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

[pchams]

Fine. I can see that honestly exploring opposing points of view is not what you've come here for. Rather you come here to participate in comforting Groupthink.
I understand.
I'd still like that kiss though

Yes, you come with flowery prose, and no flowers.

The vacuous religionists on this forum have disappointed me.
Suspend your belief in one area and chastise the other.
This is a skeptics forum. prepare to examine your own beliefs or be disappointed.
I believed this was a skeptics forum. I've changed my mind.
It's chock full of credulous posers.

 

[pchams]

I may be off, but I think skeptigirls inquiry states the old axiom:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts"

 

[articulett]

I may be off, but I think skeptigirls inquiry states the old axiom:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts"

I think that's correct. How is it people can be so sure when they know that their "evidence" isn't any more scientifically valid than the kind of evidence presented for all those other faiths they don't find credible? Why is subjective type evidence enough for their god and not all those other invisible entities?

 

[Herzblut]

We can study behavior using the scientific process or method. We can study what processes are involved in elephant societies that might have parallels in human societies. We can look at brain damaged humans like sociopaths who lack empathy which we consider is one component of morality. We can see what advantages different behaviors have on survival and determine by genetic science which of those behaviors have a genetic component.

We then do use science, not to tell us what is absolutely moral or immoral. That is a question for philosophers and frankly, since there is no absolute morality, I find it rather a useless exercise in pondering. Using science, I can learn a lot more about morality than simply thinking philosophically about implications. I care about other people. I would feel uncomfortable stealing. I would find it extremely hard to kill or injure someone.

Then, what does Milgram's experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment

tell you about morality?

But I don't think one needs magic or gods to explain why I have those values. Those "inner feelings" plum mentions are brain processes. We can see discomfort and the emotion of love on PET scans and MRIs and EEGs. We can measure electrical and neuro-chemical brain processes which accompany and explain why certain behaviors result in discomfort such as stealing.

These are descriptions, not explanations. Statements of fact never imply normative messages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

Let's assume that a moral delivery system referring to a "higher good" performs very effectively, much better than e.g. looking at nature with anthropomorphically blurred eyes.

Would its steady, high performance justify the existence of that delivery system?

 

[Beth]

This reflects the same difficulty a number of people (mostly theists I assume) in the thread are having with the idea in the OP. And if you just go back and read my posts, skip the ones with different messages, you might get the actual question.

I am not asking anyone to justify their religion over another. I realize some people have asked that question separately from me. One thing being blurred is I am asking specifically about the god part of god beliefs and not about all the rest of religion. I can see why two interpretations of what I meant by "god beliefs" has surfaced, but I've clarified which interpretation I mean more than a few times. I mean the 'being' part of the god belief, (formless or not), not the religion that goes with the god being.

Okay. I think I get your question. At least I don't see any difference, nor would I change my answer.

And what you are saying here is an example of the 'special' treatment you are giving some god beliefs. That's what I want to get at, but it is the process of excluding certain beliefs from skepticism that I am asking about. I am not asking for anyone to apply all those special treatments. That's the point.

Special treatments? I think theists are just asking for appropriate treatment. While I don't consider myself a theist, so I can't really answer for them, my interpretation of what they are saying (and what I don't disbelieve in) is the idea that there exists something behind the spiritual experiences that human beings have described over millenia. That it isn't all just emergent behavior/mistakes but accurate reporting of something that isn't available to us via other (i.e. materialistic) avenues.

There clearly exists things that are only available to us via our mental processes. One such thing we call mathematics. Another we call morality. I find Plumjam's analogy with morality interesting.

I don't feel you've answered it yet. You claim an evolutionary basis for morality. That's reasonable. So why do people steal? Why are some people moral in different ways that others? Why is homosexuality considered morally wrong? How can you justify any answers to why one morality is superior to another without recourse to the kind of 'evidence' that is used to justify belief in god?

You presume god, if any existed, would be materially evident in some way. Theists do not make that presumption. I agree with them that your presumption is not well justified.

You are applying all these gyrations, rationalizations, reasons, altered definitions and so on to certain god beliefs. You seem to recognize that special treatment is not being applied to Zeus and Ra and Pe'le. We have gotten that far in the thread now. But there is still this disconnect. I am asking about the difference between Zeus and the Biblical God. I am not asking how god beliefs which appear to directly contradict other god beliefs can be explained.

And my answer, and well as that of some others, has been that they are not treated differently. Zeus exists just as much as every cultures gods exist. Including the Jewish god, the Christian god and and the Muslim god. We all see it as different manifestestations of the same phenomea.

Let's see how well I remember them? Plumjam sees it as similar to the emergence of different languages. V23 sees the living breathing soul of the universe in the different god beliefs. Epoek (sorry if I spelled that wrong) sees it as potentially valuable evoluationary strategy. Somethign to be investigated prior to destroying. You see it as manifestations of what? similar errors of thinks across different cultures? Me, I don't know. But all the various theories are not mutually exclusive either. Like languages, god beliefs as an evolutionary valuable strategy seem more likely to me than common errors of thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I may be off, but I think skeptigirls inquiry states the old axiom:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts"

Yes, but add to this a few skeptics who accept the "special" rules applied to special god beliefs as if the rules make sense. I'm trying to explore if they do make any sense. I don't see how they do, but how will I know unless I ask those who are applying the special rules?

 

[articulett]

Yes, but add to this a few skeptics who accept the "special" rules applied to special god beliefs as if the rules make sense. I'm trying to explore if they do make any sense. I don't see how they do, but how will I know unless I ask those who are applying the special rules?

I can't even tell what they are saying... I can't tell what Beth is saying... she seems to be giving credibility to certain arguments or claims while skipping over others. She says she's not a believer, but she to me she sure sounds like one... or at least a total apologist. She says she doesn't know but it makes just as much sense to her that theists are all tapping into the same "magical" unmeasurable nothingness but it doesn't make sense that they might all be fooling themselves?? It doesn't make sense to her that morality evolves... or that we come about them via our culture... that we judge others in ways that we've been taught to judge others or on the basis of how well their behavior fits with a smooth flowing society ... how we treat people in ways we want to be treated based on empathy and mirror neurons... We learn are moral animals who evolved to learn the morality of the cultures we are born into... just like we learn the language and stories and customs of that culture. Instead she thinks morality comes from some magical invisible unknowable source that people are magically accessing via feelings and faith and other subjective means available only to them??

Does she think Scientology is tapping into that special truth? That they are getting a piece of that magical morality? What about rain dancers trying to please rain gods... is that belief based on the same magical realness as god. How about those who swear they remember past lives with uncanny anecdotes and sincere belief as evidence? Or those who swear astrology is true and have amazing coincidences that "prove" it to them?

When you believe that there are divine truths... how do you go about figuring out who really has them, and who is sacrificing virgins to the gods for superstitious baloney? Why aren't you afraid of other gods and other hells since everybody is slated for at least a few if any number of religions is correct. It's all so... goofy. And theists just sound so batty to me when trying to justify their beliefs. Beth is saying that some mystical feelings might be based on some nebulous truth that can only be known subjectively even though we know that some are definitely delusions, illusions, misperceptions, etc.

But I say that even if we believed that some of these "feelings" could be based on some real god-- no human would have a way to show that their god was any truer than the gods people sacrificed virgins to-- or Xenu.

But they don't believe in such gods or in astrology or in Scientology. There are invisible entities they don't believe in or find silly or unlikely. But the god that they do believe in or imagine existing is not subject to the same scrutiny.

Beth doesn't make sense. The theists don't have any good argument for believing in whatever they believe while rejecting Scientology or whatever it is they call woo. And they know it. Hence the attacks, tangents, and semantic nothingness. They know they are being arrogant to assert that they somehow know or are tapped in on the real god or know who is or who might be or what this invisible dude thinks or wants or does.... while at the same time dismissing all the gods of primitive peoples' past. They haven't got a leg to stand on, but they spin to keep the delusion alive for themselves. There is no good reason to believe in any god... no actual decent evidence that a believer would find suitable if used in support of a belief they didn't adhere to. There is no good reason for believing a god is real, but not demons or ghosts... they are all cut from the same unlikelly notion that consciousness can exist absent a material brain. Of course such things are woo. They are all equally woo until evidence exists to support the notion that consciousness CAN exist absent a brain. And even then, that doesn't mean that anybody who thinks they are in touch with such are actually in touch with such!

If religion was responsible for morality than nontheists would be committing crimes left and right and hurting people with abandon...while there would be no theists in jail or indicted across the republican right involved in scandal after scandal-- but as a whole, the non-theists seem more honest, intelligent, and giving to me--especially on this forum. I see no evidence that god belief makes people more moral though I'm sure all theists feel that those who believe in whatever god or religion they believe in are the most moral. Other religions would disagree, of course. And they pretend their morality isn't relative.

Theism just seems to make for very convoluted ridiculous thinking. But I sure can't make sense of it. I guess some of the theists are kind of making sense to Beth. I wonder if she makes sense to them?

 

[Mobyseven]

What a naive is-ought fallacy!

So, you arbritarily make up "consciousness" to assign rights to people? What about those with limited/non-existing consciousness due to physical damage?

If you're going to say my argument is naive and a fallacy, you should probably follow it up with a reason why, and not a selection from the Book of Stupid.

Those who have 'limited' or 'non-existing' consciousness are assigned fewer rights. I assume by 'limited' consciousness you are referring to people who have suffered some type of brain damage that affects their ability to perceive the world in some way - such people have reduced rights. For example, depending on the severity of the condition, they may not afforded the right to make their own medical decisions and these may be made by a proxy.

Thos who have 'non-existing' consciousness are more commonly referred to as 'dead' and are afforded very few rights - depending on their culture and pre-dead preferences they have the right to be buried, frozen, burnt or studied.

 

[articulett]

Beth, the appropriate "treatment" for a faith based claim is the same way you'd treat Scientologist claims or other faith based assertions. Obviously. Why some brands of "god" belief get special treatment by some who call themselves skeptics doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

 

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for the info. I know less about the Jewish texts. I should take the time to see how they compare to the Bible one day.

Hehe...pretty poorly a lot of the time. I was raised Jewish, and used to have a basic (very basic) knowledge of biblical Hebrew. Comparing some translations to the original Hebrew that I chose to study can be an interesting exercise (looking at various translations of the Ten Commandments, for a start).

 

[Herzblut]

Those who have 'limited' or 'non-existing' consciousness are assigned fewer rights.

No. Every human owns inalterable rights, human rights. When they can't actually demand such rights, a proxy has to demand those instead. The state itself being the last ressort proxy.

You mix up owning rights with demanding them.

I assume by 'limited' consciousness you are referring to people who have suffered some type of brain damage that affects their ability to perceive the world in some way -

I might also refer to babies.

Those who have 'non-existing' consciousness are more commonly referred to as 'dead' ..schnipp..

Or sleeping?

..schnapp.. depending on their culture and pre-dead preferences they have the right to be buried, frozen, burnt or studied.

Where I live, human dignity carries on after death. Postmortem personal rights follow directly from the constitution. Nobody will be "studied" unless consensually or forensically.

The concept of human dignity descents from christian ideas of man.

 

[Mobyseven]

Wrong, Mobyseven. I'm being profoundly honest.

The question was can I think of any evidence that would lead me to not believe. And I can't think of anything. Might there be some evidence out there to lead me to not believe? - yes. But I can't think of any. If you have some please share it with me - I'd like to know what it is.

I don't care how honest you're being - it doesn't stop you from also being incredibly unskeptical.

It is not up to us to tell you how your god might be falsified - you have yet to give us a good enough description for us to even try. But it isn't up to us to try and propose a way in which your belief can be falsified - it is up to you. If there is no way you can think of by which the existence of your god can be falsified, then you are being profoundly unskeptical about your god beliefs.

Again, I'm not saying that you're dishonest. I'm saying that you are being unskeptical. There is a difference.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Does anyone besides plumjam understand plumjam, find his posting valuable, or find him intelligent? When plumjam posts, I feel like the kiddies are on the computer again.

I don't think insulting people is really a good way to convince people to take your opinions seriously. I, for one, enjoy Plumjams opinions. I also like some of your points once I can get to the core of what you're saying. I don't like these sort of personal jabs when people get frustrated at others though.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Again, I'm not saying that you're dishonest. I'm saying that you are being unskeptical. There is a difference.

But that's the thing - being sceptical about God doesn't mean being sceptical about only this one thing - whether He exists or not. At some point you ask that, make a decision, move on, and periodically review. I'm not at that point anymore, really. Now, for me it's a quest of finding out more about him. So, as a Christian, it's scepticism on different Christian doctrines. With other religions it's scepticism on how much in their religion I can find out and whether I can determine if it's true or even applies to me.

You can't tell me that scepticism never leads to answers, can you? You have had to have come up against something that you were sceptical of, researched it, and found it was true. So - once you find it's true - do you keep researching that same thing or move on?

 

[articulett]

But that's the thing - being sceptical about God doesn't mean being sceptical about only this one thing - whether He exists or not. At some point you ask that, make a decision, move on, and periodically review. I'm not at that point anymore, really. Now, for me it's a quest of finding out more about him. So, as a Christian, it's scepticism on different Christian doctrines. With other religions it's scepticism on how much in their religion I can find out and whether I can determine if it's true or even applies to me.

You can't tell me that scepticism never leads to answers, can you? You have had to have come up against something that you were sceptical of, researched it, and found it was true. So - once you find it's true - do you keep researching that same thing or move on?

But the methods you've used to determine your god is true is the same method Tom Cruise could assert for Scientology--which you believe to be false. Your method is bad. You're using your skepticism to investigate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What sort of knowledge can you get from that? Is believing you know how many angels can dance on a head of a pin useful? Tom Cruise could say that he applied his skepticism to Scientology and found it to be true... now he's off to apply his skepticism to hone that truth. An astrologist can say the same. But to the rest of us, your assertions sound as vapid as the above examples. How do you imagine them to be different? You presume you are being "profoundly honest", but you have come to believe that something is "true" based on a method never known to bring truth and certainly known to encourage false beliefs--such as Scientology... that doesn't sound profoundly honest to me-- nor does it sound skeptical.

Skepticism does lead to the most probable answers--it doesn't lead people into believing in things that are invisible and immeasurable and undetectable except via subjective means... if it did it wouldn't be skepticism... it would be plain old confirmation bias.

 

[articulett]

I don't think insulting people is really a good way to convince people to take your opinions seriously. I, for one, enjoy Plumjams opinions. I also like some of your points once I can get to the core of what you're saying. I don't like these sort of personal jabs when people get frustrated at others though.

I assure you that I don't care whether plumjam takes my opinions seriously anymore than he cares whether I take his blathering seriously. He is a known troll. So what points of his do you like? Can you sum any of them up? What about the divine source of knowledge he quotes. Do you think it's divinely inspired?

And you make personal jabs too--but like Beth, you dress it up in inferences and tangential semantics and avoid the topic completely. Like you just did with Moby. Multiple times. You accused him of calling you a liar and then you just inferred that he was saying that "skepticism can't lead to answers"-- he didn't say that. You guys are talking out of ass

Ugh... I don't think you or the ones you defend are the people who should be offering up advice on how to get others to take opinions seriously--nor should you be the ones tsk-tsking others for making personal jabs. May I suggest that, like many theists, you are all too good at noticing the invisible sawdust in the non-believers eye while ignoring the branch protruding from your own.

Spare me the advice... you are not the sort of person I'd take advice from.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

But the methods you've used to determine your god is true is the same method Tom Cruise could assert for Scientology--which you believe to be false. Your method is bad. You're using your skepticism to investigate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What sort of knowledge can you get from that? Is believing you know how many angels can dance on a head of a pin useful?

If that was what I was concerned with - then yes, finding some sort of answer or forming a conclusion could very well be usefull.

Tom Cruise could say that he applied his skepticism to Scientology and found it to be true... now he's off to apply his skepticism to hone that truth. An astrologist can say the same.

So - as long as they are occasionally rechecking their faith in whatever I have no problem with them continuing their scepticism on other things or specific things once they have reached a conclusion on other things they were previously sceptical about.

Why can't people come to a different conclusion as you?

But to the rest of us, your assertions sound as vapid as the above examples. How do you imagine them to be different? You presume you are being "profoundly honest", but you have come to believe that something is "true" based on a method never known to bring truth and certainly known to encourage false beliefs--such as Scientology... that doesn't sound profoundly honest to me-- nor does it sound skeptical.

The "profoundly honest" comment was in regards to something completely different then what you are talking about here.

Skepticism does lead to the most probable answers--it doesn't lead people into believing in things that are invisible and immeasurable and undetectable except via subjective means... if it did it wouldn't be skepticism... it would be plain old confirmation bias.

So, you're saying it's only true scepticism if the conclusion the scepticism leads to is the same as yours?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I
And you make personal jabs too--but like Beth, you dress it up in inferences and tangential semantics and avoid the topic completely. Like you just did with Moby. Multiple times. You accused him of calling you a liar and then you just inferred that he was saying that "skepticism can't lead to answers"-- he didn't say that. You guys are talking out of ass

What? When did I call him a liar? Please direct me to my post where I did this.

Spare me the advice... you are not the sort of person I'd take advice from.

Can I quote you on this and add it to my signature?

 

[articulett]

What? When did I call him a liar? Please direct me to my post where I did this.

Re-read what I wrote. You are hearing things I did not say. You accused him of calling you a liar... he was calling you unskeptical, not a liar.

Can I quote you on this and add it to my signature?

Knock yourself out.

 

[articulett]

If that was what I was concerned with - then yes, finding some sort of answer or forming a conclusion could very well be usefull.



So - as long as they are occasionally rechecking their faith in whatever I have no problem with them continuing their scepticism on other things or specific things once they have reached a conclusion on other things they were previously sceptical about.

Why can't people come to a different conclusion as you?

They can... but clearly different or contradictory conclusions about the same reality means that somebody is making wrong inferences from the evidence. I don't have problems with people calling themselves skeptical... I am just saying, your approach to skepticism seems as useless and unskeptical as those examples. If they work for you to find "your truth" then so be it. Skeptics are generally more interested in the truth that is the same for everybody. You don't believe in what Scientologists believe--they believe Jesus is a programmed delusion by some evil spirits or something. You are "skeptical" of their "truths"... and yet you don't apply that same skepticism to your own beliefs. I find that ironic. But typical of theists and woos of every type.

The "profoundly honest" comment was in regards to something completely different then what you are talking about here.

You claimed you were profoundly honest after moby noted the obvious-- you are profoundly unskeptical when it comes to your own god beliefs--no evidence would be enough to convince you that you are wrong... just like no evidence could convince Tom Cruise that Scientology is wrong. That is unskeptical. Yet, the slightest evidence could convince you that Scientology wasn't based on truth... or astrology... right? but NO EVIDENCE would make you believe that your faith is as unlikely as those faiths. But to most skeptics they are all the same-- there is no logical reason to believe one more than the other. Theists don't seem more logical, nicer, or honest as they seem to imagine themselves. Your faith doesn't stand out from things that you would call woo.

So, you're saying it's only true scepticism if the conclusion the scepticism leads to is the same as yours?

No... that is your strawman. I am saying that skepticism utilizes occams razor and skeptics don't assume the existence of invisible imaginary immeasurable things that cannot be distinguished from delusions. I'm saying there is no more logical, scientific, or skeptical reason to believe in Christianity then there is to believe in Scientology or Astrology or Demon possession. None. Zero. It has nothing to do with my opinion. If I didn't exist, the evidence in support of your beliefs would still be zero-- the same as the evidence in support of Zeus and fairies and all the things you apply your skepticism too.

My opinion doesn't change the reality that is the same for everyone. Nor does your opinion that you've used skepticism to find Christianity to have truth. Knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin may mean something to you-- but it doesn't mean that angels actually exist outside the human imagination or that the question makes sense or is relevant to anyone except those who believe in such things. The same goes about your god beliefs and your opinions. They do not change reality... your conclusions about Christian truth are as valid as Tom Cruise's conclusions that Scientology truth-- and useless for those interested in actual objective truths. Most skeptics do converge on the same view of reality as do scientists... because the evidence tends to pile up on the side of truth. And it helps to be on the same page when discussing reality just like it helps to be on the same page when discussing math.

As Moby said, you are profoundly unskeptical when it comes to your beliefs... but you are not so unskeptical when it comes to equally unsupported assertions. That's bias. It's not a good way to know any truths. It's a great way to convince yourself that you have the truth while keeping your from learning verifiable facts and useful knowledge that is far more likely to be true.

Just like belief in Scientology and belief in astrology or belief that the Quoran is the true word of the real invisible creator of the universe.