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

[Herzblut]

Beliefs and emotions are two different things.

Emotions select what you believe, think, remember.

 

[plumjam]

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?

Nee nah nee nah.. the OT police are in town.
This is a discussion, inevitably it's going to explore.
In case you missed, what I'm saying is actually very pertinent to your original OP question.
You and other atheists keep demanding 'evidence' as to why some beliefs are better than others - in this case God beliefs.
When the theists reply that such evidence as can be provided is not of an empirically intersubjectively observable nature, the atheists respond that this is not acceptable, and is not 'real' evidence.
So I'm illustrating how that if you apply that approach to all beliefs then we could have no decent system of morality. I am showing how, when such an approach to moral beliefs has been used in the past it has had disastrous genocidal consequences.
No atheist has, as yet, advocated that we dispense with our current (relatively) decent system of morality, and substitute it with the kinds of empirically based ones experimented with during the era when the philosophy of exclusive materialism was at its height.
Thank God.

You say "I can measure objectively which option will result in a better outcome."
No you can't.
Because the term "better" is a moral one and not an empirical one.
If you do measure aspects of society you can't say whether one measure is better than another until it is mapped onto your particular system of morality.
And your system of morality (hopefully) will be based on empirically non-justifiable beliefs such as 'all humans deserve equal rights'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have some evidence to discuss, the discussion would be pertinent. I see no request for only empirical evidence in my OP. All you are doing by this discussion of evidence and morality is avoiding discussing why you dismiss some god beliefs and not others.

So stretching your rambling here into some semblance of an answer to the OP, you are saying that Pe'le and Zeus are immoral gods and the god(s) you believe in are moral?

 

[Herzblut]

All you are doing by this discussion of evidence and morality is avoiding discussing why you dismiss some god beliefs and not others.

Because it's practical and useful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't get your comment, Herz. Could you elaborate?

 

[Herzblut]

I don't get your comment, Herz. Could you elaborate?

It adds unnecessary potential confusion to include multiple brands of "god" into your worldview. That's why it's useful to dismiss all brands but one.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It adds unnecessary potential confusion to include multiple brands of "god" into your worldview. That's why it's useful to dismiss all brands but one.

It seems to me either you chose your god-beliefs totally at random, or there is in fact some reason other than this "practicality" involved in your decision to choose your particular god-beliefs.

 

[plumjam]

If you have some evidence to discuss, the discussion would be pertinent. I see no request for only empirical evidence in my OP. All you are doing by this discussion of evidence and morality is avoiding discussing why you dismiss some god beliefs and not others.

Equally, why do you dismiss some moral beliefs and not others?
You do so for the same reasons that theists have been attempting to explain to you they use vis-a-vis Gods.
From inner experience.
You may like to call it conscience, intuition.. or such like... something feels right or wrong.

Why is it, then, that atheists are willing to accept the value of inner experience when it comes to morality, but when it's a question of religion inner experience is attacked and ruled out as invalid, just 'subjective'. ?

This is a central inconsistency in their whole argument. And, in my opinion, a fatal one.

So stretching your rambling here into some semblance of an answer to the OP, you are saying that Pe'le and Zeus are immoral gods and the god(s) you believe in are moral?

I know nothing about Pe'le (wasn't he the Brazilian God of overhead kicks?), and little about Zeus. Whether they existed as real deities, or were moral or not, I don't know either.
Perhaps God manifested them to some people at some particular point in history, for his own reasons which I'm not aware of.
Maybe they were mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality.
Whichever is the case has no bearing whatsoever on whether God does or does not exist.

 

[Herzblut]

It seems to me either you chose your god-beliefs totally at random, or there is in fact some reason other than this "practicality" involved in your decision to choose your particular god-beliefs.

If it makes you feel better, fine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Equally, why do you dismiss some moral beliefs and not others?
You do so for the same reasons that theists have been attempting to explain to you they use vis-a-vis Gods.
From inner experience.
You may like to call it conscience, intuition.. or such like... something feels right or wrong.

Why is it, then, that atheists are willing to accept the value of inner experience when it comes to morality, but when it's a question of religion inner experience is attacked and ruled out as invalid, just 'subjective'. ?

This is a central inconsistency in their whole argument. And, in my opinion, a fatal one.

I don't subscribe to that 'morals come from magical thoughts' scenario. My morals are the result of cultural and genetic evolution over time as a group dependent species. And the cultural genetic evolution model explains immorality as well. A number of animal species have cooperating behaviors and aggressively behaving members with success due to different strategies.

There are nature and nurture components of behavior which are well understood and other components which while not completely understood, the general mechanisms involved are understood. Surely you have heard of Phineas Gage? We have learned a lot about the physical aspects of the brain and its affect on behavior from accidental injuries to the brain. There are emotional injuries such as detachment disorder, there are chemical injuries like fetal alcohol syndrome which affect behavior. Criminal behavior can sometimes be predicted by certain behavior in childhood, for example cruelty to animals as a child predicts criminal behavior as an adult.

So like I said, I don't believe morals are the result of an unknowable magic force. They result from evolution, nature and nurture.

I know nothing about Pe'le (wasn't he the Brazilian God of overhead kicks?), and little about Zeus. Whether they existed as real deities, or were moral or not, I don't know either.
Perhaps God manifested them to some people at some particular point in history, for his own reasons which I'm not aware of.
Maybe they were mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality.
Whichever is the case has no bearing whatsoever on whether God does or does not exist.

So you do see some god beliefs as possibly, "mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality."

And then there is your 'other' god belief, all god beliefs (except those mythological figures) are different versions of the same god, something like that?

So you have a skeptical explanation for some god beliefs that you do not apply to all god beliefs. But you can't quite articulate why all god beliefs are not, "mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality."

Is that right?

 

[plumjam]

I don't subscribe to that 'morals come from magical thoughts' scenario.

A scenario of your own, invented in order to easily dismiss.

My morals are the result of cultural and genetic evolution over time as a group dependent species. And the cultural genetic evolution model explains immorality as well. A number of animal species have cooperating behaviors and aggressively behaving members with success due to different strategies.

There are nature and nurture components of behavior which are well understood and other components which while not completely understood, the general mechanisms involved are understood. Surely you have heard of Phineas Gage? We have learned a lot about the physical aspects of the brain and its affect on behavior from accidental injuries to the brain. There are emotional injuries such as detachment disorder, there are chemical injuries like fetal alcohol syndrome which affect behavior. Criminal behavior can sometimes be predicted by certain behavior in childhood, for example cruelty to animals as a child predicts criminal behavior as an adult.

So like I said, I don't believe morals are the result of an unknowable magic force. They result from evolution, nature and nurture.

I'm sorry, but that's a complete sidestep on your behalf.
All you've done is propose a (questionable) theory (in fact, more a belief) on how you reckon morality originates and develops.
It doesn't address the central question which is what is it about your system of morality that makes you believe it is superior or inferior to the moral system of someone else.
I'm sure you're a decent person, you sound like one. Therefore I have no doubt that your moral system is far superior to that of, say, a eugenicist who proposes that society should exterminate the mentally handicapped.
The question is, why are your moral beliefs better than those of the eugenicist? Can you provide any evidence other than your inner experience, that your beliefs should be adopted by society, rather than his?

So you do see some god beliefs as possibly, "mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality."

Yes, possibly... depending on lots of factors.

And then there is your 'other' god belief, all god beliefs (except those mythological figures) are different versions of the same god, something like that?

So you have a skeptical explanation for some god beliefs that you do not apply to all god beliefs. But you can't quite articulate why all god beliefs are not, "mythological figures created by some creative individual at the time, as an attempt to allegorically explain certain aspects of reality."

Is that right?

I'd say I have a broadly skeptical initial attitude to all claims about anything, but I endeavour never to close my mind completely to anything. I hold my current particular beliefs about God from years of reading, listening, thought, reflection, debate, investigation, spiritual practice.
It boils down to there being far too much personal testimony coming from intelligent, morally impeccable beings who have often dedicated their lives to this area of knowledge. The testimony has a commonality to it which is undeniable.
This testimony states that God is essentially formless, but can choose to manifest himself in forms in order to help conscious entities like human beings. The testimony also recommends particular forms of action helpful towards experiencing it for yourself.

This is all problematical for those brought up with a democratic empirical approach to knowledge gathering.. because the testimony comes from figures of authority.
Even in the more obvious realm of intersubjective experience knowledge gathering is not democratic. It is much less so in spirituality.
This is because inner spiritual development is non-observable, except to the subject of that development.
Inevitably some individuals are going to be further down the road than others in this development, in the same way that some individuals have a more developed moral sense.
If you're going to make any progress at all then, it's virtually inavoidable that you give some degree of credence to the testimony of those who claim to be further down the road than yourself.
I don't find that an unreasonable demand. Of course you should always be aware of the possibility of charlatans and frauds, but if you dismiss everyone as a charlatan and a fraud then you're just going to be stuck where you are for evermore.

 

[Mobyseven]

First, just an FYI, anecdotal evidence is very useful WHEN it is collected systematically and proper controls are used to get evidence of the variable specifically being examined. Any research that relies on asking survey questions and many retrospective data collection studies involve anecdotal evidence.

As to your other statement, however, religion is never a reasonable tool in science. You will have to give me an example because I don't understand what you think such a tool provides.

Also, systematic collection of anecdotes is useful if you want to know what people think. Not so useful if you're actually trying to establish the existence of something.

 

[Mobyseven]

Is it your position that they are all equally invalid?

Yes. They all have the same amount of evidence to suggest they are true - nothing.

To answer the question you are asking, I'd say that from the personal point of view, yes, if a given religion fits the person and works for them as a philosophical framework from which to approach life, and the matters of each person's inner life, their spiritual component of life, then pick one that suits you, or, pick something else (as a framework that isn't a religion) that suits you and your life.

Then by your reasoning the existence of god is irrelevant to any choice of religion - you seem to be saying that people should pick the religion that best suits their life and ideals, and if they are atheists or non-religious then they should pick a non-religious framework instead.

Excuse me if that doesn't seem like a particularly helpful comment - you are in essence saying, "People should be free to choose how they live their lives." Unfortunately, religion doesn't work like that in practise. Religions are, in general, about truth, and about how to live one's life. Every religion, however has its own version of 'the truth', thus making most religions exclusive from most other religions. Not only that, but the rules regarding how one should live one's life are also quite different and often in conflict between different religions - not to mention that some of the laws laid down in the scriptures of various religions are now seen as barbaric and illogical (the Old Testament is practically a textbook in that regard).

If you are saying that it doesn't matter which religion a person picks, so long as it is right for them, you are taking the truth out of religion, and reducing whatever god is worshipped by the followers of that religion to a piddling irrelevancy. You remove god and truth from religion, and are left with a variety of competing ethical and, in some religions, legal frameworks to choose from.

I would argue that by your logic, the term 'religion' is stretched so far as to be useless - 'religions' are turned into a series of ethical nd legal frameworks, devoid of god or truth. And it still isn't a reason why you do not believe in any other gods while maintaining a belief in your own - it is a reason why you accept other people's beliefs, but not a reason yet for your own disbelief.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

She doesn't want you to try and disprove them, she wants you to explain why you don't believe in them.

How is it that every damn atheist understood what she meant first time round, and yet we have yet to see one theist display anything even approaching an honest understanding of the question?

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Then you are being profoundly unskeptical.

 

[Ladewig]

Can you cite any genuine spiritual personalities who have argued the inherent inferiority of women?

I am not sure what your mean by genuine spiritual personalities. Can you list some Western genuine spiritual personalities that have argued the equality of women?

 

[Mobyseven]

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".

Agreed.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

*head asplode*

agnosticism != magical middle ground between theism and atheism

Atheism is the opposite of theism.

Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism.

This is not a freaking hard concept to grasp, people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Also, systematic collection of anecdotes is useful if you want to know what people think. Not so useful if you're actually trying to establish the existence of something.

Well it wouldn't prove the existence of god or be evidence of miracles unless you could control for other variables. But I think that is the reason, rather than systematically collected anecdotes not being useful to establish the existence of something.

My field of science is nursing and medicine. I'm used to looking at a lot of research that consists of systematically collected anecdotes. Folks who have more experience with the physical sciences are sometimes less familiar with collecting anecdotal evidence.

But say for example, I wanted to establish the existence of Gulf War Syndrome. I could collect data from thousands of Gulf War Vets and controls (vets who were deployed stateside or say Korea or Germany). If the data showed a pattern of complaints that was consistent among some of the GWVs and was absent in the other vets I could establish the existence of an actual syndrome and begin looking for the cause. But if the reports were all over the map in terms of complaints and no pattern emerged, then the syndrome would likely not exist. Agent Orange exposure had identifiable symptoms, GW Syndrome did not even though so many people are convinced it exists.

How do you control for the myriad of variables that can explain people's belief they "feel" god? You cannot. So their conclusions that they believe a god exists is not evidence. Just as the vets' conclusions they had GWS was not evidence GWS actually existed. Many of the vets had symptoms. I don't have reason to question their truthfulness. But the conclusions they drew about what the symptoms meant was not evidence. In fact, they were drawing erroneous conclusions from the evidence they experienced.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Can anyone else see the leprechaun? Does the leprechaun's DNA differ from human DNA enough that it can be considered a seperate species? Can the leprechaun perform activities traditionally associated with leprechauns, or might it be a tooth fairy on its way to an Irish themed costume party?

See how you have to actually apply skepticism to a claim, instead of just saying, "Oh, fiddle-dee-dee, a leprechaun. No way that could be a hallucination."