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

[modecom]

Signs of woo trying to convince themselves they are applying skepticism to their woo:

Tend not to state what they actually believe, instead refer to atheists as dogmatic and themselves as open minded.

Hears words you do not say in order to vilify you and distract self from examining belief.

Uses arguments that could readily be used by any woo...from believers of Xenu to believers in psychics to believers in demons.

Thinks that if science can't explain something, whomever they picked up their beliefs from can.

Thinks a solution to a mystery is even a bigger mystery... thinks a god is actually an answer to an infinite regress rather than another infinite regress.

Implies that they have access to divine knowledge without saying what they believe exactly because they know it's wacky.

Equates faith with lack of it... pretends that atheism is a dogma... cannot comprehend how atheist lack of belief is identical to their lack of belief in certain woo.

Never really answers questions... talks in inferences and straw men without really saying much. Hard to follow what exactly they are saying or to nail them down.

Sounds like an apologist but avoids giving away information as to what belief they are protecting with their straw men and mischaracterization of others and avoidance of key points.

Can't really seem to stay on topic; often seems to be having a different conversation than the majority...

secretly think their woo is true, but can't say why it's more likely to be true so they pretend that others are arrogant not to consider such woo though there is never any evidence for their vaguely implied woo.

Says statements that are the equivalent nonsense of: "until scientists explain evil, I think it's open minded to believe in demons"... of course, they never see their own similar statements as that fallacious... but they are identical in form and substance.

I just shake my head, and realize how impossible it his to have a rational dialogue with someone who needs to have a certain belief-- you will become the bad guy, not because of anything you actually say or do, but because it's easier to dislike you than to examine their cherished belief to see if it's as much of an illusion as all those other beliefs that they don't "keep their mind open for" or aren't "agnostic" about. They don't just want to hang on to their beliefs--they feel morally superior for having such beliefs in the first place, and they need to prop up that illusion along with their pet delusion.

 

[Mobyseven]

Why does one have to be either. There are obviously some folks who would label themselves as such, perhaps because they like being defined by narrow parameters. There are also those people who reject labeling themselves because it just doesn't make sense to decide on something you can never really know for sure with any measure of certainty.

Oh, for Pete's sake, we've been over this before.

A theist is a person who believes in god.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

I'm getting mighty sick of this idea that there is some kind of 'middle ground' between atheism and theism. The implication seems to be that there is some kind of mental effort involved in not believing in god, that in order to not believe in god one has to not believe in god with all their heart and all their soul (irony intended), that one has to live their life with this little voice in the back of their head constantly whispering, "There is no god. Remember that - there is no god. Devote your being to the non-existence of god."

This is not the case.

Atheism is not a belief system, and it takes no mental effort to maintain atheism. Indeed, it is no more difficult to not believe in god than it is to not believe in a billion (literally, probably, though it's hard to remember exactly how many when you don't believe in them) other entities and phenomenon. The effort it takes to not believe in god is exactly the same as the effort it takes to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, and magical peppercorns, just to name three.

If you are genuinely trying to claim middle ground, I have some bad news for you - you're probably an atheist. If you say about yourself, "I don't believe in god," then you're an atheist. It doesn't matter what you tack on after that. You can say, "But I don't not believe in god either." Well, great for you - but that's nonsense. It's a logical contradiction, you're saying, "~p and ~~p", and as much as you might think it makes you sound 'deep' or 'intellectual', it's actually no more than a nonsense statement (cue the obvious postmodernism joke). You can say, "But I don't think we can know with certainty either way." Well, congratulations - you're agnostic. But that doesn't change the fact that you're also an atheist. As has already been noted, 'atheist' is an ontological position, and 'agnostic' is an epistemological position - two very different beasts. You might say, "And I like bacon and eggs for breakfast." I do too. Don't know why you'd say that, but it's certainly possible - my point is that so long as you lack a belief in god, you're an atheist. Period.

I certainly hope that this will put the atheist/agnostic silliness to rest finally, at least in this thread.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why does one have to be either. There are obviously some folks who would label themselves as such, perhaps because they like being defined by narrow parameters. There are also those people who reject labeling themselves because it just doesn't make sense to decide on something you can never really know for sure with any measure of certainty.

Either you hold a belief in something you define as god or you don’t. I could say I hold a belief in Spinoza’s god, but that would still make me an atheist in the pragmatic sense because: Deus, sive Natura – there’s no belief in anything supernatural.

So, do you currently hold a belief in something that could be considered supernatural?

 

[Beth]

Either you hold a belief in something you define as god or you don’t. I could say I hold a belief in Spinoza’s god, but that would still make me an atheist in the pragmatic sense because: Deus, sive Natura – there’s no belief in anything supernatural.

I know Sam Harris claims Spinoza was an athiest and therefore Einstein was too. But I'm not so sure. It depends on what is meant by 'supernatural'. One Spinoza-like definition of god is 'the ground of all being' or the 'totality of the universe'. By this definition, god is supernatural in the sense of encompassing all that is natural.

So, do you currently hold a belief in something that could be considered supernatural?

How do you define 'supernatural'? Do the additional dimensions of string theory count?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I know Sam Harris claims Spinoza was an athiest and therefore Einstein was too. But I'm not so sure. It depends on what is meant by 'supernatural'. One Spinoza-like definition of god is 'the ground of all being' or the 'totality of the universe'. By this definition, god is supernatural in the sense of encompassing all that is natural.

How do you define 'supernatural'? Do the additional dimensions of string theory count?

Well, in Spinoza’s philosophy I don’t think there’s any room for the supernatural, i.e. god is nature and nature is god – god (nature) has no free will in this context, god (nature) just follows its laws. I guess I would say that supernatural is something that transcends the laws of nature (perhaps something beyond nature or isn't guided by such laws). By nature I mean the universe.

Do you currently hold any supernatural beliefs (according to my definition)?


(I can’t really comment on anything regarding string theory except that it’s a theory, perhaps someone in the know could clarify the current situation).

 

[Beth]

Well, in Spinoza’s philosophy I don’t think there’s any room for the supernatural, i.e. god is nature and nature is god – god (nature) has no free will in this context, god (nature) just follows its laws. I guess I would say that supernatural is something that transcends the laws of nature (perhaps something beyond nature or isn't guided by such laws). By nature I mean the universeDo you currently hold any supernatural beliefs (according to my definition)?

Belief would be too strong a word to describe most of my opinions on such subjects. I speculate and wonder, but belief implies a certainty I do not possess.

What do you mean to transcend the laws of nature? Supernatural is often applied to things we don't yet understand but have perfectly natural explanations waiting to be found. So if when you say 'transcend the laws of nature', you mean as we currently understand them, my answer to that is yes, I think that's possible because I think we do not fully understand the laws of nature. We have a fairly good grasp of how they work on our planet, but we do not yet know how immutable they are over large scales of time and/or distance. For example, does gravity work the same everywhere and everywhen in the universe? We simply don't know yet, all we can say is that so far, it appears to follow perfectly the formulas Einstein developed a century ago.

On the other hand, if you mean something else by 'transcend the laws of nature' then my answer might well be different.

This is what I do believe without sufficient evidence to justify it logically:

I believe that while the past is immutable, the future is not. I believe that we each contribute to shaping our shared future reality day by day and moment by moment; i believe that the future is ours to create as we wish it to be if we have the courage and perseverance to do so.

Does that qualify as belief in the supernatural?

 

[cyborg]

I didn't say is was unreasonable. I said it didn't answer my question. You tell me, what do you consider to be unreasonable about your assertion?

It's pretty simply really Beth - if you are talking about gods/some other similarly framed concept for entertainment purposes then I'll entertain any random idea you wish.

If you want to get serious about it then no, I will not simply accept what anyone has to say simply based on "personal evidence".

Why not? How are you defining stimulus such that math cannot be considered a stimulus?

In this case it would have to be some tangible physical product which impacts upon the human sensory system in such a way that it can be perceived.

Mathematics, being an abstract concept, doesn't have this sort of concrete property that a stimuli such as a photon does.

Mathematics is not a stimulus. An object containing a dense weaving of cellulose fibres with organic dyes etched into it that represents mathematical concepts can be a stimulus since there is a physical pathway between this object and the human perception system.

Perhaps. I'm often wrong. But when I consider the metaphorical interpretations of various religions, I am not as sure about that as you are. Why do you thing that it isn't appropriate to interpret that particular religious belief in that manner?

If you ignore all the differences all religions are the same.

Unifying one metaphorical concept with another is easier when you have no restriction as to the associations you may make.

If that is true, could you do me the service of enumerating a few of those? You are stating hypotheses as if they were known facts. Certainly, thoughts have bodily correlates, neurological equivalents. It's a fascinating area of research. But the interplay of our thoughts and the material aspects of our body are not yet well understood.

I see. That obviously means we have free reign to insert whatever concepts we wish in order to fill out anything considered "not yet well understood."

My husband once put it thus - how does my dick know to get hard when I'm thinking dirty thoughts?

Because sexual excitement in the male causes an increased blood flow to the penis resulting in the expansion of the erectile tissue. It's not that hard to understand.

Your certainty seems to me to be born of faith as well as current scientific knowledge.

I fail to see what articles I need to take on faith.

At any rate, such knowledge, while fascinating in it's own right, is not typically useful to the individual who is seeking to understand their unique self.

If I want to understand a program I need to see the source code. Observing the behaviour alone is not sufficient.

But you cannot touch the ideas I am communicating, you can only touch the computer screen or some other media that encodes a representation of those ideas.

That is the tangible aspect - the connection between the abstract and the concrete. The difference with the abstract is that it can connect to many different concrete things.

That is to say in my sinking/floating example the abstract is the set of tangibles, not an individual one.

I think I am beginning to glimpse our disconnect. You are saying the physical constituents don't change. Are you so sure of that?

They are not observed to change. If you wish to assert they change that is your choice. I am free to disregard this unless you can provide any substantiation that physical constituents are changing in some fundamental way.

That is to say that it is no good to say, "a chemical reaction is a change of physical constituents!" when we can see that it is in fact a rearrangement.

 

[shadron]

I once had a drama teacher who was an atheist (and was teaching at a Jesuit college) explain to me that he had looked into various religions at one point in his life, and that if he felt he would like to "do" a religion it would be Roman Catholic, because their mass is so well structured dramatically...

Different strokes...

 

[HghrSymmetry]

How do you define 'supernatural'? Do the additional dimensions of string theory count?

I would say no. Take neutrino's,...they were theortically hypothesized before being discovered. Did that make them supernatural? I would answer no.
My definition of supernatural would similar to the following (from dictionary.com):

su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
–noun 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8. the supernatural, a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

True, we do not have the power to probe down to the Planck length. Yet limitations of power and technology do not equate to something being supernatural. Supernatural would be "outside" of nature.
String theory is not a "belief" but a theory. Someday it may be confirmed or tossed out as interesting but not an accurate description of reality.

Supernatural explanations are usually immune to this type of rigor and flexibility. They are simply called "true" by believers and the conversation ends there. Evidence, observation, and peer reviewed research do not play a role in the supernatural realm.
Apples and oranges, so to write.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I once had a drama teacher who was an atheist (and was teaching at a Jesuit college) explain to me that he had looked into various religions at one point in his life, and that if he felt he would like to "do" a religion it would be Roman Catholic, because their mass is so well structured dramatically...

Different strokes...

My Mother's favourite cousin decided to become a Church of England minister. When she asked him why "because I know that you don't believe that stuff", he replied that he would only have to work on Sundays.

Different strokes...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Remaining open to different possibilities keeps me from becoming a dogmatic believer

Or there is that other option...being so open minded your brains fall out.

Science and skepticism both in principle, remain open to new evidence. In fact it is a KEY principle. You have twisted the concept into claiming that such an open mind should include non-evidence based beliefs. You have twisted the concept into trying to portray those using the successful evidence based belief system as being somehow dogmatic. That is patently a fraudulent claim.

As to not having hard overwhelming scientific evidence to support each and every one of one's beliefs, so what? That does not support your conclusion that it follows then, that an evidence based belief system is therefore no different from a non-evidence based belief system. You have drawn an unsupportable conclusion using pseudo logic.

 

[Beth]

I didn't say is was unreasonable. I said it didn't answer my question. You tell me, what do you consider to be unreasonable about your assertion?

It's pretty simply really Beth - if you are talking about gods/some other similarly framed concept for entertainment purposes then I'll entertain any random idea you wish.
If you want to get serious about it then no, I will not simply accept what anyone has to say simply based on "personal evidence".

Once again, you have failed to answer the question. To remind you, my original comment was “We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life. “ and I am trying to understand why you see people taking personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive?

You could answer that question in the abstract, or using the particular example you gave of people who think it's reasonable that they are channelling spirits from Venus.

How do you evaluate such a statement as ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’ without depending on your own personal experiences and those of other people?

Why not? How are you defining stimulus such that math cannot be considered a stimulus?

In this case it would have to be some tangible physical product which impacts upon the human sensory system in such a way that it can be perceived.
Mathematics, being an abstract concept, doesn't have this sort of concrete property that a stimuli such as a photon does.
Mathematics is not a stimulus. An object containing a dense weaving of cellulose fibres with organic dyes etched into it that represents mathematical concepts can be a stimulus since there is a physical pathway between this object and the human perception system.

I beg to differ. A material object containing the representation of mathematical symbols is helpful, but not necessary. Many people can do math in their brains without requiring a physical representation on the ideas. This aspect of the discussion started with your observation that the concept of zero has been independently discovered more than once. If math is not a stimuli, then it is difficult to explain how multiple people independently invented the concept of zero. On the other hand, if you think of zero as being something that is discovered rather than invented, multiple independent discoveries are to be expected. If it is the latter, that makes the mathematical concept of zero a part of reality that doesn't change when people stop believing in it. I think mathematics is intanglible yet still part of the reality we all share.

Perhaps. I'm often wrong. But when I consider the metaphorical interpretations of various religions, I am not as sure about that as you are. Why do you thing that it isn't appropriate to interpret that particular religious belief in that manner?

If you ignore all the differences all religions are the same.
Unifying one metaphorical concept with another is easier when you have no restriction as to the associations you may make.

Yes, all that is true, but it doesn’t answer the question I asked. Why do you think it isn’t appropriate to interpret that particular religious beliefs in that particular metaphorical manner?

If that is true, could you do me the service of enumerating a few of those?

I would appreciate an answer to this question. To refresh your memory, let me repeat the conversation thus far:

I had said that prayer, meditation, and reflection were a commonality across religions.

You said that “Unless you consider the differences in their stated purpose.”

to which I responded “There are many different stated purposes to those activities. Gaining knowledge and understanding of the self is common to all of them.”

To which you responded “Your assertion is not borne out by the wide variety of religious beliefs where this is not a commonality.”

I then asked for some examples of religious beliefs that do not share this theme. If there is, in fact, a wide variety of religious beliefs which do not claim that they provide a route to gaining knowledge and understanding of the self, then it should not be difficult to name a few and I would be interested in learning about them.

You are stating hypotheses as if they were known facts. Certainly, thoughts have bodily correlates, neurological equivalents. It's a fascinating area of research. But the interplay of our thoughts and the material aspects of our body are not yet well understood. My husband once put it thus - how does my dick know to get hard when I'm thinking dirty thoughts?

Because sexual excitement in the male causes an increased blood flow to the penis resulting in the expansion of the erectile tissue. It's not that hard to understand.

That doesn’t answer the question. Why does a male experience sexual excitement in the absence of any stimuli outside of thinking dirty thoughts? It seems to me that he is responding to an intangible stimuli – specifically his thoughts.

Your certainty seems to me to be born of faith as well as current scientific knowledge.

I fail to see what articles I need to take on faith.

You are taking on faith that intangibles, such as abstract ideas like mathematics, cannot serve as stimuli to our physical bodies. You have faith that physiological processes have the potential to explain everything about our mental states such as desires and motivations. Perhaps that is true, but it is not an established fact, therefore it is a faith that you apparently hold.

 

[Beth]

Science and skepticism both in principle, remain open to new evidence. In fact it is a KEY principle. You have twisted the concept into claiming that such an open mind should include non-evidence based beliefs.

You are misinterpreting. I think an open mind should include openness to non-scientific evidence, not non-evidence based beliefs. For some reason, you tend to conflate those two things. I do not.

You have twisted the concept into trying to portray those using the successful evidence based belief system as being somehow dogmatic. That is patently a fraudulent claim.

It would indeed be if I was claiming that. I am not. I think that some people who consider themselves skeptics are just as dogmatic regarding their own god-beliefs as the 'believers' they mock and sneer at. Do you disagree?

As to not having hard overwhelming scientific evidence to support each and every one of one's beliefs, so what?

So why consider people who take personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive - such as the existance of god?

That does not support your conclusion that it follows then, that an evidence based belief system is therefore no different from a non-evidence based belief system. You have drawn an unsupportable conclusion using pseudo logic.

I have not drawn such an unsupportable conclusion. In fact, I have stated many times, including some specifically directed at you, that scientific caliber evidence is superior to personal experiences and testimonial evidence.

 

[cyborg]

Once again, you have failed to answer the question.

I've answered the question.

Twice.

Again:

It is simple.

If it is serious it requires evidential rigour.

If it is not serious it does not.

So:

Is the question of "god" serious or is it entertainment?

I beg to differ. A material object containing the representation of mathematical symbols is helpful, but not necessary.

It is entirely necessary is you want to claim "mathematics" is a stimulus.

Many people can do math in their brains without requiring a physical representation on the ideas.

ALL people perform maths in the brains all the time without requiring a physical representation of any mathematical idea.

Mathematics is an abstract description of symbol based rule systems which can mapped onto brain processes - or any other physical process.

Your arm "performs" maths. Is therefore maths a stimulus to your arm?

If math is not a stimuli, then it is difficult to explain how multiple people independently invented the concept of zero.

And your mathematical background is...? Because I don't think you understood what I told you.

Zero is a useful concept. As such its independent invention is assured if it is useful to someone to use it.

And of course, you ignore the fact that "zero" was not a concept that was missing one day and there the next but the result of an evolution of ideas - just like other areas of mathematics have developed such as the concept of negative numbers, complex numbers and so forth.

On the other hand, if you think of zero as being something that is discovered rather than invented, multiple independent discoveries are to be expected.

So you seriously want me to entertain the idea that zero is, essentially, sitting under a rock?

Why do you think it isn’t appropriate to interpret that particular religious beliefs in that particular metaphorical manner?

I do not believe, from my observations of history, that the people who actually engaged in that religion would have had your interpretation of their own damn ideas.

Here, let me show you how to make a mockery out of a concrete concept:

God is positive, so he represents the natural numbers.
Satan is negative, so he represents the negative numbers.
Earth is between Heaven and Hell and so represents zero.

This therefore demonstrates that proto-Christianity is metaphorically unified with Chinese mathematics demonstrating the underlying unity between these disparate worlds.

I then asked for some examples of religious beliefs that do not share this theme.

Off the top of my head there Grecco/Roman gods and associated rituals had bugger all to do with introspection and everything to do with tribute, bargaining and power. They did not perceive their gods as beings of pure intent but as being every bit as petty and carnal as humans on Earth.

Why does a male experience sexual excitement in the absence of any stimuli outside of thinking dirty thoughts? It seems to me that he is responding to an intangible stimuli – specifically his thoughts.

Okay. Let's ignore the fact that sexual desire can be modified by any number of chemical triggers and pretend some magical invisible thought just came along and placed itself in the brain to make your husband horny.

Let's not even pretend for a second that there may be a whole slew of internal function you just can't actually perceive going on - despite the fact that, you know, nobody knew how the hell their brains actually worked until somebody came along and pointed out all these funny cells. Let's not pretend that there are things call "feedback loops" which regulate all sorts of vital functions so as to assure you are doing all the right things necessary to survive like eating, drinking and ****ing.

Let us, despite all evidence to the contrary that demonstrates a chemical basis for sexual desire, pretend that "we just get horny".

You are taking on faith that intangibles, such as abstract ideas like mathematics, cannot serve as stimuli to our physical bodies.

No, I'm taking it on definition because I know what the **** it is I am talking about when I say "abstract" and "physical".

You, however, just mix and match words with no particular care as to whether or not it is valid to do so.

You have faith that physiological processes have the potential to explain everything about our mental states such as desires and motivations.

I don't need faith. I just need to stay abreast of the current facts about how our desires and motivations can be actually explained.

So, as ever, we come back to the basic thrust here.

You are arguing from a position of ignorance for the validity of the concept that some X, which cannot be known, is an existent with impact on our reality.

You appear to be being serious about it. Therefore, as I expressed at the beginning of this post:

I WANT SOME ****ING EVIDENCE.

 

[Mobyseven]

You are misinterpreting. I think an open mind should include openness to non-scientific evidence, not non-evidence based beliefs. For some reason, you tend to conflate those two things. I do not.

There is no 'scientific evidence'. There is only evidence. You can evaluate that evidence with a system that is known to produce accurate results, such as science, or you can take it and engage in a mental masturbation session.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are misinterpreting. I think an open mind should include openness to non-scientific evidence, not non-evidence based beliefs. For some reason, you tend to conflate those two things. I do not.

You can't make up your own rules about what is and what is not evidence if you want to talk about the evidence based beliefs of skepticism.

This is the point on which you continue to error. The rules of what is and is not evidence are the dividing line between woo beliefs and evidence based skeptical beliefs. You are under the mistaken belief that the dividing line is between the acceptable evidence used in rigorous scientific method one would apply in research and the acceptable evidence of everyday skepticism.

Your statement that you recognize, "that scientific caliber evidence is superior to personal experiences and testimonial evidence", addresses a different conclusion than the one I am telling you that you have falsely drawn. We agree that scientific caliber evidence is superior to personal experiences and testimonial evidence. Where we disagree is on your continual failure to grasp that the conclusion one draws from one's personal experience is not the evidence.

You, for whatever reason, do not understand that concept. You blur the experience and the conclusion, and in doing so draw the false conclusion that someone who understands the difference is rejecting the personal experience as evidence.

Even in rigorous scientific research we use personal experience as evidence. We use anecdotal evidence. The difference is we collect that evidence systematically and subject it to controls. How could a scientist study the effects of pain control interventions if we rejected all personal experience and anecdotal accounts from our evidence collection?

Flu vaccinations may provide an example that can illustrate the difference between woo conclusions and evidence based conclusions. We give flu shots at the same time of year unrelated viral infections are common. So just by chance alone, many people who get a flu shot will contract an unrelated viral infection near the same time as getting a flu shot. Lots of those people are absolutely convinced the flu shot caused the symptoms which they really have because of the unrelated viral infection. And we can prove this by doing an extensive placebo controlled trial which has been done. Those folks getting flu shots turn out to be no more likely to have symptoms of or a greater rate of unrelated viral infections than matched controls who got either a different vaccine or a placebo.

Yet despite the fact we can prove the flu shot had nothing to do with getting an unrelated viral infection near the same time, people are absolutely convinced their personal experience was that the flu shot made them ill.

The personal experience is real and it is evidence: they had symptoms of a viral infection near the time of their flu shot.

Their conclusion the symptoms were caused by the flu shot is not evidence the flu shot caused their symptoms.

Should you choose to call their conclusion that the flu shot caused their symptoms, evidence that it did, you are not using skeptical evidence based beliefs. Rigorous scientific process has nothing to do with it. One is a woo belief, the other is a skeptical evidence based belief.

Dogma has nothing to do with it. The fact some skeptics are dogmatic and some theists are not dogmatic has nothing to do with it. Taking someone's personal testimony seriously has nothing to do with it. Whether there is or is not conclusive scientific evidence has nothing to do with it.

It boils down to you mistaking a conclusion for evidence. The experience is evidence that the person had an experience. That same person's conclusion the experience was evidence of the presence of a god is not evidence of the presence of gods. Calling the conclusion evidence is a woo based belief system. Recognizing that the experience is evidence but the conclusion is not evidence is how a skeptical evidence based belief system treats that personal experience.

 

[articulett]

That seems to be the biggest thing with the "apologists"-- they do mistake conclusions or inferences for evidence... and they often draw incorrect inferences (including putting words in peoples' mouths). They are often self-congratulatory and snide while playing the "offended card. They seem to think they are being "open minded" and/or "diplomatic"... without realizing that they are coming across a bit incoherently or priggish.

They also mistake opinions for facts and abstractions for concrete representations of abstractions... and they think they are understanding everything, but they are just listening for things they can use to prop up whatever it is they believe. When I read them, I feel like they are having a different conversation than the other people on this forum. They don't have the tools to engage in a coherent conversation on the topic, and they are too proud of themselves to realize that they aren't really saying anything. They never really say what they believe... they're just hellbent on telling atheists (or skeptics) how "dogmatic" they are. I don't even think they really know what they believe or why... I think they are trying to prove to themselves that they are good because of whatever tolerance or faith they imagine they have and atheists are shrill and strident. But the atheists sound like the smartest people by far to me.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Belief would be too strong a word to describe most of my opinions on such subjects. I speculate and wonder, but belief implies a certainty I do not possess.

What do you mean to transcend the laws of nature? Supernatural is often applied to things we don't yet understand but have perfectly natural explanations waiting to be found. So if when you say 'transcend the laws of nature', you mean as we currently understand them, my answer to that is yes, I think that's possible because I think we do not fully understand the laws of nature. We have a fairly good grasp of how they work on our planet, but we do not yet know how immutable they are over large scales of time and/or distance. For example, does gravity work the same everywhere and everywhen in the universe? We simply don't know yet, all we can say is that so far, it appears to follow perfectly the formulas Einstein developed a century ago.

On the other hand, if you mean something else by 'transcend the laws of nature' then my answer might well be different.

This is what I do believe without sufficient evidence to justify it logically:

I believe that while the past is immutable, the future is not. I believe that we each contribute to shaping our shared future reality day by day and moment by moment; i believe that the future is ours to create as we wish it to be if we have the courage and perseverance to do so.

Does that qualify as belief in the supernatural?

Well, I was thinking in the lines of something that natural laws have no bearing over; something that’s above the laws of nature or even commands them; an intelligent being normally referred to as a god or a supernatural entity. My opinion is that the term “supernatural” is not something we ‘don’t yet know’ but later turns out to have a natural explanation (that’s not my definition of the term).

 

[articulett]

But Beth and Thesyntaxera aren't just saying "they don't know"... they are saying that perhaps some religious person does... or some guru... They are taking a lack of knowledge about something and inserting a "sort of answer" that has to do with a "supreme intelligence" or "purpose giver" etc. That's as wacky as inserting any other magical divine answer into gaps in knowledge as far as I'm concerned. How is that different than using "demons" to explain evil or Tom Cruise's success to prove you humans need to get rid of body thetans?

I'm sick of this silly pretense that if science doesn't have an answer... or if the question is bad... that somehow that means god is real.... or that some guru DOES have an answer... or someone's "inner feeling" can provide the answer or that people who have invented some answer in their head are "open minded" as opposed to delusional. If religion makes you feel good or belief makes you feel superior-- fine, but don't expect others to respect that more than any other woo belief!

When it comes to objective reality that is the same for everybody... nobody is better than science and the accumulated knowledge of mortals in obtaining useful, verifiable information. Believers tend to obfuscate and sound fuzzy and put down science because they want to believe they or their gurus or someone else has some "real" answer and that they have tapped in on that divine secret. They don't further knowledge... just fuzzy thinking to boost their own egos. Of course I think they are all delusional... otherwise, I'd believe in whatever fuzzy concept they believe in. And for them to be offended when they feel that exact way about all the woo they don't believe in is just hypocritical, isn't it? They're asking that their woo not be considered woo by most skeptics while giving no reason for it not to be considered woo. That's what I think they are saying beneath all the nothingness and semantics and fallacious reasoning and attributing false statements to others.

All religions and gods are equally unlikely to be true and they've all tapped into the same nothingness as far as I'm concerned. "Fence sitters" are free to believe they are "open minded" and diplomatic and that believing makes them "good" in some way, but that is as much as an illusion as their god as far as I'm concerned. It's part of the same delusional spin to create the truth they want instead of sharing and discovering and understanding the facts that are. They just have no evidence or facts to support their "stories"... just excuses and inferences and insults and self important blather and logical fallacies that they have no interest in correcting.

I think that the truth is that they are threatened by those who don't believe... it makes their own faith shaky, and they are afraid of not having that faith. Faith encourages this sloppy thinking and this demonization of non-believers and this silly pretense that "belief" is a virtue.

When things are true, the evidence accumulates, and the only punishment for not believing it is ignorance and the only reward for understanding it is useful, verifiable, knowledge. The apologists wouldn't need to make everyone else into bad guys if they examined what belief it is that they are trying to protect and why they feel ire towards those who don't share that belief. Why do you need us to support or respect or give credence to your god delusion or hope or whatever it is you claim to be on the fence about or imagine is as likely as not? Why can't we treat it like Scientology or Zeus or "agnosticism" about psychic powers or being on the fence about demon possession? Is there any good reason to treat one fuzzy supernatural belief different than others of the same ilk? Why should I be more respectful of any god belief over any demon belief or reincarnation belief or delusion of grandeur?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Good post Art.
--------------------
On another note though....
Being a skeptic for all these years has been rewarding, however, there seems to be that little something missing. So, in the interest of becoming a more "fair and balanced", well rounded individual, I've begun some research into the finer aspects of Ozark culture.

Specifically, I've narrowed my interest to "Holy Rollers."

With a safe and encouraging environment I may soon be rolling on the floor speaking in tongues, drinking strychnine, and whipping Black Mamba's around the room by the tail.

Overall, do you think this would be a good gig for me?

-H "need some Tom Cruise life advice" S.