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

[Beth]

This is exactly what I mean about knowing less about god. In face, you have just put it into a category where it basically becomes impossible to conclude anything about it. If it does not interact in any way we can objectively measure, then all it really tells us is to stop wasting time looking for it.

I disagree. Do you feel the same way about that neutrinos? (That massless particle that doesn't interact with ordinary matter - I hope I got the right one!)

On the other side of this coin, where there are avenues to explore, many fascinating things have been learned. Anthropology and neurology are exciting fields in their own rights, and have been shedding more light upon religions, how they are formed, and what they can tell us about human nature. Sadly, they haven't shown us anything that can be taken as evidence of god's existence.

We're in agreement here.

I disagree and I will explain by changing your emphasis slightly. It is the only reasonable conclusion. Granted, there are other conclusions that can be drawn, but the ones I have heard have been reached using something other than reason. Although this does not necessarily make them incorrect, it does make them unreasonable.

We're certainly entitled to disagree on what is 'reasonable'. That's a judgement call. I can only say that I find either conclusion reasoned and reasonable. We'll just have to leave it at that. In addition, while argument from popularity doesn't make a conclusion correct, I do think it gives weight to the argument that it is a 'reasonable' conclusion.

 

[Hokulele]

I disagree. Do you feel the same way about that neutrinos? (That massless particle that doesn't interact with ordinary matter - I hope I got the right one!)

[Nitpick] You did get the right particle, but they can be detected. Detection and confirmation of the neutrino is what won a Nobel Prize in physics. [/Nitpick]

We're in agreement here.

Yup, and that's why I generally prefer studying things that can be studied.

We're certainly entitled to disagree on what is 'reasonable'. That's a judgement call. I can only say that I find either conclusion reasoned and reasonable. We'll just have to leave it at that. In addition, while argument from popularity doesn't make a conclusion correct, I do think it gives weight to the argument that it is a 'reasonable' conclusion.

For the most part, fair enough. Although I do disagree that popularity adds weight to this argument. There have been enough brain studies to show physical evidence that people are wired to believe in something larger. This can explain the popularity without resorting to the existence of a god. I am not suggesting this is evidence against any gods, merely that it undermines your argument for the existence of such.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We were talking about a mother who lost her son and whose belief provided her consolation and relief from suffering.

You declared her belief as not justified, inspite of its huge benefit for her.

Because you happen to have a different definition of "justified".

Well, I wish you all the best in life with your definitions.

Are you familiar with the canonical fallacy known as the Argument from Consequences? Just in case you are not, the fallacious argument goes "If X is true it would lead to bad consequences, therefore X is false". The reason it is fallacious is that the consequences of X prove nothing about the truth or falsehood of X, they are simply irrelevant to that question.

For example if I were to argue "If there are no carrots in the fridge then my children go hungry tonight, therefore there are carrots in the fridge" you would be able to see the problem immediately. Arguing "if there is no God then she would feel bad, therefore there is a God" is exactly the same.

I'm pretty sure that if you try to define "justified" and "rational" to cover believing things you think will make you feel good, as opposed to believing things you think you have reason to believe are true, then not only are you embracing the Argument from Consequences but you're also arguing that it's rational to think you are Napoleon if it makes you happy.

 

[Beth]

[Nitpick]
For the most part, fair enough. Although I do disagree that popularity adds weight to this argument.

<shrug> It's a judgement call. I think it popularity is a reasonable criteria to judge reasonableness of a belief.

There have been enough brain studies to show physical evidence that people are wired to believe in something larger. This can explain the popularity without resorting to the existence of a god. I am not suggesting this is evidence against any gods, merely that it undermines your argument for the existence of such.

This is evidence that can be interpreted as support for either position. One plausable argument for the cause of such an elaborate hard-wiring would be the existance of the thing we are hard-wired to believe in. While I don't find it a convincing argument for the existance of god, it is a plausible interpretation of the evidence.

Nice talking with you, but I don't think we disagree on much at this point.

 

[articulett]

Are you familiar with the canonical fallacy known as the Argument from Consequences? Just in case you are not, the fallacious argument goes "If X is true it would lead to bad consequences, therefore X is false". The reason it is fallacious is that the consequences of X prove nothing about the truth or falsehood of X, they are simply irrelevant to that question.

For example if I were to argue "If there are no carrots in the fridge then my children go hungry tonight, therefore there are carrots in the fridge" you would be able to see the problem immediately. Arguing "if there is no God then she would feel bad, therefore there is a God" is exactly the same.

I'm pretty sure that if you try to define "justified" and "rational" to cover believing things you think will make you feel good, as opposed to believing things you think you have reason to believe are true, then not only are you embracing the Argument from Consequences but you're also arguing that it's rational to think you are Napoleon if it makes you happy.

I think Herzy is trying to make a strawman... he's pretending that you would tell a grieving Mom her belief is unjustified... rather than acknowledging that though the belief may give people comfort, that's not evidence in favor of the belief being true. Sure, she's "justified"-- but that still doesn't make the belief true. People were justified thinking the earth was flat-- it looks flat. But the evidence shows this to be an illusion. Their "justification" was based on incorrect inferences from the information they had. The same goes for gods, souls, and assorted other supernatural things that people "believe in".

But Herzy likes his straw men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Huh? I'm telling you I consider the changes in god beliefs to those espoused by most of the theists in their thread to be an example of a changing paradigm just as the changes in atom beliefs are. If it's a 'special rule' as you term it, it's not unique to god beliefs, but to many other beliefsm, such at atom beliefs and shape-of-the-earth beliefs.

[snip]

I'll try to address these points later tonight but until you figure out what it is you are not getting about what is and what is not evidence, you probably will keep missing what I am saying about special rules and if you don't get what I mean by special rules, you aren't likely to understand what I am saying.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think Herzy is trying to make a strawman... he's pretending that you would tell a grieving Mom her belief is unjustified... rather than acknowledging that though the belief may give people comfort, that's not evidence in favor of the belief being true. Sure, she's "justified"-- but that still doesn't make the belief true. People were justified thinking the earth was flat-- it looks flat. But the evidence shows this to be an illusion. Their "justification" was based on incorrect inferences from the information they had. The same goes for gods, souls, and assorted other supernatural things that people "believe in".

But Herzy likes his straw men.

I tend to agree.

Hey, Herzy, suppose the grieving mother knew her son was an atheist and the mother was tormented by the belief that her son was sizzling on Satan's saucepan and would continue to do so for all eternity.

Would this belief of hers have any relevance to the question of whether or not there really was as a matter of fact an afterlife?

 

[cyborg]

Or, if you prefer, I will go up to the Mother and tell her she's an idiot before punching her in the face.

Have I satisfactorily proven there is no god yet?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Is this thread still going on? Are apologists for religion really trying to change this to a discussion of whether it's nice to tell people their religion is false, as though nicness had anything with truth?

Evidence for religion: None.

Evidence that religious people double talk and rationalize their religion as being true while all others are false: Plentiful.

 

[GeeMack]

Beth, I asked you a few direct questions in post number 741 of this thread. It seemed these were clearly stated and relevant to the topic. Because you seem to be generally polite and willing to participate, for the time being I'll set aside the possibility that you're being rude. Did you perhaps simply overlook the questions? Believe me, I understand that maybe you can't answer them without refuting some of your own claims or showing that those claims are wholly without support, but questioning one's position is part of what being skeptical is all about, isn't it? So cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance aside, what do you say?...

You claim the definition of god has changed over eons. Please provide the current definition.

[...]

You've stated that empirical evidence acquired over the ages has brought about the changes in the definition of god. We all (almost all) understand that there are many phenomena which were once thought to be caused by the intervention of gods, which are now known, because of the accumulation of empirical evidence, to be caused by particular principles of physics. In other words, gods are less necessary to explain the unknown now than they were in the past. Don't you agree?

Also, do you have examples of any empirical evidence which might actually substantiate the existence of gods or demonstrate that any phenomena are caused by the power of gods? It would be interesting to contrast that list with the masses of empirical evidence showing that gods are not valid explanations for so many things we once misunderstood.

[...]

So, okay, gods are becoming less necessary all the time. The compilation of empirical evidence increasingly shows that the power of gods is not a rational explanation for any phenomena. Given a continued gathering of empirical evidence, it seems reasonable that some day the notion that gods are some sort of real entities, will simply cease to exist. When do you think the definition of god, because of the accumulation of empirical evidence, will become something like, "Mythical supernatural beings who were once believed to actually exist?" (Hint: There is already a substantial portion of the world's population who understand gods that way.)

 

[Belz...]

We were talking about a mother who lost her son and whose belief provided her consolation and relief from suffering.

You declared her belief as not justified, inspite of its huge benefit for her.

What huge benefit ? Ignorance ? Delusion ?

Yeah, that's quite beneficial.

I prefer the "dealing with reality" business.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree. Do you feel the same way about that neutrinos? (That massless particle that doesn't interact with ordinary matter - I hope I got the right one!)

Beth, if neutrinos are detectable, then obviously they interact with matter.

I think Herzy is trying to make a strawman...

Actually, I think he's trying to build an emotional case. "Say, aren't you evil for denying this poor woman her right to blissfully delude herself ?"

 

[Herzblut]

What huge benefit ? Ignorance ? Delusion ?

I explicitely mentioned "consolation and relief from suffering". Your blatant inattentional blindness is cute.

I prefer the "dealing with reality" business.

I like your self-delusions.

 

[Mobyseven]

I disagree. Do you feel the same way about that neutrinos? (That massless particle that doesn't interact with ordinary matter - I hope I got the right one!)

Neutrinos do interact, but only via the weak nuclear force. They are hard to detect, but the are detectable and have been detected.

We're certainly entitled to disagree on what is 'reasonable'. That's a judgement call. I can only say that I find either conclusion reasoned and reasonable. We'll just have to leave it at that. In addition, while argument from popularity doesn't make a conclusion correct, I do think it gives weight to the argument that it is a 'reasonable' conclusion.

Well, would you mind giving us your definition of reasonable then? Would a reasonable conclusion, for example, involve the use of reasoning? If so, what reasoning could be used to justify a belief in one god, for example 'Yahweh', but not another god, for example 'Allah'?

 

[Belz...]

I explicitely mentioned "consolation and relief from suffering". Your blatant inattentional blindness is cute.

Dealing with reality ALSO offers relief from suffering, but without the added price tag of ignorance and delusion.

I like your self-delusions.

You think reality is a delusion ? I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Having a few minutes today to spend on the forum, I have reviewed this thread and conclude that the answer to the OP question, "Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?", is "No".

 

[articulett]

Having a few minutes today to spend on the forum, I have reviewed this thread and conclude that the answer to the OP question, "Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?", is "No".

Correct.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

 

[Mobyseven]

Having a few minutes today to spend on the forum, I have reviewed this thread and conclude that the answer to the OP question, "Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?", is "No".

That would be a fair summary of the thread so far, yes.

 

[volatile]

That would be a fair summary of the thread so far, yes.

I think you'd need to add a "...but WAAAHHHH!" to the end of the sentence to fully encapsulate the subtle and nuanced arguments proffered so far.

 

[Mobyseven]

Well, would you mind giving us your definition of reasonable then? Would a reasonable conclusion, for example, involve the use of reasoning? If so, what reasoning could be used to justify a belief in one god, for example 'Yahweh', but not another god, for example 'Allah'?

Why is it that people seem less inclined to give an answer when you ask them for specifics and definitions? Surely, Beth, if people disagree on the definition of a word, it would be useful to know what definition each side is using?