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

[Darth Rotor]

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?

If it is gods, then you have to expect multiple religions. If it is only one . . .

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?

Who says it isn't? There is a school of thought that the varying beliefs are, rather than the human construction you note, and well discussed by Campbell among a host of others, each facets of the same thing, perceived differently. (I think the old model of blind men and an elephant can be applied.)

No need to derail in that direction, since you have already reached your conclusions on that score.

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.

Still with the embedded assummption.

How is indifference disbelief? The way you phrase it strikes me as requiring an active operation.

So your criticism of me specifically was unfounded.

You? Your OP was plain to see, as was the game being played.

You are still a good person. That hasn't changed.

DR

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

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

Well - actually - more that is was simultaneously one of the funniest things someones posted on here, yet one of the most profound. You should be proud.

 

[plumjam]

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.

You keep banging on about 'evidence'.
Please follow closely.

Evidence is a form of experience.

Some forms of experience are intersubjective, (observable via the senses by other consciousnesses) e.g. a group observing someone sit on a chair.

Some forms of experience are NOT intersubjective, e.g. you experiencing memories, emotions, thoughts, sensations... and consciousness itself.

Spirituality is a development of consciousness.

Therefore, spirituality, by definition will not be intersubjectively observable by others.
It will only be observable by the individual in which this development of consciousness is taking place.

Therefore, to keep demanding intersubjective 'evidence' is not only illogical, it also keeps the demander rooted to his own spot, without the possibility of progress, until such time that he/she tires of the existential dead-end they've been stuck in all that time.

Ultimately then, you just have to take the leap and try it out, test it in your own experience.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why are you sceptical of faith healers?

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

Why are you sceptical of them, Volatile? I'm sure we both have different reasons. I'm sceptical of them because 1) it's not required that I believe in them in the first place, 2) from what I can tell they are preying on my fellow believers which is a concern to me, 3) many of them have already been proven as frauds. (Look up Peter Popoff. Thank you Randi - if you're reading this.)

Let me be clear: I do believe healing is possible, but I don't have to believe everyone who comes along saying they can heal people.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You keep banging on about 'evidence'.
Please follow closely.

Evidence is a form of experience.

Some forms of experience are intersubjective, (observable via the senses by other consciousnesses) e.g. a group observing someone sit on a chair.

Some forms of experience are NOT intersubjective, e.g. you experiencing memories, emotions, thoughts, sensations... and consciousness itself.

Spirituality is a development of consciousness.

Therefore, spirituality, by definition will not be intersubjectively observable by others.
It will only be observable by the individual in which this development of consciousness is taking place.

Therefore, to keep demanding intersubjective 'evidence' is not only illogical, it also keeps the demander rooted to his own spot, without the possibility of progress, until such time that he/she tires of the existential dead-end they've been stuck in all that time.

Ultimately then, you just have to take the leap and try it out, test it in your own experience.

No. Evidence is independent of my person. If I say the moon orbits the Earth, others can independntly verify it. If I say God exists and he spoke to me, there is no evidence to be had. You are presently reading my writing, which is in evidence and is there for anyone else to read. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that your beliefs are true? No. You instead argue that evidence is invalid. To accept your reasoning is to become unable to distinguish fact from fancy. How can you tell if something is not ture, plumjam?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

On what grounds do you claim to be skeptical, precisely?

Terra Firma

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.

What does the color of God's beard have to do with him existing? Maybe he shaved it or maybe it's actually brown. On what grounds should I believe it's white? Furthermore, why should I even care?

You are an interesting person MarginalDisc with some interesting ideas. Somehow I'm oddly compelled to continue discussing this with you.

 

[plumjam]

No. Evidence is independent of my person. If I say the moon orbits the Earth, others can independntly verify it. If I say God exists and he spoke to me, there is no evidence to be had. You are presently reading my writing, which is in evidence and is there for anyone else to read. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that your beliefs are true? No. You instead argue that evidence is invalid. To accept your reasoning is to become unable to distinguish fact from fancy. How can you tell if something is not ture, plumjam?

Gonna be stuck where you are a long time.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Terra Firma



What does the color of God's beard have to do with him existing? Maybe he shaved it or maybe it's actually brown. On what grounds should I believe it's white? Furthermore, why should I even care?

You are an interesting person MarginalDisc with some interesting ideas. Somehow I'm oddly compelled to continue discussing this with you.

It's ImaginalDisc. I did not make the word up. If you won't grow up and discuss this subject critically, at least pretend to have some dignity.

This an example of skeptical reasoning on your part, kudos:

1) it's not required that I believe in them in the first place, 2) from what I can tell they are preying on my fellow believers which is a concern to me, 3) many of them have already been proven as frauds. (Look up Peter Popoff. Thank you Randi - if you're reading this.)

But claiming with abolute certainty that god does not have a white beard while also claiming he exists begs credibility. Why are you so certain? What evidence do you have? Given that you have spent ten pages dancing around in circles like a march hare, I can only assume that you have none and enjoy pretending that you arrived at your faith by reason.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Gonna be stuck where you are a long time.

Evidence based inquiry makes progress, it is religion that does not. Evidence based reasoning has allowed us the smash the atom, visit the moon, cure disease, and it has provided you with the means to have this discussion with me right now over the internet.

I think Tim Kreider of The Pain said it best:

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

But claiming with abolute certainty that god does not have a white beard while also claiming he exists begs credibility. Why are you so certain?

I'm not certain at all what color beard he has. I personally don't think he has a form in anyway we can fully comprehend. I've seen lots of Athiests here insisting he has a white beard and I tell you, I'm sceptical about that. In fact, I'm going to start a thread about it so I can consider everyones reasons why and maybe come to a decision on this.

What evidence do you have? Given that you have spent ten pages dancing around in circles like a march hare, I can only assume that you have none and enjoy pretending that you arrived at your faith by reason.

I can tell you what's not reason enough to for me to stop believing - no scientific evidence one way or another on whether he's even there.

I think many sceptics here think that coming to a different conclusion then them is somehow wrong.

 

[plumjam]

Evidence based inquiry makes progress, it is religion that does not. Evidence based reasoning has allowed us the smash the atom, visit the moon, cure disease, and it has provided you with the means to have this discussion with me right now over the internet.

There is external progress and internal progress. Science and technology are wonderful tools for external progress. Spiritual practice is a wonderful tool for internal progress.

Science and technology will not help one iota in making a man more loving and less selfish. Spiritual practice will.
That's one of the differences, among many.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There is external progress and internal progress. Science and technology are wonderful tools for external progress. Spiritual practice is a wonderful tool for internal progress.

Science and technology will not help one iota in making a man more loving and less selfish. Spiritual practice will.
That's one of the differences, among many.

That's odd. When contrast against ancient societies, modern society involves less violence, less genocide, less infanticide, less harsdship, and higher standards of living on average. There is more mercy in a single grain of Norman Borlaug's enhanced wheat than in all the cathedrals in all the world. Praying and pious mummerings are a very socially acceptable way of doing nothing productive. It is science that has given us the ability to alleviate suffering and want, not religion.

 

[plumjam]

That's odd. When contrast against ancient societies, modern society involves less violence, less genocide, less infanticide, less harsdship, and higher standards of living on average. There is more mercy in a single grain of Norman Borlaug's enhanced wheat than in all the cathedrals in all the world. Praying and pious mummerings are a very socially acceptable way of doing nothing productive. It is science that has given us the ability to alleviate suffering and want, not religion.

Wow. Who was your history teacher? Emo Philips?
The largely secular materialistic 20th Century was the most violent genocidal century we've ever had.
Science has brought a lot of good technological improvements to life, it's true. It also developed Zyklon B and ICBMs.
Without the wisdom and compassion to employ technology morally, we're in no better a position.

I did admire your sentence about the grain of wheat though.. lol

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow. Who was your history teacher? Emo Philips?
The largely secular materialistic 20th Century was the most violent genocidal century we've ever had.
Science has brought a lot of good technological improvements to life, it's true. It also developed Zyklon B and ICBMs.
Without the wisdom and compassion to employ technology morally, we're in no better a position.

I did admire your sentence about the grain of wheat though.. lol

I think you've conviently forgotten that while genocides did happen in the twentieth century, the ancient Romans would have marveled at the restraint with which we treated prisoners of war and the defeated nations. They would have been aghast that the sons and daughters of freedmen would have the gall to ask for equal rights, and that we would have acknowledged them to have such right. They would have been chilled to their bones to see the rights we recnogize women as having. I would venture to say all this social progress has come about because we have an abundance of things to fulfill our needs, but at the very least, the moving of our moral zeitgeist is not because of religion, but in spite of it. At every juncutre I mentioned, the religious establishment argued against social progress. If you are going to argue that religion promotes morality, and science is responsible for the genocides of the 20th century, how do you reconile that with the Catholic Church's infatuation with fascism and their refusal to alow people to use condoms?

The greatest opponents to gay rights, stem cell research, and contraception cite religious reasons. Obviously, religion is an obstacle to morality, not a cause of it.

 

[plumjam]

I think you've conviently forgotten that while genocides did happen in the twentieth century, the ancient Romans would have marveled at the restraint with which we treated prisoners of war and the defeated nations.

The Romans probably would have marveled even more, for other reasons, at the Eastern Front.

They would have been aghast that the sons and daughters of freedmen would have the gall to ask for equal rights, and that we would have acknowledged them to have such right.

If we're talking slavery and equal rights think William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, for example.. all people whose lives work was inspired by a spiritual view of their fellow man.

They would have been chilled to their bones to see the rights we recnogize women as having.

thanks to the suffragettes and early feminists, many of whom were inspired by an interpretation of religion in which God saw men and women as equal.
Equality among humans cannot be supported by the kind of evidence that you normally require. All the evidence points to humans differing significantly in their aptitudes, talents etc..
In a completely evidence-based world view we'd be compelled to treat some people as 'more equal than others'. The fact that we don't (or try not to) is basically spiritual.. we believe in a commonality of identity, which cannot be supported by science or social science.. only by a religious view of reality.
The fact that you advocate this view means that you're taking a spiritual stance on life, perhaps without realising it.

I would venture to say all this social progress has come about because we have an abundance of things to fulfill our needs, butg at the very least, the moving of our moral zeitgeist is not because of religion, but in spite of it.

See above.

At every juncutre I mentioned, the religious establishment argued against social progress.

Not quite accurate, but some truth in it. You can't expect establishment organisations to be rooting for change.

If you are going to argue that religion promotes morality, and science is responsible for the genocides of the 20th century

I didn't say that.

how do you reconile that with the Catholic Church's infatuation with fascism and their refusal to alow people to use condoms?

better to ask your bishop on that one

The greatest opponents to gay rights, stem cell research, and contraception cite religious reasons.

people can use 'religion' for bad ends as well as good, just as they can with science.. that's no surprise.

Obviously, religion is an obstacle to morality, not a cause of it.

On the whole I'd argue a religious view of life is more logically consistent with a moral view of life, than is a secular materialist view of life.

 

[pchams]

The religionists on this board are pathetic.
Dodge, weave, knock the net off the posts.
Anything to deflect analysing their own pet theories.
Religion deserves no special pleading, and those that shy from investigating
their own special beliefs shouldn't consider themselves rationalists.
You might as well be Sylvia Browne. I mean, she just suspends belief in her one little way right?

 

[skeptifem]

thanks to the suffragettes and early feminists, many of whom were inspired by an interpretation of religion in which God saw men and women as equal.

oh friggin please. I am NOT buying it at all. anyone who interprets the bible that way must have some major reading comprehension problem.

religion has been used as a reason to opress women for a very long time and it STILL IS used for that purpose. how you can claim religion is part of why women have rights in this country makes no sense to me at all.

the rest of your post is painful, srsly. think moar.

 

[plumjam]

oh friggin please. I am NOT buying it at all. anyone who interprets the bible that way must have some major reading comprehension problem.

religion has been used as a reason to opress women for a very long time and it STILL IS used for that purpose. how you can claim religion is part of why women have rights in this country makes no sense to me at all.

the rest of your post is painful, srsly. think moar.

How can the belief that all humans deserve equal rights be justified?

 

[blobru]

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

I can't not study it. Too incredible. Who needs aliens from other worlds when we have religion and each other.

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.

World-view's a lousy predictor of behavior, and day-to-day almost never comes up. Traits I can't stand, like prejudice and fanaticism, out themselves soon enough, and me soon after.

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.

For me as an atheist, the spiritual and the physical fit perfectly. It's the emotional and physical that clash; but if they didn't, I suppose there would be no spiritual.
Ego is a problem, given the power we have to say really dumb things and then believe them.

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

I hope everyone takes it in fun. Yet I'm reminded of the mad monk in Name of the Rose, who hoards Aristotle's book on humor for fear religion will be laughed out of existence. Then again, he was nuts; and make-believe. Real, real religious people do tend to smile and laugh. All the time.

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

Do I? Normally, no (it's impolite to pry). But in an online forum dedicated to religion and philosophy, yes (seems impolitic not to pry). Besides, atheists, what else have we got to do... compare voids?

 

[jond]

How can the belief that all humans deserve equal rights be justified?

Are you suggesting that all humans DO NOT deserve equal rights? Really???