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

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

The multiple god beliefs you speak of are in many cases mutually exclusive.

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.

Yes, I have reached a conclusion. And like any conclusion in science it is based on the evidence I have examined so far, which with religion is quite extensive. Should you like to present evidence to the contrary, feel free. I have also read some and heard some of Joseph Campbell's views. (I assume you are speaking of The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell. Correct me if I am wrong.) He does compare and contrast god beliefs across cultures. The themes which tie these god beliefs together support the man made construct hypothesis much more than the evidence supports the beliefs are manifestations of one god interacting with theists around the world.

Still with the embedded assummption.

Still with the reading your personal persecution into my posts.

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

Is the world revolving around you this week, Darth? You feel this thread is personally addressing YOU and YOUR beliefs? Any chance I might be asking theists to discuss their god beliefs and not asking YOU anything if that description does not apply?

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

You seem to be in the minority here in your interpretation. Do you expect me to go back in time and re-word the OP or shouldn't the 12+ pages following it perhaps have made things more clear to you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Plumjam, actually you are making a common mistake. The latter things you are describing are not evidence. You are describing conclusions. Conclusions an individual draws from evidence is not evidence.

So those inner "feelings" or whatever you call the experiences are the evidence. What you think they mean is not evidence.

 

[plumjam]

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.

Exactly.

To illustrate.. and aping the OP question:

Can anyone provide me 'evidence' to support their belief that black people deserve equal rights to those afforded to white people?

What is there, about any evidence you can offer, which empirically demonstrates that the beliefs of a white-supremacist, in this regard, are false?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Gosh, I can't help commenting here even though it is OT. Can you really say spiritualism has made progress?

Current military conflicts around the world.

Granted, progress in technology has allowed people to kill and maim each other more efficiently, but science can boast a whole lot more than just weapons technology. I can't say I see any particular contribution to the world from religion besides some pretty decent music and art.

 

[plumjam]

Plumjam, actually you are making a common mistake. The latter things you are describing are not evidence. You are describing conclusions. Conclusions an individual draws from evidence is not evidence.

So those inner "feelings" or whatever you call the experiences are the evidence. What you think they mean is not evidence.

So what?
The same is true of science. Scientists gather evidence; and I'm not aware of any scientists who don't attempt to derive some conclusions from that evidence.
Otherwise the whole exercise would be pretty pointless.. both science and spiritual practice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
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......

Gosh, as woman, I cannot let this go unaddressed. You've really topped yourself here, pj. Religions around the world are one of the biggest obstacles to equal rights and treatment of women ever. Your statement here is insulting.

Where do you get such a fantasy from?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Well, genetically and culturally, we evolved as a species which benefited from cooperation. Cooperation works well when all the members of the group have equal standing. Beyond that, there is a lot to discuss but it's OT. Take it to another thread, thank you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Well, pj can speak for himself, but I read into that the usual, yawn, morals come from fear of god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

There is the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and to my knowledge they all have different versions of the Old Testament. So perhaps you could say Christian Old Testament was redundant since the three use different names for their texts, but the Christians did not throw out the Old Testament when they formed their religion.

 

[plumjam]

Gosh, I can't help commenting here even though it is OT. Can you really say spiritualism has made progress?

Current military conflicts around the world.

Granted, progress in technology has allowed people to kill and maim each other more efficiently, but science can boast a whole lot more than just weapons technology. I can't say I see any particular contribution to the world from religion besides some pretty decent music and art.

(it isn't spiritualism)
It isn't so much a matter of a spiritual view of life 'making progress', it's more a matter of the spiritual view of life supporting and maintaining a situation where people of all kinds are treated fairly and compassionately.

You might not notice that it's there until you see what happens when powerful and concerted attempts are made to try to remove this spiritual view of life from society.
Then you get the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao's China.. and yes, folks, Hitler's Germany (in which attempts were made to classify the value of a person on empirical grounds, such as eye colour, shape of head, genetic heritage etc etc..
On a scientific level, removing the spiritual view of life resulted in things like eugenics.

Fortunately though, in spite of those advocating materialism, it remains the default position of the great majority of humanity, at any one time, that man is a spiritual being, and should be viewed that way.

 

[plumjam]

Gosh, as woman, I cannot let this go unaddressed. You've really topped yourself here, pj. Religions around the world are one of the biggest obstacles to equal rights and treatment of women ever. Your statement here is insulting.

Where do you get such a fantasy from?

Surprise surprise, the approaches to social organisation advocated by some male-dominated religious organisations has no strong basis in a spiritual view of life.
Can you cite any genuine spiritual personalities who have argued the inherent inferiority of women?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My pleasure.
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

You have it backward, DR. Calling people liars when they are simply wrong is a problem. And I have spoken up many times in this forum criticizing the use of the terms dishonest and liar when applied to disagreements of fact or conclusions from evidence.

But here you have said very clearly you think I have some ulterior motive I am purposefully not disclosing it. Purposeful and not believable are the components of lying.

And I'm getting a bit sick of your paranoid interpretation of my posts. I don't like your politics and rude posts, but I've never seen you post such ignorance as you are posting here. Get over it. You are wrong.

The reason I am using obvious myths is to illustrate the dichotomy. There are gods people are very likely not to believe in and there are gods people believe in. It's a continuum. Where you draw the line depends on your beliefs. To some, it's one god and all the rest are myths. To pj and others their definition of the god they believe in is quite broad. I am not asking people about which religion they defend, I am asking them to look at two categories of god beliefs, those they exclude from skeptic analysis and those they don't. OF COURSE I'm using an obvious example of gods people don't exclude from skeptic analysis. THAT'S WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Beliefs and emotions are two different things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then why are women more religious than men?

Maybe in your neighborhood. Worldwide, I'm not sure that is correct.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly.

To illustrate.. and aping the OP question:

Can anyone provide me 'evidence' to support their belief that black people deserve equal rights to those afforded to white people?

What is there, about any evidence you can offer, which empirically demonstrates that the beliefs of a white-supremacist, in this regard, are false?

I can examine through science how moral choices developed. If one then identifies what outcome the moral choice is based on, I can measure objectively which option will result in a better outcome.

Do you treat people fairly because you are afraid of going to hell? I treat them fairly because I grew up with that concept. Not everyone does. Some people grow up to be thieves. Why does someone think it is OK to steal and someone else not think it is OK? Certainly both of those people could be atheists and it is no guarantee being a theist will stop you from being a thief.

Now could you please take this to another thread?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what?
The same is true of science. Scientists gather evidence; and I'm not aware of any scientists who don't attempt to derive some conclusions from that evidence.
Otherwise the whole exercise would be pretty pointless.. both science and spiritual practice.

You are discussing morals and the rules of evidence. They are OT. While I would love to educate you on these topics you have some grave misconceptions about, they are not being discussed in a way which is related to the thread topic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

(it isn't spiritualism)
It isn't so much a matter of a spiritual view of life 'making progress', it's more a matter of the spiritual view of life supporting and maintaining a situation where people of all kinds are treated fairly and compassionately.

You might not notice that it's there until you see what happens when powerful and concerted attempts are made to try to remove this spiritual view of life from society.
Then you get the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, Mao's China.. and yes, folks, Hitler's Germany (in which attempts were made to classify the value of a person on empirical grounds, such as eye colour, shape of head, genetic heritage etc etc..
On a scientific level, removing the spiritual view of life resulted in things like eugenics.

Fortunately though, in spite of those advocating materialism, it remains the default position of the great majority of humanity, at any one time, that man is a spiritual being, and should be viewed that way.

This is OT.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Surprise surprise, the approaches to social organisation advocated by some male-dominated religious organisations has no strong basis in a spiritual view of life.
Can you cite any genuine spiritual personalities who have argued the inherent inferiority of women?

This is OT. If you start a new thread, I might discuss the oppression of women by men using religion as a pretext.

 

[Herzblut]

Maybe in your neighborhood.

Yeah. Right.

Worldwide, I'm not sure that is correct.

You might want to check. Why not using

http://www.gallup.com/poll/7336/Religion-Gender-Congregation-Divided.aspx

or so as a starting point? Please don't expect me investing further work on it. I already mentioned that with the horse and the water, didn't I?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah. Right.


You might want to check. Why not using

http://www.gallup.com/poll/7336/Religion-Gender-Congregation-Divided.aspx

or so as a starting point? Please don't expect me investing further work on it. I already mentioned that with the horse and the water, didn't I?

WORLDWIDE... Did they poll people in all religions in all countries? Of course not. They didn't even bother to mention the poll was only in the US. Typical egocentric behavior of we Americans not to notice there is more to the world that just us.

Did you notice they asked about Churches and Synagogues but not Mosques, Shrines, Temples, Holy Places etc etc?

This is also off topic. Please discuss it elsewhere. Threads just get too unwieldy when they start straying in every direction.