Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[JoeEllison]

No Joe . . .If you want to discuss what the definition of a valid belief system vs. one that isn't, fine we can discuss it. The point of the matter is we were not, and if you had read the previous post in the thread, which obviously you haven't, you would see that all that had been created in this thread was another straw man to be set on fire by flamers, just like you.

You haven't posted once without insulting the people in this thread, while you claim that everyone else is being rude? Very nice... I've got your number now. I'll bet you're an agnostic, right? That way you can feel superior to those "rude" atheists(even though you are the one throwing out the insults), AND superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical.

But since you bring it up, lets discuss it.

I define valid belief systems as those that actually WORK for the individual. In other words, a religious belief, or philosophical belief should be something that is not just taken with blind faith but is actually applicable to an individual's life.

In my view, beliefs should work FOR YOU, and not against you.

In your opinion, which religious beliefs do you see that work for the given person that believes in them, and which ones you see as harmful?

Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you don't care for my world view, presuming you think you know what it is, you are invited to enjoy your own world view.

How does that grab you?

I am curious: do you get your jollies criticizing other people's world views?

I figured out a while back that there isn't a universally right world view. If you wish to pursue that chimera, good hunting.

You want to be a Bhuddist? Good for you.

Islam brings you the peace of Allah? Go for it.

Agnostic your bag? Wallow in your joy.

Atheist to your taste? Enjoy.

That is not the tone of this thread, nor of the OP.

DR

In as much as the thread is not asking for testimonials about people's god beliefs, no, that is not the tone of the thread.

But in as much as you think I'm more interested in theist bashing than simply challenging theist beliefs, you are wrong about the thread and about me, of which the latter is frequently the case.

Why do you participate in the JREF forum? I assume you are not here to support one of the usual woos like homeopathy or 911 conspiracy theories. That would imply you are here because you are a skeptic of some kind.

Would you also say the following?

You want to be an astrolger? Good for you.

Homeopathy brings you the peace of good health? Go for it.

Bigfoot your bag? Wallow in your joy.

"Loose Change" to your taste? Enjoy.

I'm certainly not angry at people for their beliefs. And I only get mad at the beliefs like the anti-vaxers who essentially attack my profession and lead parents away from vaccinating their kids. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't challenge any of those beliefs which are relatively harmless. Of course I would. I want to promote critical thinking.

If you don't want to discuss why one god belief is valid and another invalid, perhaps you'd care to justify why those god beliefs you mentioned are peachy, but other woo may be challenged?

 

[V23]

You haven't posted once without insulting the people in this thread, while you claim that everyone else is being rude? Very nice... I've got your number now. I'll bet you're an agnostic, right? That way you can feel superior to those "rude" atheists(even though you are the one throwing out the insults), AND superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical.


Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

Actually, no joe you do NOT have my number. I am not an agnostic. I am a Pagan, and I specifically believe in Chaos Theory. By strict definition I would be refered to as a Pantheist. I AM one of those individuals who others believe they are "superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical."

Secondly, who have I insulted? You? The one who refered to my post as "Hollier than Thou" and literally proved that attitude that I claimed existed on this thread by your post?

Third, if you really believe that all religious beliefs are harmful by definition, then what do you have to offer to the dicusssion of which religious belief you believe in is true while others are false, since, you don't believe in any of them?

Hang on Joe, before you answer, I think I 've got some dry straw over here . . .

 

[JoeEllison]

Yep, you're still doing everything in your power to be offended, and avoiding any hint of being interested in the topic.

You proved my point 100% on that score. Nice work there. Can you, are you capable of, will you be adult enough, to ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Here, let me quote myself: "Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would."

Got any comment on THAT?

 

[V23]

Yep, you're still doing everything in your power to be offended, and avoiding any hint of being interested in the topic.

You proved my point 100% on that score. Nice work there. Can you, are you capable of, will you be adult enough, to ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Here, let me quote myself: "Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would."

Got any comment on THAT?

Sure . . . Your comment isn't germane to the conversation.

But thank you for posting.

 

[slingblade]

You earlier used the word disdain. Far more accurate than anger. And no, I am not upset that this came up again.

I ask you again, why would I care that a Hindu believes as he does?

Why should I?

1. Don't make me laugh, listening isn't the same as waiting to talk.

2. That isn't what the OP is about.

3. Merry Christmas.

ETA, sorry, meant to Preview

You also mentioned wasting my time.

Indeed, a bit of mine, and a bit of yours as well.

Everybody got to waste time.

I feel a lot of love in this room.

DR

Darth,

Is there any evidence that your god beliefs are true, while other god beliefs are false?

 

[epeos76]

The value of invisible dragons

I'm going to take a stab at responding to skeptigirl's OP, as opposed to sorting out the various meta-arguments. This thread is already sufficiently long, that I'm going to summarize the relevant points without quoting. I apologize in advance for any misattributions that don't at least have the redeeming quality of being funny. I will try to keep philosophical quibbling to a minimum, and present at least SOME evidence for my particular (current) state of belief.

First, the philosophical quibbling.

The question in the OP is an important one, but I think it can present a false dichotomy, from a theist's perspective (noted by DR).

Carl Sagan's statement is only true if religion is understood to be a collection of well-defined premises and conclusions about the world. If it is, every detail is equally significant, since believers can't point to a testable source of religious "knowledge" that allows us to distinguish between them (at least I don't know of any).

Why is "knowledge" is in quotes? I'm only a hobbyist when it comes to the philosophy of science, but I think that the word "knowledge" is often (and often, appropriately) given a technical meaning that is part and parcel of the premises-and-conclusions methods and is primarily related to persuasion. It's something like "results that another person cannot dispute given the validity of the premises". This generally excludes feelings.

It is an enormously powerful method, lots of good results, and it deservedly preempts the field where it applies but its application is not unlimited. Swear to god. [1]

A lot of religious ideas/activities are older than this method. I think part of religion is still meaningful, even given the invention of the above method, but the part that remains meaningful is precisely not a well-defined set of premises and conclusions.[2] Science handles that part better. As a result, religion does not have to be "true" in every detail in order to be "generally true" or valuable.

Claiming this imposes at least two requirements on believers: (1) I can't use religious arguments to justify requiring any other person to act the way I think they should (at least not those I have not personally begotten), and (2) Where science makes positive predictions and assertions that contradict religious claims, I have to concede to science.

At the same time it means I (and many others) can have beliefs grounded in one tradition without believing that all others are inherently false. Presumably this doesn't work for evangelicals, wahabi iman's or reactionary Shinto priests.

Of course, one still needs some evidence that the beliefs one holds are not false. But this evidence does not have to be the sort that means hearing it is automatically persuasive. Evidence that particular beliefs are harmful must be examined under the formal rules, however.

(2) Evidence. I have personally encountered people who acted in ways I deeply respected and explained it as a result of their Christianity. In particular, middle of the road, suburban mid-westerners with mediocre educations and parochial interests have routinely surprised me by being generous and sympathetic across race, class, gender and religious lines for religious reasons.

Please spare me the No True Scotsman fallacy. The NTS is a brilliant way of disproving the claim that Christianity is the source of moral behavior; that it makes people act morally and therefore must be divinely inspired. I'm claiming something different.

I'm claiming that some people – some personally known to me, some I have only read about - have used one version of Christianity to teach themselves how to be good.[3] It's not an infallible method justified to industry standards, but I don't know of one that is.

Sure, there are other ways to do it. I remember in particular Wild Swans. The protaganist's Dad had beautiful morals grounded in communist principles. Her grandfather belonged to some sort of Buddhist secret society and reached similar conclusions. There are certainly humanists and secularists I would include, too.

The fact is, however, that I have actually been taught the methods and practice of my own tradition. Since I don't think the valuable parts consist of premises I can read like a rule book, or deduce from first principles I don't think I could learn how to practice another method properly without a lot of other practitioners around to learn from.

That's it. Have at you.

[1] Why swear to god, rather than talk about the limits? Because (a) I don't completely understand 'em - some are economics related I think– time/resources required to reach certainty vs too many decisions to make - and (b) I'm trying to keep the quibble to no more than three times the length of the evidence. Somebody better read should tackle that question. I don't think it's the controversial part.

[2] What part? See above. Granted, this is the controversial part and therefore I generally refer you to Douglas Adam's essay "is there an artificial god" which suggests some ways that invisible, unverifiable dragons may be useful.

[3] I understand that sounds circular. I don't think it is though. Good is standing in for a host of traits related to the rejection of solipsism along with empathy and identification with others. It's a personal definition, but I believe that this part - the measuring tool - does have to stand up to formal scrutiny.

 

[epeos76]

Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

This is a direct challenge to the my thesis, of course. A complete response would have to take on the task of pinning down the definition of a "reality based world-view" and then showing why I think religious belief can be a part of it.

Assuming you mean something like the naturalism described over at godless geeks:

There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

I'd say that of course, any time you can get sufficient evidence to reach a positive result from these rules, you should use the result. I think there are three kinds of limits, though:

1. IMHO there are some inherent limits in how far this game will take you, but I'm still hoping someone with a real background in philosophy will undertake to answer that question.

2. As a matter of fact, we haven't reached a result on lots of important questions (consciousness, time, existence? Sure, but also humble problems like dividing a cake equally).

3. As individuals, we don't have the time or resources to reason from first principles or even evaluate all the relevant results the species has accumulated before making a decision.

A reality-based world view has to take into account the fact that there are, in fact, significant gaps where naturalism is not useful. I'll undertake to explain why I'm don't think I'm suggesting we fill those gaps with random crazy at a later date.

 

[Mobyseven]

Actually, no joe you do NOT have my number. I am not an agnostic. I am a Pagan, and I specifically believe in Chaos Theory.

I too praise and worship complex mathematical theories. Let's be Godel friends!

 

[V23]

Darth,

Is there any evidence that your god beliefs are true, while other god beliefs are false?

As I said earlier, I dont get into whether one's religious beliefs are more true than another, only if one system of belief is more valid.

In my opinion, a validity of belief is defined as a belief that actually works for you, and you not working for it. Unfortuantely too many people out there work for their beliefs, literally being a slave to them.

Some doctrines of Christanity, Islam, and Judasim fall into this cat. in my opinion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Skeptigirl,

I haven't taken part in this thread because 1) it seemed it was largely in part because of other threads I started and 2) the wording of the OP seemed designed to start needless arguments.

But based on your responses in other threads I'll take your word that wasn't your intent.

I still can't really answer the OP because of the following:
You are asking person who believes A why person who believes B is wrong. And asking person who believes B why person who believes A is wrong. All the while you believe C - that both A and B beliefs are wrong.

Generally speaking though - this is the process I use: I believe A, look at B, decide if I believe B, and change or stay the same. Any evidence I take into consideration is meaningless to someone who believs A and B are both wrong.

Even if person A and person B could have meaningfull discussion - you won't understand it because you're outside both of the belief systems.

What I mean specifically is this: V23 is a Panthiest. I am a Christian. I think it would be interesting to know what V23 believes and why. Although I would never think it would be right of me to tell him he's wrong. In a proper forum (not an internet forum - but probably better in a social setting) we could discuss what he believes. And I could tell him what I believe. And we could go our happy ways and alter our previous beliefs accordingly or not. But the moment either of us state "You're wrong because ... " any discussion will stop.

A simple example: Both V23 and I could talk about a Nebula where a star is forming. I could tell him that when I look at it I see the hand of god working - a star is being born. V23 might say (and this is probably a bad generalization of his believes - apologies V23), but he might say "I kind of know what you're saying. I see the ongoing oneness of life - a dead star being reborn". And an Athiest is going to say "What a bunch of lunatics! What are these two people doing talking about imaginary things like God creating or stars being reborn! All that's happening there is a bunch of elements from the dead star are turning into a new star due to gravity".

And really - where is the fun in a discussion like that?

 

[V23]

I too praise and worship complex mathematical theories. Let's be Godel friends!

Godel can't prove he was here.

 

[Lithrael]

So, some relatively sane adherents are offended by the OP because they apparantly hold only the general philosophy and not the 'facts' of their religion to be important anyway.

I can definitely respect that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a whole lot of adherents with less sane ideas about their religion than you. I'm not worried about people who use religion to teach love and charity, I'm worried about people who want it to be a bat for smacking things that don't agree with whatever they have decided their religion means. Don't believe those scientists, don't be female in situation X, don't get a transfusion, what have you.

I imagine the OP was meant to bait entertaining and smackdownable debate from more literalist types. But it seems they already know there are no feet for them when it comes to this kind of question. And rightly so, I guess - to a rational person, it would seem like this kind of thinking is easily shown to be wrong. Isn't it? I haven't read anything yet that has made me feel any more settled. So I don't really see why some regular posters are eyerolling like the OP is 'Who is better, Kirk or Picard.'

 

[volatile]

If you don't care for my world view, presuming you think you know what it is, you are invited to enjoy your own world view.

You are free, Darth, to hold whatever world-view you choose. Just don't expect it to be beyond critique, and don't get irritated when someone dares question that which you hold sacred.

This forum exists for the very purpose of raising questions such as that posed in the OP. It's a valid question, and if you don't want to answer it, that's fine. It is certainly not an inappropriate, rude, presumptuous, unnecessary or irrelevant question though, and that you pretend it is speaks volumes.

Have you, in your 13,000+ posts here, not once questioned someone else's "world-view"? What have you found to talk about on the JREF forums if not subjects which, if not directly critical of the beliefs and opinions of others, do at least critique them?

And so I ask again - if you feel comfortable critiquing the world-views of others, why are your own beliefs sacrosanct?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm going to take a stab at responding to skeptigirl's OP, as opposed to sorting out the various meta-arguments. This thread is already sufficiently long, that I'm going to summarize the relevant points without quoting. I apologize in advance for any misattributions that don't at least have the redeeming quality of being funny. I will try to keep philosophical quibbling to a minimum, and present at least SOME evidence for my particular (current) state of belief.
.... I understand that sounds circular. I don't think it is though. Good is standing in for a host of traits related to the rejection of solipsism along with empathy and identification with others. It's a personal definition, but I believe that this part - the measuring tool - does have to stand up to formal scrutiny.

(shortened for sake of thread space, but the reply is to the entire post)

I don't care as much about the circular reasoning as I do about the fact you didn't talk about god beliefs. Re your statements here about your morality philosophy, you seem to be saying, "these are my values and why".

Do you believe there is a god? Do you dismiss other people's god beliefs such as a belief that Pe'le controls volcanic eruptions on the HI Islands?

 

[V23]

Skeptigirl,

I haven't taken part in this thread because 1) it seemed it was largely in part because of other threads I started and 2) the wording of the OP seemed designed to start needless arguments.

But based on your responses in other threads I'll take your word that wasn't your intent.

I still can't really answer the OP because of the following:
You are asking person who believes A why person who believes B is wrong. And asking person who believes B why person who believes A is wrong. All the while you believe C - that both A and B beliefs are wrong.

Generally speaking though - this is the process I use: I believe A, look at B, decide if I believe B, and change or stay the same. Any evidence I take into consideration is meaningless to someone who believs A and B are both wrong.

Even if person A and person B could have meaningfull discussion - you won't understand it because you're outside both of the belief systems.

What I mean specifically is this: V23 is a Panthiest. I am a Christian. I think it would be interesting to know what V23 believes and why. Although I would never think it would be right of me to tell him he's wrong. In a proper forum (not an internet forum - but probably better in a social setting) we could discuss what he believes. And I could tell him what I believe. And we could go our happy ways and alter our previous beliefs accordingly or not. But the moment either of us state "You're wrong because ... " any discussion will stop.

A simple example: Both V23 and I could talk about a Nebula where a star is forming. I could tell him that when I look at it I see the hand of god working - a star is being born. V23 might say (and this is probably a bad generalization of his believes - apologies V23), but he might say "I kind of know what you're saying. I see the ongoing oneness of life - a dead star being reborn". And an Athiest is going to say "What a bunch of lunatics! What are these two people doing talking about imaginary things like God creating or stars being reborn! All that's happening there is a bunch of elements from the dead star are turning into a new star due to gravity".

And really - where is the fun in a discussion like that?

I found your comments about what I may say to be beautiful and articulate. I hope I might live up to your view of me.

And you are correct, that is exactly what I have been trying to relate here.

Why are we hashing this issue between a person who obviously does believe in a form of a deity and one who doesn't, when one of the people in the debate can't even speak to the subject of the OP, UNLESS, there is alternative motive in why the thread was created, and sustained?

And I believe there to be. An Atheist can't answer to why his/her religious beliefs are better than mine, BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE ANY.

So as I was asked ealier, by JoeEllison in this forum when I pointed this same thing out, "Here, let me quote myself: 'Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.' Got any comment on THAT?"

And I don't. Its not got anything to do with the OP.

Unless that is the TRUE and unwritten OP as i have suspected all along . . .

Whatya think?

 

[volatile]

The question might reasonably be re-stated thus:

By which epistemological methods do you reject the theistic beliefs of conflicting religions, and how do these same methods relate to your own theistic beliefs?

Or, more simply:

Why do you reject all Gods other than your own?

A legitimate question, and I, like Skeptigirl, post it out of curiousity rather than out of malice or mockery.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl,

I haven't taken part in this thread because 1) it seemed it was largely in part because of other threads I started and 2) the wording of the OP seemed designed to start needless arguments.

No offense but this thread is simply the reverse of the thread you personally started. So "needless arguments" is a pretty crummy charge. However, water under the bridge, you are here.

I still can't really answer the OP because of the following:
You are asking person who believes A why person who believes B is wrong. And asking person who believes B why person who believes A is wrong. All the while you believe C - that both A and B beliefs are wrong.

Generally speaking though - this is the process I use: I believe A, look at B, decide if I believe B, and change or stay the same. Any evidence I take into consideration is meaningless to someone who believs A and B are both wrong.

Even if person A and person B could have meaningfull discussion - you won't understand it because you're outside both of the belief systems.

What I mean specifically is this: V23 is a Panthiest. I am a Christian. I think it would be interesting to know what V23 believes and why. Although I would never think it would be right of me to tell him he's wrong. In a proper forum (not an internet forum - but probably better in a social setting) we could discuss what he believes. And I could tell him what I believe. And we could go our happy ways and alter our previous beliefs accordingly or not. But the moment either of us state "You're wrong because ... " any discussion will stop.

A simple example: Both V23 and I could talk about a Nebula where a star is forming. I could tell him that when I look at it I see the hand of god working - a star is being born. V23 might say (and this is probably a bad generalization of his believes - apologies V23), but he might say "I kind of know what you're saying. I see the ongoing oneness of life - a dead star being reborn". And an Athiest is going to say "What a bunch of lunatics! What are these two people doing talking about imaginary things like God creating or stars being reborn! All that's happening there is a bunch of elements from the dead star are turning into a new star due to gravity".

And really - where is the fun in a discussion like that?

While the I'm OK you're OK philosophy is fine, I actually have no issue with the people behind the beliefs, it sidesteps the issue. Think in terms of a 'set of god beliefs'. In the center is the individual's specific god beliefs, whether that god be something which is deeply involved with men or created the Big Bang and the work was done, the center is your individual beliefs. As you go further out from the center, you reach god beliefs less and less credible to the individual. For some fundamentalists that happens as soon as you leave the center. For those who view any monotheistic religion as just a different version of their own, that center might be very large. Regardless, at some point you reach god beliefs the individual does not conclude are credible. Whether that is clear out into Cargo Cults where we have an historical record of how their god beliefs developed, or whether it includes Greek gods who mingle with humans or Pe'le and the Sea gods of the HI culture, if you tell me you think all those gods are credible, then I have to ask what you are even doing here.

So wherever that line is for you, leaving out any discussion about the value of individuals regardless of their beliefs and the philosophy of not judging those individuals (they are not stupid merely for believing in gods, they can still be skeptics, etc) where and why does your god belief become credible when you can see you don't think all god beliefs are credible? And if you apply critical thinking to some god beliefs, why does that not apply to all god beliefs?

And isn't the fact that god beliefs depend almost, if not entirely, on where an individual was born and what culture they were exposed to, evidence that those beliefs do not depend on "faith" or "personal experience" but rather those beliefs depend on exposure at some vulnerable point in one's life?

 

[slingblade]

As I said earlier, I dont get into whether one's religious beliefs are more true than another, only if one system of belief is more valid.

In my opinion, a validity of belief is defined as a belief that actually works for you, and you not working for it. Unfortuantely too many people out there work for their beliefs, literally being a slave to them.

Some doctrines of Christanity, Islam, and Judasim fall into this cat. in my opinion.

Is your user name Darth?

Do you get a hint I was asking him something and not you, since I personally addressed my post?

Could you butt out and talk to the others? I asked Darth.

 

[V23]

Is your user name Darth?

Do you get a hint I was asking him something and not you, since I personally addressed my post?

Could you butt out and talk to the others? I asked Darth.

Hey slingblade - It's an open forum . . . I'll post what I feel on the OP, and I'll address what I like, just like everyone else has done.

If you don't like it, ignore me.