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

[V23]

So getting to the nitty gritty . . . You are asking why we don't use skeptisim in our own religoius beliefs, right?

In other words, you want to know why we aren't atheists too . . .

 

[This is The End]

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.

Is all of that not anthropic observation bias?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A must read!..... Hey!..... I saw that!..... No skimming!........ Reading is comprehension!

 

[V23]

yep

 

[This is The End]

Wait..... yes it's not? Or yes it is....... Assuming yep is yes and not (possibly) yelp!

 

[V23]

Is all of that not anthropic observation bias?

But again, as I said before, when it comes to spirituality, I believe that reality becomes mutible. It's up for grabs.

How I percieve the universe is not the same as everybody else . . .

 

[V23]

Wait..... yes it's not? Or yes it is....... Assuming yep is yes and not (possibly) yelp!

Yes by your perspective . . .it would be.

 

[This is The End]

Well it should be. <------This response is to the post above the post above this one......... I think......... or both.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who is being insulting now . . . ?

Why would asking you that question insult you? That doesn't even make sense. You implied god beliefs were all outside of your skeptical beliefs. I am merely asking you to think again about that claim.

What I believe, is probally very simular, if not exactly, what you probally believe SkepticGirl. However, as a Panthiest, I see the universe as a living breathing enity, completly sentient, and living in all of us. I see God in the details. I know that the clouds and the earth's friction casue static discharges, thus lightning. And that magma backs up in a given area till it explodes causing the volcano to erupt.

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.

You are describing what you do believe. I'll ask you again, do you believe in all the god beliefs that ever were? You cannot. For one because a lot of god beliefs directly contradict other god beliefs.

You are doing the exact same thing as A Christian Skeptic. You don't get the concept that there are lots of god beliefs and you have simply chosen to believe in some of those and not others. You reached your hand in a bag, pulled out some god beliefs and declared that the very fact you pulled those beliefs out makes those beliefs exempt from any skeptical inquiry.

That would be fine, except, you took the rest of the god beliefs in the bag and tossed them out an declared those god beliefs would now all belong in with everything you view from a skeptical position.

And even that might be OK but you took it one step further. You no longer recognized the fact those other god beliefs were all in the same bag before you pulled some out and declared those beliefs "special".

And because you don't recognize those god beliefs all came out of the same bag, you don't get what I'm talking about.

 

[V23]

yea . . . .for you . . .it should

 

[plumjam]

I don't think SkeptiGrl would fully disagree with you here.

But I think her point was that if you have hindu and a christian, they both FEEL their religion is the right one.

What she was interested in, if I understood her correctly, was if there was something ON TOP of that conviction that convinced you either christianity or hinduism was more valid as a description of reality as the other.

Those inner feelings have been subject of discussion on more than one thread here, while I think that Skeptigrl probably considers them not evidence in general of religion it is particular irrelevant to the OP's original question because we can not differentiate between a hindu's inner feelings and a christian's inner feelings.

When religionists take the particular formulations of their beliefs and use them to argue absolute access to truth, and present their beliefs as a weapon of mutual exclusivity vis-a-vis other religions, then they are wrong, and it can have dangerous consequences.
Of course, that has happened at times in history, but looking at the real world, it is the exception to the rule.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism are all very receptive to the idea of the harmony of religions, and are generally highly mutually respectful.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism share their early origins, and for the great majority of their history Christians, Muslims, and Jews have lived together peaceably and with tolerance.
(You might like to compare this record with the historical record of the coexistence of more secular belief systems such as capitalism, communism and fascism; and find the latter coming off way second best)

Conversely, the impression given on this forum is that religions claim, as a general rule, mutual exclusivity i.e. 'if my religion is true yours must be false'.
This is just not true. And anyone with more than a high school level of knowledge about comparative religion would know it.

Furthermore, this massive straw man is commonly used to try to demonstrate that as "all religions claim mutually exclusive access to the truth" (or some such phrase), then "not all of them can be right, therefore all of them must be wrong".
This is more high school level reasoning. It's therefore surprising how many otherwise intelligent-seeming individuals employ it.

Sorry, Someguy, not aiming all that at you.. just making a general point.
On your last sentence, regarding the hindu and christian's inner feelings. Allowing for differences in language and cultural constructs, hindus and christians describe spiritual states surprisingly similarly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

7 syllables

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.
It seems to me that people have been so indoctrinated in what you describe as methodological naturalism, that when a subject matter arises for which such an approach is inherently unsuited the default reaction seems to be that therefore the particular subject matter in question (e.g. spirtuality) can't have any basis in reality.
This kind of one-dimensional approach to everything seems to be the rule in this forum, though there are some exceptions.

Ho-hum.

No, you are also not looking at the actual problem. That is the, "ho hum, it's faith, not science" argument and I specifically did not ask that question because we all know the answer. This is not about "questions of a religious nature". It is about special god beliefs. It is about special treatment for certain god beliefs which is not afforded other god beliefs.

I am not the one applying two different standards to god beliefs. I am not the one claiming a pass on "faith based" beliefs while not affording that same pass to god beliefs in general, but skeptic theists are.

And just look at the replies here. How dare I ask? How dare I point out the incongruent thinking? I must have evil motives. It couldn't possibly be an interest in critical thinking.

Have you seen a single atheist get angry just for being asked to disprove the existence of gods? There may very well be rude posts and unhappy camper exchanges, but not replies of anger toward someone daring to ask the questions.

 

[V23]

Why would asking you that question insult you? That doesn't even make sense. You implied god beliefs were all outside of your skeptical beliefs. I am merely asking you to think again about that claim.

You are describing what you do believe. I'll ask you again, do you believe in all the god beliefs that ever were? You cannot. For one because a lot of god beliefs directly contradict other god beliefs.

You are doing the exact same thing as A Christian Skeptic. You don't get the concept that there are lots of god beliefs and you have simply chosen to believe in some of those and not others. You reached your hand in a bag, pulled out some god beliefs and declared that the very fact you pulled those beliefs out makes those beliefs exempt from any skeptical inquiry.

That would be fine, except, you took the rest of the god beliefs in the bag and tossed them out an declared those god beliefs would now all belong in with everything you view from a skeptical position.

And even that might be OK but you took it one step further. You no longer recognized the fact those other god beliefs were all in the same bag before you pulled some out and declared those beliefs "special".

And because you don't recognize those god beliefs all came out of the same bag, you don't get what I'm talking about.

1. When some one is belitting you, it is insulting . . . .and that is exactly what you were doing when you posted . . .

So you believe gods control volcanoes and throw lightning bolts at people, V23? That would mean you'd have to discard natural explanations for those events. Is it turtles all the way down and did Coyote steal fire from heaven? Are Orion and Osiris up there in a constellation which we know now is just an arbitrary grouping a stars that when observed in 3D are nowhere close to each other as they were once thought to be?

And i implied that MY spiritual beliefs were outside my skeptisim. Not because I am afraid to focus in on that aspect of my life, not at all, I do it daily. It is because I do it daily, and I come to the conclusion that all spiritual beliefs are neither proven nor disproven in the eyes of everyone. Its only in the mind of a single individual where that can occur, and to me, and how I see the universe, MY perspective, it does not disprove it at all. To me the universe reinforces it.

2. Have you not read my posts . . .I have said time and again that my beliefs are up for the scrunity and skeptisim of all . . .I don't care.

But I take issue with how you phrased your judging of me and my beliefs. I did NOT just grab a few from the bag, as you put it, nor did I just throw the rest out for no reason other than I felt like it that day.

It took me YEARS to come to the spiritual position that I am in today, this was not something that happened overnight. This is something I hold dear to me and bled in the streets for.

SkepticGirl, the universe does not bend to your preconcieved notions of what its laws are all the time, nor does it to me. Everyday science finds something new that contradicts what we thought was true yesterday, and we will again tomorrow. Remember that the next time you dismiss a person so blantanly and speak to the things that they hold dear as if they are things to be discarded at will . . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see how you can dicuss whether one religious belief is more true than another one unless you move out "methodological naturalism".

(For us laymen types, they are basicly talking about material causality and proofs therof . . .threw me for a loop too . . .)

But I don't have 2 kinds of god beliefs, you and the other theists do. It is you who must have at some point made a determination these god beliefs are special and those are not. I'm not asking you to use my criteria. You had some criteria. What criteria did you use?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So getting to the nitty gritty . . . You are asking why we don't use skeptisim in our own religoius beliefs, right?

In other words, you want to know why we aren't atheists too . . .

You got halfway there then ducked the question.

You are an atheist. To paraphrase the well known quote, "We are both atheists, I just believe in one [or more in your case] less god than you do".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When religionists take the particular formulations of their beliefs and use them to argue absolute access to truth, and present their beliefs as a weapon of mutual exclusivity vis-a-vis other religions, then they are wrong, and it can have dangerous consequences.
Of course, that has happened at times in history, but looking at the real world, it is the exception to the rule.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism are all very receptive to the idea of the harmony of religions, and are generally highly mutually respectful.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism share their early origins, and for the great majority of their history Christians, Muslims, and Jews have lived together peaceably and with tolerance.
(You might like to compare this record with the historical record of the coexistence of more secular belief systems such as capitalism, communism and fascism; and find the latter coming off way second best)

Conversely, the impression given on this forum is that religions claim, as a general rule, mutual exclusivity i.e. 'if my religion is true yours must be false'.
This is just not true. And anyone with more than a high school level of knowledge about comparative religion would know it.

Furthermore, this massive straw man is commonly used to try to demonstrate that as "all religions claim mutually exclusive access to the truth" (or some such phrase), then "not all of them can be right, therefore all of them must be wrong".
This is more high school level reasoning. It's therefore surprising how many otherwise intelligent-seeming individuals employ it.

Sorry, Someguy, not aiming all that at you.. just making a general point.
On your last sentence, regarding the hindu and christian's inner feelings. Allowing for differences in language and cultural constructs, hindus and christians describe spiritual states surprisingly similarly.

This is all OT. There is no question on the table here about whose religion is better. Nor is there a discussion about whether theists claim evidence or get a pass because they don't claim evidence. There is no question on the table about absolute truths.

The question is, explain the difference from within the individual's thought processes how one set of god beliefs becomes above and separate from that same individual's other god beliefs?

 

[V23]

But I don't have 2 kinds of god beliefs, you and the other theists do. It is you who must have at some point made a determination these god beliefs are special and those are not. I'm not asking you to use my criteria. You had some criteria. What criteria did you use?

The exact same criteria that you use to define whether you like a chabli vs. a chardonay. The diffrence is, it didn't take me 2 seconds to figure it out though, it took me my entire life.

And that is what you Atheists keep missing. My opinions are going to be varied from yours because we come from completly two diffrent points of view. (Genetics+Enviorment, aka [Nature+Nuture] = Point of View)

And my Point of View creates my opinions. Everything I am and everything i have learned is completly diffrent than yours. Because of that, what is relative to me, may not be relative to you. What I see, feel, and experience is going to be vastly diffrent than yours. It is not something where we experience the same things, because we dont. And if you had been in my position, to exeprience the same things, you probally would have experienced them diffrently because you are just a diffrent person.

And that is the point. It is not the same across the board. The data I recieved is diffrent than the data you did, thus we came to two completly diffrerent conclusions. You cant recreate my results because you havent experienced my life. Feelings and real world wisdom do play a part in this regarless of how much the stone cold atheists want to drag our beliefs into a lab and start looking for comparable data. Guess what, there is none.

 

[plumjam]

No, you are also not looking at the actual problem. That is the, "ho hum, it's faith, not science" argument and I specifically did not ask that question because we all know the answer. This is not about "questions of a religious nature". It is about special god beliefs. It is about special treatment for certain god beliefs which is not afforded other god beliefs.

I am not the one applying two different standards to god beliefs. I am not the one claiming a pass on "faith based" beliefs while not affording that same pass to god beliefs in general, but skeptic theists are.

And just look at the replies here. How dare I ask? How dare I point out the incongruent thinking? I must have evil motives. It couldn't possibly be an interest in critical thinking.

Have you seen a single atheist get angry just for being asked to disprove the existence of gods? There may very well be rude posts and unhappy camper exchanges, but not replies of anger toward someone daring to ask the questions.

It is not faith at all. It's a shame that that idea is so widespread.. but that ain't your fault.
Genuine spiritual knowledge comes from inner experience, not from faith. Faith can be a necessary prior component to attaining spiritual knowledge. It's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to expend their time and effort in some endeavour they'll need some initial degree of faith that there'll be a meaningful result at the end of it.
That is true with all human endeavour; including things like science.
Even Buddhists, who don't talk much about God, need to have faith that their spiritual practices will produce some meaningful results.

Religion has to do with the spirit/consciousness. The spirit/consciousness is internal. It is not, as yet, intersubjectively observable via any scientific instrument, and may never be.
Methodological naturalism is predicated on the assumption that the subject matter of its investigations will be intersubjectively observable. Therefore to apply this methodology to spirituality is not appropriate.

Your original OP question is whether there is evidence that certain God beliefs are true while others are false. Then in your post you disallow the evidence derived from internal states.
By doing that you have precluded any progress in answering your own question.

I'm just wondering what kind of 'evidence' would really count to you, regarding God beliefs. Presumably something intersubjective, like religious visions shared simultaneously by more than one person.
These have happened in the past, and are predictably derided by the 'skeptical' community. Maybe you wouldn't deride them, I don't know.
If you did then you would have kind of painted yourself into an invulnerable position - not accepting subjective evidence, and not accepting intersubjective evidence.
So it all becomes a discussional dead end really.

As to people getting angry with you, well ideally that would never happen. Not being a proponent of Jref orthodoxy I get slated regularly. I can assure you that the vast majority of it here travels in the direction away from you. So every cloud has a silver lining

 

[plumjam]

The question is, explain the difference from within the individual's thought processes how one set of god beliefs becomes above and separate from that same individual's other god beliefs?

I'm not quite certain what you're asking for.
With each individual the thought processes are going to be different, obviously.
However, in genuine cases, the particular 'god beliefs' of an individual ought to come from their spiritual experiences.
Things like dogma and theology aren't it. Like the Buddha said, religion is the finger pointing at the moon; not the moon itself.
It's true that for an individual to be able to communicate their experiences to others in their society, these experiences have to be translated into language or other symbols. Thus the communication will be necessarily limited by the cultural constraints of that particular society at that particular time.
As the world, through history, has been made up of thousands of languages and cultures it is no surprise that there is some heterogeneity in the communications.

 

[Henners]

Genuine spiritual knowledge comes from inner experience, not from faith.

So does the knowledge of being Napoleon.

One batty idea is pretty much the same as another.

 

[plumjam]

So does the knowledge of being Napoleon.

One batty idea is pretty much the same as another.

aww..
never been in love, huh?