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

[articulett]

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?

Tis the season...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It is all summed up by: ( paraphrase )


" We only believe in one less God than you do . When you understand this, you will understand why the one god you believe in, has no more credibility than the ones you don't believe in. "

 

[JoeEllison]

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.

Do you have some sort of runway, and have them come out for judging? You hand out photos of various mythological beings, and say ""Congratulations. You are still in the running towards becoming America'sA Christian Sceptic's Next Top ModelDeity"?

 

[Mobyseven]

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

You, Darth, are so far up your own bloody rectum I'd be surprised if you ever see daylight again.

Tell me - do you know the difference between an internally consistent system and a system based on empirical observation? If you do, perhaps you could tell Beth, Plumjam, ACS and anyone else who seems not to understand the difference to call off the uninformed strawmen, and educate them a little bit, eh?

You call the OP trolling? Funny - most of the people in this thread disagree with you. They all read the same OP, and they all understood the question that was being asked. The only people who seem to think that the OP was trolling seem completely incapable of answering it, instead posting strawmen, question dodges and insults.

I can't help but feel that if you had a worthwhile answer to the question in the OP, you would have posted it by now...and that the fact you're still involved in the thread probably means you know you don't have a good answer, but you don't want to admit it...

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Nonsense, and you know it.

I am very concerned with what your answer to the OP is. However, saying that you skeptically examine parts of Christianity is not an answer to the question, "Why do you believe in one (or some) gods, but dismiss all others?"

It is an answer to the question, "How skeptical of Christianity are you?" - obviously you are not particularly skeptical of Christianity or you would actually apply skepticism to the whole shebang, instead of just certain aspects.

Even your admission that you are only interested in worshipping the 'biggest' god (what I am talking about when I refer to your god beliefs being no more than a pissing contest) doesn't make sense - the god of Islam, or Mormonism, or Judaism, is just as big if not bigger than the Christian god - so why do you reject those gods but accept yours? And on a related topic, why then are you Christian instead of Muslim, Mormon, etc.?

That you are yelling at me for being off-topic in a thread in which every damn theist has been off topic since the thread began is, of course, the ultimate irony.

 

[articulett]

You, Darth, are so far up your own bloody rectum I'd be surprised if you ever see daylight again.

Tell me - do you know the difference between an internally consistent system and a system based on empirical observation? If you do, perhaps you could tell Beth, Plumjam, ACS and anyone else who seems not to understand the difference to call off the uninformed strawmen, and educate them a little bit, eh?

You call the OP trolling? Funny - most of the people in this thread disagree with you. They all read the same OP, and they all understood the question that was being asked. The only people who seem to think that the OP was trolling seem completely incapable of answering it, instead posting strawmen, question dodges and insults.

I can't help but feel that if you had a worthwhile answer to the question in the OP, you would have posted it by now...and that the fact you're still involved in the thread probably means you know you don't have a good answer, but you don't want to admit it...

Many feel as you do--don't worry, DR insults only the finest in his catankerous bouts of holier-than-thou blatherings. (But I must say I love his little jealous streak regarding your TLA nomination... tee-hee... blowhards are so precious when they're angry!... so quick to see imagined chips on other peoples shoulders while being unaware of giant block of concrete jutting from their own!)

You've said what, no doubt, many feel.

 

[Herzblut]

Does the following statement make sense to you: Internally consistent axiomatic systems are not the same as the empirical sciences.

The topic has been your statement of belief that Holding a belief that is unfalsifiable is unskeptical.

And the obvious fact that this statement is kinda self-refuting unless you are able to show your belief can be falsified. Your reaction, "Hollywood-Diva" kind of brand, doesn't help you much, I'm afraid.

BTW, using simple common-sense reasoning, your belief can be falsified, I think it is false.

 

[Mobyseven]

The topic has been your statement of belief that Holding a belief that is unfalsifiable is unskeptical.

And the obvious fact that this statement is kinda self-refuting unless you are able to show your belief can be falsified. Your reaction, "Hollywood-Diva" kind of brand, doesn't help you much, I'm afraid.

BTW, using simple common-sense reasoning, your belief can be falsified, I think it is false.

Look out everybody! Herzblut has common-sense reasoning!

Obviously that trumps actual philosophical understanding and investigation any day.

Herz, that my point about internally consistent systems versus empirical systems continues to escape you tells me both that you don't know very much about what you seem to be espousing, and that you can't be bothered to research it at all. Stop wasting mine and everybody else's time by posting nonsense, and come back when you're actually willing to have an adult discussion.

 

[Herzblut]

Herz, that my point about internally consistent systems versus empirical systems continues to escape you tells me both that you don't know very much about what you seem to be espousing, and that you can't be bothered to research it at all. [You] Stop wasting mine and everybody else's time by posting nonsense, and [you] come back when you're actually willing to have an adult discussion.

(I bolded you/Herz and added [you] to demonstrate the adhom character of this text)

Since your posts are now unfortunately escaping completely into areas of irrational adhom tirades I have to conclude that your beliefs are lacking proper justification while you keep requesting such justifications from others.

This approach shows no legitimacy.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

How accidentally inappropriate. You compare god to mathematics and morality, things that do not exist outside of the human mind, as they are artificial constructs that don't exist in the real world.

I also happen to think that god doesn't exist in the real world. In making an argument you thought supported your position, you instead make an argument against it. Beautiful, beautiful irony.

Hmm, I can se how the usage of the term “real” her can lead to a quarrel about internally consistent systems and empirical systems. Do you mean by “real” something physical, if so, why not use that term instead? What am I missing here?

 

[Mobyseven]

Another woo proponent who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is. How surprising.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hmm, I can se how the usage of the term “real” her can lead to a quarrel about internally consistent systems and empirical systems. Do you mean by “real” something physical, if so, why not use that term instead? What am I missing here?

External to the human mind (regardless of what one's beliefs about the mind are).

In other words, and to paraphrase someone (Asimov, I think) - what is real is what would refuse to go away if humans did.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The topic has been your statement of belief that Holding a belief that is unfalsifiable is unskeptical.

It's not a statement of belief that unfalsifiable beliefs are useless and that you're irrational to actually believe any of them.

The reason being that are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable beliefs, and each one is exactly as good as all the rest of them. The belief that there is a non-interventionist God, the belief that carrots having immaterial and eternal souls and the belief that the universe is a thought in the mind of a hyper-intelligent shade of blue are all on precisely the same epistemological footing.

As I indicated earlier, a preference for one unfalsifiable belief over another must have some basis. Anyone who holds particular unfalsifiable beliefs yet claims they have no particular reason to have chosen those beliefs over others is presenting us with a very curious story indeed.

 

[Herzblut]

It's not a statement of belief that unfalsifiable beliefs are useless and that you're irrational to actually believe any of them.

What you say is a wrong proposition.

The reason being that are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable beliefs, and each one is exactly as good as all the rest of them.

Only if you incorrectly infer that all beliefs respond to epistemology.

As I indicated earlier, a preference for one unfalsifiable belief over another must have some basis.

It arguably has. But you have no say whatsoever in that matter if I understand correctly the concept of "freedom of religion".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What you say is a wrong proposition.

That claim is sufficiently curious that I give it's mere presentation no weight without some significant accompanying explanation.

Only if you incorrectly infer that all beliefs respond to epistemology.

Whereas this claim is straightforwardly self-contradictory.

It arguably has. But you have no say whatsoever in that matter if I understand correctly the concept of "freedom of religion".

This is not a discussion about what you are allowed to believe. You are allowed to believe whatever you like. This is a discussion about what beliefs you can justify.

 

[Herzblut]

That claim is sufficiently curious that I give it's mere presentation no weight without some significant accompanying explanation.

Hm.. with your amply experience in life, you say you cannot imagine any single circumstance that justifies holding a certain unfalsifiable belief?

This is not a discussion about what you are allowed to believe. You are allowed to believe whatever you like. This is a discussion about what beliefs you can justify.

To whom? Apart from yourself.

 

[Beth]

Merry Christmas everyone. I will be away from the computer mostly for the next couple days. I haven't abandoned the thread.

Thanks for the notification. I hope you have/had a wonderful holiday with your extended family! I was able to take some time to comtemplate your previous post before responding.

This is an example of what I mean by special treatment of god beliefs. Here is a way to explain a god which becomes increasingly less likely as the evidence is collected. So instead of accepting the possibility the reason there is no evidence is because there is no god, the believer makes up the special rules, the formless, untestable god.

Here's the problem. Those rules did not exist when gods were first believed in by humans. The gods which were the original gods did have physical existences as far as the history of them and some current beliefs go. Still, that alone doesn't have to imply the untestable formless god doesn't exist. My question is, however, at one time you have all these god beliefs which involve equally physical gods. And today we have much of the human population each picking out one or more of those gods to believe in.

Some still believe their special physical god belief is true. For those people, from an outside objective standpoint, it would seem they have arbitrarily chosen which gods were real and which weren't. Location and culture determined which god belief they would adopt rather than some testable evidence one god was real and the rest weren't.

For still other people, the same thing occurred, they determined they would believe in one or more gods but not all gods. As they adopted an evidence based world rather than the superstition* based world, the obvious problem then was how to maintain those god beliefs in spite of the mounting evidence against the existence of a real god. So you adopt special rules. You change the definition of god. You also however leave a whole slew of god beliefs, the ones you rejected, in the evidence based world. Pe'le, Ra, Zeus and the rest are not afforded the special rules. Why is that? What differs about those god beliefs? And, are you aware the special rules and changed definitions would not have been applied to god beliefs 10,000 years ago?

Are you aware the special rules and changed definitions would not have been applied to atom beliefs 10,000 years ago? Yes, the definition of god has changed over the eons. So has the definition of an atom. Why do you consider this a problem? After all, we are supposed to change our definitions as we progress and gain more knowledge rather than being irrevocably wedded to dogmatic beliefs.

I understand that the differences atom beliefs and god beliefs are vast. But there are some similarities pertinant to this discussion. Both have changed significantly over the past few thousand years in response to better empirical evidence that humankind has managed to obtain. And both can still be considered to represent the same core concept of a thing that cannot be experienced directly via our senses.

In this thread a new special rule has been discussed. We have many different and incompatible god beliefs in existence today. That is evidence god beliefs have more to do with human imagination than a real god. A real god should produce consistent beliefs at least by large numbers of peoples independently. The evidence is in the way of the god belief once again. So now the god belief begins to change. All these variations are merely different cultural expressions of the same god. Of course that doesn't follow the evidence. As with the other special god belief rules, it fits the evidence to the existing belief.

I propose the special rules are not an explanation for how one becomes aware of the existence of a god which is untestable. Rather, the special rules are just a way of fitting the evidence to the conclusion. .

You see it that way, I see it as a way of adjusting the definition of god to the available empirical evidence, just as the definition of ‘atom’ has adjusted to the available empirical evidence. I think both are reasonable interpretations of the evidence currently available to us.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I understand that the differences atom beliefs and god beliefs are vast. But there are some similarities pertinant to this discussion. Both have changed significantly over the past few thousand years in response to better empirical evidence that humankind has managed to obtain.

In one case ( the former ) we have actually been able to measure and quantify the effects of their existence.
With the latter, things that were once attributed to gods have been shown to have a scientific explanation.. In other words, the god effect is no longer necessary .. Big difference..

And both can still be considered to represent the same core concept of a thing that cannot be experienced directly via our senses.

That some people consider it the same core concept doesn't make it so ..


A world without atomic theory cannot currently be explained .. A world without god doesn't have the same problem ...

 

[Hokulele]

You see it that way, I see it as a way of adjusting the definition of god to the available empirical evidence, just as the definition of ‘atom’ has adjusted to the available empirical evidence. I think both are reasonable interpretations of the evidence currently available to us.

I just have one small quibble with this analogy. In the case of the definition of an atom, it has been adjusted towards whatever model the new evidence uncovers. Each piece of evidence leads to a greater understanding of the atom. The definition of god always seems to be adjusted away from new evidence (e.g., "god of the gaps"). Each piece of evidence leads to knowing less about god.

 

[articulett]

I just have one small quibble with this analogy. In the case of the definition of an atom, it has been adjusted towards whatever model the new evidence uncovers. Each piece of evidence leads to a greater understanding of the atom. The definition of god always seems to be adjusted away from new evidence (e.g., "god of the gaps"). Each piece of evidence leads to knowing less about god.

Yes, each definition of god makes god more nebulous and murky--more like an imaginary god... whereas all of our knowledge about atoms have lead towards great understanding and useful information that others can build upon, replicate, and refine. Atoms are measurable...they have weight and properties... god... nothing. There is nothing to distinguish god belief from a delusion. Compounding evidence distinguish atoms from an illusion. They exist whether you know about them or not. That doesn't seem true for god. If you aren't told about gods, "god" is not an explanation for anything in your world.