# Why do so many skeptics give believers a free pass? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113 "2007-02-21T17:56:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/121 "2007-02-25T17:18:55Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Even Tom Paine believed in a god, though not the Christian one. I doubt very much he would do so now. [/QUOTE] On what do you base that assumption? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/122 "2007-02-25T17:25:42Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] So now that you admit that causality can be a valid way of looking at things you have completely gutted your previous denials of determinism. [/QUOTE] Reading comprehension problem? I posted [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108663&postcount=251) back in January. I’m already on record as saying that causality can be a valid way of looking at things. I don’t think you’re interested in understanding anything (including me and my mindset) in here, I think you’re trying to “win a debate”. If that’s correct, I’m just going to shrug and say you have so far failed to demonstrate that prayer does not work. The continuity and consistency of my arguments is not relevant to that endeavor. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/123 "2007-02-25T17:45:47Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] Well that was a pretty wending path to come to the same conclusion… [/quote] Great! 🙂 We agree, then, that neither revelation from God nor discovery by science is sufficient for purposes of coercion. > [@](#): > > Though I wonder at your limitting it just to “adults”. Unintended and withdrawn. Every human owns his mind and body, and no person of any age should ever be coerced. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/124 "2007-02-25T17:54:48Z")
There are a lot more nonbelievers out there than we all might think. Lots of people go to church because they have been brainwashed from childhood to do it. Their beliefs are not as strongly held as poeple who argue with skeptics. They would not argue, because they know “they got nothin’.” Over time, in an affluent and educated society, this group will gradually be won over to the nonbeliever camp, just because being a nonbeliever is better on some very fundamental levels: for one thing, you get to sleep in on Sunday. For another, you don’t have to spend your Sundays dressed up listening to some boring old fart droning on and on about nonsense. For yet another, you don’t have to tithe. This sounds childish, but these are real advantages. On the other hand, when confronted with moral issues, you have to think for yourself. For some, this is intolerable and avoiding it is worth much more than tithing and giving up Sundays. If skeptics really want to get people to dump religion wholesale, they should develop a group of simple, easily understood moral guides – much like the Ten Commandments – and promote them vigorously in the media. The line would be: “You don’t have to go to church to be a good person. You don’t have to tithe to be a good person. You just have to live by these rules.” People would jump on it like a starving whore on a horny sailor. It would suck the marrow out of most organized religions. Of course, this won’t help with the older folks who believe because death terrifies them and the prospect of an afterlife is very appealing. It would be very hard to pry this group away from any religion that promises an afterlife. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/125 "2007-02-25T17:56:01Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] Reading comprehension problem? I posted [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108663&postcount=251) back in January. I’m already on record as saying that causality can be a valid way of looking at things. … [/quote] And come the following month, you danced back into your denial of determinism with your [post=8276879]“only one event” argument[/post] again. Where was your conciliation toward causality there? > [@](#): > > … > I don’t think you’re interested in understanding anything (including me and my mindset) in here, I think you’re trying to “win a debate”. … Funny, that’s pretty much what I’m accusing you of. I’m not so vain as to consider your failure as a victory for me. I am very interested in coherent ideas. As long as you stay in the “only one event” cave, you can claim many victories for yourself (such as opposing determinism). The price, however, is you cannot then leave the cave when it suits you without being called on it. > [@](#): > > … If that’s correct, I’m just going to shrug and say you have so far failed to demonstrate that prayer does not work. … You should reconsider throwing that “reading comprehension problem” stone. Re-read that [post=8294886]last paragraph[/post] again. > [@](#): > > … The continuity and consistency of my arguments is not relevant to that endeavor. Yes, it is. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/126 "2007-02-25T18:28:58Z")
> [@](#): > > If you were to strip away some baggage that accompanies the word prayer (perhaps by substituting meditation) I would be on board with your present conclusion. I have no doubt you are correct Fair enough, then. (I think). I use the term “prayer” because I think the process in which I engage is the valid process (as opposed to the “say these magic phrases while holding your hands like so, you’re s’posed to do that 'cuz it’s Sunday” recipe-following thing) of prayer; in other words, in contrast to the majority of skeptics and atheists, I don’t think the phenomenon of theism is a giant wad of bullshit and therefore that _all_ of its believers are in need of an unearned and unjustifiable “free pass” in order to be absolved of believing in bullshit. I believe the origins of religious practice (including the recipe-following mindless-ritual stuff) are in experiences such as I’ve described, that excited enthused people tried to describe it in words to folks who had had no such experiences, and that the whole thing got underlined as Real Important Stuff, and institutionalized, to the point that participating and avowing belief became mandatory, at which point _of course_ mindless recipe-following became the norm. I think as religion’s mandatory element fades away (it has largely ceased to be officially, legally mandatory but is still culturally or politically obligatory in many circles), it will become quite rarefied. I don’t think it’s an experience that nearly everyone regularly has, and it certainly makes no sense to pressure people into _pretending_ that it’s happened to them. How mainstream culture will view people in the future who have such experiences is not obvious to me. I’d like to think we get a “free pass” in the sense of the benefit of the doubt, that there _may_ be an experience (somewhat rare) that’s happening there rather than us just being nuts and/or schizophrenics or silly deluded people. If you still think I’m dancing into and back out of protective caves, claiming a position that I happily desert when it’s convenient, let me know. The universe really _is_ a single event (that’s a statement of fact; or it is so give or take a quibble about “event” as the proper term for it); causality really _is_ washed out of the picture when you look at it that way, as a fully explanatory model for how and why things occur. We find causality, which is a _different_ way of looking at the world, to be massively useful and cogent, to the point that no one could dispense with it and cease to use it on a daily basis; and yet the same could be said of models that are intrinsically incompatible, such as free will and intentionality (no one can dispense with that and conduct their daily affairs without an investment in the belief that things happen as a consequence of intent). ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/127 "2007-02-25T18:55:35Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Fine then. Prove there is no god. [/QUOTE] You prove to me that there are no Leprechauns in Ireland (that includes underground) and I will prove to you there is no God. How many times do we have to say it? He who alleges must prove. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. THAT WHICH IS ADVANCED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/128 "2007-02-25T19:03:37Z")
**AHunter3** , allow me to clarify the context of my on-boardness: > [@the PC apeman](#): > > > [@AHunter3](#): > > > > …I would say that those of us who engage in the process do so because we find there to be results, and moreover that they are generally positive results pertinent to what was on our mind when we engaged in the process. … > > If you were to strip away some baggage that accompanies the word prayer (perhaps by substituting meditation) I would be on board with your present conclusion. What I’m not willing to give a pass to is having it both ways. [QUOTE=AHunter3] … If you still think I’m dancing into and back out of protective caves, claiming a position that I happily desert when it’s convenient, let me know. The universe really _is_ a single event (that’s a statement of fact; or it is so give or take a quibble about “event” as the proper term for it); causality really _is_ washed out of the picture when you look at it that way, as a fully explanatory model for how and why things occur. We find causality, which is a _different_ way of looking at the world, to be massively useful and cogent, to the point that no one could dispense with it and cease to use it on a daily basis; and yet the same could be said of models that are intrinsically incompatible, such as free will and intentionality (no one can dispense with that and conduct their daily affairs without an investment in the belief that things happen as a consequence of intent). [/QUOTE] Dance, dance, dance. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/129 "2007-02-25T19:09:50Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] You were asking the guest to give you a free pass. I.e. for the rest of mankind to not publically fight ignorance. That’s not a personal decision; that’s something that effects lots of people. [/quote] No, that is not what I said. > [@](#): > > If you want to be “a fool”, that’s entirely your prerogative. I’m just saying that the argument of “I’m a fool” isn’t a valid one for why anyone should get a free pass from trying to operate on the best information as they can in the public sphere. Should I check with you on every decision to be sure that you approve my information? You are assuming a level of authority beyond all reason. Of course, I am one of those idiot Christians, and can easily be dismissed. > [@](#): > > Would you say that we should give smokers a free pass from having the health considerations of smoking publicized? I’m sure they already know it’s bad for them, but I don’t see how that necessitates that what factual information there is should for some reason be suppressed or not publicized. Yes, I should be severely punished for suppressing your views. When did I do that? Tris ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/130 "2007-02-25T19:17:41Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Over time, in an affluent and educated society, this group will gradually be won over to the nonbeliever camp, just because being a nonbeliever is better on some very fundamental levels: for one thing, you get to sleep in on Sunday. For another, you don’t have to spend your Sundays dressed up listening to some boring old fart droning on and on about nonsense. For yet another, you don’t have to tithe. [/QUOTE] It may surprise you to learn that you can be a believer and still sleep in on Sundays. You can skip church altogether, or find one that meets at a different time. You can go without dressing up. If you look hard enough, you might even be able to find a church where the preacher is neither boring nor old nor a fart, or at least not all three. In fact, some people actually like going to church. A few even like the dressing up part. To them, your inducements are about as persuasive as telling a football fan that if they stop believing in football, they don’t have to spend their weekends inside stuck to the couch, watching a bunch of overhyped beefy no-neck guys fighting over a misshapen ball. For such people, even if you could convince them that their basic religious beliefs were false, they’d still keep going to church or a church equivalent. Personally, I sympathise with those who see churchgoing as a dreary, PITA waste of time. I haven’t been a regular churchgoer for quite some time, because I haven’t found one that was (to me) worth getting up and going to, though I would love to find such a church. But that doesn’t make me a nonbeliever. It makes me someone who doesn’t see waking up early, dressing up, and trying to stay awake through a boring church service as particularly central to what Christianity is all about. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/131 "2007-02-25T19:38:19Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] [Quote=Lord Ashtar] Fine then. Prove there is no god. You prove to me that there are no Leprechauns in Ireland (that includes underground) and I will prove to you there is no God. [/quote] How many times do we have to say it? He who alleges must prove. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. THAT WHICH IS ADVANCED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. [/QUOTE] **Lord Ashtar** has not advanced the proposition that there is a god. His post that you have quoted was in response to the OP bemoaning the fact that some skeptics do not challenge ythe belief in a god. Lacking an actual assertion on the part of **Lord Ashtar** , you have now joined the OP in asserting that one should not believe in a god, so you have undertaken to provide the evidence. If you wish to wander around claiming that someone else bears the burden of proof, it would behhove you to wait until they have actually asserted something that requires proof. **Lord Ashtar** has not done so, therefore your rather petulant claim is out of order. I’m sure that someone may be along to assert that a god exists, (although I would still hold that your assertion and that of the OP take priority by beiong first), and you can challenge them for their proofs, but until then you should really not interrupt the thread with unwarranted challenges. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/132 "2007-02-25T19:42:05Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > > [@Sage Rat](#): > > > > Sage Rat]You were asking the guest to give you a free pass. > > No, that is not what I said. [QUOTE=Triskadecamus] I could really use that pass you mentioned giving to believers in God. [/QUOTE] A guy with a similar name said it then. > [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Should I check with you on every decision to be sure that you approve my information? You are assuming a level of authority beyond all reason. Of course, I am one of those idiot Christians, and can easily be dismissed. Hey, if you have an argument against, “Where possible, when doing things that effect other people, you should try and rely on what all data is available to you rather than gut instinct.”, then I am perfectly glad to listen to it. But the Rush Limbaugh act of, “Oh why are you picking on me…? I know you’re a great all-knowing person who knows **everything** , but I’m just a cuddly little teddy bear!” isn’t an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/133 "2007-02-25T19:44:19Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Great! 🙂 We agree, then, that neither revelation from God nor discovery by science is sufficient for purposes of coercion. [/QUOTE] So then would you raise your children to be religious? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/134 "2007-02-25T19:53:19Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] What I’d like to know from you is what’s your point of entry into this conversation? My original post, as I said, was a response taking up the challenge of some people who said they could demonstrate the lack of efficacy of prayer. [/QUOTE] My entry into this conversation was originally curiousity. You were set to defend the efficacy of prayer, and I wanted to see how. You disavowed yourself from some of the traditional aspects of prayer, and so I asked for clarification. Your clarification just raised further questions, and didn’t reveal anything new, so I pressed for more. I got into this in hopes of hearing something new, a new approach or idea or something, and I didn’t find what I was looking for. At this point, it looks like what you consider prayer fails in the same way that more traditional prayer fails in: you have no evidence that it is in fact ‘god’ that is causing the effects you experience, as opposed to some other mechanism. You won’t give any evidence, claiming that I do not have the appropriate experiences, or that the English language fails to provide adaquate words. I do not require medical evidence, or any sort of proof. I want to know why _you_ think it is in fact ‘god’ that is causing these effects when you ‘pray’, and not something else. > [@](#): > > But if we’re going to explore that, we’re first going to have to take a closer look at what appears to be your position that abstractions are things that don’t exist, and that things that do exist are not abstractions. This might be worth pursuing, but I have a feeling it will just come down to definitions of ‘exist’ or ‘abstraction’. I consider something to exist when it has some observable effect in the physical universe. It’s possible to say that something does exist, even if it exists solely within the mind. I can understand that definition, even if I don’t fully agree with it. It is possible to say both that the world JRR Tolkien envsioned exists (as an abstraction in the mind) and doesn’t exist (physically). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/135 "2007-02-25T19:55:37Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat] So then would you raise your children to be religious? [/QUOTE] My daughter is agnostic. I’ve told her of my life experience, but she has a life of her own. It is impossible to raise a child to be religious. The best that can come of it is the sort of feeble intellectual belief that some people call “faith”. But faith is a gift directly from its object. If my daughter experiences something similar to what I experience, she will have faith. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/136 "2007-02-25T21:06:33Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > You were asking the guest to give you a free pass. I.e. for the rest of mankind to not publically fight ignorance. That’s not a personal decision; that’s something that effects lots of people. > [@me](#): > > Evangelism by argument is a grave error of faith, in my view. Only by my actions can I give you the word of God . . . So, if you don’t mind, I could really use that pass you mentioned giving to believers in God. I promise not to try to apply it to UFO’s. If these are equivalent to you, I see no need to continue the discussion. If they are not, I wonder at your motives in deliberately misinterpreting me. > [@you](#): > > . . . I don’t see how that necessitates that what factual information there is should for some reason be suppressed or not publicized. I am not sure just what you fear so much that you feel your right to self expression is being suppressed. It certainly has nothing to do with me, or anything I said anywhere, much less in this thread. Yes, I made a light repartee using the original poster’s phrase of Giving a pass. I am sorry I lost you going around that corner; I will try to signal in advance, in the future at any attempt at lighthearted irony. My point was that I don’t use logical argument to proselytize. I believe it to be a grave error of faith. (I don’t think it actually makes me a fool.) I then engage the criticism of being told I am a fool by embracing it. (See: Dada) This also has certain biblical precedents, and while I don’t find dueling verses to be useful spiritually either, I am subject to indulgences in these sorts of indirect referents. Call it a literary pretension. (Watch out, here comes another one of those humor things.) By the way, I am somewhat warm and a bit fuzzy, but I don’t expect any deference from you because of it. Tris ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/137 "2007-02-25T21:43:42Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] My entry into this conversation was originally curiousity. You were set to defend the efficacy of prayer, and I wanted to see how. You disavowed yourself from some of the traditional aspects of prayer, and so I asked for clarification. Your clarification just raised further questions, and didn’t reveal anything new, so I pressed for more. I got into this in hopes of hearing something new, a new approach or idea or something, and I didn’t find what I was looking for. At this point, it looks like what you consider prayer fails in the same way that more traditional prayer fails in: you have no evidence that it is in fact ‘god’ that is causing the effects you experience [/QUOTE] I didn’t claim to have any. I didn’t introduce the word or the concept. Although it is true that I find both the word and the concept useful, I’ve said all along (and more than once) that I’m perfectly fine with dispensing with any theology-laden terms other than “prayer”. I think they obfuscate the issue. The discussion tends to veer off into whether or not there is a god, or what “god” means. Heck, this one has veered off into causal determinism and the Big Bang! (I’ll take part of the blame for that, though). What I consider prayer does not depend for its validity on god, on ‘god’, or on holding to a concept of ‘god’. I’ve said it is commonly _experienced_ by the person so engaged as if communication was taking place. I have not said that the efficacy of the process depends on holding in one’s head an image of a ‘god’, ‘goddess’, ‘djimm’, ‘what which is’, or ‘The Force’ or anything else, though. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/138 "2007-02-25T23:25:11Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] I didn’t claim to have any. I didn’t introduce the word or the concept. Although it is true that I find both the word and the concept useful, I’ve said all along (and more than once) that I’m perfectly fine with dispensing with any theology-laden terms other than “prayer”. I think they obfuscate the issue. [/QUOTE] Then why do you believe what you believe? You have to have a reason for thinking what you do. Either you read it somewhere or experienced it or heard it spoken or took a bunch of drugs and saw it written on a cloud in fire or something. That is evidence. Some of it, like personal experience, isn’t good evidence, but its still just a form of evidence. > [@](#): > > What I consider prayer does not depend for its validity on god, on ‘god’, or on holding to a concept of ‘god’. I’ve said it is commonly _experienced_ by the person so engaged as if communication was taking place. I have not said that the efficacy of the process depends on holding in one’s head an image of a ‘god’, ‘goddess’, ‘djimm’, ‘what which is’, or ‘The Force’ or anything else, though. But you believe in something that is greater than just humanity, outside the social mindset, ‘the god in all of us’, etc. Something. It doesn’t matter what you choose to call it, you think it’s there, and that it helps us in some way. If this thing isn’t there, how does your version of prayer work? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/139 "2007-02-26T00:21:10Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Then why do you believe what you believe? [/quote] What’s it to you, and what does it have to do with prayer? > [@](#): > > But you believe in something that is greater than just humanity, outside the social mindset, ‘the god in all of us’, etc. Something. It doesn’t matter what you choose to call it, you think it’s there, and that it helps us in some way. If this thing isn’t there, how does your version of prayer work? Did I say I know how it works? Someone else said they were prepared to demonstrate that prayer _does not work_ and I said “bring it on”. I did not say I could explain how it works, did I? I didn’t say I could prove that it _does_ work, did I? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113/140 "2007-02-26T02:31:55Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] It may surprise you to learn that you can be a believer and still sleep in on Sundays. You can skip church altogether, or find one that meets at a different time. You can go without dressing up. If you look hard enough, you might even be able to find a church where the preacher is neither boring nor old nor a fart, or at least not all three. In fact, some people actually like going to church. A few even like the dressing up part. To them, your inducements are about as persuasive as telling a football fan that if they stop believing in football, they don’t have to spend their weekends inside stuck to the couch, watching a bunch of overhyped beefy no-neck guys fighting over a misshapen ball. For such people, even if you could convince them that their basic religious beliefs were false, they’d still keep going to church or a church equivalent. Personally, I sympathise with those who see churchgoing as a dreary, PITA waste of time. I haven’t been a regular churchgoer for quite some time, because I haven’t found one that was (to me) worth getting up and going to, though I would love to find such a church. But that doesn’t make me a nonbeliever. It makes me someone who doesn’t see waking up early, dressing up, and trying to stay awake through a boring church service as particularly central to what Christianity is all about. [/QUOTE] Sure, there’s some people who like to dress up, others who like the social aspect, but I think a whole huge pile of churchgoers are there because they have a vague sense that they will “get in trouble” of some kind if they don’t go to church. They’re the ones who will desert the church in droves sooner or later, probably sooner in the US. We’re still a thrid world country, culturally, but we’re getting there. As for those who don’t need to go to church to believe, sure, they’re out there, but I don’t think they’re all that numerous. If you want to eliminate religion, you don’t go after the Buddhists, you go where the numbers are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-skeptics-give-believers-a-free-pass/393113.md?page=8)