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

[Skeptic Ginger]

....The embedded assumption in the OP presumes that I hold the beliefs of other religions false. ...
DR

So you do believe in Ra, Zeus, Pe'le, Osiris, Orion, .....etc. then?

 

[Mashuna]

Of course. Faith can be present in all areas of life.

Do you differentiate between different types of faith, or does it always mean (pretty much) the same thing to you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, your Education, Medicine and Aeronautics.
All based on beliefs.
Education on the belief in the value of knowledge.
Medicine on the belief that it is good to alleviate suffering.
Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.

Epistemology is not just about generating reliable outcomes. It is also about discovering new knowledge or principles.. and to do this usually a high degree of faith is necessary.

You are confusing values and philosophies with conclusions one draws based on evidence one observes and tests.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is a sign of a failed argument when you are forced to redefine a term so broadly that it loses any real meaning......

There is a lot of definition stretching that goes on in order to fit god beliefs into an otherwise skeptical view of the Universe.

 

[schlitt]

No easy answer, but you can use your moral intuition.. examine the people associated with that God, the teachings associated with it, the traditions, the behaviour of followers, whether that God has made people less selfish, more compassionate..etc
And if it doesn't appeal to you personally, you can pass.

So are the billions of Muslims more morally intuitive than the billions of Christians? How about the Hindus or Buddhists?

It sounds to me that you want to pick what suits you best.
But why does it suit you best? Where does your code of morals come from, and why would it be the correct code of morals?

It ends up being subjective, and the only real answer to the OP ends up being about personal faith. Which is really a non answer.

The logical extrapolation is; there is no way to objectively verify which religion is correct, and it is possible none of them are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To the extent this relates to my post, I'm not at all "offended" by the OP. I just don't think the question is the inescapable logical fork it has been held out to be.

And yet you dance around the question with the values and spirituality arguments as if that has any bearing on the specific god belief piece of religion being asked about here. There is no question in this thread about values or whose religion is better.

In reverse order, Pe'le vs Calvin: I know you think it's that simply. I don't. As I attempted to explain above I think that if there is any religious value in the statement Pe'le controls the volcanos, it has nothing to do with the physical processes geology is exploring. I can dismiss anyone who claims it does because I have a much better method for thinking about those claims.

If there is any religious value it will have something to do with being an actual thinking, eating, pooping, dying human being living on an island with active volcanos. I can't evaluate it without - at a minimum - talking with people who are using the belief to do that. Better still watch and see how it causes them to behave. Clearly, none of this is beyond challenge. For concerns about the fate of virgins when Waianae starts rumbling see above re: evidence of harm.

I do believe in God. It's not an unquestioned belief, it's just one that, when I'm honest with myself, I have not be able to shake. I think you're dissatisfaction with my explaination is based on your insistence that I treat belief in god like a proposition in physics.

I don't think religion or religious belief is just a set of ideas. I think its an interelated set of practices, relationships, and ideas.

I realize this is attributing someone else's words to you, but the Godless Geeks site cited above noted that naturalism was primarily justified by how well its premises work in many cases.

I think it's pretty standard sophmore philosophy to point out some of the limits on our ability to "know" the truth. These limits aren't crippling. People have spent a lot of time identifying how we can compare competing claims. But the results are still not universal.

I think it is fair to argue that different premises may have different uses, provided (1) it is possible also to justify that claim for particular premises, and (2) the believer recognizes the limits of those claims. I therefore don't think it's fair to reply that an argument from function implies that the person making the argument is unconcerned about the truth.

Unconcerned is not the adjective I would apply, I would describe it more like denial, or simple avoidance of thinking about it.

To paraphrase what I think addresses the OP here, the god you believe in serves a purpose, the gods you don't believe in serve a purpose better served by scientific explanations.

So then I have to ask, what is that purpose? Morality is not dependent on religion. There are evil believers and altruistic nonbelievers. Prayers are not effective as far as we can tell in the few studies that actually objectively measured the effects.

Life after death is a comforting thought. It doesn't really alleviate grief however, because grief comes from a terrible longing for the person. Thinking you'll see them years later might have a some benefit when some people are grieving, but with time the longing usually subsides regardless of afterlife beliefs.

Belonging to the church community has proven benefits in many cases. God beliefs are not required to belong to a community.

These are my assumptions about the purpose of god beliefs in general, and they aren't meant to second guess your own. From my point of view however, I still see someone creating special reasons to have special god beliefs. When I apply your "purpose" rationale for some god beliefs over other god beliefs, I can't make the case.

So I'll see what you reply to these thoughts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obviously, evidence based systems should be used where ever possible. The results of long practice are a form of evidence. Ancedotal evidence is marginally better than none.

For many real world decisions, there is no way to generate an outcome that is reliable to the degree properly required by science. Religion, evaluated using the criteria I set out above, is a reasonable tool in such a situation.

In some situations,religion can be a reasonable tool even it it provide "no" information about the outcome, because it makes the method mean something. When we can't confidently relate ends and means, it's not only reasonable to concentrate on the means, it's unreasonable to sacrifice everything in a gamble to achieve a particular, desired end.

First, just an FYI, anecdotal evidence is very useful WHEN it is collected systematically and proper controls are used to get evidence of the variable specifically being examined. Any research that relies on asking survey questions and many retrospective data collection studies involve anecdotal evidence.

As to your other statement, however, religion is never a reasonable tool in science. You will have to give me an example because I don't understand what you think such a tool provides.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I may have missed this part of your post.

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

You took it the wrong way. I wasn't belittling you at all. I was asking you to verify what your claim of excluding all god beliefs really meant.

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.

You are contradicting yourself. If you are skeptical of god beliefs you apply skeptical analysis. If you are not then you don't. And either you don't know what skeptical analysis is, or you think you apply it when you aren't.

I already posted about evidence vs process vs conclusions which you have confused in the last paragraph of this post.

 

[plumjam]

Well this post has probably been replied to but I'll give my 2 cents as well. Your cynical post here contains gross misinformation and includes the big lie, if someone looks at evidence and isn't convinced it proves a miracle, that person will NEVER believe anything represents a miracle.

This is a prediction, based on long observation of this forum. I've never seen any 'skeptic' here modify their view in the direction of a miracle having occurred. The skeptic in question didn't modify his opinion when presented with evidence either. So my prediction was correct. Surprise surprise.

You are simply rationalizing why you believe in some frauds and false claims and other people don't. It must be that we are incapable, it can't be that you've been fooled.

This is a rationalisation too.

Your facts about Medjugorje are not even accurate.

The link I provided was not about Medjugorje, it was about Fatima in 1917. Looks like you didn't read the evidence. Here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun

You mention mass hallucinations.
What are these, exactly?
How do they work?
Might they be, (a favourite word of yours) rationalisations for when evidence doesn't fit your world view?

St Bernadette's face and hands are waxed

Yes, because the church didn't want visitors to be 'put off' by some dark patches on her inexplicably still intact face.
A doctor examined her liver after 46 years of death, and found it to be almost in the same condition as a live one.. even when the liver is one of the first organs to decompose naturally.

and there are detailed reports of the "mold"

wow, some mold.. nothing needs to be explained then

[Lenin's body is well preserved./QUOTE]
treated

There are physical conditions which on rare occasions keep corpses well preserved.

What are these physical conditions?
Why do these physical conditions seem to 'choose' the bodies of holy personalities?
Any well preserved animals? No. Preservation in peat or ice is not allowed.

Wiki lists a bunch of supposed Catholic saints that have incorruptible bodies. Where are they? I only found a couple pictures and Bernadette was the only Saint.

Buried, most of them.

The problem with your dismissal of people who have an alternative explanation for the events you describe is that you make up a lie about those people who draw an alternate conclusion from the evidence. You make up the lie that "no evidence" would be sufficient.

That is my experience of the 'skeptics' here. When good evidence is presented the bar is shifted, or desperate explanatory ploys are used, such as 'mass hallucination'.
Many skeptics pose as being amenable to evidence counter to their position, thus endeavouring to appear reasonable, but in reality some will just never be convinced unless they were to witness something directly themselves; thus the standard request for evidence is often fundamentally dishonest, as it is merely requesting something for them upon which to practice their strategies of dismissal.
A game, really.

 

[JoeEllison]

There is a lot of definition stretching that goes on in order to fit god beliefs into an otherwise skeptical view of the Universe.

Of course there is... because none of these beliefs actually DO fit into a skeptical worldview. The reality is that there's not much difference in the concepts of gods, aliens(of the "trailer park abduction" type), and leprechauns. They are all founded on emotionalism, mental "quirk", and a stunning lack of evidence.

So, instead of just admitting that their belief is fundamentally incompatible with a skeptical or otherwise rational worldview, the apologia starts pouring in. Stretching of definitions is probably my biggest pet peeve. If religious belief is "opinion", then it is equivalent to my opinion that green is the best flavor of Jello, and exactly as worthy of respect and serious consideration. If engineering and religion are both "based in faith", why can't anyone pray their way into designing and building a working bridge? If physics and mythology are both matters of "faith", then why would they claim that mythology grants some sort of emotional benefit, while gravity doesn't?

The whole thing is an attempt to say that reality-based worldviews are as illogical and useless as the fantasy-based worldviews of religions.

 

[plumjam]

So are the billions of Muslims more morally intuitive than the billions of Christians? How about the Hindus or Buddhists?

It sounds to me that you want to pick what suits you best.
But why does it suit you best? Where does your code of morals come from, and why would it be the correct code of morals?

It ends up being subjective, and the only real answer to the OP ends up being about personal faith. Which is really a non answer.

The logical extrapolation is; there is no way to objectively verify which religion is correct, and it is possible none of them are.

You're just carrying on with the false embedded assumption of mutual exclusivity.
It shouldn't be any surprise (people being different), that some forms of spiritual practice or doctrinal formulation will appeal to some people more than others.
Scientists routinely belong to all kinds of varied theoretical schools while still investigating the same real subject matter.
No-one with a brain would then come along and say :

"Oh, he's using Smith's theory to study genetics, and she's using Jones's theory to study genetics. Because they don't agree one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong. Given that there are dozens more theoretical schools on genetics, if we show that Smith's theory is correct then that automatically discredits all the others.
In fact, hey.. due to all these different theoretical approaches I'm growing increasingly skeptical that genetics actually applies to anything real. In fact, now I no longer believe in genes"

Yet this crazy reasoning is accepted as valid by many atheists here when applied to the subject matter of religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to me that you're still treating religion as a set of explicitly formulated assertions about the nature of the universe and belief as the acceptance or rejection of each claim.

I'm not treating religion this way. I'm not asking about "religion". I am asking about one sliver of religion, god beliefs.

I also don't think you can honestly say you respect people who hold religious beliefs while dismissing experiences many people assert to be subjectively valuable.

Note, I'm not saying you have to be persuaded, or even have to believe that we are correct in identifying the source of this value. But you have to believe the value is real, and make an effort to account for it that includes listening to what we have to say about it.

Well this is absurd. Can you not separate the belief and or the behavior from the person? If you can't, I recommend you don't have any kids.

My brother is a committed theist, I'm certainly not going to disown him for believing different things than I believe or because I think he was a fool to buy an Ionic Breeze for $300.

The sense that certain challenges are offensive is not about cognitive dissonance, or fear that you'll cause me to change my beliefs, they've changed many times, and I would welcome a more complete explanation for why certain things work. It's a response to the fact that many challengers are only willing to address religion's value as empirical knowledge, and dismiss (or in some cases denigrate and demonize) assertions about its value as a human practice.

There you go again. It is only the theists in this thread that are insisting on making this about religion and values. The atheists have no trouble understanding the question is not about religion, it is only about the god within that religion.

You said you believe in a god. So why then go through all these gyrations to exclude that god from having any form, any presence, any existence as a being, regardless of that form? That's denial. You are claiming cognitive dissonance is not an issue, but then you go and distort your god description into a "religion" a "spiritual inner feeling". Can't you theists come out and say you believe in a being that has form and function? And you don't believe in Zeus (you said that much anyway)?

All this changing definitions, refusing to describe what the god is in your god beliefs, how is that not some form of denial? Either you believe in a being or you don't. If the being you believe in doesn't fit into the natural world and you know that, then changing the description to a nebulous philosophy and claiming it just can't be described yadda yadda yadda, is only because you do have cognitive dissonance about your god beliefs.

Just take the Christian religion as an example. It started out as stories passed down from generation to generation. When writing was developed the stories were written down and eventually formed into a Bible. In that Bible there is a description of a god who walked on the Earth and did things. Later those stories stop and the Jesus story takes over. This god is supposed to be in a place called heaven.

When did that god in that book of religious stories and beliefs turn into some nebulous inner feeling which has some vague purpose but no longer can be described in any words which imply a being with a form in a location? As far as I can tell that god changed when it became necessary to change the definition in order to avoid that cognitive dissonance. Sure, just tell atheists they don't understand that you cannot describe God in any terms one uses to describe the actual Universe. Then you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Now you have a "special" god the rules don't apply to. You can manipulate the definition to a god which science cannot test for, even though that god was never described in those terms until it became obvious the Biblical god was on par with Zeus and Ra and Pe'le. Well that will not do if a skeptic wants to have god beliefs. So out come the "special" rules. And away goes the awareness one is making special rules.

 

[schlitt]

You're just carrying on with the false embedded assumption of mutual exclusivity.
It shouldn't be any surprise (people being different), that some forms of spiritual practice or doctrinal formulation will appeal to some people more than others.
Scientists routinely belong to all kinds of varied theoretical schools while still investigating the same real subject matter.
No-one with a brain would then come along and say :

"Oh, he's using Smith's theory to study genetics, and she's using Jones's theory to study genetics. Because they don't agree one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong. Given that there are dozens more theoretical schools on genetics, if we show that Smith's theory is correct then that automatically discredits all the others.
In fact, hey.. due to all these different theoretical approaches I'm growing increasingly skeptical that genetics actually applies to anything real. In fact, now I no longer believe in genes"

Yet this crazy reasoning is accepted as valid by many atheists here when applied to the subject matter of religion.

Actually you have entirely missed my point and constructed your own straw man to burn down.

Think about why religious belief is largely categorised by society and geographic area.
What causes all the people of the same area to have similar morals and accept the same things as true?
Can one areas beliefs be verified as being superior?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having caught up with this thoughful post, I can provide my own short answer. I don't draw a distinction between my "god beliefs" and those of others. All such beliefs have to fit into the gaps in our rational knowledge.

Why have any? Because the gaps are enormous and religion and religious practices are valuable accumulators of human experience. I hold mine because I understand how to practice them, have some evidence of their value, and find they accord with some subjective experiences.

It's certainly reasonable to be an atheist under these conditions, but I think you've avoided addressing the fact that the gaps are a real problem, regardless.

I have to stop here until tomorrow, the thread is indeed too long to reply to everything in a day now.

You brought this up before. I'm interested, but I don't get it. How does filling in gaps with unsupportable conclusions do anything for anyone? The gaps might be big, but why must they be filled with fabricated answers to put it bluntly?

Just what problems do the gaps cause you? They don't cause me any problems.

 

[schlitt]

That is my experience of the 'skeptics' here. When good evidence is presented the bar is shifted, or desperate explanatory ploys are used, such as 'mass hallucination'.
Many skeptics pose as being amenable to evidence counter to their position, thus endeavouring to appear reasonable, but in reality some will just never be convinced unless they were to witness something directly themselves; thus the standard request for evidence is often fundamentally dishonest, as it is merely requesting something for them upon which to practice their strategies of dismissal.
A game, really.

Give me just one example of a a blind tested, peer reviewed, journal published peice of evidence you have cited that has been dismissed.
Plumjam, you are making the mistake of arrogantly thinking that people who disagree with you are being closed to your reasoning, when the actual truth is you have not provided them with compelling enough evidence.

This is how it generally goes with woo vs skeptic.

Bob: the world is flat!
sue: What i am aware of currently shows it is round, Give me evidence it is flat.
bob: My friend told me! and i have seen it! you can plainly see it is flat!
sue: I'm sorry that evidence is not compelling enough for me to accept.
bob: You are just being closed minded and ignoring my evidence.

 

[plumjam]

Actually you have entirely missed my point and constructed your own straw man to burn down.

Think about why religious belief is largely categorised by society and geographic area.
What causes all the people of the same area to have similar same morals and accept the same things as true?
Can one areas beliefs be verified as being superior?

The geographical argument is a bit mental too, if you don't mind me saying so.
For centuries most people barely travelled to the next town. It's no surprise that religions developed along geographic lines.
It's only in the last century or so that global travel and communication has become less than an ordeal.
Now, those of us in the 'developed' part of it have access to a plethora of spiritual traditions, and are free to choose which one we feel suits us best. And people are doing this in large numbers too.

Any time someone freely changes their religion the geographical argument is destroyed.

 

[schlitt]

The geographical argument is a bit mental too, if you don't mind me saying so.
For centuries most people barely travelled to the next town. It's no surprise that religions developed along geographic lines.
It's only in the last century or so that global travel and communication has become less than an ordeal.
Now, those of us in the 'developed' part of it have access to a plethora of spiritual traditions, and are free to choose which one we feel suits us best. And people are doing this in large numbers too.

Any time someone freely changes their religion the geographical argument is destroyed.

Once again you manage to miss the larger picture.

Think about the fact that Jordan is 99% Muslim in relation to the OP.
What is it that the 99% majority of Jordan use to justify their belief as correct vs the beliefs of the majority of spain which is mainly Catholic?
Now think if there is any objective way to verify which religion would be true without solid evidence, other than personal morals.
Now think about how personal morals come about, and how one would objectively know which set of morals is correct?
Is there even a correct when it comes to morals?

We know there is a correct or incorrect when it comes to religions, as they cannot all be true. And there is no necessity for even one to be true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If you read the OP, and I did, you see it for what it is. Skeptigirl has protested that her intentions are honorable.

I am skeptical.

I'm happy someone else is dealing with this but where you've mentioned me by name, here you are again calling me a liar. It is uncalled for.

........Why do you, or anyone, or our own hard working Skeptigirl, assume that I care enough about another person's religious beliefs to attempt to disprove them? That is on topic, and related to the OP.

No, it's OT. The question in the OP has been clarified over and over. I'm not asking you what you think of anyone's religion or beliefs. Do you believe in all gods? No gods? Some gods? I don't care about any beliefs you may have in the future after looking at someone's religion or beliefs. I don't care if you think you are better or no better than anyone.

Do you believe in Zeus, Ra, Pe'le, Jesus, Yahweh? Which of these gods do you believe in yourself? And if you do believe in any of them, why not all of them?

......That doesn't stop me from doing what a lot of posters here do, which is poking holes in assumptions embedded in premises. All of the sub forums see such action. Why is R & P sacred? Can't the game be played here?

You are fighting windmills. The only assumptions you are talking about are completely off base.

......I do not care for the open assumption, operational among some participants in this group, that distills down to "you are reasonable if you agree with me." I don't consider that a basis for discussion on much of anything.

This is more absurdity. You could apply this distortion to just about every discussion on this board.

......I am still awaiting a response to why I should care about another religionist's beliefs. That is directly related to the OP. Given that this is page seven, I guess I'll accept I won't get an answer.

Cheers.

DR

Again, it doesn't go to the OP. It goes to your mistaken version of the OP. But then how many times can I repeat myself and actually expect a different outcome?

 

[plumjam]

Give me just one example of a a blind tested, peer reviewed, journal published peice of evidence you have cited that has been dismissed.
Plumjam, you are making the mistake of arrogantly thinking that people who disagree with you are being closed to your reasoning, when the actual truth is you have not provided them with compelling enough evidence.

This is how it generally goes with woo vs skeptic.

Bob: the world is flat!
sue: What i am aware of currently shows it is round, Give me evidence it is flat.
bob: My friend told me! and i have seen it! you can plainly see it is flat!
sue: I'm sorry that evidence is not compelling enough for me to accept.
bob: You are just being closed minded and ignoring my evidence.

Oops, you're correct. As yet I haven't seen a blind-tested, peer reviewed, journal-published piece of evidence to prove the existence of an absolute consciousness existing independently of time and space.
Guess that must mean one doesn't exist.

Unless you'd like to propose a suitable experiment that could prove otherwise.

You see, the real arrogance is when people insist that everything in reality must fit into their very narrow definition of what is acceptable information.
(A narrow definition which is just as vulnerable to your social/geographic line of reasoning.. given that this is a definition of truth that has been compulsarily forced into you during your years in the education system in this particular society.)

 

[schlitt]

Oops, you're correct. As yet I haven't seen a blind-tested, peer reviewed, journal-published piece of evidence to prove the existence of an absolute consciousness existing independently of time and space.
Guess that must mean one doesn't exist.

Unless you'd like to propose a suitable experiment that could prove otherwise.

You see, the real arrogance is when people insist that everything in reality must fit into their very narrow definition of what is acceptable information.
(A narrow definition which is just as vulnerable to your social/geographic line of reasoning.. given that this is a definition of truth that has been compulsarily forced into you during your years in the education system in this particular society.)

Once again missing the point, you're on a roll.

You cannot expect people to believe your so called evidence when it sits on the wrong side of Occam's razor. We have laws of physics and nature that are testable and provable. when you claim something which counters these, you had better have some damn good evidence, or you will rightly be dismissed.