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

[articulett]

It's good evidence for opinions but not beliefs about factual things. I think Tom Cruise could use personal observation and conclude that Scientology works for him and thus must be true... he's very successful, after all.

All religions reject some degree of science because they believe that things can exist that can not be measured or detected in any known way. That makes those things indistinguishable from the things that don't exist. You can reject Scientology because of what you've heard they believe about calculus... I reject scientology for the same reason I reject all religions and claims of divine knowledge.

Personal observations regarding the supernatural have only demonstrated that people are really easy to fool. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that faith is a means of finding out anything that is objectively true-- and yet millions of people believe it is... and as long as they don't put what they have learned on the table for examination... they can all believe they've tapped into the same nebulous higher truth.

Have you seen any of Randi's videos-- his Carlos tape... etc.? What people believe they are experiencing or seeing or feeling may, in fact, be due to misinterpretation, confirmation bias, or wrongful inferences (confusing correlation for causation-- e.g."I did a rain dance and it rained; therefore the rain gods must have liked my dance.-- the rain is proof") This is just such a common error of human experience coupled with a claim about something there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for... of course I'm incredulous. But I don't understand why all skeptics aren't. I presume it's cognitive dissonance. They cannot believe that they may be fooling themselves and they don't even test to see if this is the case. I wonder if it's because of a pascal's wager kind of fear or if their egos have just grown to need faith and so their brain automatically vilifies anyone who threatens it and keeps that person's message from penetrating.

It's not like a personal experience where you decide that someone is obnoxious... those are opinions--not facts. The same with morality. You can derive a measuring system to see if people who are religious are more moral, but, in fact, religiosity is associated with higher levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, and drug use as well as lower levels of education. And atheists are under represented in prisons. So clearly, religion does not make people more moral by any measurably obvious standard. But I bet all theists think they are more moral than people who believe differently than them. I'm sure Tom Cruise thinks he's more moral than you and vice versa.

To me, it seems that "personal observations" that god is real is on par with a little kid swearing he heard Santa on the roof. He probably did hear something, right? But not Santa. The same for god-- rather it's yours or Tom Cruise's... the same for all invisible forms of consciousness or magical forces or divinity as far as I can tell. Things that exist have evidence of there existence that is measurable on some level and that can be teased apart from it's non-existence. Even invisible things like atoms-- they have measurable properties... or feelings like love-- but there is nothing about gods or souls that is testable and tons of people who "believe in them" on evidence no more persuasive than Tom Cruise's delusions! Or the hijackers delusions? Or whatever it is that makes you feel "in on" divine truths.

I just think you guys avoid saying what exactly it is you believe in and what this god does or how you know of him, because you know it's based on what you want to be true-- and your words are as easy to dismiss as the believers of woo you don't believe in. They are probably as certain as you that their opposing beliefs are true. And none of you guys are in a rational position to determine the actual truth-- the one that is the same for everybody. I think that increasing evidence shows the materialism model to be correct... and I think it's dangerous and wrong to keep propping up "belief in belief" as though faith could be a means of knowledge. There are so many people so sure of their rightness about invisible immeasurable entities and they don't agree with each other at all. To an atheist that's a lot of irrational people around who feel extra special because of their faith and supposed divine knowledge which makes them "more moral" in their heads. Even if one of those faiths was right-- the vast majority would still be wrong--but the believers are all as certain as though they were right. There would be no way to objectively determine the one who had the "real divine truth" about the invisible undetectable creator of the universe. And yet everyone is sure he's speaking to them.

I know you believe in your personal experiences... but Tom Cruise really believes in his too... But there is no more evidence for Xenu than your god or than for alien anal probes!

Yet-- people believe and fight for and kill for and die for and stick up for these delusions and swear they make them better or happier or more moral-- but only believers of their ilk seemed convinced of that. To me, they seem "alike"-- and not rational on the subject of their "faith".

 

[articulett]

But maybe people have come to need it because when they were children they were taught that it was necessary, "the truth", or the key to salvation. Maybe they believe they need it. But that doesn't mean they do, and it sure doesn't make it true. In fact, with so many varying beliefs in direct conflict with each other and so many people so sure that they have "the truth" or they've tapped in on the "divine essence"-- without being able to proffer the slightest bit of measurable objective evidence-- the only possible conclusion is that the vast majority are fooling themselves-- if not all of them.

And there is NO way to tease out the delusional from the non-delusional. Nobody thinks they are deluded. Not Tom Cruise, Not any of the woo here-- not any who take the MDC.

But that's a message the faithful can't hear. Instead they'll demonize the one who tries to show them how this must be so.

 

[Mobyseven]

I currently have Mobyseven on ignore and haven't read his response. We've discussed the matter in the past and I am well aware that he, like most atheists here, think the default assumption is or ought to be 'no god'. I don't agree with that position; it contradicts with my observation that for most people, it is not the default assumption and the claim that it ought to be is a value judgement, not a logical imperative.

Well, obviously if you close your eyes and wish really hard that'll make everything you think come true!

Seriously though, this is what bugs me the most - we have discussed this in the past, I have explained all this in detail in the past, and your response has always been, "Well I don't think that!"

Of course you don't think that. If you did I wouldn't have to explain it to you. But just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it so. You can preach until the cows come home about how it's 'just a value judgment', but it's not, and I've clearly explained why many, many times now. The fact that you keep using the same previously destroyed arguments as though no one ever said anything makes you look spectacularly dishonest, no more than your everyday common woo-monger. Of course, it's comments like this that have given you the excuse to ignore me in the first place (How rude of that young whipper-snapper!), but then - I wouldn't have to make such comments if you were being intellectually honest, so around and around we go. The thing that could break the pattern and (shock) prove me wrong would be if you were to actually pay attention to criticism and respond accordingly. What a swell situation that would be.

Go back to the analagy of diet. Is eating meat necessary? One can answer that with no because some people are vegetarians and do just fine without any meat in their diet. Clearly it isn't an absolute necessity.

Likewise, people can be quite moral without any god beliefs. But I think in the broader sense, humanity is a meat-eating and god-believing species. Saying we don't 'need' god beliefs is similar to saying we don't need meat in our diets. Perhaps technically true, but most people, now and in the past, rely on meat in their diets to provide them with necessary nutrition and rely on god beliefs to provide them with the moral structure needed to function in their society. That's what I meant by 'need'. Not an absolute necessity for everyone, but relied upon by most of humanity to provide certain necessities. I hope that is clearer. My apologies if it is not.

So is your argument that there is a biological difference between atheists and theists? If it is, then how did you reach this conclusion? What studies can you cite, and how would such a theory explain 'converts'? If it is not, then why would some people actually need a belief in god to be moral, given that there are a multitude of people who are moral without belief in god? And why is it possible for people to change what they believe about god?

You're right that I'm thinking of adults. Newborns don't eat meat and are not sexually active either. As far as 'programming' goes, my point is that I think god beliefs are due to 'programming' in much the same way eating meat or having sex is. Yes, the exact beliefs are primarily culturally driven just as exactly how meat is prepared to be eaten and what sexual practices are engaged in, but the underlying 'need' that is being satisfied is not - it's an innate human desire even if not all humans have those desires or act upon them.

But if not all people have that desire then it is not an innate human desire by definition (unless of course atheists aren't human). Newborns don't eat meat, but they do eat - otherwise they would die, and as such they need to eat. Newborns don't have sex, but they have the necessary equipment to do so - once they are mature enough (and no longer a newborn, obviously) they will probably start having sex. Nowadays we do so for the pleasure it brings, but the desire does have a biological basis - one needs to pass on one's genes in order to 'survive' into the next generation. As such, sex is a human 'need'.

Newborns don't believe in god. Moreover, the large number of people who are moral and well adjusted without believing in god shows that belief in god is not a necessary development in humans as far as morality goes. On top of that, we know that gods were used in ancient cultures as explanatory devices - a job that has been primarily taken over by science (which does a far better job at it) - so belief in god is not required to explain anything anymore either. Indeed, it has become clear that gods are very poor explanatory devices, as they stifle further investigation into any given phenomenon. So - how exactly is belief in god a human 'need'?

I don't understand the connection between god-belief and morality either. It is my observation that they are highly correlated. I don't see any reason to assume that is just co-incidence. Instead, I surmise there is some connection between the two. Perhaps I am wrong and there is not, but I haven't found the argument that they are not connected to be convincing.

Logical Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation.

Moreover, I would contend that the premises are false - belief in god is not highly correlated with morality according to any statistics I have seen. What evidence can you present that supports your claim that the two are correlated (let alone the question of causation!)?

No, I mean people who hold similar god beliefs typically hold similar moral values.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of fish? Are we having a state the obvious competition? "This radical Muslim seems to share a lot of moral values with that radical Muslim! And this Anglican seems to share a lot of moral values with that Anglican!" Well, no kidding! Doesn't have a lot to do with anything we're talking about though.

No, I can't show that, nor would I claim it to be true. I don't know how you can show that any set of moral values is superior (or inferior) to any other set of moral values without establishing some sort of standard to measure them against. There is no agreed upon objective standard for morality.

Agreed - but that doesn't mean that one cannot judge the quality of moral values. Moral values that have a solid foundation in reason, for example, are more likely to pertain to reality are therefore more valuable in my estimate than moral values that are not grounded in reason. Many would argue with me over that point, but overall a very strong case can be made for it (decisions about reality should be based in reality; decisions based upon reality are unlikely to be arbitrary or allow discrimination), and there are real world outcomes of certain moral values that can be judged by the effect they have.

eta: By my own personal standard of morality, I rank athiests very highly. The ones I'm familiar with, including many posters on this forum, have put a great deal of effort into considering what they consider moral and what is not; they set high standards and live up to them better than most religious believers I know.

So even your anecdotal experience with atheists suggests that belief in god is not a requirement for morality. Again then - upon what evidence are you basing you belief that most people require belief in god to be moral?

Also, as I'm still curious - are you a theist or an atheist?

 

[plumjam]

It's good evidence for opinions but not beliefs about factual things. I think Tom Cruise could use personal observation and conclude that Scientology works for him and thus must be true... he's very successful, after all.

All religions reject some degree of science because they believe that things can exist that can not be measured or detected in any known way. That makes those things indistinguishable from the things that don't exist. You can reject Scientology because of what you've heard they believe about calculus... I reject scientology for the same reason I reject all religions and claims of divine knowledge.

Personal observations regarding the supernatural have only demonstrated that people are really easy to fool. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that faith is a means of finding out anything that is objectively true-- and yet millions of people believe it is... and as long as they don't put what they have learned on the table for examination... they can all believe they've tapped into the same nebulous higher truth.

Have you seen any of Randi's videos-- his Carlos tape... etc.? What people believe they are experiencing or seeing or feeling may, in fact, be due to misinterpretation, confirmation bias, or wrongful inferences (confusing correlation for causation-- e.g."I did a rain dance and it rained; therefore the rain gods must have liked my dance.-- the rain is proof") This is just such a common error of human experience coupled with a claim about something there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for... of course I'm incredulous. But I don't understand why all skeptics aren't. I presume it's cognitive dissonance. They cannot believe that they may be fooling themselves and they don't even test to see if this is the case. I wonder if it's because of a pascal's wager kind of fear or if their egos have just grown to need faith and so their brain automatically vilifies anyone who threatens it and keeps that person's message from penetrating.

It's not like a personal experience where you decide that someone is obnoxious... those are opinions--not facts. The same with morality. You can derive a measuring system to see if people who are religious are more moral, but, in fact, religiosity is associated with higher levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, and drug use as well as lower levels of education. And atheists are under represented in prisons. So clearly, religion does not make people more moral by any measurably obvious standard. But I bet all theists think they are more moral than people who believe differently than them. I'm sure Tom Cruise thinks he's more moral than you and vice versa.

To me, it seems that "personal observations" that god is real is on par with a little kid swearing he heard Santa on the roof. He probably did hear something, right? But not Santa. The same for god-- rather it's yours or Tom Cruise's... the same for all invisible forms of consciousness or magical forces or divinity as far as I can tell. Things that exist have evidence of there existence that is measurable on some level and that can be teased apart from it's non-existence. Even invisible things like atoms-- they have measurable properties... or feelings like love-- but there is nothing about gods or souls that is testable and tons of people who "believe in them" on evidence no more persuasive than Tom Cruise's delusions! Or the hijackers delusions? Or whatever it is that makes you feel "in on" divine truths.

I just think you guys avoid saying what exactly it is you believe in and what this god does or how you know of him, because you know it's based on what you want to be true-- and your words are as easy to dismiss as the believers of woo you don't believe in. They are probably as certain as you that their opposing beliefs are true. And none of you guys are in a rational position to determine the actual truth-- the one that is the same for everybody. I think that increasing evidence shows the materialism model to be correct... and I think it's dangerous and wrong to keep propping up "belief in belief" as though faith could be a means of knowledge. There are so many people so sure of their rightness about invisible immeasurable entities and they don't agree with each other at all. To an atheist that's a lot of irrational people around who feel extra special because of their faith and supposed divine knowledge which makes them "more moral" in their heads. Even if one of those faiths was right-- the vast majority would still be wrong--but the believers are all as certain as though they were right. There would be no way to objectively determine the one who had the "real divine truth" about the invisible undetectable creator of the universe. And yet everyone is sure he's speaking to them.

I know you believe in your personal experiences... but Tom Cruise really believes in his too... But there is no more evidence for Xenu than your god or than for alien anal probes!

Yet-- people believe and fight for and kill for and die for and stick up for these delusions and swear they make them better or happier or more moral-- but only believers of their ilk seemed convinced of that. To me, they seem "alike"-- and not rational on the subject of their "faith".

I feel a bit deflated. No mention of the hijackers in this one.

 

[Mobyseven]

I feel a bit deflated. No mention of the hijackers in this one.

Say, you know what you could do? Actually address the issues she raised, rather than making snide one-liners and pretending like you've made a point.

 

[plumjam]

double post

 

[plumjam]

Say, you know what you could do? Actually address the issues she raised, rather than making snide one-liners and pretending like you've made a point.

yeah, I've done that in the past.. and it just results in more of the usual rants, followed by her saying 'I'm putting Plumjam on ignore.'. Then in subsequent posts she reels off my name along with another 4 or 5 theists who have the honour of being on her hitlist, and proceeds to draw parallels between ourselves and the hijackers, Tom Cruise.. and all the usual targets.

Actually I did make a point. Being that she keeps regurgitating the same targets and examples ad nauseam.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

yeah, I've done that in the past.. and it just results in more of the usual rants, followed by her saying 'I'm putting Plumjam on ignore.'. Then in subsequent posts she reels off my name along with another 4 or 5 theists who have the honour of being on her hitlist, and proceeds to draw parallels between ourselves and the hijackers, Tom Cruise.. and all the usual targets.

Actually I did make a point. Being that she keeps regurgitating the same targets and examples ad nauseam.

Possibly because she is answering the same damn stupid questions over and over again?

Still no answer to the question raised in the OP, I see.

 

[thesyntaxera]

But I am interested in the evidence one has for believing in one particular version of god over another. If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence. If you are going to make some value statement, monotheism is superior to polytheism, I doubt you can actually support that claim but feel free to offer your evidence.

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true. And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?

I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.

The problem I see with these questions is that is presupposes you have to be a member of some organized religion in order to be a 'believer'. Maybe I am wrong, but the wording is certainly reading that way.

In any case...here's my 'believer' answer...

For starters, to be completely atheistic is a little assumptive. Logically speaking it would be safer to remain open to the idea that a greater intelligence than our own exists some where....maybe even to the level of what we might term a god. Personally I am not talking about some alien race that lives out there beyond our comprehension though.

Science is another thing for me. It provides a clear picture as to just how beautiful and complex reality can be by showing us how little we actually do know.

One of the things that has been revealed by scientific investigation is a inability to answer those big questions at this time. If we are to accept the theory of the big bang for example, we are still left the question of what happened before, and where did that point of infinite density come from? So far I haven't heard a explanation that wasn't as ridiculous invoking a 'god'. If we go with any of the other possible explanations we still face the question of why.

Until there can be a reasonable answer to the problem of infinite regress regarding the nature of the universe I feel I shall be left to answer it however I wish.

I personally take a pantheistic approach and view my body as a evolved device millions of years in the making that has through the process of evolution become able to think, and feel. It does this by focusing the incoming signals in my environment into a cogent representation that we call consciousness. My body exists in a system governed by natural laws that are the way they are for no known reason other than "Because!". This is a system of energy that is being constantly conserved. When I die, my body will go back to that system and be reallocated to some other process. Maybe, if I am lucky there will be some sensation of oneness that will occur as my body's energy and consciousness decay back into the quantum murk.

I do not know if my consciousness will survive my death. I like to think that my consciousness is just a tiny aspect of the whole's consciousness. Maybe, if there is a god, it needs help to percieve what is going on and has developed thinking creatures of all shapes and sizes in order to know as much about itself as it can. Maybe the only thing keeping me from realizing this now is that presence of an ego that also seems to serve the purpose of preventing insanity. You couldn't really have a whole planet of creatures all arguing over who was god, could you?

That is all speculative though...of course.

I choose to believe because I don't know what I would do if I didn't think there was something bigger than myself out there(or in here). I can't stare off into space or into the bottom of a microscope and not think...'My god'...

Whatever that is...

 

[plumjam]

Possibly because she is answering the same damn stupid questions over and over again?

Still no answer to the question raised in the OP, I see.

If you feel willing to read the whole thread you'll see that I contributed a lot of posts in the earlier pages thrashing the whole thing out at length. And it ended up with the atheists not being able to consistently accommodate morality, aesthetics or mathematics within their world view. Which, from any fair-minded perspective is an absolute killer.
Not surprisingly they did what they could to avoid this, and carried on, bolstered by being in the great majority. Groupthink reigns, bless 'em.

And which damn stupid questions are you referring to?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You're right that I'm thinking of adults. Newborns don't eat meat and are not sexually active either. As far as 'programming' goes, my point is that I think god beliefs are due to 'programming' in much the same way eating meat or having sex is. Yes, the exact beliefs are primarily culturally driven just as exactly how meat is prepared to be eaten and what sexual practices are engaged in, but the underlying 'need' that is being satisfied is not - it's an innate human desire even if not all humans have those desires or act upon them.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Only because many have god-beliefs does not mean there is a biological need for them. You seem to be saying that the basic underlying need for god-beliefs is innate, whereas the particular manifestation is culturally derived. I think it’s here where you go wrong (that distinction is not necessary valid).

I would say that there is a propensity to make sense of the world and one’s place in it, together with group-belonging (that’s how we survive; through anthropomorphism and social recognition), thus god-beliefs can and has been used for some aspects of that. That “filling” could be something else, it just happens to be god-beliefs for a great deal of people due to the fact that those beliefs are transmitted through generations when the receivers are young and cannot decide for themselves. Alternatively, there’s a strong religious culture that does the job. New research seems to indicate that culture is more important that family upbringing; that would also explain why people often abandon (or pull away from) their parent’s religiosity in a culture that’s more atheistic (like in Scandinavia, or the “Bible belt” vs. some other parts of the US, or when people go to universities etc.).

Thus it’s easy to draw an erroneous conclusion that these rudimentary god-beliefs are innate when in fact they might not be – there’s the propensity to make sense of the world and survive; how that is manifested is often culturally decided, even though almost every time a natural explanation comes along, it seems to override the religious cultural code (with a reorganization of the religious-cultural code as a consequence). That already seems to be a good indicator that ´”innate need for god-beliefs” is an erroneous assumption when it’s more likely to be that this belief (the innate need for god-beliefs, in and of itself) is part of a the cultural indoctrination.

I don't understand the connection between god-belief and morality either. It is my observation that they are highly correlated. I don't see any reason to assume that is just co-incidence. Instead, I surmise there is some connection between the two. Perhaps I am wrong and there is not, but I haven't found the argument that they are not connected to be convincing.

When you say that many have god-beliefs, and at the same time recognize people are moral animals, then it’s simply a truism to say that they are correlated. Moreover, you also say that most of the atheists you know are moral animals too, then, what’s left is that everyone seems to be a moral animal – some less and some more, but since you explicitly say that atheists are not less moral (# 879), then what are you actually trying to say? Morality seems to be the independent variable here (and god-beliefs the dependent one).

 

[volatile]

Quoted for Beth:

Well, obviously if you close your eyes and wish really hard that'll make everything you think come true!

Seriously though, this is what bugs me the most - we have discussed this in the past, I have explained all this in detail in the past, and your response has always been, "Well I don't think that!"

Of course you don't think that. If you did I wouldn't have to explain it to you. But just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it so. You can preach until the cows come home about how it's 'just a value judgment', but it's not, and I've clearly explained why many, many times now. The fact that you keep using the same previously destroyed arguments as though no one ever said anything makes you look spectacularly dishonest, no more than your everyday common woo-monger. Of course, it's comments like this that have given you the excuse to ignore me in the first place (How rude of that young whipper-snapper!), but then - I wouldn't have to make such comments if you were being intellectually honest, so around and around we go. The thing that could break the pattern and (shock) prove me wrong would be if you were to actually pay attention to criticism and respond accordingly. What a swell situation that would be.



So is your argument that there is a biological difference between atheists and theists? If it is, then how did you reach this conclusion? What studies can you cite, and how would such a theory explain 'converts'? If it is not, then why would some people actually need a belief in god to be moral, given that there are a multitude of people who are moral without belief in god? And why is it possible for people to change what they believe about god?



But if not all people have that desire then it is not an innate human desire by definition (unless of course atheists aren't human). Newborns don't eat meat, but they do eat - otherwise they would die, and as such they need to eat. Newborns don't have sex, but they have the necessary equipment to do so - once they are mature enough (and no longer a newborn, obviously) they will probably start having sex. Nowadays we do so for the pleasure it brings, but the desire does have a biological basis - one needs to pass on one's genes in order to 'survive' into the next generation. As such, sex is a human 'need'.

Newborns don't believe in god. Moreover, the large number of people who are moral and well adjusted without believing in god shows that belief in god is not a necessary development in humans as far as morality goes. On top of that, we know that gods were used in ancient cultures as explanatory devices - a job that has been primarily taken over by science (which does a far better job at it) - so belief in god is not required to explain anything anymore either. Indeed, it has become clear that gods are very poor explanatory devices, as they stifle further investigation into any given phenomenon. So - how exactly is belief in god a human 'need'?



Logical Fallacy: Correlation does not equal causation.

Moreover, I would contend that the premises are false - belief in god is not highly correlated with morality according to any statistics I have seen. What evidence can you present that supports your claim that the two are correlated (let alone the question of causation!)?



What the hell does that have to do with the price of fish? Are we having a state the obvious competition? "This radical Muslim seems to share a lot of moral values with that radical Muslim! And this Anglican seems to share a lot of moral values with that Anglican!" Well, no kidding! Doesn't have a lot to do with anything we're talking about though.



Agreed - but that doesn't mean that one cannot judge the quality of moral values. Moral values that have a solid foundation in reason, for example, are more likely to pertain to reality are therefore more valuable in my estimate than moral values that are not grounded in reason. Many would argue with me over that point, but overall a very strong case can be made for it (decisions about reality should be based in reality; decisions based upon reality are unlikely to be arbitrary or allow discrimination), and there are real world outcomes of certain moral values that can be judged by the effect they have.



So even your anecdotal experience with atheists suggests that belief in god is not a requirement for morality. Again then - upon what evidence are you basing you belief that most people require belief in god to be moral?

Also, as I'm still curious - are you a theist or an atheist?

 

[articulett]

Possibly because she is answering the same damn stupid questions over and over again?

Still no answer to the question raised in the OP, I see.

Exactly. No one has a good answer as to why all these other believers could have sincerely come to believe false beliefs but not them. How is it people believe their woo is true when they can see people who believe just as strongly in untrue things--be it Tom Cruise or the hijackers. Strength of belief has nothing to do with veracity of that belief.

How in the world can anyone be so confident that their nebulous magical supernatural beliefs based on whatever is more true than the Messiah Complex of Tom Cruise. So many people so certain of different "truths" and claiming access to "divine knowledge" that somehow is not measurable or detectable to scientists in any way... and is indistinguishable from mental illness and the other ways humans are known to confuse correlation with causation and make wrongful inferences.

I want to know how the woo come to believe their woo is true while knowing the rest is woo-- Can you watch Randi fool people and not wonder if you, yourself have been fooled? To me, all the woo have the same confidence in their beliefs and opinions, but no substance to back it up. They cannot tell the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of attack, and they digress all the time to avoid answering the OP question... instead the attack the person that threatens the delusion they want to keep.

 

[articulett]

thesyntaxera-- that was a good answer as to why a skeptic might be a believer-- but it sounds that you believe a certain way because it makes you feel better... so what is the answer to the OP? Why do you think what you believe is more likely to be true than what Scientologists believe, for example. It sounds that you are like Hal, you have a nebulous sort of belief that gives you comfort... you would rather believe that it is true than to find out it probably is not any more true than beliefs you do not share.

Also, an atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in a god. It is not a denial of the possibility... clearly, if a god existed, she would know exactly what kind of evidence would sway the skeptics. An atheist knows exactly what kind of evidence would change her mind, but no amount of evidence could sway a true believer in any of the myriad of faiths that exist. There are built in memes making people afraid to even consider the possibility.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If you feel willing to read the whole thread you'll see that I contributed a lot of posts in the earlier pages thrashing the whole thing out at length. And it ended up with the atheists not being able to consistently accommodate morality, aesthetics or mathematics within their world view. Which, from any fair-minded perspective is an absolute killer.
Not surprisingly they did what they could to avoid this, and carried on, bolstered by being in the great majority. Groupthink reigns, bless 'em.

And which damn stupid questions are you referring to?

Er. All of them.

Still no answer to the question raised in the OP, I see.

 

[articulett]

Er. All of them.

Still no answer to the question raised in the OP, I see.

Yes, but you must admire the skill at which he has been able to prop up both his delusion and his ego in the process of not addressing the OP.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

Yes, there is proof and it goes like this:

1- I believe in the god of the bible.

2- The bible says all non-believers should be killed.

3- I am alive, I have not been killed.

4- Therefore, there is a god, he is the one I believe in and I am one of his devoted followers.

And, just so you uppity atheists don't get the idea that I haven't thought this through, all those other people who believe differently from me and who appear to be alive, aren't. They are simply in a pre-dead condition.

Oh, ok. I'm pre-dead then which doesn't even make any sense. Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

If there is no answer, then why ask the question?

As to commando: Good one.

DR

If there is no answer, then why believe in it?

 

[articulett]

I believe that gayak was being sarcastic. People really don't know why they believe they have a piece of the "divine truth" though they are sure others have been mislead-- but they are all capable of making up confirmation biased types of semantic baloney on the spot to justify their beliefs to themselves.

 

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera-- that was a good answer as to why a skeptic might be a believer-- but it sounds that you believe a certain way because it makes you feel better... so what is the answer to the OP? Why do you think what you believe is more likely to be true than what Scientologists believe, for example. It sounds that you are like Hal, you have a nebulous sort of belief that gives you comfort... you would rather believe that it is true than to find out it probably is not any more true than beliefs you do not share.

Also, an atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in a god. It is not a denial of the possibility... clearly, if a god existed, she would know exactly what kind of evidence would sway the skeptics. An atheist knows exactly what kind of evidence would change her mind, but no amount of evidence could sway a true believer in any of the myriad of faiths that exist. There are built in memes making people afraid to even consider the possibility.

I don't care if it's true or not I guess...but since you are asking....I believe it to be more true than established dogma's because any human created religion is ultimately just a that...a human creation. There is no special insight granted to any one religion or person.

When I say true, I mean true for me. I think whitmans preface to "Leaves of Grass" played heavily in my thinking about it:

...re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem...