John Doe believes in god and you don't. Why do you think he is wrong and you are right?

[We Never Know]

If you provide a formal hypothesis for your proposed god or gods, we can work out which disciplines it might fall under, though I expect it would likely be a physics, with potentially some biology.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't believe in gods. And I don't look down on people who do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not john doe's experience and connection to it that's questioned. Most know believers have an deep attachment to their belief. It's challenging the subject of they're belief.

For example, if a therapist listened to someone who said they hear voices, they won't devalue their clients experiences. They would look at psychological causes and the nature of that person's symptoms to validate whether the client is telling the truth not his experience of it.

When they find out the voices do not exist, they can address it differently. Not devaluing the experience just finding the reasoning and facts about the cause and nature of what clients say.

We're not saying a christians experience is false. If he says jesus rise from his tomb, That's what's challenged. Historians and other professionals challenge biblical claims all the time. NDEs and even reincarnation claims are challenged.

But they don't make it personal. That's the difference.

If I've understood you correctly, you appear to be inferring that if a person claims to have undergone a profound, palpable spiritual experience that caused them to radically alter their outlook and behaviours, they were probably hallucinating?

That would make sense if they were exhibiting other symptoms of a psychotic condition, but what if they weren't?

Shame we can't ask St Paul or Joan of Arc. Or Lev Tolstoy for that matter.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you provide a formal hypothesis for your proposed god or gods, we can work out which disciplines it might fall under, though I expect it would likely be a physics, with potentially some biology.

A physicist would presumably require a formula? Can't believe no one's tried tbh. In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that Einstein did work on something of the sort, but no one else understood him?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is someone having faith in/believing in a god/higher power a flaw?

The flaw isn't in the conclusion; the flaw is in the thought process that led to the conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that is the definition of THEIST.

So you basically think that all theists have "failure of critical thinking".

Do you have any research for that statement you confirmed?

You answer my question first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't believe in gods. And I don't look down on people who do.

Do you think that recognizing someone's flaws in thinking means looking down on them? I don't.

 

[firedragon]

You answer my question first.

Oh no. See, that's called the burden of proof fallacy. You can't ask questions as answers, you have to provide evidence to your own claim. You and your kind except for all theists are all "critical thinking persons" according to you so you should act like one.

So there are over 7 billion people in the world. out of them how many are theists, and what was your sample size to do this study in order to decide that the all have "failure of critical thinking"?

 

[We Never Know]

Do you think that recognizing someone's flaws in thinking means looking down on them? I don't.

Your flaw is looking at them thinking they are flawed. Believing in/hoping there is something better isn't a flaw. Of course that's my opinion.

 

[HonestJoe]

You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't believe in gods. And I don't look down on people who do.

You wouldn't need to believe to present a hypothesis but regardless, the point stands that we can't talk about applying scientific method to anything unless it has been properly defined, at least to some extent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh no. See, that's called the burden of proof fallacy.

No, it's my personal preference for a discussion and not an interrogation.

 

[HonestJoe]

A physicist would presumably require a formula? Can't believe no one's tried tbh. In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that Einstein did work on something of the sort, but no one else understood him?

That's getting ahead of things a little. A formula would be getting in to the technical details of exactly how something works. If the basis for a god hypothesis was the existence of some new kind of divine energy for example, that could have formulas developed to describe how it was expected to act in different environments and circumstances, which could then be tested.

I somewhat doubt any such hypothesis for god is forthcoming, otherwise much smarter and more influential people than either of us would have already provide one. People who engage on this topic generally know they can't provide any kind of testable hypothesis for their religious beliefs, which is why they so often push the idea that such things are somehow beyond the scope of science, creating a conveniently circular logical hole.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your flaw is looking at them thinking they are flawed.

I think that being flawed is a part of the human condition. This fact doesn't diminish our intrinsic value.

Believing in/hoping there is something better isn't a flaw.

I think it's disingenuous - and probably a bit insulting to theists - to pretend that theistic religion is merely "believing in/hoping there is something better."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science.

By using the word "above," what is it you are trying to convey here? That faith and believing in supernatural deities is "better" than nature and science? What does "above" mean? Meaning it isn't a lateral form of study? That it requires making a jump to some alternative line of thinking? Why is this non-lateral study requirement named as "above" in your opinion? From where I sit, it makes me think you are trying to simply assume that what you're calling "faith" and belief in supernatural whooziewhats is more important, or better than "nature and science." Which is nonsense. So hopefully that's not what you're trying to do when you place it "above." Please do keep in mind that you used the term "above" for a reason - I am asking what that reason is - mostly to get you to reflect on your choice of wording and what biases it may be revealing.

God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.

Fine. Who cares? If there is no scientific evidence, then instead present the type(s) of evidence that DO exist. If all that ends up being are thousands of year old texts and more words from a bunch of individuals who "have a hunch" then color me unimpressed.

If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?

This one is super-duper easy. I am right not to believe because the evidence to be found is complete and utter garbage. Joe is wrong to believe because the evidence to be found is complete and utter garbage. That's why. Until sufficient evidence is presented that distinctly ties God to all of the things being attributed to Him, and demonstrates that His existence is a reality (note - I don't care if this evidence is labeled "scientific" or not - it had better be something really damn compelling, regardless the mode of delivery of said evidence - that's the main crux of what I am getting at here) there is no correctness to be had in establishing or maintaining belief.

It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?

As others have said, it is an insult to intelligence to assume that you know things that others feel they cannot possibly know and present paltry, unconvincing evidence when trying to convince them that you have said knowledge. That is a huge insult to a person's intelligence. To believe that they should be swayed based on garbage presented as evidence? You may as well be calling them gullible to their face and then getting an idiotic, bewildered look on your face when they don't react well to that. It's asinine.

I would also like to add that if Joe simply kept his beliefs to himself, and used them only for his own "benefit" (whatever that may be) then there would be NO OFFENSE taken by anyone over Joe's beliefs. People wouldn't even know what he believed, and therefore how could anyone get offended? But does Joe keep it to himself? Does he? Let's be honest about that probability now.

Why do humans fight about what they believe?

Because it keeps being pushed in front of people, and talked about as if it is fact, and used to justify or criticize or judge. That's why. Dumb things keep being done with beliefs, and people who don't like dumb things are bound to complain about them, or even challenge them. Why is this so hard to understand?

Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

Yes. And? Does something being a "personal choice" make it beyond reproach? How about if that "personal choice" is used to try and control the behavior of others through guilt, shaming and fear tactics? As stated previously - people can believe whatever they want, and if they kept it to themselves then all would be well - nothing to even be challenged at that point. But that is NOT what people do with these beliefs. Not by a long shot.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's getting ahead of things a little. A formula would be getting in to the technical details of exactly how something works. If the basis for a god hypothesis was the existence of some new kind of divine energy for example, that could have formulas developed to describe how it was expected to act in different environments and circumstances, which could then be tested.

I somewhat doubt any such hypothesis for god is forthcoming, otherwise much smarter and more influential people than either of us would have already provide one. People who engage on this topic generally know they can't provide any kind of testable hypothesis for their religious beliefs, which is why they so often push the idea that such things are somehow beyond the scope of science, creating a conveniently circular logical hole.

It would certainly take someone a lot smarter than me to formulate such a hypothesis. I’ll get back to you when I’ve read this...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Miracles, Near Death Experiences, the experiences of those who see ghosts, the experiences of those who are written about in the Bible and other things. These are not scientific proof. Science is for the physical universe and is a scholarly discipline that requires other types of evidence. If anything science, which has a naturalistic philosophy at it's heart, would try to explain away the experiences of people, and people with the same sort of naturalistic philosophy would be happy with the naturalistic guesses of science.

This poses the same problem. God, NDE, Ghosts (hm), et cetera are all supernatural so one can't be evidence for the other's validity.

Evidence for the supernatural (if they are) could be something historical. Physical artifacts and events in history weren't proven true by scientific means. There are different types of sciences. Can resurrection, NDE, Ghosts, et cetera, be proven by historical means?

For example, we still have the Pantheon but just because we have that doesn't mean the gods existed. We have the bible, just because we have the bible, doesn't mean god existed.

But there are other historical events I'm sure that prove something's existence without it needing to be under a microscope. Something more distinct than archeological findings of jesus' tomb and so forth.

We cannot interview witnesses to the resurrection to see if their cases are true, we can believe them or not. It is however evidence for the supernatural and for Jesus being whom He said He is.

The fact since we cannot, we can't assume its the supernatural (god of the gaps).

Can you prove it without the god of the gaps?

J Warner Wallace, and ex police cold case investigator wanted to show the gospels were made up and came the conclusion, after studying them, that they showed signs of being genuine witness stories.

But we cannot interview the witnesses. No investigator will just go off what's written. If they're trying to find a murderer, it would take more than four people who they can't question write "the killer is in this location." Signs aren't evidence-they are inferences.

Basically it is a matter of faith, but it is not blind faith with no evidence. That is a lie of many atheists and sceptics about the Christian faith.

This is a contradiction. Faith is the belief in things not seen. So, why would one need to say "there is no blind faith" when by definition and scripture, that's exactly what it is.

It doesn't need to be a bad phrase, though. Why do you need to assume signs and stories are evidence (and need such) if the belief in god is solely based on faith?

 

[firedragon]

No, it's my personal preference for a discussion and not an interrogation.

So again, since you claim all theists have "failure of critical thinking", and you dont, please do provide the research data to substantiate your claim.

Your claim: All theists have "failure of critical thinking"

Whats the evidence?

 

[Heyo]

And someone turning their life around, and sincerely stating the conviction that only a miracle enabled him or her to step back from the edge of the precipice, is not good evidence?

It is evidence - anecdotal evidence.

Take a lot of these anecdotes, verify them and do a statistical analysis. If there is still a significant signal you have evidence that belief has the power to turn a life around.
It says nothing about the subject of the belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is evidence - anecdotal evidence.

Take a lot these anecdotes, verify them and do a statistical analysis. If there is still a significant signal you have evidence that belief has the power to turn a life around.
It says nothing about the subject of the belief.

Substitute the word faith for belief, and I’d be inclined to agree.

Belief being a function of the intellect, whereas faith, for me, is a function of the spirit.

 

[Heyo]

Substitute the word faith for belief, and I’d be inclined to agree.

Belief being a function of the intellect, whereas faith, for me, is a function of the spirit.

I have no problem with that as I don't make that distinction.

Btw.: there is statistical evidence that faith has a positive influence on mental health. According to some statistics people of faith are about 5% less likely to suffer from depression.
But that can also be an effect of some other underlying property as people of faith also have, statistically, a 5 points lower IQ.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So again, since you claim all theists have "failure of critical thinking", and you dont, please do provide the research data to substantiate your claim.

Your claim: All theists have "failure of critical thinking"

Whats the evidence?

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumptions about the nature of our relationship and this discussion.

We do not have the sort of relationship where you can make demands on me and I'm obligated to comply. Instead, we have a transactional relationship: I'm not inclined to give you what you want unless you give me what I want in return.

This discussion is an informal exchange of ideas, not my presentation a formal proof for your approval. If you aren't going to live up to your end of this, then I'm not inclined to continue.

... and if this means that I haven't substantiated my position to your satisfaction, well, that's absolutely fine with me.

The choice is yours:

- do you want a two-way discussion? Then contribute.
- do you want a one-way interrogation? Then you'll be doing it on your own.