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

[Lithrael]

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

Don't be silly. He's suggesting there are things that are true because of how they feel and not because they are arrived at empirically. Or something like that, anyway.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

You must have been looking at different religions to the ones that I've seen. Equality between men and women doesn't play a big part in their basic texts.

Of course, many (not all) do now support equality, despite their foundations. It's almost as though the social background forced a change in the religious morality.

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.

Well, you certainly keep claiming this. I don't think I've actually seen an argument for it from you.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..........
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.

Of course you can argue that, but it is pretty meaningless without specifying which moral view you are alluding to.

Surely you are not talking about the moral view espoused in the Christian Old Testament ...

Oh, and what would prevent a secular materialist view from including morals ?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Of course you can argue that, but it is pretty meaningless without specifying which moral view you are alluding to.

Surely you are not talking about the moral view espoused in the Christian Old Testament ...

Oh, and what would prevent a secular materialist view from including morals ?

I think you mean the Jewish Old Testament - the Christian part happened in the New Testament. Just a minor detail though.

 

[skeptical]

I think you mean the Jewish Old Testament - the Christian part happened in the New Testament. Just a minor detail though.

Actually, I think the point was that the Jews do not call it the "old testament", only Christians or off-shoots of Christianity call it that. (or those raised in the Christian traditions, whether they follow Christianity or not)

It is, in fact, an insult to Jews to call their Bible "old", although I realize many people do not realize that.

I prefer the neutral terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Bible", although in many circles this strange, because many people would include the HB with the CB.

Ok, I'm done confusing the issue.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you mean the Jewish Old Testament - the Christian part happened in the New Testament. Just a minor detail though.

Well gosh ! Aren't we clever ...

There is no such thing as a " Jewish Old Testament " ...

What Bible do you use ?

All the Christian bibles I know of, contain both the old and new testaments, with varying amount of content ..

You seem to be confused about Christianity in general, making your choice of user name even more confusing...

Why don't you tell us how a never changing god, managed to change from the old testament to the new ?

A good Christian should really know a little more about the roots of their religion.. I wonder why so many atheists seem to know more about Christianity than a lot of Christians..

Edit: I see that skeptical cleared some of this up while I was composing..

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for clarifying the 911 CT matter.

My pleasure.

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

What is it with this band of alleged skeptics, and the obsession with the word "liar?"

Is there some secret initiation ceremony where one swears to spray it all over forums whenever two people disagree?

The evidence you have supplied with your jab about "do you believe in Pele" etc is a clear marker on the game at hand.

I have had enough. As I noted to volatile, my posts in this conversation have approached "zero value added," as we bicker back and forth over the same points, and bandwidth is better spent elsewhere.

No value in repitition.

DR

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Actually, I think the point was that the Jews do not call it the "old testament", only Christians or off-shoots of Christianity call it that. (or those raised in the Christian traditions, whether they follow Christianity or not)

It is, in fact, an insult to Jews to call their Bible "old", although I realize many people do not realize that.

I prefer the neutral terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Bible", although in many circles this strange, because many people would include the HB with the CB.

Ok, I'm done confusing the issue.

Yeah - I was going to say Jewish Bible or Hebrew Bible, but figured nah. I'd just never heard the Old Testament called the Christian Old Testament.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well gosh ! Aren't we clever ...

There is no such thing as a " Jewish Old Testament " ...

What Bible do you use ?

All the Christian bibles I know of, contain both the old and new testaments, with varying amount of content ..

You seem to be confused about Christianity in general, making your choice of user name even more confusing...

Why don't you tell us how a never changing god, managed to change from the old testament to the new ?

A good Christian should really know a little more about the roots of their religion.. I wonder why so many atheists seem to know more about Christianity than a lot of Christians..

Edit: I see that skeptical cleared some of this up while I was composing..

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ladewig]

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?

I agree with you in that my lack of belief in God is provisional and given enough evidence, I would change it. However, I have been thinking about your asking the theists in this thread what evidence would make them change their mind. The question must sound as foreign to some of them as if you asked me "what evidence would it take for you to stop believing that you are male." Every day, when I get dressed I see evidence of that proposition. Every medical professional I have seen has confirmed my belief. Every lover has confirmed my belief. Every anatomy book and website has confirmed my belief. The idea that I might be asked for what evidence would make me disbelieve something at my very core is so foreign to my understanding, that I probably might never be able to verbalize or even imagine what would make me reject that proposition.

Even if I am wrong about the above interpretation, I still am having a hard time seeing it as a two-way street. I know what evidence would make the average non-believer accept a belief in leprechauns, but how does one marshal evidence to make a leprechaun-believer change his viewpoint?

 

[Ladewig]

Really? So at least 30,000 people, including many skeptics, witness something unexplainable that had been predicted to happen beforehand by a vision of Mary, passed on by 3 peasant children. And that isn't verifiable evidence?
How is it not?
If thousands of people seeing the Sun jump about in the sky, approaching the Earth in a zigzag fashion, and dry their soaking clothes and the ground within an inexplicably short time... and for those people all to have gathered in a field to witness it at a particular predicted day and time ... isn't enough evidence for you, what conceivably would be?
Answer: nothing.

There are lots of things that would qualify as evidence to me. If I saw someone say to a tree "be uprooted and cast into the sea" and the tree flew into the ocean, then I would most assuredly ask that person how to worship his God. If I saw someone raise a person from the dead, I would worship in that person's church. I'd even accept someone turning water into wine in front of reliable and knowledgeable witnesses.

My unwillingness to accept reports from 1917 Portugal as evidence strong enough to completely change my world-view is not evidence on my close-mindedness.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree with you in that my lack of belief in God is provisional and given enough evidence, I would change it. However, I have been thinking about your asking the theists in this thread what evidence would make them change their mind. The question must sound as foreign to some of them as if you asked me "what evidence would it take for you to stop believing that you are male." Every day, when I get dressed I see evidence of that proposition. Every medical professional I have seen has confirmed my belief. Every lover has confirmed my belief. Every anatomy book and website has confirmed my belief. The idea that I might be asked for what evidence would make me disbelieve something at my very core is so foreign to my understanding, that I probably might never be able to verbalize or even imagine what would make me reject that proposition.

Even if I am wrong about the above interpretation, I still am having a hard time seeing it as a two-way street. I know what evidence would make the average non-believer accept a belief in leprechauns, but how does one marshal evidence to make a leprechaun-believer change his viewpoint?

What?

Look, I can see my fruit and veg. I can't see god. Now we're entertaining comparisons between God and obvious external genitals?

 

[Ladewig]

What?

Look, I can see my fruit and veg. I can't see god. Now we're entertaining comparisons between God and obvious external genitals?

I wasn't saying that the two conclusions are equally valid. I was trying to point out that many theists are so wrapped up in their belief that they cannot imagine not believing.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I wasn't saying that the two conclusions are equally valid. I was trying to point out that many theists are so wrapped up in their belief that they cannot imagine not believing.

Ah. I misunderstood you.

 

[Beth]

I know what evidence would make the average non-believer accept a belief in leprechauns, but how does one marshal evidence to make a leprechaun-believer change his viewpoint?

I don't know. I heard a number of people remark that if they were to see and/or speak with a leprechaun, they wouldn't believe in leprechauns. Instead they would believe they were hallucinating.

On the other hand, other posters here are former believers in such things who reconsidered their beliefs as a result and are now skeptics.

However, I do think your point about many theists is correct. They could no more consider disbelieving in god than you could consider disbelieving you are male.

 

[Herzblut]

However, I do think your point about many theists is correct. They could no more consider disbelieving in god than you could consider disbelieving you are male.

I don't know if that comparison is striking.

What about asking a mother to stop loving her own child more than other children. That's just weird child believe. Is there evidence her child belief is true while other child beliefs are false?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Actually, there are at least some common ground rules about skeptical or critical thinking. And I'm not sure ImaginalDisc was judging Christian by a single encounter. And people do generally judge others to some extent whether they post those conclusions or not.

More specifically than that I really have no comment, but wanted to share those observations/opinions.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't know if that comparison is striking.

What about asking a mother to stop loving her own child more than other children. That's just weird child believe. Is there evidence her child belief is true while other child beliefs are false?

There is evidence that children exist. For god? Not so much.

 

[Herzblut]

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.

Then why are women more religious than men?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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.

Right. You seem to have missed the 12 pages that followed the OP.

But then, why should I expect you or DR to actually discuss the issues in any thread when you both have a personal dislike of me for unrelated discussions in other threads? DR doesn't like my politics and you don't like my professional medical opinion on vaccinations.

That makes your opinion here uninteresting.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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.

This thread is a spin off from that thread and from the two threads which ask theists to provide evidence disproving gods.

Claus is off in his own world so I'm certainly not going to entertain his narrow view here that all one has to do is claim to believe sans evidence and that makes it so. He doesn't want to consider what went into forming the belief. I think how one arrived at one's god beliefs is part of the picture. Either way, Claus has merely made up his own rule for 'special' treatment of god beliefs. It really doesn't differ from the special 'faith based' or 'inner feeling' rules that theists and some atheists apply in order to allow 'special' treatment of some god beliefs the same skeptic (atheist or theist) doesn't grant all god beliefs.

As to the god that cannot be tested for by the scientific process vs the gods that people actually believe in, I have discussed that here and it is one of the key problems I am addressing in this thread. In order to have 'special' god beliefs which one segregates from the rest of their skeptical world, one has to define god as being something which the scientific process is not appropriate to test. That is your falsifiable question.

Instead of getting into the side track of the semantics of falsifiability I think it's simpler to just describe the god one cannot test for. That would be the god which is undetectable. If you claim your god answers prayers, that would be detectable. If you claim your god punishes homosexuals by moving hurricanes into their city, that would also be detectable. So the only undetectable god is one that doesn't interact with the Universe (or one that covers its tracks but no religion describes such a god).

This is all the other side of the problem I am asking about in the OP. One defines a god which cannot be tested, then believes in a god which should be detectable. When the skeptic who should be following the evidence is presented with the cognitive dissonance of a belief which the evidence does not support, 'special' rules are applied to the belief. One of those special rules is to define god as simply being undetectable by the scientific process. No more thinking about the matter is needed.

But when I look a little closer at those special rules, I see two definitions of gods. One is the definition of a god which science cannot test for. And the other is the actual definition of the gods people believe exist.

I thought it might be worthwhile to ask theists how they decided a god belief could be discredited. Clearly they don't consider Zeus or Ra or Pe'le as gods which cannot be tested for. When you look at the evidence you would conclude those gods were part of cultural myths. Those gods are on par with invisible pink unicorns in backyards. We might say they are all beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry, but that is a philosophical position. No one really believes they exist. Whereas the gods given 'special' rules are believed by theists to exist. Some atheists allow those 'special' rules either to not be confrontational, or quite often, without thinking further about the fact 2 different definitions for gods are being used.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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.

That is plumjam's position. To have that position you have to totally distort the world's religions in order to make those religions represent a belief in the same god. I think that's a stretch very few theologians would agree is possible. It's wishful thinking.