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

[plumjam]

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.

Are you saying that our knowledge of natural laws is complete?

 

[schlitt]

Are you saying that our knowledge of natural laws is complete?

No.

But let me try and illustrate what i mean.
Tell me something you believe that skeptics have dismissed as impossible (not unlikely) that you believe there is testable, provable evidence for.

 

[plumjam]

No.

But let me try and illustrate what i mean.
Tell me something you believe that skeptics have dismissed as impossible (not unlikely) that you believe there is testable, provable evidence for.

I don't spend much time looking into the paranormal; I find religion, philosophy and politics more interesting. So no, I couldn't give you chapter and verse about this study of NDEs or that study of psychokinesis. Evidence I've seen in the past on such topics, has been predictably dismissed.
If you really want to, I have provided evidence on the Miracle of the Sun and the Incorruption of the body of Bernadette earlier in the thread. The latter would be testable. The former has an enormous amount of eyewitness testimony.

It is of the nature of miracles that they are one offs, and relatively rare. So it's no surprise that they don't lend themselves to double-blind peer reviewable laboratory testing situations.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

I know what you're getting for Christmas this year from your brother.



(Either that or the semi-automatic dart gun you've been eying up and dropping hints about all year.)

 

[schlitt]

I don't spend much time looking into the paranormal; I find religion, philosophy and politics more interesting. So no, I couldn't give you chapter and verse about this study of NDEs or that study of psychokinesis. Evidence I've seen in the past on such topics, has been predictably dismissed.
If you really want to, I have provided evidence on the Miracle of the Sun and the Incorruption of the body of Bernadette earlier in the thread. The latter would be testable. The former has an enormous amount of eyewitness testimony.

It is of the nature of miracles that they are one offs, and relatively rare. So it's no surprise that they don't lend themselves to double-blind peer reviewable laboratory testing situations.

The problem is then, there is no way to verify the real truth behind these events. There is always alternate explanations. It is up to an individual to find what they deem to be most probable. Without verifiable evidence, surely you can understand why someone would remain skeptical.

Did you read the full article and see the more likely explanations from Stuart Campbell, Joe Nickell, and Paul Simons?
Why do you dismiss these possible explanations?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

But if someone thinks that Jesus never really existed, but the philosophy attributed to him is insightful or good moral advice, does that fit your notion of Christianity? (In other words, is being a Christian no different than being a Chomskyite or a Randian, etc.?) Does it mean believing that Jesus was divine and/or rose from the dead?

No - I think the absolute minimum is a belief in God and a belief in Jesus (his divinity). You may come to agree with Creeds and different theologies, but I don't think that's where you should start. But I also think if people simply followed his teachings without those previous beliefs that would be a good thing too. Then again this is my belief and, no, I won't be sharing any scientific evidence why another Christians belief in this matter is not true.

 

[plumjam]

The problem is then, there is no way to verify the real truth behind these events. There is always alternate explanations. It is up to an individual to find what they deem to be most probable. Without verifiable evidence, surely you can understand why someone would remain skeptical.

Did you read the full article and see the more likely explanations from Stuart Campbell, Joe Nickell, and Paul Simons?
Why do you dismiss these possible explanations?

Stratospheric dust, a sundog, a dust cloud from the Sahara. If such dust phenomena were capable of producing the kind of outlandish phenomena witnessed at Fatima, then I think it's reasonable to ask why this kind of thing hasn't been witnessed all round the planet for all of known human history.
How could a dust cloud or sundog manage to dry peoples soaking clothing, and the ground, in such a short time period?
Would such phenomena be able to make the sun appear as if it was literally about to crash into the Earth, as eyewitnesses reported?

Even if it were conceded to be some natural phenomenon, how would 3 little kids have been able to predict the exact time and place of such an unprecedented event?

So, no, I'm not convinced. Unsurprisingly
But, yes, I can understand why some people might remain skeptical.. as it seems such an unbelievable occurrence.
The point, though, is that the evidence, is there; and has been for 90 years.

But because it can't be fitted into the current mainstream world view the evidence, after some weak attempts at refutal, is quietly passed over. As far as I can see this tends to be a pattern in the strongest cases.

 

[schlitt]

Stratospheric dust, a sundog, a dust cloud from the Sahara. If such dust phenomena were capable of producing the kind of outlandish phenomena witnessed at Fatima, then I think it's reasonable to ask why this kind of thing hasn't been witnessed all round the planet for all of known human history.
How could a dust cloud or sundog manage to dry peoples soaking clothing, and the ground, in such a short time period?
Would such phenomena be able to make the sun appear as if it was literally about to crash into the Earth, as eyewitnesses reported?

Even if it were conceded to be some natural phenomenon, how would 3 little kids have been able to predict the exact time and place of such an unprecedented event?

So, no, I'm not convinced. Unsurprisingly
But, yes, I can understand why some people might remain skeptical.. as it seems such an unbelievable occurrence.
The point, though, is that the evidence, is there; and has been for 90 years.

But because it can't be fitted into the current mainstream world view the evidence, after some weak attempts at refutal, is quietly passed over. As far as I can see this tends to be a pattern in the strongest cases.

There is enough evidence to believe that something strange happened. however, it would require a leap of faith to believe it was a miracle.
As for the prediction, this could easily be retrofitting, and is not verifiable.

You make the point, why wouldn't this have happened before. did you read this part:
He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds.

It is possible this was the largest event of this type in recorded history. There is a plethora of possible explanations.

I wonder why God would choose such a lame miracle, so ambiguous and open to alternate explanation. Why, if you are going to perform a miracle would you choose something that could so easily be an optical illusion?
Clearly explanations of this event will become distorted over time, and the reporting of the event from people predisposed to magical thinking needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I am not saying this was not a miracle, but i do not have the evidence to say it was also. Neither do you.
The best we can do is to say, it was "possibly" a miracle, but it "probably" has an alternate explanation.

 

[plumjam]

There is enough evidence to believe that something strange happened. however, it would require a leap of faith to believe it was a miracle.

Fair.

As for the prediction, this could easily be retrofitting, and is not verifiable.

yeah, it was predicted well in advance, and publicised in the newspapers.. which is why at least 30,000 people had turned up to a particular field at a particular time on a particular day to see if anything happened. I can't see how this could be retrofitting.

You make the point, why wouldn't this have happened before. did you read this part:
He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds.
It is possible this was the largest event of this type in recorded history.

Yeah, but there would be no way to disprove this assertion. Nor does it help account for the prediction.

I wonder why God would choose such a lame miracle, so ambiguous and open to alternate explanation.

Making the sun leave it's position in the sky, dance around, zigzag, change colour, visibly spin on its axis, approach the Earth, dry a soaked field in a few minutes.
If that's lame then any other suggestion would be lame too.

Why, if you are going to perform a miracle would you choose something that could so easily be an optical illusion?

If it's an optical illusion then someone, presumably, should be able to demonstrate the illusion (even if on a much smaller scale).

Clearly explanations of this event will become distorted over time, and the reporting of the event from people predisposed to magical thinking needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There were plenty of reports from journalists, doctors, professors, atheists and skeptics.

I am not saying this was not a miracle, but i do not have the evidence to say it was also. Neither do you.

Well this is the point. What would undisputable evidence for a miracle look like? It is always possible to create an alternative naturalistic hypothesis to explain any occurrence, even if they are forced in some cases to be so outlandish that it'd be easier to accept a miracle took place.
This illustrates my point about the demands for evidence. If someone is determined not to admit the possibility of miracles, then they're always going to come up with some naturalistic hypothesis.
So the whole thing becomes a rather futile exercise.

The best we can do is to say, it was "possibly" a miracle, but it "probably" has an alternate explanation.

Well I'm glad you're open minded enough to not exclude the possibility of miracles. Is that progress?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So are all religions equally valid?

Is it your position that they are all equally invalid?

To answer the question you are asking, I'd say that from the personal point of view, yes, if a given religion fits the person and works for them as a philosophical framework from which to approach life, and the matters of each person's inner life, their spiritual component of life, then pick one that suits you, or, pick something else (as a framework that isn't a religion) that suits you and your life.

One of the shortcomings of any religion is the problems run into when scaling up. The examples abound, as Lithreal noted regarding sects fighting each other over something. My description of that, generally, is the ritual being over emphasized at the expense of the message.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Very nice post.

To this last bit though, wouldn't you have to know another's religious beliefs before you know whether you should care about them?

I suppose, but it depends on how much effort you feel that study is worth. You point on gnosis versus agnosis is well raised.

it seems you're assuming in advance that all world-views -- religious and non-religious -- are benign.

Not at all. What seems to be the common mistake is that someone religious is solely defined by that. Branching to the philosophy side of this, I found the Communist belief system to be profoundly wrong.

I think most are -- it irritates me when even benign religions make grandiose claims to ultimate truth based on nothing but hubris and ignorance (but that's just me) -- most of the time, but I know all aren't all the time.

Indeed, but I think that is partly related to the intersection of the spiritual and the physical, and the imperfect fit. Another factor is the problem ego and power, which are inherent human attributes of variable quantity.

Which is another reason I pay attention to religion (mostly for the entertainment, though).

Oh yes, much fun to be had by all. See my much beloved Chesterton observation in my sig, and Buckley's.

Do you have a different reason for not caring about others' religion? (Person-to-person, I could care less, but online... why not? A great excuse to kiss and/or kick some sacred butt, and we could all, God(s) included, benefit from that -- no?)

I don't need one. Do you? The issue of scaling up I address elsewhere.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find it hard to believe that DR simply browsed among the available religions and picked one out like a shirt off a rack.

You are correct. That option is one path to a belief system, if one chooses to journey in that fashion

Of course I could be wrong and DR is one of the very few people who has done exactly that, but religion doesn't seem to me to be something that one just shops around for.

No, I didn't, though I investigated a lot of belief systems out of sheer curiosity over a twenty year period. Pretty much everything interests me.

Shameless plug for JREF forums: this is what makes the forums here so valuable, the coverage of so many different things by so many sharp people. The SM & T is IMO the best place to lurk.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

So whichever god beliefs are available, then, is the reason they are chosen?

Strawman "so" construction, and leading question, noted.

Let's try this on for size: if it isn't available, how can you choose it?

Of course, you can start your own religion. Sorry, I don't have the time, nor the inclination.

Back to your OP:

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?

Still awaiting your answer to that.

You could apply this distortion to just about every discussion on this board.

I tend to agree.


DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Nope.

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?

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

Watch carefully: no. What I don't bother doing, and it is related to the OP, is spending time trying to disprove them to those who do.

Do you finally get it? Part of the reason I am skeptical of your claim of honorable intention is the narrowness of your approach, and your choice to argue with someone who has pointed out a shortcoming in the construction your OP.

What do you have at stake here?

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

I think schlitt gets it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

The difference is if you clarify your position, I don't call you a liar. Again, implying I'm a liar.

I have not called you a liar, but I also do not find your OP to be other than a game, or as others described it, a deliberate attempt at a trap. Perhaps it was simply constructed poorly, or you were unaware of the assumptions imbedded in your position.

(BTW, what do you mean by that "you" in your references to the 911 CT? I don't believe that crap. Are you mixing me up with someone else?)

No, I in no way, shape, or form think you are a 9-11 CT.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

I am trying to figure out where you got that from me, and I think I do now. Here is how the q and a went. We were discussing the position I hold on people finding their own fit, and belief set. You were extending the idea to CT a la Loose Change to that of religion (a wingnuts to pears comparison, but I played along)

"Loose Change" to your taste? Enjoy.

The you being referred to is the generic "if it suits you, adopt it." All of the following "you" construction was the same as the "your" in your query?

(I like talking 'bout you you you you usually, but every once in a while, let's talk about me! )

Absolutely. And enjoy the flames when you make idiotic attempts at describing how the towers went down, since free speech is a neat thing: you are free to say whatever you like, and free to be criticized for it. You are also free to follow Rule Number One, which is

Never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shut. (I've had trouble with that rule from time to time.)

So, none of those "you" were directed at you, skeptigirl, and I repeat, you are no way in Hell, Heaven, Limbo, or Spokane the sort of person who would fall into the 9-11 CT.

That you juxtaposed that chosen point of view with religion is part of the problem, and why I was skeptical of your protestations of honorable intention. The path this leads to is "all woo is the same." So, I suspected that is where you were going. Only you know the truth of the matter.

ETA: I'll go back to Morgan Reynolds. He is one breed of 9-11 CT. But that isn't all he is. He is also a professor of economics at Texas A & M University.

Again, the theists (if you are one, I don't recall) ignore the part of their philosophical mind set which includes god beliefs.

It is very important to pigeon hole the "they" when you wish to treat them as inferior to you.

This isn't about philosophy.

To you, perhaps. I do not share your narrow description of what religion is to those who practice it.

That is the wrapping theists put god beliefs in so they can avoid that cognitive dissonance. Spirituality does not take away from the fact theists have god beliefs they put in a special category and god beliefs they have no trouble dismissing as myths.

"Have no trouble dismissing as myths." You presume, again, that all theists do that. I cannot grasp why you take that stance, even though we both agree that some theists do.

I don't get the point of this unless you are just reminding us you don't care. I don't think anyone cares that you don't care, DR.

You assume, in the OP, the way you wrote it, that practitioners of religion care enough to go out and disprove other religionists beliefs. That assumption is unsupportable, though to give reasonable credit to the idea, the leadership of any given religion probably does take the time and effort to do that.

Among other motivations for that would be in the sales pitch: why one should do it "our" way rather than "their" way.

DR

 

[Henners]

Nothing of much substance, apparently.

Will anyone raise me to two boxes of frogs.

Thank you, sir.

PJ for two boxes of frogs.

Going once, going twice...

Yes, sir, you definitely got a bargain, there.

What's that you say, you own a nut factory?

Well, in that case you should probably spray-paint PJ or you'll never find him again.

 

[schlitt]

yeah, it was predicted well in advance, and publicised in the newspapers.. which is why at least 30,000 people had turned up to a particular field at a particular time on a particular day to see if anything happened. I can't see how this could be retrofitting.

Granted, that would make a very good case for prediction.
Is there verifiable evidence of this?

Yeah, but there would be no way to disprove this assertion. Nor does it help account for the prediction.

if the prediction were to be accurate, then you are correct it does seem extraordinarily coincidental.

the problem is there is still alternate explanations...
-The gathering of people stirred up dust.

-The natural phenomena had been occurring recently, which is why the predictions were made, and it was simply a case of people focusing their attention looking out for it.

To name a couple of the top of my head.

Making the sun leave it's position in the sky, dance around, zigzag, change colour, visibly spin on its axis, approach the Earth, dry a soaked field in a few minutes.
If that's lame then any other suggestion would be lame too.

How about appearing in person, and speaking individually to each person?


There is any number of things that would be completely miraculous and unexplainable. An optical illusion of the sun in the sky is really pretty lame when you consider what we know about the earth atmosphere, and events that cause distorted viewing of an entity 93.5 million miles away.

If it's an optical illusion then someone, presumably, should be able to demonstrate the illusion (even if on a much smaller scale).

As has already been offered, these optical illusions are commonplace. Good luck creating the conditions for it though.

There were plenty of reports from journalists, doctors, professors, atheists and skeptics.

I have no doubt something which looked amazing happened.

Well this is the point. What would undisputable evidence for a miracle look like? It is always possible to create an alternative naturalistic hypothesis to explain any occurrence, even if they are forced in some cases to be so outlandish that it'd be easier to accept a miracle took place.
This illustrates my point about the demands for evidence. If someone is determined not to admit the possibility of miracles, then they're always going to come up with some naturalistic hypothesis.
So the whole thing becomes a rather futile exercise.

God appearing in person simultaneously and speaking to each person on the planet would be indisputable evidence.

an optical illusion in the sky for a few chosen people, with reasonable scientific explanations, begs the question, if god can reveal himself to these people, why not to all?
Does he want the rest of humanity to burn in hell?
Why was the miracle purely involving a natural phenomena?
Why did he not do something which involved himself that was indisputable?

You just cannot be reasonably be 100% certain when it comes to this event.

Well I'm glad you're open minded enough to not exclude the possibility of miracles. Is that progress?

No this is my stance, along with among with many others here.
It is impossible to rule out the possibility of a miracle. But it is reasonable to venture an educated probability when taking all known information into account.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic
Actually, that wouldn't answer the OP at all. She wants "scientific evidence" on why what I believe is true and someone elses beliefs are false.

Straw man question dodging.

So you're not asking for "scientific evidence" only? Now I will have to admit I don't know at all what you're question is. Because from what I gather that's all you think is worth calling evidence and if that's true - like I've state previously none of our evidence or opinions or feelings or thoughts is going to mean anything.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So you're not asking for "scientific evidence" only? Now I will have to admit I don't know at all what you're question is. Because from what I gather that's all you think is worth calling evidence and if that's true - like I've state previously none of our evidence or opinions or feelings or thoughts is going to mean anything.

She asked why you believe your religion is while all others are false. I do not recall her or anyone else stipulating what constitutes a good answer.

For the love of God, just tell us why you believe your religion is true, and all others false, please, pretty please, with a damned cherry on top.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

No - I think the absolute minimum is a belief in God and a belief in Jesus (his divinity). You may come to agree with Creeds and different theologies, but I don't think that's where you should start. But I also think if people simply followed his teachings without those previous beliefs that would be a good thing too. Then again this is my belief and, no, I won't be sharing any scientific evidence why another Christians belief in this matter is not true.

Could you please clarify what the act of believing actually means to you? Do you mean that you explicitly focus on something representing god, or is it more like implicitly acknowledging god by how you try to live your life?

I never quite understood the belief aspect in religion and how that actually makes any difference when it comes to acting in the world. I mean, if the story resonates with you and you identify yourself with the message and try to live your life accordingly, then how does that differ from believing? Is there something in that particular (extra) act of thinking “this must be god” that’s special or important? And what does it really mean to think “this is god”, what is the actual content of such a thought?