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

[schlitt]

Wrong again. My concern has to do with intentions and actions, and the conundrum addressed in Minority Report: do you act preemptively if you think someone will do you wrong? How do you determine intentions? Belief systems form a part of what goes into that, but not all of it.

Right, it is hard to tell from your non chalant posting style. Either way i believe a false belief is a bad thing. Which is why i believe the way the belief was initially formed is the important underlying factor.

I read that twice, and I think I see where I agree with you. An example: using a religious reason to reject a vaccination. Am I on the right track?

Yes, that is a good, direct, example. Others are much more subtle yet far reaching.

I'd use it to make a lot of money, then do as you suggest.

DR

Not many people are interested in the truth. The truth is boring and scary. Woo is where the money is at.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

This sounds a lot like shopping around to me. And I gather that there are not very many people who objectively examine a variety of different religions before picking one for themselves. Although Darth Rotor appears to be one of them...

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.

I think that if such a thing did exist, pretty much everyone except for the Amish would know about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

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.

So although you have investigated other religions, you have not found one that is "better" than the one you started with. Anyone else find this a little suss?

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.

It may not be a necessary element of the chain for everybody, but it certainly is for many. The Pentacostal Christian church that I attended for example. Deuteronomy 13:13-17 for another. Islamic and Christian fundamentalists for a third. Sure, you may not believe it is a necessary part of religion to condemn all non-adherents to an eternity of hellfire, but a hell of a lot of people do! Does that make them right? No. But it makes us wonder - why to these people believe in their particular god, and not some other?

It has been pointed out that a vast majority of people adopt the religion of their parents. Why is this? Do these people not "shop around" for the religion that best suits themselves, like DR suggested? Of course not!

 

[Lithrael]

(...) I'm arguing that there is something more here than subjective feelings of contentment.

I think I do understand what you mean. If I've got it right then you have a pretty unassailable position on religion. You're coming at it from a very fair point of view. It's in that realm beyond simple quibbles, definitely, and I can see there is depth in the way you're arriving at your conclusions. That is, I think I'd be able to see and sympathise with the way you got there if I had a few years to really get into it.

I don't think it's sound to conclude that god beliefs therefore have no existence in reality independent of human thought. As I've said before, rational inquiry has limits. You can't do science with the excluded part and many people here seem to respond to this conclusion with something like: "true, but those things don't matter/are boring/are not worth thinking about."

Plenty of skeptics don't think it's sound to conclude the opposite. They're open to being convinced otherwise, but only by the observable world. Like you say, most skeptics don't understand why people want to guess what may be going on in the unobservable world, because there's literally nothing at all to go on. It could be anything, or nothing. It doesn't seem to make any difference in the observable world. And how is that good for anything? (If it does make a difference in a social way as you seem to suggest then we'd be interested in those effects - but social systems are so complex and so vaguely understood there's no reason to go searching for God in them anytime soon. We'll be interested when there's something to look at.)

But I think what we have here is a classic misunderstanding. I don't think skeptics mean to belittle these things that are interesting but outside scientific inquiry. We just don't have anything to do anymore once we hit that. We literally can't get our hands on it.

It seems just as cruel to us when we get slapped around for asking an honest or even insulting question. You'll probably notice that skeptics SWARM to OP's that insult them. We love a debate, or even an argument, and we generally are all about trying to answer questions, insulting or not. We're all about inquiry, and some theists tell us some questions are wrong to ask.

I want to suggest an analogy to language.

I like this analogy, it seems to be perfect for the way you see religion.

Different religions/ different relationships/meanings. Discriminating between the results is a matter of moral philosophy and observation. I don't think this is the same as choosing between snowcone flavors.

Well, no. Choosing between snowcone flavours is easier.

I appreciate your earlier comments suggesting I might not be a raving denialist.

Heh, cheers. I really didn't mean it in a backhanded way. I just know a lot of religious people I'm kind of scared of, personally. It *is* nice to run into friendly ones. And I do thank you for being great to talk to.

I'm aware that, even setting aside epistimological rules about proof, god beliefs/religion are currently in a position that requires serious justification because of the costs associated with maintaining them. (...) Still, I'd like to suggest that demanding people stuggling with different burdens give up something whose function and value can't yet be adequately explained is neither reasonable nor fair.

Just as you don't like people doing scary things in the name of religion, I don't approve of hardline atheists that want to smack prayer-books out of the hands of old ladies. There are places where life is tough and times when everything is bleak and many people feel they can go on because of their faith. There are times when people have little control over ther lives and need god beliefs to justify this to themselves. Etc.

But I'm not a strong person, and I'm not suffering for my lack of god beliefs. I strongly believe that most people can go on just the same without god beliefs as with them, if they're not indoctrinated to the idea in the first place. But you're right that it's tough to get that social framework to lift folks up without religion. If we could have churches without God and that authoritarian bent, or churches with God but whose philosophy was universally like yours, I would love the things.

As a result, I don't think it's reasonable to treat religious beliefs like empirical claims, so long as believers respect the limits imposed by empirical knowledge.

I can agree with this. I can't honestly say I have an empirical reason to want to take anybody's comfort away, if their beliefs do not have negative consequences. I am just really wary (okay, scared) of how very many people do not consume religion wisely.

My apologies for making this terribly long again.

Likewise.

ETA: Your post #419 is excellent, I don't see anything there I can substantially disagree with. Thanks for sharing, sincerely.

 

[V23]

Skeptigirl, I think that one problem with getting answers to this question is that the theists who have been posting here don't believe that all other god beliefs are false. While your statement may be true for many, perhaps even most believers, it does not appear to be a true statement for the theists who post in this forum. Thus, the assumption behind your question - that they recognize other god beliefs as false while claiming theirs is true - is not accurate. Theists who have posted here reject the simplistic "invisible sky daddy" charactorization of ALL gods, so they are equally disbelieving of that charactorization of their god (or goddess) as they are of all the other gods, be they Allah, Zeus or Pele.

If you want an answer to that question, I think you will have to start by trying to understand what it is they do believe in. (Hint: It isn't an invisible sky daddy that requires blind unthinking faith.) Then you may be able to discern where and how they draw the line between credible god beliefs and silly ones.

Oh, and I'd like to say welcome to V23. I've enjoyed your posts. You make a lot of sense to me. I hope you'll stick around. It's a harsh environment here for believers in any sort, but it can be a worthwhile experience. Lots of very intelligent folks post here.

Thank you Beth, you are the first live person here to welcome me, and I appreciate it. And thank you also for what you said, not only to the topic, which was a brilliant bit of logic on your part, but also my posts.

Again . . .thanks

 

[V23]

I may have missed this part of your post.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.

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.

THAT is spliting hairs . . .And yes, I do know what skeptical analysis is. I just don't think that you can apply it to a feeling.

Anymore than I can apply it to whether I like my wife's roast beef vs. my mother's fried chicken.

 

[V23]

You are confusing the scientific process, which is a means of discovery; with the evidence, what you discover; and the subsequent interpretation, which may be multiple.

I never said, "scientific process".

I got some more dry straw over here if you need it skepticgirl . . .

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why do you persist in the idea that we who are atheists are alien to the Christian experience?

No offense intended to you. I know you are familiar with Christianity - you seem to have plenty of bible verses ready to go. I've been in those types of debates with believers and those who don't believe and I don't like using the bible that way. I'm sorry.

Look - to be fair - if you have a very specific question other than the general overall why - I'll probably share with you what I think. But I won't prove to you how I got to that conclusion - especially using the bible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hi,

I think what the Thiests are saying on this board (and this is at least how I feel) is that we don't want to argue exclusivity of our religions with each other regardless of how we feel of each others religion.

And Plum said, "The exclusivity is not there to the degree most atheists here seem to prefer it would be."

I'll repeat the question ONE MORE TIME. This is not about exclusivity, your religion vs their religion, or, for that matter, your religion.

Do you believe in one or more gods? Do you believe in all gods? Do you believe in no gods?

While your god beliefs may or may not be of an invisible man in the sky, the word, theist, in my understanding of it, is not the belief in a religion. It is the belief in one or more gods.

The vast majority of theists believe in one or more gods but they do not believe in all gods. I keep refraining from putting words in anyone's mouth about their god beliefs, but no one is coming forward and telling us what their god beliefs are. There is only question skirting,

And we especially don't want to do it in the present context with Athiests who won't understand the whys and hows because, for one, the OP is wanting to use "scientific evidence" as the measuring stick.

The OP calls for YOUR evidence. It does not call for scientific evidence. More question avoidance.

I don't really know how to go on, because on one hand, I want you to understand some things about how I view Christianity, but in an internet forum - especially one with Athiests who have bible verses in hand waiting to pounce on you to tell you that you are not being a real Christian because this verse says that - it just doesn't seem right.

But yes, in general, your observations are correct. Because I'm a Christian I have not accepted other religious views on God. (But that does not mean I can't get some glimpses of him through studying what they believe. And I might argue, I view it more as a progression of my beliefs more than a simple rejection of other beliefs) And when I come across a new religion or even a new Christian idea or view I measure it against what I currently believe and use my reasons (which are largely not scientific but probably more philosphical or theological) and make a decision.

If you have a more specific question on something (it sounds like you have a pretty good familiarity of Christianity) you can Private Message me. I might not give you an answer though - but probably some questions to ask yourself.

Anyway - I understand where you are coming from I think.

Finally we get to the question in the OP. And interestingly at the very time we actually get a reply, you state your intention to flee the scene.

I'll follow up anyway and see what happens. To paraphrase this, you are saying you arrived at a particular god belief first. God beliefs you were exposed to after you adopted one belief were too late. The god belief you adopted excluded any other god beliefs. This seems to fit with Dawkin's meme hypothesis. The god beliefs have built in preservation mechanisms.

Have you ever asked yourself what the significance was that your early establishment of beliefs favored the beliefs in your proximity when you were at the age of adopting those beliefs?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Skeptigirl - you might want to see this post I made.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3263583#post3263583

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No offense intended to you. I know you are familiar with Christianity - you seem to have plenty of bible verses ready to go. I've been in those types of debates with believers and those who don't believe and I don't like using the bible that way. I'm sorry.

Look - to be fair - if you have a very specific question other than the general overall why - I'll probably share with you what I think. But I won't prove to you how I got to that conclusion - especially using the bible.

Then you are not a skeptic. I suggest you change your name to something more representative, such as "Christian Coward." You are entirely welcome to ask why I reject your religion, and all others. I'll answer it even though you didn't ask: because there is no evidence that they are true. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you reject all other religions for the same reason. What intrigues me is that you actually accept one, why? Do you honestly believe the universe is ruled by an omnipotent being who can't decide if he is three entities or one?

 

[V23]

I'm late to this particular party, so I'm going back a few pages to highlight something that I think hasn't been followed up on:

Could you describe that process? I think this is what the OP is all about. Did you "try on" various religious beliefs and see what worked for you, or did you start from scratch and put together your own belief system?

If there are beliefs that you haven't tried, do you just try everything that comes along, or is there some basis by which you decide that, say, Scientology just wouldn't work for you?

How do you judge what "works" for you: is it personal comfort, logical coherence, poetic beauty, positive behavioral consequences, something else, or some combination?

Is that process finished now, or does your spiritual position continue to evolve? If the former, how did you know when to "stop"; if the latter, how does that work -- where do the new ideas or concepts come from, and how do you incorporate them, or not, into your spiritual position?

Thank you for your VERY valid question that gets to the very heart of this thread.

Unfortunately you have given me a tall order, and i need to be brief.

ok . . .(takes large breath and exhales)

Did you "try on" various religious beliefs and see what worked for you, or did you start from scratch and put together your own belief system?

I was rasied Christian/Jewish, which means that I had a parent in each faith. Needless to say, between pastors on one side of the family and rabbi's on the other, Thanksgiving was a very educational time for me growing up in a very open and culture and neighbood. So, I felt like that I had the right, since a child to believe in whatever the hell I felt like and my parents felt the same way and raised me to believe this also, BUT with still the same brainwashing that comes with both ends of the Jewish/Christian spectrum.

I was really intrested in martial arts, and while in the Marine Corps, I began training in Aikido, and begun embracing the larger aspects of eastern belief systems, specifically Zen Buddisim. There was a process, however, it was my attempt to correlate my upbringing with these new concepts, so a mixture was formed and a philosophy was created for myself. Later after college and graduate studies I ended up becoming intrested in Pagansim, specifically Pantheistic ideas since they seemed to be the most universal and well fitting for my taste.

If there are beliefs that you haven't tried, do you just try everything that comes along, or is there some basis by which you decide that, say, Scientology just wouldn't work for you?

Yes, there are beliefs that I haven't "tried on" yet, and i believe that my beliefs are constantly changing. As for groups that I might disagree with, I leave behind any ideas that I believe to be harmful to myself or others.

How do you judge what "works" for you: is it personal comfort, logical coherence, poetic beauty, positive behavioral consequences, something else, or some combination?

Well, for me, I believe that I should not take on beliefs that I have to work on to believe in them. Christanity is filled with those beliefs, whether you are refering to the "Invisiable Man in the sky", "Hell", or "Resurection". If I have to suspend my disbelief in large amounts, I disregard it.

I believe that one's beliefs should work for you, in other words, they should be pratical, easily understood, and not so disregarded by a skeptical mind. Panthesim is one such beliefs. Anyone who dives deep into how the universe works has to eventually admit the universe does occasionally betray at least the illusion of intelligence. And I have yet to ever hear a skeptic claim that science has overwellming evidence that it isn't true.

(By the way, before you start saying that you cant prove a negative, remember that I am a Crime scene investigator, and every day it is my job to prove NEGATIVES . . .and besides the point has been ran through more times than I care to mention.)

To me, it's the only thing that makes sense, whether you are refering to the meaning of life, or why Murphy law always seems to be in effect. For me it explains a million issues of science and physics that have yet to be fully explained, and at the same time, it leaves enough room open for all aspects of the scientific process to eventually find those answers, (and maybe the intelligence behind them)

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Then you are not a skeptic. I suggest you change your name to something more representative, such as "Christian Coward." You are entirely welcome to ask why I reject your religion, and all others. I'll answer it even though you didn't ask: because there is no evidence that they are true. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you reject all other religions for the same reason.

If you've made up your mind so much why even have this thread? Why even care why I accept what I do?

 

[Ladewig]

Unnecessary post. Sorry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I look at some of the discussions here in other forums: The one at the "Department of Out of Body Possibilities" with Tim. The one at the "Are the real psychics hidden from us?" thread with Maatorc. Take a look at those if you haven't. Look at how many pages are generated. Go through them. What do you see? The same basic question rephrased in a hundred million different combinations, and the subject "evading" it. It's a neverending loop. But perhaps he's not evading it. Perhaps it just escapes his vision of reality. You look at the posts and you get the feeling (at least I do) that it comes to a point where you can almost predict what the person is going to respond to the "question" (which to me is nothing but the "new variation of the old question"). You know that his mind operates in a framework that doesn't accept that other language: The language of proof and evidence.

I draw the same conclusion. But I am persevering because there is a hint that a couple of theists are managing to actually think about the question.

To some people, God can be real without having to prove him. In fact, having to prove them is already considered a misunderstanding of the essence of God. Some of these people do not claim that he exists, but that they have found them. They will tell you that if you want to see him, you have to find him yourself. And who knows? perhaps it's true. The important thing is that sometimes it really isn't necessary to postulate the question. Believing is something we all do at some point. We will always keep doing it. The true problem is finding the balance between free belief and dangerous superstition.

You are describing the version of god which cannot be tested for. The problem with this version of god is it looks absolutely nothing like the god of the Bible or the gods of most other religions. The god description you present here is what I am referring to as 'special treatment'. This one god belief is given a pass on any evidence, called faith based, and so on and so on. And I am not asking anyone to provide evidence for WHY their god description is valid. I may be asking them to explain why their version of god is not the same as the version of god in the Bible IF they recognize the two are different. If they feel their version doesn't contradict the Biblical version, then there is no need for them to explain.

I don't think it is hard to support the conclusion most Christians do not believe in the power of praying to golden calves, Ra the Sun God, Pe'le or Zeus. Yet in historical times, and currently for Pe'le, people held similar beliefs for those gods as Christians do today for the Christian gods. I'd like to know what makes some god beliefs only myths.

 

[Ladewig]

I think in the west we tend to view religion in a more static way, and thus want to be able to apply hard and fast labels to their components. In Hinduism it is seen more as an experiential journey from A to B. The polytheism is a helpful element of the journey for some people, as they constitutionally find it easier to concentrate on God presented in a particular form. It's recognised though, that these manifestations of God are not competing discrete identities, rather they're emanations from the same supreme being. So, monotheistic, yes, polytheistic, yes. The two are not mutually exclusive, in this context.

I have never heard this explanation before, but my understanding of the religion is rather limited. Can you recommend a book or website that describes this aspect in more detail?

 

[V23]

Unnecessary post. Sorry.

I just nominated your post . . .

 

[Dunstan]

I believe that one's beliefs should work for you, in other words, they should be pratical, easily understood, and not so disregarded by a skeptical mind. Panthesim is one such beliefs. Anyone who dives deep into how the universe works has to eventually admit the universe does occasionally betray at least the illusion of intelligence. And I have yet to ever hear a skeptic claim that science has overwellming evidence that it isn't true.

Thanks for the answer.

One quick follow-up: what do you mean by belief being "practical"?

 

[V23]

Thanks for the answer.

One quick follow-up: what do you mean by belief being "practical"?

Easily understood by a 5th grader, and with a complete lack of being elaborate.

And finally, pratical meaning that they give you nondifficult philosophical points to ponder, and not more circular arguments to strip mine, (or mind), your brain of your personality.

 

[V23]

some faiths have a tendency to do that in my opinion . . .