and truth. Jesus taught about intent rather than just the physical action. If you pray but your intent is to get attention from others then that’s all you get. If you hate your brother it’s the same as murder. If you know you should do good but you don’t it’s a sin. All intent that seperates us from God because we don’t live in the spirit. > [@](#): > > I find the way certain christians react to the gay community as uphauling. Christ says "“Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite!” Yes, being gay is a sin. So is having sex before you are married. I know I am guilty of having sex before I am married although I am not proud of it. I am no better than anyone else so I do not act as if I am. Why is being gay a sin? Because a 2000 year old book has a couple of lines in it that people pull out of context to claim they know what God thinks? If you believe that those passages are true then why are woman allowed to speak in church and have their heads uncovered. We won’t get into that any deeper. Suffice it to say that I don’t agree. Love and the physical expression of love is not a sin if we live honestly. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/92 "2005-10-09T02:27:00Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Now that you mention it, probably not. > > The bulk of the German army was destroyed on the eastern front. Various numbers are given for German casualties. For example[this site](http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_6.html) lists total German killed and prisoners of war on the eastern front as about 3.5 million. > > Most of the sources I have read estimate that 2/3 of German military combat deaths occurred on the eastern front. > > And it must be remembered that the Germans were largely Christians and they not only didn’t stop Hitler but avidly supported his government up to and including operating the extermination camps. > > So it does seem a bit of a stretch to say that mainly Christians stopped Hitler. I put it as a question because I sincerely didn’t know. My point was that if religion got blamed for the Holocaust then believers who fought against Nazis deserved credit. Concerning the russian front. Any guesses as to how many russians might have been believers? ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/93 "2005-10-09T04:38:41Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > If you meant correctness as in truthfulness then yes, I agree that the accuracy of the Biblical transcription is no evidence of its truthfulness. Then that’s a start. Good. > [@](#): > > To be completely honest, I do not know what I believe about the beginning and end of the Bible. I believe that what was written back then, is 95 percent the same as what we are reading today. Written back when? Take a look at your Bible, and tell me the first place it talks about the reading of the Law, the Torah. That’s a clue as to when it was actually written. > [@](#): > > I have too much proof. Just like I have more proof saying there is a God vs. matter come out of nowhere. Is your proof your feelings, or something more solid. Matter does come out of nowhere, as you’ve already read. Do you know the evidence for the Big Bang? The predictions of the theory that have been verified? The continuing discoveries that are verifying it further? Are you aware that we are seeing stars being born? I’ve read the Bible cover to cover, and I’ve studied science - and there is far more wonder in the science books. The real universe is far more splendid than the world the ancients thought there was. > [@](#): > > Just as an aside, I think I know most of the errors you are referring to in Genesis. I found a site that tried to show contradictions of the bible but really took quite a few things out of context. I’m well aware of the “explanations.” A bit far fetched, if you look at them with an open mind. The Sherlockians do something similar in explaining away the contradictions in their holy canon, and demonstrating (for fun) that Holmes really lived. Explaining away contradictions is a nice intellectual exercise, but sad when done for real. The scientific inaccuracies are far more damning, though. Even more so is the obvious evolution of the concept of god through time. You should really read the Torah and Joshua with a truly open mind. There are hundreds of interesting questions. Forget about Cain’s wife - who the heck was around to populate the city that Cain built? I have seen Chinese artifacts from both before and after the supposed flood. They were clearly done by the same culture. Did the descendants of Noah dig out porcelain from the muck and copy the style instead of bringing their own? Think about Jesus. God had evolved into a formless figure in the sky, much like we have today. All of a sudden, he has a son with a human woman. Was that god the Hebrew god - or the Greek gods, who did this all the time? Believe in god and/or Jesus if you wish - but if you say the Bible is totally true, you are stating an absurdity. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/94 "2005-10-09T04:44:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, I do not believe there is any possibility I’m wrong; not about this. Religion is so absurd and so destructive that it being right and good is simply too implausible for me to take seriously. The only reason most think otherwise is because they are propagandized from infancy; otherwise I’m sure most people would find religion as silly as most now find belief in unicorns and fairies. I’ve got to disagree with you a bit here. The ancient polytheistic religions didn’t seem particularly destructive. Alexander the Great, who was convinced he was descended from the gods, had no problem leaving the religions of the places he conquered alone, and even married a Persian princess in her “church”. Alexander is a common Jewish name (or so I learned in Hebrew School) because he was such a guy. As for religions, or sects of religions, who believe that they are the only true answer, that those who don’t believe are going to hell, and you might as well torture the nonbeliever into converting because it will be in his own best interest - there I agree. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/95 "2005-10-09T04:50:45Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Yes, being gay is a sin. So is having sex before you are married. I know I am guilty of having sex before I am married although I am not proud of it. I am no better than anyone else so I do not act as if I am. Do you really mean being gay is a sin, as opposed to gay sex. (Not a sin either, as far as I’m concerned - or more not immoral, evil or unethical.) But being gay? Do you think gay people have a choice? If so, do you think you could choose to be gay if someone with the Bible Rev 2 said heterosexuality was sinful? I couldn’t. And why is premarital sex a sin, besides an old book says it is. I am proud of having sex before we were married (not that it was so hard 🙂 ) and seeing our 27th anniversary shows it didn’t hurt. We’ve told our daughters that if they don’t sleep with their intendeds before marriage they’re being stupid. Why wouldn’t you see if you were compatible - not doing so might end you up in Dear Abbey, a horrid fate. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/96 "2005-10-09T05:06:20Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I put it as a question because I sincerely didn’t know. My point was that if religion got blamed for the Holocaust then believers who fought against Nazis deserved credit. Concerning the russian front. Any guesses as to how many russians might have been believers? Well in a later post you did bring up “stopping Hitler” as one of the good things that people did on account of their religion. At least that’s the way it sounded. I have no idea how many Russians were believers or not. Of course, not all of the Soviet troops were Russians. A great many were from the Asian regions of the Soviet Union. I suspect that many were only conventionally atheistic in order to get along in their society as many of those in my outfit on our side were only conventionally religious for the same reason. It just makes things easier not to make waves. ---
**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:** [October 9, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/97 "2005-10-09T06:16:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve got to disagree with you a bit here. The ancient polytheistic religions didn’t seem particularly destructive. Alexander the Great, who was convinced he was descended from the gods, had no problem leaving the religions of the places he conquered alone, and even married a Persian princess in her “church”. Alexander is a common Jewish name (or so I learned in Hebrew School) because he was such a guy. > > As for religions, or sects of religions, who believe that they are the only true answer, that those who don’t believe are going to hell, and you might as well torture the nonbeliever into converting because it will be in his own best interest - there I agree. I don’t necessarily mean destructive in a deliberate fashion; I agree the old polytheisms tended to be far more tolerant in many ways. I was also referring to the tendency of people who rely of faith to either stagnate ( because they investigate nothing; they already “know” ), or to simply make bad decisions. People who die because a ruler relied on omens and prophecies are just as dead as if he ordered his soldiers to chop off their heads. I must admit, I think we’d all be better off if monotheism had never been invented. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/98 "2005-10-09T12:34:36Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Well in a later post you did bring up “stopping Hitler” as one of the good things that people did on account of their religion. At least that’s the way it sounded. > > I have no idea how many Russians were believers or not. Of course, not all of the Soviet troops were Russians. A great many were from the Asian regions of the Soviet Union. I suspect that many were only conventionally atheistic in order to get along in their society as many of those in my outfit on our side were only conventionally religious for the same reason. It just makes things easier not to make waves. I appreciate the info.It’s always good to learn something new. I wasn’t making a serious arguement. I was jousting with **Der Trihs** to show that his assertion that the evil done by religion far outweighs the good is something he will never prove, and that his standards of measureing that assertion are grossly unfair. It seems that anything even superficially associated with religion goes into the “evil done by religion” column but only things with a primary motive being religious belief goes into the “benifits of religion” side. The conventionally atheistic and conventionally religious thing is interesting. I was sirprised in another thread to learn how high a percentage seem to want “Under God” left in the pledge. A bunch of them must be only conventionally religious at best. I know people with serious spiritual beliefs who support taking it out. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/99 "2005-10-09T13:59:21Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I don’t necessarily mean destructive in a deliberate fashion; I agree the old polytheisms tended to be far more tolerant in many ways. I was also referring to the tendency of people who rely of faith to either stagnate ( because they investigate nothing; they already “know” ), or to simply make bad decisions. People who die because a ruler relied on omens and prophecies are just as dead as if he ordered his soldiers to chop off their heads. > > I must admit, I think we’d all be better off if monotheism had never been invented. Aside from my sarcasm, someone refered to your attitude as evangelical. I was just thinking that same thing. Your zeal to assert what you believe is true and the way you distort logic to establish it is exactly what many Christians do to cling to their own beliefs. There is no doubt that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Many horrible things have been done for money. I wish money had just never been invented. Governments have done horrible things. We’d be better off without governents. My point is that these things are such an integral part of human history there is no way to realistically seperate them. Is religion used by governments to hide their own evil acts. That’s easy to see. So isreligion to blame or corrupt governments that manipulte them. Are religions and governments corrupted by the desire for money? We can see that over and over. Are religious beliefs to blame or the lust for money. Someone said, the love of money is the root of all evil. So which is the worse evil? It comes back to choice. What is the foundation of who we are as people and what moves us to make the choices we make. **David Simmons** made an interesting comment about WWII and the eastern front so I looked up religion in Russia. I thought this from Wikipedia was interesting. > [@](#): > > During most of the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church had to coexist with deeply atheist government of Soviet Union. Although freedom of religious expression was formally declared by one of the first decrees of revolutionary government in January 1918, both the Church and its followers were heavily persecuted and deeply disadvantaged. Prior to the Russian Revolution, there were some 54 000 functioning parishes and over 150 bishops. Bloody and cruel killing of bishops and priests, massacres of believers during the officially sanctioned Red Terror and following years of repressions are shocking. These persecutions were even greater then the persecutions of the Ancient Christian Church both in hte number of holy martyrs and the cruelty and ingenuity of persecutionists. Many religious hierarchs fled the country during the revolution and the civil war that followed, and contributed to the Christian witness of the Orthodox Church in many countries. However, some hierarchs formed their own organisation that became known as Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and were splitted away from the Russian Church. During the 1920-30s, most church buildings were blown, burned or converted into secular buildings; over 50 thousand priests were either executed or sent to labor camps ( many of these suffered as part of the Great Purge of 1936-37 ). By 1939, there were less than 100 functioning parishes and only four bishops. Atheists slaughtering those with religious beliefs? Then this was interesting. > [@](#): > > During World War II, the religious persecution in Soviet Union became less pronounced, in part due to cooperation of the Church with the state on national defense issues. Years 1944-45 saw the reopening of several seminaries that were closed in 1918. After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, relations between the Church and the state started to deteriorate again. Until Perestroika, public expression of religious beliefs - christian or otherwise - was frowned upon; known churchgoers were deprived of some social rights, they could not become members of the Communist Party, which, in turn, severely limited their career opportunities and many lost their jobs and any privileges. During a crisis when those with beliefs were needed for defense the atheist state became more tolerant. When the crisis was over, it’s back to religious persecution. Interesting ain’t it? Is the Soviet Union an example that even an official atheist state doesn’t escape corruption and the evil that humanity sometimes commits against it’s fellow man? I remember hearing something about a period of history in Spain in a predominantly Muslim society which became a sort of golden age. All religions and philosophies were tolerated. Open discussions and and exchanges of ideas were encouraged. Art and literature flourished. That’s the kind of attitude I would encourage. Respect and tolerance for people to choose their own path and judge them according to their actions. I emphatically support sepration of church and state. I would encourage an education about the worlds major religions including an accurate potrayal of their history. I would encourage people to think for themselves which isn’t easy when there’s so much pressure to conform. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007/100 "2005-10-09T14:18:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Aside from my sarcasm, someone referred to your attitude as evangelical. I was just thinking that same thing. Your zeal to assert what you believe is true and the way you distort logic to establish He is making assertions without backing them up. However, that doesn’t mean he is basing his statements on faith, simply that he is not explaining his reasoning to you. Also, I have yet to see distortion of logic from him. > [@](#): > > Atheists slaughtering those with religious beliefs? Then this was interesting. Repeat after me. A gov. declaring that all citizens must be atheist does not make a culture atheistic. > [@](#): > > That’s the kind of attitude I would encourage. Respect and tolerance for people to choose their own path and judge them according to their actions. Yes. However, while you may or may not have gotten support for such a attitude from the bible, you may just as easily gained the opposite attitude. Read the thing again. It contains quite a lot of abhorrent teachings, along with the good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-make-sense-to-believe-without-evidence/325007.md?page=6)