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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually - that was Plumjam who posted those I think. Not me.

Sorry, my sincere apologies. I was trying to keep both your posts straight.

Please describe to me what the process for a sceptic applying their own beliefs to the scrutiny you are talking about. I am really not understanding what you are wondering.

The mistake also makes the second part not relevant.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well - it wasn't a non-sequitor for me. Sorry it is for you.

Logic isn't personal. God does not follow from the complexity of life.

On a lifetime of very personal experiences and thoughts that led to that point that I won't be sharing with you. Sorry.

Then you are not a skeptic.

To many to list. And according to you I'm wrong on one of them: ie: Question: Are other peoples souls / fates my burden to bear? Answer - Your soul is your burden - not mine.

A rather selfish attitude for an alleged Christian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, I got to the end. For now.

 

[qwert]

On a lifetime of very personal experiences and thoughts that led to that point that I won't be sharing with you. Sorry.

Then you are not a skeptic.

Oh, cool! I've been looking for you! You're the guy who gets to decide who is and who is not a skeptic!!!

Wow, I thought you'd be wayyyyy to busy to come on here and make some totally illogical postings about who is and isn't a skeptic based on whether they choose to share personal experiences and thoughts with you. How do you decide anyways? Coin toss?

Seriously, Christian Skeptic decides not to share some personal experiences with you and based on that you decide he's not a skeptic? There seems to be a few points of logic missing here.

I don't mean to offend CS, but maybe a big booming voice lead him up a mountain where a burning bush had a conversation about a few rules people should follow...that sort of thing. I can think of all sorts of personal experiences that would make me a devout theist.

Problem is...haven't had any of those experiences. If CS has, that's hardly the reason to bash the guy.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh, cool! I've been looking for you! You're the guy who gets to decide who is and who is not a skeptic!!!

Wow, I thought you'd be wayyyyy to busy to come on here and make some totally illogical postings about who is and isn't a skeptic based on whether they choose to share personal experiences and thoughts with you. How do you decide anyways? Coin toss?

Seriously, Christian Skeptic decides not to share some personal experiences with you and based on that you decide he's not a skeptic? There seems to be a few points of logic missing here.

I don't mean to offend CS, but maybe a big booming voice lead him up a mountain where a burning bush had a conversation about a few rules people should follow...that sort of thing. I can think of all sorts of personal experiences that would make me a devout theist.

Problem is...haven't had any of those experiences. If CS has, that's hardly the reason to bash the guy.

He has no evidence for his religious beliefs. It's not that he has some and isn't sharing it, because no one has ever found the slightest iota of evidence that any religion is true. I will happily change my mind if presented with evidence. Why CS chooses to remain mysterious, I neither know nor do I particularly care. Christian Sceptic is engaging in a thought process which has nothing to do with skepticism, ergo, he is not a skeptic.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Whow, this tread is going fast! I would just like to compliment epeos75 for some terrific posts (#:s 413 & 419). Nicely put! Thanks!

 

[arthwollipot]

He has no evidence for his religious beliefs. It's not that he has some and isn't sharing it, because no one has ever found the slightest iota of evidence that any religion is true. I will happily change my mind if presented with evidence. Why CS chooses to remain mysterious, I neither know nor do I particularly care. Christian Sceptic is engaging in a thought process which has nothing to do with skepticism, ergo, he is not a skeptic.

Except that as has been pointed out, a christian skeptic (as opposed to Christian Skeptic, the poster) can be skeptical about a wide range of subjects. The only difference is that they are not skeptical about their own religious beliefs.

Can one be called a skeptic if one practices skepticism in all arenas except one? I feel that there is justification for the answer to be "yes".

 

[Belz...]

most of it anyway . . .

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

Except when it's condoned.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not too good for evidence. But I can't imagine any evidence swaying me into believing there is nothing else.

Precisely. Evidence is useless to you. You can't even imagine what kind of evidence would convince you. I have no problem imagining what evidence would convince me.

Your soul is your burden - not mine.

According to the "good" book, it is.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Except that as has been pointed out, a christian skeptic (as opposed to Christian Skeptic, the poster) can be skeptical about a wide range of subjects. The only difference is that they are not skeptical about their own religious beliefs.

Can one be called a skeptic if one practices skepticism in all arenas except one? I feel that there is justification for the answer to be "yes".

If any hypocrisy at all invalidated one's standing as a skeptic, stoic, humanist, or adherent to any philosophy, none of us would be anything, I grant you. However, I have never seen Christian Sceptic engage in skepticism in any thread. So, while you're right in general, I think this specific person is just putting us on in an attempt to pretend to a skeptical philosophy in order to disarm us when he attempts to argue with us about religion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't mean to offend CS, but maybe a big booming voice lead him up a mountain where a burning bush had a conversation about a few rules people should follow...that sort of thing. I can think of all sorts of personal experiences that would make me a devout theist.

Problem is...haven't had any of those experiences. If CS has, that's hardly the reason to bash the guy.

Hey Zalbik,

thanks for posting. Sorry - I haven't had a "burning bush" experience. It sure would make things easier at times though.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

If any hypocrisy at all invalidated one's standing as a skeptic, stoic, humanist, or adherent to any philosophy, none of us would be anything, I grant you. However, I have never seen Christian Sceptic engage in skepticism in any thread. So, while you're right in general, I think this specific person is just putting us on in an attempt to pretend to a skeptical philosophy in order to disarm us when he attempts to argue with us about religion.

Well - I'm sceptical about Faith Healers. Does that count as being sceptical?
Does that count as being sceptical about my own religion? I'm sceptical about the Shroud of Turin. Does that count too? I'm sceptical God has a white beard.

Do none of those count or does the only thing that counts is being sceptical against his existence?

 

[volatile]

Are you quoting me in your sig out of pride, CS?

 

[volatile]

Well - I'm sceptical about Faith Healers. Does that count as being sceptical?
Does that count as being sceptical about my own religion? I'm sceptical about the Shroud of Turin. Does that count too? I'm sceptical God has a white beard.

Do none of those count or does the only thing that counts is being sceptical against his existence?

Why are you sceptical of faith healers?

PS: Remember - scepticism is a process, not a conclusion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well - I'm sceptical about Faith Healers. Does that count as being sceptical?
Does that count as being sceptical about my own religion? I'm sceptical about the Shroud of Turin. Does that count too? I'm sceptical God has a white beard.

Do none of those count or does the only thing that counts is being sceptical against his existence?

On what grounds do you claim to be skeptical, precisely? If a fundamentalist Muslim argued against Faith Healers by saying that miraculous healings are impossible for an infidel to perform, that would most certainly not constitute Skepticism. On what grounds do you doubt god has a white beard, yet still believe he exists? That's a doozy.

 

[Beth]

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 think you misunderstood that post. I took that way too, but read it again and realized that wasn't what was meant. The 'understandable to a 5th grader' part was a criteria for V23 not a slam against you.

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

In this particular case, that would mean DR can read my mind and knows my true motives and he thinks I don't know them.

A liar is someone who knowingly tells an untruth. Believing that someone's declared motives are different from their true motives doesn't imply you think they are lying. It's possible they are just not aware of their true motivations. Not an uncommon situation. People often presume they can tell someone's true (unconscious) motivations from their actions better than the individual knows themselves what their true motivations are. You've done that yourself on occasion.

Frankly, I found your OP to be phrased in a way that makes it easy for others to presume that it is a game or a trap for theists. I have conversed with you enough that I don't think that's actually the case, but plenty of others here are eager and willing to jump on any replies and play the "bash the believer" game for as long as believers are willing to respond to such queries. I can understand why they would not want to give personal details of what they believe and why. I wouldn't either.

There are, however, skeptic theists who treat their personal god beliefs quite differently than they treat their other beliefs. I was hoping to discuss what thought processes or evidence went into that dichotomy. But it seems for at least the theists commenting in the thread, they aren't even willing to acknowledge the fact they have 'special' god beliefs and regular god beliefs. People have gone to incredible lengths to avoid even saying that much, let alone actually discussing what it is they find different between the two god beliefs.

I recall that you recently had a long discussion with Larson on another thread about exactly what the different is between such god beliefs. One sort can be (and often has been) falsified. The other sort cannot be falsified. It seems a clear distinction to me. You can disagree that unfalsifable gods are worthy of belief, but that's another question.

Regardless of one's conviction of certainty, and regardless of one's degree of believing I'm OK/You're OK, the fact still remains that location of birth and circumstances of culture are highly predictive of which god belief a theist might come to adopt.
....
Is that fact evidence that god beliefs are not really coming from some inner feeling exerted by a real god?

It could be interpreted that way. But it could also be interpreted as evidence that if some god exists, he/she/it adapts his communication with them to their circumstances.

Oh, cool! I've been looking for you! You're the guy who gets to decide who is and who is not a skeptic!!!

Welcome to the forum Zalbik. Yes, ID is the resident self-appointed expert on who is a skeptic. Anyone who doesn't pass his personal criteria is banished to the realm of non-skeptics in his imaginary disc world. ; )

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Welcome to the forum Zalbik. Yes, ID is the resident self-appointed expert on who is a skeptic. Anyone who doesn't pass his personal criteria is banished to the realm of non-skeptics in his imaginary disc world. ; )

Oh yes. Excuse me for calling a spade a spade. When someone fails to use evidence based reasoning, it's perfectly valid to call them a skeptic anyhow. Words can be applied to anything. Freedom is a fish!

If someone claims to be a skeptic, it is not unreasonable to hold their feet to the fire when they espose an impossible belief without evidence.

 

[plumjam]

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?

Sure. A good place to start would be the life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna. He was a living embodiment of the explanation I gave.
The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is good, also Ramakrishna and his Disciples, by Christopher Isherwood.

As an illustration:

Taken from http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/a94.html

"Once a Brahmo devotee asked Sri Ramakrishna about the different opinions about the nature of God. He said, "Some say that God has form, while others say that He is formless. Again, those who speak of God with form tell us about different forms. Why all this controversy?"

And to explain, Sri Ramakrishna told a story. Once a man entered a wood and saw a chameleon on a tree. He returned and told his friends that he had seen a red chameleon there. The other person went and saw the same animal as green, the third as blue, and the fourth as yellow. All the four started quarreling amongst themselves, each one claiming that the chameleon was of the colour he had noticed. To settle the dispute they all went towards the tree. They saw a man sitting under it. On being asked he replied, "Yes, I live under this tree and I know the animal very well. All your descriptions are true. Sometimes it appears red, sometimes yellow, and at other times blue, violet, grey, and so forth. And sometimes it has no colour at all."

The Master said, "A devotee thinks of God as he sees Him. In reality there is no confusion about God. God explains all this to the devotee if the devotee only realizes Him somehow. You haven't set your foot in that direction. How can you expect to know all about God?"

The last two sentences might be helpful to those skeptics here who demand prior "evidence" before they're willing to start the journey.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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?

Since I started as an agnostic, what the hell are you talking about?

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The last two sentences might be helpful to those skeptics here who demand prior "evidence" before they're willing to start the journey.

On what evidence did Sri Ramakrishna build this conclusion, or is this parable merely circular reasoning used to diminish the validty of higher reasoning? It presupposes the existence of God, explains that beliefs about God are diverse, and then "proves" God's expsistence by citing that human perceptions are faulty. The conclusion is a premise. It's illogical.