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

[A Christian Sceptic]

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.

The title of this thread is (bolding mine) : "IS THERE EVIDENCE YOUR GOD BELIEFS ARE TRUE WHILE OTHER GOD BELIEFS ARE FALSE?"

I don't see a WHY anywhere in that question.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The title of this thread is (bolding mine) : "IS THERE EVIDENCE YOUR GOD BELIEFS ARE TRUE WHILE OTHER GOD BELIEFS ARE FALSE?"

I don't see a WHY anywhere in that question.

Are you getting this upset because you admit you have no evidence? Be that as it may, why do you believe your religion and not others? We've been at this for ten pages and all you have done so far is loudly protest about what an unfair question this is. Do you have anything substantive to contribute? You're on a critical thinking forum in the religion and philosophy section. That uncomfortable philosophical questions arise should come as no surprise.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION BUT DISBELIEVE ALL OTHERS?

Answer it, or leave. You've made your point that we're bad people for bringing it up.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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?

You should probably first figure out what believing in something means to you and in particular what believing in someone means. Does it simply mean you believe they exist? That's just my opinion of course and you'll have to come to your own concusions.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You should probably first figure out what believing in something means to you and in particular what believing in someone means. Does it simply mean you believe they exist? That's just my opinion of course and you'll have to come to your own concusions.

No. We're interested in your beliefs and your conclusions. Please share them.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Are you getting this upset because you admit you have no evidence? Be that as it may, why do you believe your religion and not others? We've been at this for ten pages and all you have done so far is loudly protest about what an unfair question this is. Do you have anything substantive to contribute? You're on a critical thinking forum in the religion and philosophy section. That uncomfortable philosophical questions arise should come as no surprise.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION BUT DISBELIEVE ALL OTHERS?

Answer it, or leave. You've made your point that we're bad people for bringing it up.

Oh, so that's all you want to know? You don't want evidence you just want why? Well first of all I don't "DISBELIEVE ALL OTHERS" as you want to put it. PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEW ALERT: But I do currently think that Christianity seems more closer to the truth then others. And until I have adequate reason to change I won't. A Simple Example: I don't disbelieve inThe Great Spirit that many Native Americans believe in - for all intents and purposes it seems like we are worshipping the same God. But I'm not going to bother with Coyote even if he exists because all I'm concerned with is the God Beyond Everything Else - The Creator. But that's just me, I'm sure many Christians and Athiests alike will say I'm wrong, but really all that does is make me feel grateful for living in America where I can believe anything I want for any reason I want. By the way, I don't feel any need to prove another believer in any religion wrong. I'm just happy they're on the journey alongside me.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

No. We're interested in your beliefs and your conclusions. Please share them.

You're not interested in my beliefs and conclusions except to tell me I'm wrong. You asked me in a previous post in this very thread why I'm not concerned with telling you about Christianity. And wondered why I'm not concerned that your soul is at stake. I told you my belief and conclusion which is: I'll leave it to God. Your soul is not my burden - mine is. At which point you immediately starting showing me bible verses telling me I'm wrong. That's not being interested in what I believe and what I conclude - it's an interest in wanting to prove I'm wrong so you feel better about your own beliefs and conclusions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION BUT DISBELIEVE ALL OTHERS?

Other than to point out that your assertion of (active?) disbelief may not hold water, and that indifference is a valid position to take . . .

Let's have more fun with analogies.

You can't drive two cars at once.

You can't be a Libertarian and a Communist at the same time.

No shirts this time, as you can wear two shirts at once.

In another thread, Fred Carr suggests that one can be a Scientologist and a Christian at the same time, which puzzles me. Having never been attracted to Co$, I will doubtless remain confused about that.

DR

 

[schlitt]

You're not interested in my beliefs and conclusions except to tell me I'm wrong. You asked me in a previous post in this very thread why I'm not concerned with telling you about Christianity. And wondered why I'm not concerned that your soul is at stake. I told you my belief and conclusion which is: I'll leave it to God. Your soul is not my burden - mine is. At which point you immediately starting showing me bible verses telling me I'm wrong. That's not being interested in what I believe and what I conclude - it's an interest in wanting to prove I'm wrong so you feel better about your own beliefs and conclusions.

Do you consider there is a possibility that you are wrong?

(Just curious )

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Do you consider there is a possibility that you are wrong?

(Just curious )

I'm always learning and I'll change my mind when I need too.

 

[schlitt]

I find the opposition to the OP strange.

The implications of the question in the OP are highly pertinent when contemplating the probable validity of a religious belief.

I am born in Jordan.
I am a Muslim.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!


I am born in the USA.
I am a Christian.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!

Which of these two are correct?

What logic is the person in Jordan using to verify his religion is correct?
Why does he believe in islam along with the majority of the people in his geographic location?
Why does the person in the US believe Christianity, along with the majority of the people in his geographic location?

How can either belief be considered objectively validated when they are cleary formed not through objective logic or reason, but through legacy and tradition of the societies that raised them?

A belief would ideally have been adopted through the rigors of reason, and logic utilizing evidence and education.
The passive acceptance of belief through uncontrollable factors is not ideal.
Until a valid, provable reason shows one religion as correct, it will generally be the passive acceptance through uncontrollable factors that wins out.
This is of concern to many who seek the truth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find the opposition to the OP strange.

The implications of the question in the OP are highly pertinent when contemplating the probable validity of a religious belief.

I am born in Jordan.
I am a Muslim.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!

I am born in the USA.
I am a Christian.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!

Explain why the bits in italics are necessary elements of this reasoning chain. Methinks that as assumptions they may not be necessary. Now, if you also assume in a doctrinaire approach to Islam or Christianity, then I see where that would fit in quite well.

Which of these two are correct?

If either is, as you noted previously.

What logic is the person in Jordan using to verify his religion is correct?

Embedded assumption: people use logic for all choices, all decisions.

Why does he believe in islam along with the majority of the people in his geographic location?

Not believe in, practice. He believes in Allah, as revealed by the Prophet, etc.

Does this need an answer? Here's one: why not? (A good riposte to that is "other options, like Hinduism, agnosticism, atheism, or Judaism are avaible."

Why does the person in the US believe Christianity, along with the majority of the people in his geographic location?

Not believe in, practice. He believes in God, and his salvation through Jesus Christ, etc.

How can either belief be considered objectively validated when they are cleary formed not through logic or reason, but through legacy and tradition of the societies that raised them?

Question: why is it necessary for this belief to be objectively valid? If it is necessary to you, that might explain why you don't practice either of those religions.

A belief would ideally have been adopted through the rigors of reason, and logic utilizing evidence and education.

Ideally, a man would never beat his wife. Ideally, no driver would ever run a stop sign.

The passive acceptance of belief through uncontrollable factors is not ideal.

I am tempted to refer to Kant's discussion on the limitations of reason, but have reconsidered, as it does not fit this conversation.

Is the ideal necessary?

Until a valid, provable reason shows one religion as correct, it will generally be the passive acceptance through uncontrollable factors that wins out. This is of concern to those who seek the truth.

Is that Truth, or truth?

If the latter, truth about what? Existence of a god? The existence of the belief is already established.

If the former, best wishes, Pilgrim.

DR

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You should probably first figure out what believing in something means to you and in particular what believing in someone means. Does it simply mean you believe they exist? That's just my opinion of course and you'll have to come to your own concusions.

Well, first of all, my intention is not to prove you wrong or anything (perhaps I should have just PM:d you), I was just interested in your view on the matter. But I think I have some rudimentary understanding now (post #365 was informative – perhaps I can use it here?).

Basically it’s more about trusting what you consider to be god (it feels right). And by god you mean something in the form of a universal consciousness wherein you as an individual belong or partake in. It’s not a pure idea or an abstraction but something like a feeling of connectedness or intimacy that you trust (or sense) to be eternal. Am I even close?

 

[Dunstan]

The implications of the question in the OP are highly pertinent when contemplating the probable validity of a religious belief.

I am born in Jordan.
I am a Muslim.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!


I am born in the USA.
I am a Christian.
My religion is correct.
All others are not.
All other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell!

Which of these two are correct?

You're spinning your wheels.

While I have no doubt that there are people in the world who think like the above two examples, the fact is that none of them have posted in this thread.

As far as I can recall, all of the theists who have responded in this thread have said -- often repeatedly -- that they do not follow that mindset, especially the "[a]ll other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell" bit. This is the assumption that Darth Rotor has been objecting to repeatedly, for example.

I have no reason to think that they're lying about their beliefs. For that matter, I don't think even the Pope claims that.

That doesn't mean that there aren't still interesting things to discuss relating to the topic. For example, I'm still curious how people decide that "while I'm not 100% sure that my religion is 'right' and I don't really think that another is 'wrong,' I'm still going to follow mine."

But to keep asking the question you're asking is futile. Nobody is defending that position.

 

[Belz...]

PERSONAL RELIGIOUS VIEW ALERT: But I do currently think that Christianity seems more closer to the truth then others.

How can it seem that way without evidence ?

And until I have adequate reason to change I won't.

Which is never, because you have conveniently placed God beyond scrutiny.

A Simple Example: I don't disbelieve inThe Great Spirit that many Native Americans believe in - for all intents and purposes it seems like we are worshipping the same God.

But I'm not going to bother with Coyote even if he exists because all I'm concerned with is the God Beyond Everything Else - The Creator.

So, even if he DID exist it wouldn't change anything ? What about the ONE AND ONLY GOD ? What happens to that ?

I'm sure many Christians and Athiests alike will say I'm wrong, but really all that does is make me feel grateful for living in America where I can believe anything I want for any reason I want.

Yes, one can be as silly as they want in the free world, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're spinning your wheels.

While I have no doubt that there are people in the world who think like the above two examples, the fact is that none of them have posted in this thread.

As far as I can recall, all of the theists who have responded in this thread have said -- often repeatedly -- that they do not follow that mindset, especially the "[a]ll other religions are wrong, and the followers will suffer an eternity of hell" bit. This is the assumption that Darth Rotor has been objecting to repeatedly, for example.

I have no reason to think that they're lying about their beliefs. For that matter, I don't think even the Pope claims that.

That doesn't mean that there aren't still interesting things to discuss relating to the topic. For example, I'm still curious how people decide that "while I'm not 100% sure that my religion is 'right' and I don't really think that another is 'wrong,' I'm still going to follow mine."

But to keep asking the question you're asking is futile. Nobody is defending that position.

Sir, you have far more concisely said roughly what I have been trying to say in too many words.

Your next pint, I am buying.

DR

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Basically it’s more about trusting what you consider to be god (it feels right). And by god you mean something in the form of a universal consciousness wherein you as an individual belong or partake in. It’s not a pure idea or an abstraction but something like a feeling of connectedness or intimacy that you trust (or sense) to be eternal. Am I even close?

Maybe you should rephrase your question because I don't quite know what you are wondering? I don't want to read to much or to little into your question.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Which is never, because you have conveniently placed God beyond scrutiny.

You know what I think the problem here is - the Athiests have just as small of an idea of God as many religious people. I scrutinize God all the time and all it does is make him bigger. So what? You want to limit my view of God by your view of the God you don't believe in?

So, even if he DID exist it wouldn't change anything ? What about the ONE AND ONLY GOD ? What happens to that ?

Nothing. What are you wondering about?

 

[schlitt]

Explain why the bits in italics are necessary elements of this reasoning chain. Methinks that as assumptions they may not be necessary. Now, if you also assume in a doctrinaire approach to Islam or Christianity, then I see where that would fit in quite well.

I do not know any theists that believe other religions are equally valid.

Embedded assumption: people use logic for all choices, all decisions.

No my point is that; sadly, they do not.

Not believe in, practice. He believes in Allah, as revealed by the Prophet, etc.

I could argue he believes in the ideals, but i cannot be bothered playing semantic games.

Does this need an answer? Here's one: why not? (A good riposte to that is "other options, like Hinduism, agnosticism, atheism, or Judaism are avaible."

Is Sylvia Browne psychic? Sure, Why not.

Are you happy with people believing what they want without any regard to the actual truth?

Question: why is it necessary for this belief to be objectively valid? If it is necessary to you, that might explain why you don't practice either of those religions.

Lets take a look at that statement with something more abrupt in its resulting conclusion.
I believe jumping off a ten story building and landing on my head will make me a superstar NBA player.
does the objective validity of my belief matter?
Yes, without realizing the belief has no objective validity, i will be dead once i attempt the jump.

Ideally, a man would never beat his wife. Ideally, no driver would ever run a stop sign.

Yes, do you consider it good that things are less than ideal?

Is the ideal necessary?

I guess it depends on your overall desire for the state of things.

If the latter, truth about what? Existence of a god? The existence of the belief is already established.

If the former, best wishes, Pilgrim.

DR

A religion is either correct, or it is not. I am one of those who is concerned with the truth regarding correctness.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Maybe you should rephrase your question because I don't quite know what you are wondering? I don't want to read to much or to little into your question.

Do you consider believing to be closer to a feeling of trust in some sort of connectedness, or is it more like a set of ideas you consider to be true (and applicable as such to reality). Of course, it might be both, but what do you consider to be more important when talking about belief.

 

[volatile]

I do not know any theists that believe other religions are equally valid.

Indeed. And the point the OP makes, of course, despite all this semantic wrangling, is to be a theist (that is to take a theistic position, or to assign to yourself a theistic label) is to necessarily reject contradictory theisms. That's what being a Christian, Bhuddist or Sikh means.

That's the elephant in the room that Darth, in particular, is refusing to acknowledge. Whilst you may not care, the fact is that to take a theistic position necessarily involves rejecting other, conflicting theisms by definition.