# What's wrong with faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156 "2010-12-23T05:05:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/101 "2010-12-23T20:36:04Z")
These discussions get pretty hectic. Hope I didn’t miss any posts but I’m sure I must have. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/102 "2010-12-23T20:40:43Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > I could have killed people if I did something stupid. It wouldn’t have made me happier honestly. Your post is incoherent, but I’ll assume you are trying to say that you are not stupid because you haven’t killed anyone (???) and that stupidity wouldn’t make you happier (?). My point was theoretical. Supposing stupidity made you happier, would there be anything wrong with being stupid? The answer is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/103 "2010-12-23T20:40:57Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Can you cite for me the religious faith involved in Goblins in your pants, unicorns and the FSM? I have been trying to very specifically move away from religious faith to more general faith. That may be wrong but it’s not being difficult on purpose. Then the answer to your question of why are “so many Atheists are so incredibly driven to denigrate faith” is because it has a history of being destructive, hateful, regressive and other negative adjectives qualities that go along with it that aren’t fun like believing there are goblins in our pants and we’re all going to take a ride on a unicorn to visit the Flying Spaghetti Monster. > [@](#): > > We just had the thread about the deghosting houses. I don’t see ghosts as a religious phenomenon and yet the very contention was immediately to stop people from vocally correcting this belief. > > I kinda was wondering if people had themselves so wrapped around a hatred of the actions of “religions” that they can’t let up even on lesser beliefs. This is the SD. The mission is about eradicating ignorance, not “letting up” on beliefs. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t have any idea what “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” stands for either. Is it pro abortion? Is it anti orbiting blue whales? I haven’t a clue therefore I can’t tell you if a believe what it stands for much less if anyone else does. That was my point. You said: > [@](#): > > What’s the difference between believing in say The Flying Spaghetti dude and dying and ceasing to exist and not believing and dying and ceasing to exist except how you feel before you get to the dying bit? I really want to know. I’ve asked but no one yet has really given an answer. I usually get a rehashing about how dumb faith is which isn’t what I am asking. You say you really want to know and no one has given you an answer, and it’s because of what you just mentioned- what are the ideals of the FSM? If you ask the same question regarding “God”, you’ll likely get answers. > [@](#): > > And yet I know atheists in my life who do. Am I pretending they exist? I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at? I’ve said it’s not all atheists. I’ve said I’ve experienced the phenomenon firsthand and wondered what drove it. Others even had thought about it enough to have a name for it so I don’t think I"m just pretending. I just didn’t mean you like you didn’t mean me. Lets let it go at that because I don’t really want this to become personal. I can’t help you with that other than to tell you you may be mistaken about so many atheists being “so incredibly driven to denigrate faith” if the faith is in the harmless. But it’s sort of like asking, “why do so many people care about people carrying guns if I do but I’m sure I’ll never shoot anyone?” We’ve seen massive negative effects caused “religious type” faith and we don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/104 "2010-12-23T20:42:03Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > I understand you’re not itching for a semantic fight but that’s likely what this will turn into. I understand the need of a working definition so let me try one. > > I’ll use the definition here [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith), particularly 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. For the purposes of the this thread, the definition is “blind faith”, which is pretty much all religion has. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/105 "2010-12-23T21:04:27Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I know it’s an absolute waste of time and space addressing this again, but, oh well, I’m awake anyway, so here goes. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a system at all. It is a non belief in a specific set of supernatural propositions. There are no rules, there is no dogma. It is nothing more than as there is no evidence that gods exist, the default position is they don’t. Just as the **default position** for anything else supernatural is it doesn’t exist. I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about it. > > I am tolerant of anyone and everyone’s beliefs, but I simply won’t humor the religious by giving their beliefs special status or respect over any other supernatural proposition, such as ghosts, demons, fairies, unicorns, or the like. To me it is all the same. > > If people chooses to believe in unicorns, more power to them; I could even manage a productive relationship with them if it is in my better interests to do so. People believe in lots of crazy crap, so who am I to dismiss the Unicornian or the Christian? Add “default position” to the long list of surrogates for “I don’t _ **believe** _…” ---
**Author:** ![Cammacdon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Cammacdon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cammacdon)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/106 "2010-12-23T22:10:33Z")
Faith is the crutch of the ignorant. It interferes with real learning. It holds us back as a species. Faith holds back and even rallies against scientific research that could cure horrible diseases and foster a better life for everybody. It has historically ignored, and in most cases even supported murder,bigotry,oppression,slavery,child abuse(sexual and otherwise),torture, and genocide. But most of all, It is cowardly. The only reason it has any foothold in our time is because people fear death and will go along with any ridiculous myth rather than grow up and face the fact that one day, you will simply cease to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/107 "2010-12-23T22:43:20Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > These discussions get pretty hectic. Hope I didn’t miss any posts but I’m sure I must have. I’m seriously interested in how you’d counter my post at [#65](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13283222&postcount=65). I know I may be forcing you to defend a stance you don’t personally take, but I still would like a rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![radorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@radorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/radorth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/108 "2010-12-23T22:58:58Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Utter ignorance. Einstein was not religious (in any traditional sense, certainly not a theist). > > _“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic”_ > -Einstein > \* > “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one”\* > -Einstein > > _“…what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God”_ > -Einstein > > etc… Your ignorance of his other statements is frightening. Read his Oct 1927 Saturday Evening post statements sometime. That’s because you glean your quotes from biased sources. NOTE my qualification - “in his early years.” You are just as ignorant of ALL Jefferson’s or Adam’s statements because you haven’t read them all. I have ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/109 "2010-12-23T23:19:21Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Add “default position” to the long list of surrogates for “I don’t _ **believe** _…” You do realize, I trust, that your statement is illogical, don’t you? The default position is the one supported by evidence. The default position for the existence of trees is they exist, because we can see, feel, smell, and taste them, and they have a demonstrable, testable, measurable, and repeatable impact on our world. It would make no difference if I believed trees didn’t exist, even if somehow I could be convinced of such a thing, the fact is they exist and can be proved to be, and that, my friend, is the default position. The default position is gods don’t exist because there is no evidence to support any contention that they do. Whether or not I believe in gods, or fairies, or unicorns, or Spiderman, is not, at all, the point. You don’t like what I’m saying, and probably feel a sense of satisfaction twisting my words into something I didn’t say and don’t mean, so hey, have at it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/110 "2010-12-23T23:30:45Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > Your ignorance of his other statements is frightening. Read his Oct 1927 Saturday Evening post statements sometime. That’s because you glean your quotes from biased sources. NOTE my qualification - “in his early years.” You are just as ignorant of ALL Jefferson’s or Adam’s statements because you haven’t read them all. I have Actually I have read all of Einstein’s, Jefferson’s, and Adam’s known letters in great detail. This is an interest of mine. What on earth do you think you are getting at? You are coming off as an utter fool. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/111 "2010-12-23T23:30:56Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > You do realize, I trust, that your statement is illogical, don’t you? The default position is the one supported by evidence. The default position for the existence of trees is they exist, because we can see, feel, smell, and taste them, and they have a demonstrable, testable, measurable, and repeatable impact on our world. He’s referring to the step before that: the default position regarding the existence of trees is disbelief. It is only _after_ you experience the evidence that trees exist that the burden of proof has been satisfied and you can now rationally say you believe in trees. ---
**Author:** ![radorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@radorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/radorth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/112 "2010-12-24T00:24:38Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Actually I have read all of Einstein’s, Jefferson’s, and Adam’s known letters in great detail. This is an interest of mine. What on earth do you think you are getting at? You are coming off as an utter fool. On to the personal insults already? Well no you haven’t read all of them because my Einstein quote is not only accurate, it is just a small piece of the positive things he said about Jesus personally. I seriously doubt you know what Jefferson or Adams said about Jesus himself either. But if you do know, please let the readers know what they did say. That way I won’t have to do have to do it for you. Perhaps we should end this out of respect for the thread starter or begin a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/113 "2010-12-24T00:25:13Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > You do realize, I trust, that your statement is illogical, don’t you? The default position is the one supported by evidence. The default position for the existence of trees is they exist, because we can see, feel, smell, and taste them, and they have a demonstrable, testable, measurable, and repeatable impact on our world. It would make no difference if I believed trees didn’t exist, even if somehow I could be convinced of such a thing, the fact is they exist and can be proved to be, and that, my friend, is the default position. The default position is gods don’t exist because there is no evidence to support any contention that they do. Whether or not I believe in gods, or fairies, or unicorns, or Spiderman, is not, at all, the point. > > You don’t like what I’m saying, and probably feel a sense of satisfaction twisting my words into something I didn’t say and don’t mean, so hey, have at it. _sigh_ FWIW, I’ll gladly post as an atheist, agnostic or theist if you’d prefer. Your example assumes (apparently) that an a temporal being (and not any a temporal being—supposedly The Big Cheese; the One who created everything we see/experience) must by necessity have the qualities of a tree. I suppose I could stop there, but why? If this High Octane God exists, he is not subject to our limitations. It’s absurd to imply that only what I can see exists. As a young parent I was interested to learn that a new born doesn’t cry when you leave the room because the child hasn’t yet made the connection that you exist outside his/her observation. It’s only later that a child is aware that you exist outside their observations and so will begin to cry when you leave. The fact is, there are many things that we have become aware of that were previously unknown—from planets and galaxies to sub-atomic particles. Did they simply not exist? Of course not. The only rational scientific default position for the existence of an supernatural God being sought in the natural world, using the only tools available by temporal humans,( in the natural world) is \*\*silence. \*\* Isn’t that the case? Isn’t science **silent** on the existence of a super natural God? Once you take the evidence (and you appear to be confusing ‘evidence’ for ‘proof’) and apply your subjective beliefs you’ve created a belief system. Some people call that faith. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/114 "2010-12-24T00:25:18Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Well, I guess I’m a bigot then. > > By that definition I certainly am. I won’t persecute you because of your beliefs, though I _will_ judge you adversely for believing Woo of any sort, and if asked I will tell you it’s bullshit to your face. > > The problem is that religion being in that list is simply another case of it being given special status that other irrational views do not have. Would I be a bigot for being intolerant of someone who belived that computers were run by little orange men, even after you opened it up and showed it too him? No, I’d think he was mentally deficient or insane. Nobody would expect me to say ‘maybe you’re right, they could be hiding in the capacitors when we look for them’ or ‘you’re right, there is no eveidence that little orange me don’t exist even though they violate known laws of physics and there is a much simpler obvious explanation’. > > I am tolerant towards absolutely anything that someone can’t change. ‘Faith’ is not one of those things and is therefor fair game. > [@jinty](#): > > Am I understanding you correctly? You think if an atheist states in the workplace that “atheism is not a belief system”, they deserve to get fired for bigotry? **jinty** take a look at **Baboonanza** ’s statement above for an example of what I was talking about. He reserves tolerance for those people with conditions that cannot be changed but feels that faith is something that can be changed and is therefor fair game. This is the same attitude you find in people who view homosexuality as something that can be changed and should therefor not be protected against discrimination. The very same sort of bigotry. Fortunately, anti-discrimination laws are clear in their protection of religious views in the same manner that race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. are protected. Probably every Evangelical Atheist on this board works under an anti-discrimination policy at their job that would preclude the behavour that they exhibit here on this board if they tried expressing the same anti-religion views in the workplace. That is what I was trying to say. I now return you to the dog pile on the **Disgruntled Penguin**. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/115 "2010-12-24T00:34:09Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > You do realize, I trust, that your statement is illogical, don’t you? The default position is the one supported by evidence. The default position for the existence of trees is they exist, because we can see, feel, smell, and taste them, and they have a demonstrable, testable, measurable, and repeatable impact on our world. It would make no difference if I believed trees didn’t exist, even if somehow I could be convinced of such a thing, the fact is they exist and can be proved to be, and that, my friend, is the default position. The default position is gods don’t exist because there is no evidence to support any contention that they do. Whether or not I believe in gods, or fairies, or unicorns, or Spiderman, is not, at all, the point. > > You don’t like what I’m saying, and probably feel a sense of satisfaction twisting my words into something I didn’t say and don’t mean, so hey, have at it. Let’s distill this down a little. Would you say that the existence of trees is accepted\* as an **objective fact?** Would you say that the existence of God is accepted as a **subjective belief?** How would you characterize the \*non-\*existence of God? Is it an objective fact, or a subjective belief? What say you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/116 "2010-12-24T00:35:24Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > The only rational scientific default position for the existence of an supernatural God being sought in the natural world, using the only tools available by temporal humans,( in the natural world) is \*\*silence. \*\* If you can convince all the theists to stop making claims about the properties of hypothetical supernatural beings then I will happily do the same. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/117 "2010-12-24T00:39:52Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Let’s distill this down a little. > > Would you say that the existence of trees is accepted\* as an **objective fact?** > > Would you say that the existence of God is accepted as a **subjective belief?** > > How would you characterize the \*non-\*existence of God? Is it an objective fact, or a subjective belief? > > What say you? The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees. In both cases it’s the hypothesis the best explains the evidence at hand, although both assertions are open to falsification if new evidence presents itself. If you asked me to judge, I’d personally be \*less \*surprised to discover that \*trees \*are an illusion. Faking trees wouldn’t require violating fundamental laws of the universe. I’ve even seen some pretty convincing examples of fake trees. I’ve never see anything remotely God-like ever. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/118 "2010-12-24T00:40:12Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If you can convince all the theists to stop making claims about the properties of hypothetical supernatural beings then I will happily do the same. Why? Science **is** silent on the matter. From there, we’re all witnessing. Whether one realizes it or not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/119 "2010-12-24T00:44:26Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Why? Because we don’t have a word for people who don’t believe in flargs. (Which are ill-defined non-material entities that are necessary for the existence of the universe … but which are not gods.) If no positive assertions were made about the god concept then it would be ontologically equivalent to the flarg concept, i.e. it wouldn’t exist at all. So there would be no need to argue against it. What’s your position on flargs, by the way? Yea or nay? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/120 "2010-12-24T00:46:13Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Why? > > Science **is** silent on the matter. > > From there, we’re all witnessing. Are you suggesting that anything I might make up about an after-life should be taken seriously? I’d quite like a tub full of nubile girls covered in double cream. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=7)