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

[articulett]

SERIOUSLY. JUST ONE WOULD BE NICE...

Are you kidding... being able to distinguish a subjective opinion from an objective fact would destroy their delusion kept alive by semantic games that say nothing but make them feel that there's a really real god out there that they can or have "tapped into". Any idiocy or semantic tangent is fair if they get to avoid asking the question and infer that it's perfectly logical to believe in whatever magical entity they believe in or want to believe in or apologize for.

If someone put the word Xenu in wherever they write "god" and used all their same idiotic arguments they'd understand just how dumb and in denial they sound... how they are giving themselves special permission not to investigate the god they believe in skeptically in the same way they investigate those gods they don't believe in and all other woo. It's such BS. And then the snide inferences and tangential questions designed to obfuscate rather than clarify-- the endless woo dance throwing up smoke and mirrors while they do the "my woo is true" dance and "you guys are mean" curtsy. Religions is very good and getting people to spin out lots of words that say nothing at all. I wonder if they recognize themselves in the other woo the way I recognize my frustration with them in the frustration of your posts and geemacks posts and skepticgirls posts and the majority of peoples' posts. Do you think they make sense to each other? Or do they see the others as "woo" while they have some "special truth" that is better and realer and more logical?

Has anyone actually answered the question? Has anyone given a reason why one god is more likely to be truer than Xenu... one faith more likely to be true than another? Has anyone given a decent reason why their god shouldn't be considered as wooish as Thor and Pele and such?

 

[articulett]

Claims about facts are falsifiable. If the god you imagine is fact based--that is he exists other than in your head... it's up to you to show why you believe in that god...

Opinions are not fact based. We can't prove that you like yellow more than you like pink. And we don't care. Opinions aren't really falsifiable. We also don't care about your imaginary friends. We don't care that you think you have arrived at your god belief logically. We just want to know what the hell the evidence is for believing in whatever magic man you believe and what is your reason for rejecting Scientology and Pele and Astrology... have you considered all of these as carefully as whatever supernatural thing you do believe in? Why or why not? If not, why don't they deserve the same consideration? What makes your magical belief in whatever it is you DO believe in more believable to you and why should we think your beliefs are more skeptical than Tom Cruises evidence that Scientology is true?? You apparently do. Don't you? Why?? Based on what evidence?? Why do you consider your immeasurable entity more likely to exist than Xenu? Doesn't the truth matter? Shouldn't there be a reason that you believe in the one you believe in or imagine or apologize for and not Xenu??

Enough with your silly semantics associating non falsifiable opinions with non falsifiable gods. Nobody is saying that opinions exist absent the brains opining them. Believers in god believe that their god exists in realms outside of their "belief" in them. Why? Where's the evidence? Why do they believe that their god exists "out there" but Zeus doesn't or Satan doesn't or Xenu doesn't? What evidence are they using and why the hell are you guys so evasive about it?

Actually we know why. Your beliefs are based in woo-- just like the beliefs you reject for good reasons. It's time for you guys to admit it to yourselves and quit making bad guys out of those who are simply stating the obvious.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Articulett,

You keep bringing up Xenu as if he would be competition for my god beliefs. But, from my understanding, Xenu if he was real was only an alien. The God I worship is the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it and in this example also the creator of Xenu and his planet if they existed, so Xenu and Scientology - regardless of whether they are true or not - are irrelevant to me. I don't want to stop at the creation, but go to the Creator. There is a difference to me.

 

[articulett]

Articulett,

You keep bringing up Xenu as if he would be competition for my god beliefs. But, from my understanding, Xenu if he was real was only an alien. The God I worship is the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it and in this example also the creator of Xenu and his planet if they existed, so Xenu and Scientology - regardless of whether they are true or not - are irrelevant to me. I don't want to stop at the creation, but go to the Creator. There is a difference to me.

Xenu is competetion for your god belief if your god belief is real. If your god belief is real, Xenu is false. If Xenu is real, your belief is based on a delusion fortold by Xenu. The God you worship is no more likely to exist than Xenu. Yet you believe in your invisible man but not Xenu. Your god is as irrelevent to reality as Xenu. You give no reasons for any of us to consider otherwise. Your reasons are as specious as Tom Cruise telling us that your god beliefs are irrelevant-- part of Xenu's prophesy...

You believe there is a creator. You have no reasons for this belief. Your reasons are as specious as all the creation stories people have invented over the eons-- all the ones that you reject. But you believe one. And as you just admitted you believe it for illogical reasons-- the same sort of reasons people believe in Xenu and Vishnu and reincarnation and other woo.
Moreover, you've admitted that no evidence can change your mind-- which makes your belief a faith based belief in the same way any cult has a faith based belief. Evidence of a god could change a skeptics mind-- but no evidence can make you understand that your god is as unlikely to exist as Xenu. That's what we suspected. You have no objective method for believing that this god you've imagined is more real than any other god. You assume a creator and imagine yourself worshiping it--whatever the hell that means in semantic land of woo woo nothingness. To most skeptics that's like saying your have the hottest imaginary friend. Whatever.

All faith is this kind of positing of "my woo is true". I don't care about what god you believe you worship anymore than I care about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I care if anyone has any actual good reason for believing in whatever nebulous god they believe in while rejecting other woo that we all agree is woo? And the answer is NO. All you have is semantics and tangents and defensiveness. There is no reason for a skeptic to find your god any more "real" than Xenu or Allah or Zeus or all those other gods that you imagine your imaginary god as bigger than. It's all a woo game. I can safely discard your god in the woo category just like the various numbers having to do with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you were logically consistent you would see that your god is the SAME as Xenu as far as actual evidence goes-- part of a story that you prop up with semantics and feelings and faith and anecdote and confirmation bias and nothingness.

And that's the problem with all faith. It's all like that. Every woo thinks they have the "true woo" that shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny or derision or demands for evidence as all that other woo. You are free to be dishonest with yourself, but don't try and be dishonest here. We understand that your god is super duper true to you... but we also understand that Tom Cruise's beliefs are super duper true to him-- neither makes them objectively true to anyone else and neither is evidence that any invisible form of consciousness exists or that this universe was created on purpose by a magical invisible egomaniac with a shy streak and a plan involving blood atonement and original sin and whatever the hell other woo you envision as true.

 

[epeos76]

loose ends

I'm sorry I've been to busy to keep up with this thread. I doubt I'll be able to make a meaningful post before the new year. In case it dies before then, I'd like to thank Lithrael, Skeptigirl and others for taking the time to wade through the maelstorm and respond with thoughful challenges. I'm at least enough of a skeptic to enjoy a vigorous controversy, but it's infinitely more fun when the participants have the courtesy, listening skills, and other qualities necessary to actually communicate.


Skeptigirl, I see I missed some of your earlier replys. I'm doubly sorry because you raised some telling points and I would have liked to return the courtesy by addressing them directly. If this thread survives, and your still interested, I'll try to briefly respond to at least the following:

(1) What are these alleged gaps I'm so concerned about, and why do they matter?

(2) History of Christianity is a history of failed claims

(3) ETS re: what to do with contradictory beliefs that meet all my other requirements.


As an aside, I was shopping for presents today, and noticed four or five different books in prominient places advancing that zero room for religion position popularized by Hitchens and Dawkins. I spotted two directly responding, one of which looked interesting. It seems to be a pretty hot topic right now, well worth discussing.


Thanks again.

Happy holidays.

- E

 

[Mobyseven]

ACS:

Why is god no more than a pissing contest to you (you will only worship the 'biggest' god, instead of the one that is most likely to be true), and why do you refuse to acknowledge that god may not exist while simultaneously claiming that you apply skepticism to your god beliefs?

 

[articulett]

It's not "zero room" for religion. It's that there is just no good evidence to believe that any of them have access to any actual truths. We beg for such evidence.... but there never ever is any. Just tangents and defensiveness and sidestepping. And every time anyone says so, the believers and apologists play the "I'm offended card". Yet there is no more evidence for any god than there is in support of any other woo. Why don't the believers at least admit that-- it would save them from continuing to pretend that nonbelievers are "mean". We're not mean--you just want us to agree that it's sensible to believe in some kinds of magic and that we shouldn't apply our skepticism to your woo. We want to know why. You never give us a good reason. Ever. You never give a reason why your beliefs are more likely to be true than Scientology beliefs or Astrology beliefs or belief in demon possession or reincarnation. Never. But you expect very different treatment for your beliefs than we give those. And you treat those kinds of beliefs with a brand of skepticism you don't subject your own god too. And you cannot articulate why. You cannot answer the question in the OP and it's frustrating to listen to yet another vapid tangent that ignores questions asking for clarification and calls skeptics rude for being skeptical on a skeptics forum.

 

[articulett]

I think the ugly truth behind all religions is this idea that each believer believes they have "divine truths" ... and they assume that all those who believe similarly have accessed those same "divine truths"... and all those that have beliefs that conflicts with those "divine truths" are deceived. As long as you don't delve, you can assume most believers believe pretty much what you believe. No religion encourages it's members to ever wonder if they are the deceived ones--in fact losing faith is "bad"-- part of Satan's plot in some cases. So each believer always assumes that any contradictory belief is a misperception on the part of the other people. Their "truth" is "divine" after all --so the circular reasoning goes. And as long as nobody points out this scam... everyone can go on believing that they really do have the real divine truths while looking askance at all those poor deceived others. They never have to see how arrogant or egotistical or harmful this is as they imagine that their faith is ennobling and pleasing to the divine god that they've somehow accessed via whatever fanciful tales they tell themselves. They imagine themselves as being kind and humble without ever examining whether the evidence supports these beliefs any more than they examine the evidence on which they base their belief in god. They imagine themselves logical as readily as they imagine their god giving them divine truths through subjective means in a nebulous story that doesn't make any sense at all when examined with skeptical eyes.

And the way religions keep these assorted delusions alive is by demonizing those who don't support the delusion and at the same time inculcating faith promoting memes like "faith is good'-- "god is real"-- "this religion is true"-- "who are you to question god?" "faith is responsible for morality"-- "faith is a gift"-- "god wants you to believe"... "people who believe what we do are god's favorite and will be saved", "god fearing people are more moral", "Christian is a codeword for good". "Christ died for you...all god asks in return is your faith"...

Who needs evidence or facts or truth when you have faith, eh?

 

[Darth Rotor]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND BEAUTIFUL IN THE WORLD, IS THERE NOT ONE DAMN THEIST OR APOLOGIST ON THIS FORUM THAT CAN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INTERNALLY CONSISTENT SYSTEM, AND A SYSTEM BASED ON EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION? JUST FREAKIN' ONE?

It is very important, Moby, when you want to convince yourself that you are superior to another, to first identify "they" and then define the inferior attribute in terms, and a pigeon hole, that you understand. Two dimensional, cardboard cut outs are a handy metaphor.

I think you can get some nice used sheets from Senator Byrd.

Moby, in this thread.

That foolishness some of your fellow howlers nommed for a TLA is rather inaccurate, since the trolling began with the OP, and the 17 responses to it. Standard baiting behavior.

When you hear that popping sound, Moby, the next thing you'll see is daylight.

DR

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

ACS:

Why is god no more than a pissing contest to you (you will only worship the 'biggest' god, instead of the one that is most likely to be true), and why do you refuse to acknowledge that god may not exist while simultaneously claiming that you apply skepticism to your god beliefs?

I guess we will have to see how Skeptigirl responds, but you and Articulett's response prove exactly what the Thiests have been saying throughout this entire thread. Skeptigirl claims she only wanted to know or try to understand the process believers use to determine among varying belief systems.

I just told you a very brief, general, broad method how I do this within my current belief system of Christianity.

It was instantly dismissed as being an invalid way and as as simply a pissing contest between gods. (Xenu isn't a god as I pointed out.)

Since that is how both you and Articulette responded I will not take part in any more discussions with you two in this thread since you are not concerned with the OP as Skeptigirl claims she intended it.

 

[cyborg]

(Xenu isn't a god as I pointed out.)

Why not?

What are the properties of gods?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess we will have to see how Skeptigirl responds, but you and Articulett's response prove exactly what the Thiests have been saying throughout this entire thread. Skeptigirl claims she only wanted to know or try to understand the process believers use to determine among varying belief systems.

I just told you a very brief, general, broad method how I do this within my current belief system of Christianity.

.............

Your ' how ' was this ...

I personally compare them to the God I currently worship to decide these kind of things. If the other god is less, then I keep what I have. If it's the same, there is not conflict. If it is more, then probably God is bigger than I thought.

That explanation has nothing to do with the OP, that asked asked for evidence that your god belief is true while showing that another is false.... No one asked ' how ' you reached your decision about the bestest god..

Your participation, since you chose to participate, should have ended with:

" I have no such evidence ... "


Instead, you continue to get your shorts all twisted, because people keep pointing out that you have no evidence as requested...

 

[Beth]

Your how was this ...



That explanation has nothing to do with the OP, that asked asked for evidence that your god belief is true while showing that another is false....

Your participation, since you chose to participate, should have ended with:

" I have no such evidence ... "


Instead, you continue to get your shorts all twisted, because people keep pointing out that you have no evidence as requested...

Actually, I think that Christian skeptic has stated repeatedly that he has no such evidence. In both this thread and others.

It seems to me his conversations have gone something like this:

"I don't have any objective verifiable evidence for the existance of my God. I don't have any objective verifiable evidence that he doesn't exist. I have subjective, personal evidence that my god exists, but I recognize it is not of a caliber that will convince anyone other myself." I'm paraphrasing, but CS can correct me if I've misrepresented his position.

To this, he's been questioned about what the evidence is and he has attempted to answer those questions as best he can without submitting his personal experiences here for commentary. A reasonable approach and one I take myself. I am very cautious about posting personal experiences on this forum. It's very harsh and I find the inevitable comments about delusions, lepreachauns, etc. to be painful when discussing my own experiences. The only way I can enjoy posting on this forum is by ignoring the posters who are too caustic for my taste and focusing on the more hypothetical discussions.

I think CS has behaved admirably in this forum despite the attacks he's recieved. He's always responded politely. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I can understand what he's getting out. He's expanded his definition of God as he has matured and become more knowledgable in spiritual matters. That seems quite reasonable to me and is a process I went through some years ago. The God I don't disbelieve in (I can't quite say I believe in him either ) is large enough to emcompass all the various god beliefs of the past, including Zeus, Thor, and Jesus.

 

[This is The End]

Wouldn't the next question for ACS logically be:

Would it be possible for a god to create the god that is so big he encompasses all the others? ......and just one higher up to create that particular one? ......... how about another above him? Perhaps only if there is one god and not multiples between the levels you don't mind? What if all other gods were made by the bottom god, except for a few that were made by the tenth god up the ladder just to mess with the one you think is at the top of the bottom?? If that were the case, how would you determine which god up the god ladder created the multiples you see at the bottom? In your story you only care about the point where multiples stop, but how would that be determined?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Actually, I think that Christian skeptic has stated repeatedly that he has no such evidence. In both this thread and others.

It seems to me his conversations have gone something like this:

"I don't have any objective verifiable evidence for the existance of my God. I don't have any objective verifiable evidence that he doesn't exist. I have subjective, personal evidence that my god exists, but I recognize it is not of a caliber that will convince anyone other myself." I'm paraphrasing, but CS can correct me if I've misrepresented his position.

I don't think I could have summed it up any better. Thanks.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Wouldn't the next question for ACS logically be:

Would it be possible for a god to create the god that is so big he encompasses all the others? ......and just one higher up to create that particular one? ......... how about another above him? Perhaps only if there is one god and not multiples between the levels you don't mind? What if all other gods were made by the bottom god, except for a few that were made by the tenth god up the ladder just to mess with the one you think is at the top of the bottom?? If that were the case, how would you determine which god up the god ladder created the multiples you see at the bottom? In your story you only care about the point where multiples stop, but how would that be determined?

Those are all valid and interesting points to consider.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Your ' how ' was this ...



That explanation has nothing to do with the OP, that asked asked for evidence that your god belief is true while showing that another is false.... No one asked ' how ' you reached your decision about the bestest god..

Your participation, since you chose to participate, should have ended with:

" I have no such evidence ... "


Instead, you continue to get your shorts all twisted, because people keep pointing out that you have no evidence as requested...

In this case the "evidence" that's being compared is the different god's characterstics. See Beth's post #713 for a perfect summary overall what I've been consistently saying in these threads. And after this comparison I may decide to look at other evidences, more specifics, etc. You may simply think it's a pissing contest between god's, but it's not anything that simple to me.

 

[articulett]

So lets summarize.

There is no logical reason to believe that anyone actually uses an objective method for determining which god to believe in and which traits this god has and what this god is responsible for. There is no evidence that anyone actually has divine knowledge. There is no actual useful method of determining potential real gods from imaginary gods, myths, delusions, illusions, and non-existent gods. It is safe to logically conclude that all gods are imaginary as are all non-material forms of consciousness. There is no measurable evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thanks Darth, Beth, CS-- that's what I thought you were saying. No need to get so testy... I don't think your omnipotent god needs you to defend him. In science people want their ideas probed... most skeptics do too... the truth shouldn't be afraid of being questioned. The facts remain the fact whether people believe in them or not.

 

[GeeMack]

I was pretty sure that ACS would completely ignore the request to provide his objective evidence, or admit he has none. He has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't have the courage or honesty to directly address the question posed in the OP. So, *yawn*, he's just another in a long line of cowardly superstitious folks coming through here lyin' for Jesus. Who woulda knowed?

 

[articulett]

In this case the "evidence" that's being compared is the different god's characterstics. See Beth's post #713 for a perfect summary overall what I've been consistently saying in these threads. And after this comparison I may decide to look at other evidences, more specifics, etc. You may simply think it's a pissing contest between god's, but it's not anything that simple to me.

Yes, but to outside observers it is. You've done nothing to show us that you are not playing a mental game with yourself to define your imaginary friend as being better than other imaginary friends. Believers never give non-believers or former believers any reason to think otherwise. Yes, we understand that all believers take their god beliefs or other woo beliefs seriously while dismissing other beliefs with simplistic platitudes like the above. What we want to know is Why? How? How can you be so cavalier in dismissing other beliefs and yet assume yours is built on more-- when objectively it just isn't. All believers can provide one miraculous anecdote after another as to how they know their woo is true--just as you can. Why do you consider that "evidence" for your god while recognizing that it not evidence for other gods.

Why is Tom Cruise's success not evidence that his beliefs are the truth and he's being rewarded as a sign of that truth-- John Travolta too... they have ever-resurrecting careers and wealth beyond belief! Why isn't the burning bosom and heartfelt knowingness of Mormons proof that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? To them it is. It's a personal message from god affirming the truth of Mormonism! What about the stigmata of Catholics--isn't that proof that they are god's chosen? Or how about those who talk in tongues--what is that if not a sign directly mentioned in gods holy book?! Muslims are willing to die for their faith--isn't that proof of something true? When you explain these things to yourself, you'll understand why we don't consider your "evidence" to be of any better caliber in illuminating actual truths. You give us no reason to. And yet YOU consider your evidence better than those examples for some reason. If this kind of evidence is the best that theists have then obviously it's useless for finding out anything true!