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

[cyborg]

My point is simply that it isn't the ONLY way to view such evidence and those who give it a greater weight than zero are not irrational or deluded to do so.

The very definition of irrational is to come to a "view" without any rationale for doing so.

So again:

"Yes, but evidence of what?"

Without that question being rationally answered any answer will be irrational - regardless of its "truth".

 

[edge]

"Yes, but evidence of what?"

Things you don't accept or believe and that's all.
If you really want evidence then pray specifically for the evidence you want.

 

[cyborg]

If you really want evidence then pray specifically for the evidence you want.

Ah yes, because that has been shown to be a highly time effective methodology that has totally resolved all questions about supernatural entities such that there is no argument whatsoever about them today.

 

[Beth]

The very definition of irrational is to come to a "view" without any rationale for doing so.

But there is a rationale for coming to that point of view. That you don't find it convincing doesn't make it irrational.

So again:

"Yes, but evidence of what?"

Without that question being rationally answered any answer will be irrational - regardless of its "truth".

Evidence of what is indeed the question to be answered. I don't have any good answer, but it does seem consistently termed 'god'. What causes these experiences I cannot say. Personally, I think it reasonable to grant the possibility that otherwise sane rational adults may be describing some common experience that is a result of a stimulus not internally generated by their own minds. I'm not saying it's proof. I'm only saying I think it's evidence. If you don't, I can understand that. I'm just asking that you consider the other side, that other people do consider it evidence - particularly when it's their own experience. Dismissing all such experiences as delusions and hallucinations without further consideration of other possibilities is just not a position I'm comfortable with myself.

 

[cyborg]

Evidence of what is indeed the question to be answered. I don't have any good answer, but it does seem consistently termed 'god'.

It is a simplistic explanation.

The magic man is easier to understand than the sleight of hand.

That's why people are so consistently and easily fooled by such things.

Personally, I think it reasonable to grant the possibility that otherwise sane rational adults may be describing some common experience that is a result of a stimulus not internally generated by their own minds.

And they may not.

So again it comes down to an investigation.

Either one finds a god or one does not.

If you don't, I can understand that. I'm just asking that you consider the other side, that other people do consider it evidence - particularly when it's their own experience.

I'm sure they do.

This doesn't undermine my point at all.

Dismissing all such experiences as delusions and hallucinations without further consideration of other possibilities is just not a position I'm comfortable with myself.

The consideration of the god possibility has been ongoing for sometime with few results.

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

[articulett]

Things you don't accept or believe and that's all.
If you really want evidence then pray specifically for the evidence you want.

Yeah... so Tom Cruise prays to Xenu and he's rich and famous... is that evidence that Scientology is true? Mormons are told to pray to know if the book of Mormon is true and they will get a "burning in the bosom" showing them that it is. And they do. Does that make Mormonism true?

Pentecostals point to biblical passages point to speaking in tongues as the sign that they are inspired by the holy spirit... does that mean they are.

Catholics make nominees for Sainthood answer prayers in a miraculous way... does that mean the ghost really answered a prayer or that a miracle occurred?

People swear by how accurate their astrology charts are... does that mean planets affect human life or does it mean humans are pretty good at find evidence for what they want to believe. There are ways to test these things you know. Science does. Randi does.

You are very very confused about what is evidence and what is standard old tricks of psychology to confirm the beliefs you are told.

Really, study Randi's tapes. You are so sadly gullible. And there is nothing to distinguish your gullibility from those who swear they get signs that astrology is true or that someone is possessed. It's the same old human superstition and silliness-- confusing correlation with causation... mistaking a conclusion or inference for evidence-- and confirming that bias to shore up something you have come to believe is true or want to be true. Why do you think it's different??!

Beth, can't you see that you are doing what Edge is doing? You are all doing the same thing to prove to yourself that your magic isn't woo.

Praying for evidence you want just makes you think that something is true... it makes you interpret things as signs that your belief is true-- it doesn't make them true... they aren't real signs or real evidence. The fact that you can see this with other belief systems but not your own is just so pathetic. And yet every person of faith and woo beliefs does exactly that. You've been deluded to believe that it's good to have faith in whatever it is you've been indoctrinated to have faith in. But to a skeptic it's all the same as the woo you don't believe. You give us no reason to believe one brand of woo over another-- you just are convinced that your woo isn't woo.

 

[articulett]

You can dismiss all peoples experiences with demons as delusions or hallucinations or misperceptions, can't you? How about those sure they are being explored by aliens or that their government is communicating with them through radio waves and attempting to control their mind? How about people who believe in Xenu? What about those who are sure that Allah is rewarding the hijackers because they have seen it in dreams? It's pretty easy to see some "signs" or experiences as not evidence for what they claim to be... but when it comes to some versions of magic... you information of identical quality and elevate it as "evidence for god" (or whatever woo you think might be true.)

That is irrational. That is confirmation bias. It is one of the most common ways that humans are irrational. It is fair for a skeptic to say-- "that is irrational" because it is. Your conclusion that it is rational because of (insert semantics) doesn't make it rational. Your argument for god is no more rational that those on randi's tape arguing for the accuracy of horoscopes and his test shows exactly why.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Prayer and subjective experiences haven't helped much in the following areas:

-medical research
-the very item you're using to communicate now: computer technology
-cosmology
-the arduous, brutal, 50 year struggle to unravel the sub atomic world
-meteorology
-space program
-transportation (ships, planes, trains, auto's, etc.)
-high energy physics including higher dimensional theoretical physics
-flora and fauna discoveries
-agricultural improvements
-mathematics

That's just a quick sample. I'm sure others can come up with many more.

It's interesting how irrationality becomes irrelevant when it's convenient to take advantage of the above scientific advances.

I'd imagine most would call 911 if they lost a limb in an accident, rather than call Peter Popoff for help.

 

[Beth]

It is a simplistic explanation.

It isn't an explanation at all. It's just a convenient label for particular set of experiences that some humans have described.

And they may not.

So again it comes down to an investigation.

Either one finds a god or one does not.

Which seems to mainly depend on whether one expects to find a god or not.

I'm sure they do.

This doesn't undermine my point at all.

If you point is we don't have what you consider convincing evidence, I'm not disagreeing with your point. It's quite reasonable and rational to decide such anecdotes are insufficient for your belief.

The consideration of the god possibility has been ongoing for sometime with few results.

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

No, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere new at all. I just find both sides of it reasonable and rational approaches to reality. I am often surprised by the intolerance expressed toward the other point of view on this forum.

 

[Mobyseven]

Evidence that might possibly be evidence for an unknown entity, but that is also possible to explain absent an unknown entity isn't really evidence for anything at all. That's exactly why it is irrational to rely on anecdotal and subjective evidence to reach a conclusion in regards to god.

 

[cyborg]

It isn't an explanation at all. It's just a convenient label for particular set of experiences that some humans have described.

That is what simplistic explanations are.

Which seems to mainly depend on whether one expects to find a god or not.

Well, if that's the case then the issue is mainly not going to be resolved is it?

No, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere new at all. I just find both sides of it reasonable and rational approaches to reality. I am often surprised by the intolerance expressed toward the other point of view on this forum.

You haven't actually explained what is reasonable and rational about it.

"X exists," is a very hollow statement.

Could we perhaps say what X is before we start making evaluations about how rational and reasonable it is hmmm?

Let us start with a definition of "God".

God is ...?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yeah... so Tom Cruise prays to Xenu and he's rich and famous... is that evidence that Scientology is true? Mormons are told to pray to know if the book of Mormon is true and they will get a "burning in the bosom" showing them that it is. And they do. Does that make Mormonism true?

Pentecostals point to biblical passages point to speaking in tongues as the sign that they are inspired by the holy spirit... does that mean they are.

Catholics make nominees for Sainthood answer prayers in a miraculous way... does that mean the ghost really answered a prayer or that a miracle occurred?

People swear by how accurate their astrology charts are... does that mean planets affect human life or does it mean humans are pretty good at find evidence for what they want to believe. There are ways to test these things you know. Science does. Randi does.

You are very very confused about what is evidence and what is standard old tricks of psychology to confirm the beliefs you are told.

Really, study Randi's tapes. You are so sadly gullible. And there is nothing to distinguish your gullibility from those who swear they get signs that astrology is true or that someone is possessed. It's the same old human superstition and silliness-- confusing correlation with causation... mistaking a conclusion or inference for evidence-- and confirming that bias to shore up something you have come to believe is true or want to be true. Why do you think it's different??!

Beth, can't you see that you are doing what Edge is doing? You are all doing the same thing to prove to yourself that your magic isn't woo.

Praying for evidence you want just makes you think that something is true... it makes you interpret things as signs that your belief is true-- it doesn't make them true... they aren't real signs or real evidence. The fact that you can see this with other belief systems but not your own is just so pathetic. And yet every person of faith and woo beliefs does exactly that. You've been deluded to believe that it's good to have faith in whatever it is you've been indoctrinated to have faith in. But to a skeptic it's all the same as the woo you don't believe. You give us no reason to believe one brand of woo over another-- you just are convinced that your woo isn't woo.

Nominated! Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[articulett]

Thanks...

but damn... all my typos and grammar errors... must learn to proofread before posting...

But thanks for the vote of confidence, Gord.

 

[articulett]

Yeah... so Tom Cruise prays to Xenu and he's rich and famous... is that evidence that Scientology is true? Mormons are told to pray to know if the book of Mormon is true and they will get a "burning in the bosom" showing them that it is. And they do. Does that make Mormonism true?

Pentecostals point to biblical passages regarding speaking in tongues as the sign that they are inspired by the holy spirit... does that mean they are?

Catholics make nominees for Sainthood answer prayers in a miraculous way... does that mean the ghost really answered a prayer? --or that a miracle occurred?

People swear by how accurate their astrology charts are... does that mean planetary alignment affects human life in predictable ways? Or does it mean that humans are pretty good at finding evidence for what they want to believe?

There are ways to test these things you know. Science does. Skeptics do. Randi does.

You are very very confused about what is evidence and what are standard old tricks of psychology people use to confirm the beliefs they are told.

Really, study Randi's tapes. You are so sadly gullible. And there is nothing to distinguish your gullibility from those who swear they get signs that astrology is true or that someone is possessed. It's the same old human superstition and silliness-- confusing correlation with causation... mistaking a conclusion or inference for evidence-- and confirming that bias with "signs" to shore up something you have come to believe is true or want to be true. Why do you think it's different??!

Beth, can't you see that you are doing what Edge is doing? You are all doing the same thing to prove to yourself that your magic isn't woo.

Praying for evidence you want just makes you think that something is true... it makes you interpret things as signs that your belief is true-- it doesn't actually make them true... they aren't real signs or real evidence of anything --except that you prone to the same irrationality as all humans. The fact that you can see this with other belief systems but not your own is just so pathetic. And yet every person of faith and woo beliefs does exactly that. You've been deluded to believe that it's good to have faith in whatever it is you've been indoctrinated to have faith in. But to a skeptic it's all the same as the woo you don't believe. You give us no reason to believe one brand of woo over another-- you just are convinced that your woo isn't woo.

 

[articulett]

Sorry... about the double post... it was the only way I could edit it and then clean it up so it so I could autosycophantically re-nominate it without the embarrassing typos.

 

[edge]

Sorry... about the double post... it was the only way I could edit it and then clean it up so it so I could autosycophantically re-nominate it without the embarrassing typos.

Your a chick and you like to gamble?
Las Vegas, NV How could you not?
It's other name is sin city isn't it?
I passed through there in 2003 and right behind me was this huge dust storm.
With all that you wrote I agree with one thing.

 

[edge]

This,
Beth, can't you see that you are doing what Edge is doing?

Oh ya and this,
you just are convinced that your woo isn't woo.

But your woo is?

 

[Tricky]

This,
Beth, can't you see that you are doing what Edge is doing?

Oh ya and this,
you just are convinced that your woo isn't woo.

But your woo is?

Can you show where Beth is declaring the truth of things that are unsupported by evidence? That's what "woo" is, Edge. You have done it on dowsing, on extraterrestrials, on Bigfoot, on religion and several other topics. You believe lots of things without any real solid evidence. Crying for a false "tu quoque" isn't going to help your case.

Provide some evidence for these things and you may have a case. But since you've never provided any evidence for anything you've ever claimed (and the one case where actual evidence was collected, it went badly for you) I don't expect that you will be able to do so.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Sorry... about the double post... it was the only way I could edit it and then clean it up so it so I could autosycophantically re-nominate it without the embarrassing typos.

Not to worry Art. People with fire and passion sometimes pop a few typos when writing quickly.

What was that grammatical boo boo that certain classifications of posters usually do? Was it something to do with the proper use of your/you're?

-H "how do I remove these energetic engram shrapnel chunks from my back?" S.

 

[articulett]

Your a chick and you like to gamble?
Las Vegas, NV How could you not?
It's other name is sin city isn't it?
I passed through there in 2003 and right behind me was this huge dust storm.
With all that you wrote I agree with one thing.

I don't gamble, and I don't understand most of what you say. You sound like every other woo to me.