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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Belief in gods also depends on the proximity of the religions you are then exposed to because of where you were born or live or the culture surrounding you. That seems to me to be evidence the god belief components of that religious experience are arbitrary. Maybe the religion needs certain elements in order for you to fall in love with it and maintain the relationship, but the god beliefs themselves do not come from real gods existing in the Universe. If they did, then where you were born would not matter. When you had that inner experience, it shouldn't depend on the religion you are exposed to, yet it is.

Wow. So a religion can only be genuine if it has never been communicated to any human beings anywhere, ever.
Scientists only exist because they have been exposed, through their culture - the people around them - to modes of thought which advocate investigating things using the scientific method.
Does that mean that science is invalid?

Such an odd interpretation of my post. I can see where the confusion came in though.

"Belief in gods also depends on the proximity of the religions..." I should have said, "The specific god you choose to believe in depends...."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

My position is provisional; all that has to be done to change my mind is to be provided with evidence. If there was convincing evidence that any religion at all were true, I would believe in it, because I am a skeptic. What would it take to change your mind?

 

[Lithrael]

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

FFS. What's so awful about that? When you're talking to people that are standing at zero that does tend to be the best way to get understanding started. We do understand you go on to add layers to the basics.

I for one appreciate a basic synopsis. Thank you for yours. But I wish you didn't follow it up like that.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

My position is provisional; all that has to be done to change my mind is to be provided with evidence. If there was convincing evidence that any religion at all were true, I would believe in it, because I am a skeptic. What would it take to change your mind?

Into unbelief? I don't think anything at this point.I was curious if my other threads would give me some interesting insight into that. I'm now convinvced that if I abandoned every single belief and ignored every reason I have them I'd be a Diest.

Into another religion? I suppose if they had a God that was bigger than mine is already I might be interested in learning more. I don't want to bother with any idea of God that's less.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This is a rationalisation too.


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

Either there was no link or I missed it. The only links I saw went to Bernadette pages. I went with the Sun moving cue and that fits both events. As far as skeptics not accepting evidence, the evidence you speak of is not evidence of what you conclude.

You ignored what I said which applies equally well to Fatima. There are no artificial limbs at Our Lady of Fatima either. If the Sun moved, it would have been visible to half the planet, not just the people at the site of the supposed miracle.

So which is it

• the Sun moved and Mary made everyone except those at the grotto NOT see it?
• the Sun didn't move and Mary (according to believers) made everyone at the grotto hallucinate that it did move?

These things have happened time after time. And they all turn out to be people thinking they are seeing something they are not seeing. Fraud or just going along with the crowd, take your pick. But the reason skeptics don't accept these events as evidence IS BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO ANOTHER EXPLANATION THAN THE MIRACLE EXPLANATION.

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

It rather contradicts the incorruptible claim wouldn't you say?

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.

So how do you show the bodies are incorruptible?

...I'm not letting you hijack this thread so if you want to discuss the validity of miracles, start another or dredge up an older version. I'll be happy to participate there.

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.

I can't help you in 25 words or less what the difference is between "good" and bad evidence. Nor can I convince you that skeptics would love to find valid evidence of miracles. It would make the Universe even more exciting than it already is. This all belongs in another thread, thank you.

 

[V23]

I don't get what you mean . . .lithrael . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Patently false.

There are many factors which go into adoption of religious beliefs. The fact that the community you are born into has the strongest influence and it offers the most predictability for which religion you will adopt makes the case that geography has a substantial impact on choice of religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.)

His crew is making dinner, I'm bringing Mom and the cookies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fair.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.



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

Here you go again with your wishful version of Fatima events. I'm only going to address this briefly then move on. The prediction of a miracle was completely non-specific. There was no prediction the Sun would move.

See my comments above about the fact the Sun did not move. You think the hallucinations were caused by Mary, I think they were a natural human behavior which has been documented many times and not ascribed to miracles. Google mass hysteria and see for yourself.

But if you want real 'proof' the Fatima event was woo, take a look at the 3 secrets, including the last one which was eventually released by the Vatican.

Pretty far off base as far as predictions go. Pretty much what you would expect for a made up prediction in 1917.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

So that rules out the Bible then, eh?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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

I am asking for an alternative to that conclusion, if there is one. Sorry if the way I stated it confused you.

And if gods were real, why would the 'true' religion with the 'true' god belief not be available? That's the whole point of asking what 'the fact people adopt the religion in their proximity' is evidence of or not evidence of. Seems to me and to more than a few others this fact is evidence god beliefs are based on human constructions rather than on real gods interacting with people's inner selves. Why would an omniscient god not be available to everyone's inner selves equally around the globe?

Back to your OP:

Still awaiting your answer to that.

That question is not relevant to the OP and I do believe I answered it more than once. I have no interest in and therefore no opinion on whether or not you should care about disproving other people's religions. I am only asking you to comment on the gods you believe in and the gods you do not believe in. The fact you are still skirting that question is consistent with other theists in the thread who can't quite see the issue either.

I tend to agree.
DR

So your criticism of me specifically was unfounded.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Into unbelief? I don't think anything at this point.I was curious if my other threads would give me some interesting insight into that. I'm now convinvced that if I abandoned every single belief and ignored every reason I have them I'd be a Diest.

Into another religion? I suppose if they had a God that was bigger than mine is already I might be interested in learning more. I don't want to bother with any idea of God that's less.

So, while I admit that only evidence would be required to make a theist of me, you claim that nothing could make you an atheist?

You are arrogant.

 

[V23]

So that rules out the Bible then, eh?

most of it anyway . . .

I always thought the parts about lying, stealing, adultry, amd murder to be pretty straightfoward . . .

And the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated I think is pretty self explainatory as well. . .one that even some atheists might wish to adopt . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl: Do 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.

...DR

Why are you posting in this thread, DR? No one is asking you to disprove anything to anyone. I am asking theists to talk about their own god beliefs and their own god disbeliefs. If you are not interested in the discussion, go away.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So, while I admit that only evidence would be required to make a theist of me, you claim that nothing could make you an atheist?

If by Athiest you mean "I know there is no God" or "I will believe there is no God" then the answer is yes - so far I don't think there is anything that would bring me to that point. Maybe you can elaborate a bit for me on what you mean by Athiest.

You are arrogant.

Now, now, ImaginaryDisc. Let's not be so judgemental.

 

[V23]

Nope.


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?


I think schlitt gets it.

DR

Ya know. . . come to think of it, that is the exact same position I had and skepticgirl attacked me too . . . Darth might be right . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ....

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

Thank you for clarifying the 911 CT matter.

How does saying you do not believe a person (in this case my motive, not my facts) differ from calling them a liar?

And I didn't make the assumption you claim. You are making it, continuing to repeat a question the OP doesn't ask. And if my question wasn't clear in the OP, I have certainly repeated the clarification enough times now that you have no excuse for this continued false attribution to my posts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Actual empirical evidence would be nice, but I made a point of saying give us whatever your own reasoning is for believing in certain gods and not believing in other gods. I tried to be careful how I worded it since there is so much confusion here with people thinking I am asking them for the usual 'faith not science' explanations of why they believe in the first place.

I did say I doubted a good case could be made using "inner feelings" and "faith" as the reason for accepting one god belief over another. It tends to become nothing more than circular reasoning. But I am more than willing to consider whatever the theist describes and go from there in a discussion about it.

 

[V23]

Thank you for clarifying the 911 CT matter.

How does saying you do not believe a person (in this case my motive, not my facts) differ from calling them a liar?

And I didn't make the assumption you claim. You are making it, continuing to repeat a question the OP doesn't ask. And if my question wasn't clear in the OP, I have certainly repeated the clarification enough times now that you have no excuse for this continued false attribution to my posts.

now I am convinced . . . thanks Darth

 

[arthwollipot]

How does saying you do not believe a person (in this case my motive, not my facts) differ from calling them a liar?

If I believe a person to be honestly mistaken, then I would not call them a liar.