What do you believe, and why

[atheist buddy]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[ThePainefulTruth]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

The part about me.

What part about you?

[dianaiad]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

The part about me.

What part about you?

Moderator Comment

...............and this is why we have a rule about one-liners on the forum. Please expand your thoughts a bit when you post a reply, so that readers don't need to waste time and bandwidth to get clarification.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Oh, that's the question? I'm sorry, I don't remember modifying my OP.

My first response to your OP was in post 25, to which you responded in post 27 with a very extensive tangent starting with this:

Well, that depends on the definition of God, doesn't it?

Now, you find your argument getting owned, you claim hijacking and indicate that we should start over. Do what you want, it's your thread, but I think there's other people here reading this that you're trying to convince--besides yourself.

[atheist buddy]

Do you agree that your belief in statement 1, is actually no more valid than somebody's belief in statement 2?

What is "actually more valid"? Valid based on what? Validity is not an absolute concept that hangs in mid air. Validity speaks of how something applies to a particular standard. What you appear to be doing is presuming the empirical scientific model as a given against which everything else is compared. That is itself absolutist. Dianaid has clearly stated that she does not accept scientific empiricism as sufficient to explain certain things and I concur. In fact, it has been shown empirically that we presume certain things to be valid based on comparing individual mental constructs. Those who do not share a common mental construct do not accept the validity of that particular mental construct. Ultimately empiricism breaks down to either a shared mental construct or a subjugation of ones own mental construct to the agreed construct of another. Color blindness is a good example. You can not establish green as an empirical fact to the yellow blind person. The yellow blind person just accepts that some blue things are actually green because others say so, ie on faith.

Look, there are things that can be examined within certain parameters, like for example whether the earth is round or flat, whether it orbits the sun or not, whether water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen, whether corpses can come back to life, whether people can walk on water, and so on.

My first question to you and any other theist on this board is this: If you happen to believe the earth is flat, or water is not H2O, or corpses can come back to life, or people can walk on water, WHY? Why do you believe these things, which fly in the face of the truth-recognition model that works well enough to enable us to build airplanes?

My second question relates to those non-empirical claims which cannot be examined within those parameters, for example unfalsifiable claims such as "there is an undetectable parallel universe in which people have three eyes" or "there is an undetectable powerful entity that created our universe".

My second question is this: If you cannot use the scientific method to determine whether a claim is true or not true (because the scientific method is not applicable) then what method do you use? How is your method better than the method used by somebody who uses a similar method to arrive to completely different conclusions (like for example a satanist)?

[atheist buddy]

The OP is asking a simple question: What do you believe to be true, and what method do you use to make that determination?

I'll give you an example. I believe the earth is a sphere and I use the scientific method to make that determination.

Here is an example of what I would find a bad belief and a bad reason for believing it: "I believe zeus exists in the clouds, and I use the otherwise-how-do-you-explain-lightning method to make that determination".

Now you give me an example.

As for me...well, I asked God, in prayer, and received what I believe to be an answer.

It's my answer. It's subjective. I don't expect you to believe what my answer is, much less that I actually got one.

Ok, I don't know what you're answer was, and don't mean to pry if you don't wish to share it.

Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that the answer you got was, I dunno, that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and is the son of God.

Let's call that "Truth statement 1".

"Truth statement 2" is this: Jesus was born of a witch impregnated by Satan, after his crucifiction he descended into hell, he is the son of Pat Robertson.

Here is "trust statement 3": The earth is a sphere.

Truth statement 4: The earth is a pizza shaped disk resting on the back of a giant turtle


Can you agree that truth statement 3 is correct and truth statement 4 is not correct? Can you agree that there is tangible data equally well accessible to anybody who cares to examine it, which clearly points to statement 3 being true and statement 4 being not true?


Imagine that you were talking to somebody who believed satement 2 is true, as strongly as you believe statement 1 is true. His subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer is just as strong as your mutually exclusive subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer.

That being the case, is there anything you can say to make the argument that your belief in statement 1 is in any way suuperior, more true, more worthy than his belief in statement 2?


Your justification for believing what you believe, is no better and no worse than anybody else's justification for believing ANYTHING.

Do you agree that your belief in statement 1, is actually no more valid than somebody's belief in statement 2?

Please stop asking 'do you agree?" I find it manipulative in the rather irritating way that Socratic questioning generally is. Frankly, it annoys me greatly.

I'm a theist, a Christian and a Mormon. I am a 'true believer' in all of that, so, quite obviously, I. do. not. agree.

As well, I have made quite clear that there is difference between science and religion. I do not believe that one can use the methods of one to examine the ideas of the other. Scientific methods are for the things that science can actually examine...and not for the things it cannot, like philosophy and religion.

The methods theists use to deal with religious ideas cannot be used for the things science can be used for. The problems arise when people mix the two things up and attempt to use science for religious things, and religion for scientific things.

As for the different answers that people get when they pray...I'm rather astounded that you actually acknowledge that it's possible for people to get answers in this way, even if those answers seem to contradict one another.

After a few decades of thinking about exactly this, here is the conclusion I came to: my opinion, mind you, but as a working hypothesis it seems viable:

Truth is found in all belief systems. Even the most vile (as seen from outside) system will have some grain of truth in it. The 'golden rule,' for instance, is 'true' no matter what silliness may surround it. So are things like 'be loyal to your spouse," and "respect your parents" and "be honest in your dealings." As well, if there is a God, as I believe there is, then no matter what the belief system is that describes that deity, the answer to the question "are you there?" will be 'yes."

The problem lies in the tendency of people to take the confirmation of one truth and apply it to everything around it, as well.

...............like the guy who, finding an opal on the ground, decides that everything around it is also opals. That won't be true, but the opal he found remains an opal, whether the sand he found it in is opal dust or not.

So...do people who pray about their religious beliefs get what seem to be contradictory answers? Sure.

The operative word, though, is 'seems.' Maybe they aren't a bit contradictory.

Maybe the Catholic who asks "Are you there?" and gets a positive answer, and the Hindu who also asks 'Are you there?" are getting the same answer: yes, God Is. It's all the add ons that might be problematic.

Of course, the above is my opinion. I like it. I'll keep it.

Is there any conclusion that anybody could arrive to using the method by which you arrive to your religious conclusions, which you would say "this is a wrong conclusion"? If so, why?

For example, if using your "pray about it" method, somebody came to the conclusion that God definitely doesn't exist, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

If, using your method, somebody came to the conclusion that marriage is immoral and evil, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

If using your method, somebody came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is evil and Satan is a misunderstood underdog who fights for freedom, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

[atheist buddy]

Oh, that's the question? I'm sorry, I don't remember modifying my OP.

My first response to your OP was in post 25, to which you responded in post 27 with a very extensive tangent starting with this:

Well, that depends on the definition of God, doesn't it?

Now, you find your argument getting owned, you claim hijacking and indicate that we should start over. Do what you want, it's your thread, but I think there's other people here reading this that you're trying to convince--besides yourself.

You know what the funny thing is? We agree on pretty much everything, and the one thing we disagree on, can be easily verified and put to rest.

Here is where I think we agree: Anybody who claims knowledge of that which is unknown or unknowable, is fundamentally misguided.

For example, anybody who says "I know that outside the universe and outside our ability to detect, there exists a non-intervening undetectable God which created the universe", is misguided.

Similarly, somebody who says "I know the statement about God above to be not true" is also misguided.

To claim that something exists or doesn't exist, when you have no way of knowing if it exists or doesn't exist, is wrong.

Here is something else we agree on: Millions upon millions of religious people make that kind of claim. They claim to know or strongly believe that which they cannot possibly know to be true.

And here is where we disagree: You seem to be saying that atheists mirror theist's dogmatic belief. You seem to say that much like religious people express dogmatic certainty of the existence of a God, atheists express a dogmatic certainty of the non-existence of a God - both positions being equally unverifiable and thus unjustifiable.

I, on the other hand, think that atheists do NOT have a dogmatic belief in the non-existence of an unfalsifiable God.

Atheists have a strong and positive disbelief in those claims of religion which can be verified not to be true, such as the claims that horses can fly and donkeys can talk. But atheists do NOT have a dogmatic belief in any unfalsifiable claim. For the most part, the atheist position with regards to that which cannot be tested, such as the deistic God, is "Well, it cannot be tested, so I cannot form a strong opinion".

So, our positions conflict. But, for those who value truth such as yourself, the solution is simple. Let's look at what atheists actually say!

I'll start off with a clip from Richard Dawkins, in which he says he does not rule out the existence of a Deist God. Here you go:

Here is a clip from Christopher Hitchens:

Here is what he says in his very first sentence: "Is it possible for an atheist to say that there positively is no God? NO"

So, now that I have presented two of the most influential modern atheists, defining the atheist position as being THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM ATHEISM IS, can you either 1) Demonstrate that these influential atheists do not accurately describe the atheist position in general or 2) Admit you were wrong in defining atheists as anti-deists?

Thank you

[wiploc]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

The part about me.

What part about you?

I can make it longer, but I can't make it clearer.

The whole part about me is wrong. The part where you said, "But you claim to know that there is no god, not even a deistic God." That part is wrong. You made it up. I never said that. I never said anything like that. I repudiate and reject it. You have no grounds to make that claim. If you weren't lying, you were otherwise in error when you said, "But you claim to know that there is no god, not even a deistic God."

Withdraw the claim---though not as a one liner---or produce the quotation that led you astray so that I can put your mind right. Maybe you've got me confused with someone else? I don't know. Cripes this pisses me off.

The part you said about me was wrong and unsupportable. You made it up.

[dianaiad]

Is there any conclusion that anybody could arrive to using the method by which you arrive to your religious conclusions, which you would say "this is a wrong conclusion"? If so, why?

Many things could be happening there, when someone who claims to have prayed and either not received an answer, or received what I would consider to be 'the wrong answer.'

It could be that they were asking the wrong questions.
They could be insincere in their questioning.
They could be misinterpreting their answers.

............they could be right and I could be wrong.

However, I can only go by the answers I get.

For example, if using your "pray about it" method, somebody came to the conclusion that God definitely doesn't exist, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

Well now...that's a tricksy question if ever I heard one. If God doesn't exist, how would anybody's prayer to Him receive an answer that confirms that non-existence? The only thing the guy praying would get is silence...and how would that be proof of non-existence?

All it would be is proof of 'I didn't get an answer this time."

I mean, really....your question took me back about thirty years, when I was playing hide and seek with my son. I was looking in my closet, and started singing 'Adam, are you in here?" Right at my feet, a little voice said 'no."

Er......

If, using your method, somebody came to the conclusion that marriage is immoral and evil, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

Oh, less true, of course...because, equally of course, my own beliefs are that marriage is quite moral, very good...and between opposite sexes, when talking about the religious aspect.

If someone gets another answer, that's not my problem. I'd just say...ooops, that's not the answer I got...try this one again.

If using your method, somebody came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is evil and Satan is a misunderstood underdog who fights for freedom, would that conclusion be in any way less true than your conclusion? If so, why?

Been reading "his Dark Materials," have you? Popular meme, that one.

I can fairly safely predict that anybody 'using my method' (and you really haven't been treated to a full description of 'my method') who came up with that idea wasn't really using 'my method."

Of COURSE I believe that I'm right and anybody with a different viewpoint isn't. If I didn't, I'd find a viewpoint that I thought was correct, and then I would consider that to be Truth and everybody who disagreed is not correct.

I would hope that everybody with a religious, moral or ethical set of rules to live by thinks the same of that set of living rules. Hypocrisy is not exactly an honorable way to live one's life.

[atheist buddy]

Is there any conclusion that anybody could arrive to using the method by which you arrive to your religious conclusions, which you would say "this is a wrong conclusion"? If so, why?

Many things could be happening there, when someone who claims to have prayed and either not received an answer, or received what I would consider to be 'the wrong answer.'

It could be that they were asking the wrong questions.
They could be insincere in their questioning.
They could be misinterpreting their answers.

............they could be right and I could be wrong.

However, I can only go by the answers I get.

It seems to me that your method for determining what is true is just shrugging your shoulders and saying "meh, I got this answer with my method, somebody else got the exact opposite answer using the exact same method, oh well".

Mary either was a virgin or she wasn't, Mohammed either flew into heaven on the back of a flying horse or he didn't, the earth either is flat and resting on the back of a giant turtle or it isn't, horses either existed in the Americas in the 2000 years before Columbus or they didn't.

Can't you see that "thinking and praying about it" can equally well lead to any given answer or its exact opposite?

How can you possibly accept that as a truth-finding method?

Don't you care about the truth? Is it ok for you to just belive something that is "true for you"?

[atheist buddy]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

The part about me.

What part about you?

I can make it longer, but I can't make it clearer.

The whole part about me is wrong. The part where you said, "But you claim to know that there is no god, not even a deistic God." That part is wrong. You made it up. I never said that. I never said anything like that. I repudiate and reject it. You have no grounds to make that claim. If you weren't lying, you were otherwise in error when you said, "But you claim to know that there is no god, not even a deistic God."

Withdraw the claim---though not as a one liner---or produce the quotation that led you astray so that I can put your mind right. Maybe you've got me confused with someone else? I don't know. Cripes this pisses me off.

The part you said about me was wrong and unsupportable. You made it up.

I don't think Painefultruth was lying or being dishonest. He clearly established that he really cares about the truth.

I think he may have just gotten confused for a moment, but as a polite and honorable individual, he'll be sure to either explain his position or retract it.

He is convinced that atheists, you and me in particular, and the community in general, have a dogmatic belief in the notion that an undetectable deist God does not exist.

All he has to do now is back up his claim by showing that atheists hold that position. He can do this by linking atheist websites, speeches on youtube, etc.

I'm sure, as I already said, that there may be one or two lunatics out there who do claim to know there is no deist God. Heck, there are people who beleive the earth is flat and that corpses can come back to life... So what PainefulTruth has to do is show not just that there are a couple of lunatics with that belief, but that this crazy belief is shared by a significant portion of the atheist community.