Differences in Religion

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I've heard this quite often but I'll ask you a simple question: Will you accept the same kind of evidence you're asking us to accept?

Yes, but with qualifiers. One reason I've pushed so hard in other threads on the topic of assumptions is to better understand how my qualifiers compare to those of others.

[edit]
Evidence such as...?

The historical, legal, testimonial, and experiential categories I've mentioned before.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, but with qualifiers. One reason I've pushed so hard in other threads on the topic of assumptions is to better understand how my qualifiers compare to those of others.

[edit]

The historical, legal, testimonial, and experiential categories I've mentioned before.

I think I see what you mean. I would accept someone telling me they bought a new house without evidence but I would not believe someone telling me that God exists without evidence.

Is that what you mean?
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I think I see what you mean. I would accept someone telling me they bought a new house without evidence but I would not believe someone telling me that God exists without evidence.

Is that what you mean?

Yes. And I'll point out that there are 2 important factors in your example. First, one claim is "big" and the other is "small", so the evidence needs to match appropriately. Second is the issue of the credibility of the one making the claim. If the person who bought the house is known as a habitual liar, one might reject even that claim.

Just letting you know I am aware of the burden in discussions regarding God's existence.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And yet it appears to make you curious in some way - possibly because you are intrigued that people could believe such things.

Mostly I was just answering your question. But yeah, people believe lots of weird stuff. Some of it even turns out to be true (look at modern physics, for example). But it's also interesting to see how they end up believing weird stuff which is obviously wrong - partially in hopes that I can prevent myself from doing the same. Learning from other people's mistakes is generally less painful than from your own.

You don't seem like the type who is here just because you enjoy mocking Christians.

I've been here around a while, and most of the mocking I see comes from other Christians. But that's only if you use the typically twisted definition of mocking as "disagreeing with me". I don't see much actual mocking at all, to be honest. Most of the claims of it are just an overactive Christian persecution complex at work.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes. And I'll point out that there are 2 important factors in your example. First, one claim is "big" and the other is "small", so the evidence needs to match appropriately. Second is the issue of the credibility of the one making the claim. If the person who bought the house is known as a habitual liar, one might reject even that claim.

Add in the fact that we have real objective evidence of people, houses, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, property lawyers, the local MLS, and so on. All of this is missing for gods. We have much more evidence for the small claim than the big one, to use your classification. And the response to this seems to be that we need to change what our standards of evidence are for the bigger claim, even though those standards give us more than sufficient evidence to prove the smaller one. Seems backwards to me - for almost everything the bigger the claim, the more careful we need to be to make sure the evidence is clear. Yet believers want to change the rules just for god(s), and then claim that other people have too narrow a view when they don't.

Sounds more like a sales job than an reasonable epistemological position to me, but then again my dad is in sales and taught me a lot of interesting tricks so maybe it's just me.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Add in the fact that we have real objective evidence of people, houses, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, property lawyers, the local MLS, and so on. All of this is missing for gods.

In past discussions when it was me presenting the example, I constructed it much more carefully - the point being that there are events in our lives that, for the sake of the discussion, both believers and non-believers agree are reasonable and not a "goddidit" example, where the person experiencing it is convinced it is real, and yet for which we cannot provide evidence according to the terms set out in most of these types of discussions.

And the response to this seems to be that we need to change what our standards of evidence are for the bigger claim, even though those standards give us more than sufficient evidence to prove the smaller one. Seems backwards to me - for almost everything the bigger the claim, the more careful we need to be to make sure the evidence is clear. Yet believers want to change the rules just for god(s), and then claim that other people have too narrow a view when they don't.

We would need to better define what those standards are before I could really answer this. But I've tried this and similar exercises: for historical evidence (the whole, "Did Jesus exist?" nonsense), for scientific method (the myth that there is a rigorously defined general method that applies to all the sciences), etc. We never seem to get past arguing the underlying philosophical issues.

Regardless, I don't really care if you change your standards or not. If you don't, then I simply conclude that your standards exclude the possibility of knowing God. That is often stated as a "scientific" standard, and as such it means science can't deal with God. I'm OK with that. It doesn't bother me to take the position that I know things your standards (or science) can't prove. As I said, that includes examples other than God, very common experience examples, examples from disciplines other than science, and so I don't think you actually apply these standards all the time. I'm OK with that too. It's not unreasonable to use different standards for different situations. I've given examples of that as well.

But I completely reject that I "change the rules" for similar situations. Sandwiches has asked me questions several times that poke at whether or not I'm applying inappropriate rules to my "evidence" for God. It was an issue I addressed before I ever joined this forum. Of course it's always possible that I slip here and there, and as I said in a earlier post, I am fully aware of the burden of my position and that "for almost everything the bigger the claim, the more careful we need to be to make sure the evidence is clear", but I do my best to be consistent.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,590.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes. And I'll point out that there are 2 important factors in your example. First, one claim is "big" and the other is "small", so the evidence needs to match appropriately. Second is the issue of the credibility of the one making the claim. If the person who bought the house is known as a habitual liar, one might reject even that claim.

Just letting you know I am aware of the burden in discussions regarding God's existence.

Expected actions on your part make a pretty big difference also. The house actually works out quite well for that. If you stop by the house in question and they are occupying it, they invite you in and you chat for a while, then if they invite you over for a BBQ that will cause you to make plans and commit your weekend you would consider your visit more than enough evidence to believe enough for that commitment. In fact is so much more than what is needed for that level of action you your part that you (or I) whould probably not think of this as needing evidence.

But what if they want a loan secured by their ownership of the house? You would want a lot more evidence. In the above who cares if they own or are leasing? (Which is a bit like the difference between some teclologically advanced space aliens and God). But for a loan I'd want very strong evidence they own the house, and own not just in hte everyday sense, but own in the sense of having real equity.

And for that load, would you accept the word of someone, someone unknown to you, who simply says they helped them close escrow on hte house? Or would you want a title search by the title company of your choice?

Yet when it comes to God the vast majority of faiths expect you to change your entire life, the largest of commitments. And it seems at best they present evidence in hte form of some guy you never met says he talked to God.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,590.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes. And I'll point out that there are 2 important factors in your example. First, one claim is "big" and the other is "small", so the evidence needs to match appropriately. Second is the issue of the credibility of the one making the claim. If the person who bought the house is known as a habitual liar, one might reject even that claim.

Just letting you know I am aware of the burden in discussions regarding God's existence.

Bolding mine.

This is one area where faith especially American Christianity, perhaps a bit unfairly, suffers. There are far too many preachers who lie, far too many in pulpits who stand to make a profit as long as ohters believe. And among those who are basically honest I have found most to be lazy or careless when it comes to checking facts.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yet when it comes to God the vast majority of faiths expect you to change your entire life, the largest of commitments. And it seems at best they present evidence in hte form of some guy you never met says he talked to God.

Yeah, I know that happens. I guess that's what makes me glad I'm Lutheran (LCMS). Since the thread is about differences and misunderstandings, I'll say that it seems to me that the LCMS is not "mainstream," and that such makes my job harder because people assume all kinds of things about me that I don't hold to.

In this case, the difference between me and others you may have encountered is that I wouldn't expect you to change your life based on my experiences. You'll have to have your own encounter with God for that to happen. What do I expect then? That you'll at least understand me. At most, that you'll open up to the possibility that God exists and that maybe science isn't the right way to approach Him ... if He can even be approached.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In past discussions when it was me presenting the example, I constructed it much more carefully - the point being that there are events in our lives that, for the sake of the discussion, both believers and non-believers agree are reasonable and not a "goddidit" example, where the person experiencing it is convinced it is real, and yet for which we cannot provide evidence according to the terms set out in most of these types of discussions.

I've never seen this done successfully - mainly because the discussions are about things we all know exist for one reason or another. That makes thos objects quite unlike gods.

We would need to better define what those standards are before I could really answer this.
The same standards we use to figure out real stuff is actually real. Apply the same standards to gods and you get "not real" as the result. Hence paragraphs trying to rationalize why those standards are wrong even though they seem to work for every example save for one - the god that believers are trying to define into plausibility.

Regardless, I don't really care if you change your standards or not. If you don't, then I simply conclude that your standards exclude the possibility of knowing God.
You can't conclude that unless you know that those changed standards of evidence would include God but not other gods. If your standard allows all sorts of different gods to be "observed" then it eliminates monotheism and thus the truth about the Christian God. So you have to carefully craft this new standard of acceptable evidence so that it only admits history, tradition, personal experience, and so on from Christians while as the same time excluding it from every other religious tradition.

I'm imagining the special pleading required to do so would be enormous, but I'm willing to look at the attempt.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
That they consider it a position, in the first place.
That they think my lack of belief is of any significance for me.

You may be misleading them by believing that your lack of position is right.

Let's put it this way, there are two groups of things to eat: plants, animals and their products. If someone only eats plants we call them vegan. If someone eats both they are termed non-vegetarian. Now what do you call someone who does not weigh the moral decision.

It would depend on what they eat, correct? So long as someone must eat there is no neutrality.

Let's say that someone refuses to eat because he refuses to consider the other position. This is a neutral position because the person does not have to eat.

Can the neutral decision be a default? Of course not, as long as the rest of the world is eating the decision must be very purposeful.

I speak for the rest of my religious brethren when I say that you should really try this out. Therefore since the rest of us clearly see this, you must claim that we are delusional. That must be the opinion of anyone who does not believe in a religion. That is the forcibly taken neutral position.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You may be misleading them by believing that your lack of position is right.

Let's put it this way, there are two groups of things to eat: plants, animals and their products. If someone only eats plants we call them vegan. If someone eats both they are termed non-vegetarian. Now what do you call someone who does not weigh the moral decision.

It would depend on what they eat, correct? So long as someone must eat there is no neutrality.

Let's say that someone refuses to eat because he refuses to consider the other position. This is a neutral position because the person does not have to eat.

Can the neutral decision be a default? Of course not, as long as the rest of the world is eating the decision must be very purposeful.

I speak for the rest of my religious brethren when I say that you should really try this out. Therefore since the rest of us clearly see this, you must claim that we are delusional. That must be the opinion of anyone who does not believe in a religion. That is the forcibly taken neutral position.

But eating is something ALL people do and, more importantly, NEED to do. A better analogy is this: Let's say we have a box in a room whose contests are a mystery to us. The box is about cubic 1ft. Then the following exchange occurs:

You: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box?"
Me: "No. I haven't any reason to think there's a watch ."
You: "Ah! So you think there is no watch."
Me: "No. I don't know that there isn't a watch either."

Everyone is born NOT believing in the watch in the box. This is the default AND correct idea unless you have reason to believe otherwise, regardless of the belief of the majority. That is what most atheists I know think, regarding a generic deity. However, many, if not most atheists I know do agree that even if there is a deity of some sort, the one of the Bible isn't it.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
But eating is something ALL people do and, more importantly, NEED to do. A better analogy is this: Let's say we have a box in a room whose contests are a mystery to us. The box is about cubic 1ft. Then the following exchange occurs:

You: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box?"
Me: "No. I haven't any reason to think there's a watch ."
You: "Ah! So you think there is no watch."
Me: "No. I don't know that there isn't a watch either."

Everyone is born NOT believing in the watch in the box. This is the default AND correct idea unless you have reason to believe otherwise, regardless of the belief of the majority. That is what most atheists I know think, regarding a generic deity. However, many, if not most atheists I know do agree that even if there is a deity of some sort, the one of the Bible isn't it.

You are saying that only an idiot says that something is in the box. This is no different then what I said.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
david_x said:
You are saying that only an idiot says that something is in the box. This is no different then what I said.

If you could please point out where I said anything about idiots on my post or retract that, I would appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Add in the fact that we have real objective evidence of people, houses, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, property lawyers, the local MLS, and so on. All of this is missing for gods. We have much more evidence for the small claim than the big one, to use your classification. And the response to this seems to be that we need to change what our standards of evidence are for the bigger claim, even though those standards give us more than sufficient evidence to prove the smaller one.
There are many things in this life for which we lack objective evidence. For instance, Sunday a friend told me she had been to the Paul McCartney concert in NYC and it was "great". There is no objective evidence for that. Never will be.

Seems backwards to me - for almost everything the bigger the claim, the more careful we need to be to make sure the evidence is clear. Yet believers want to change the rules just for god(s), and then claim that other people have too narrow a view when they don't.
ALL evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. That was first demonstrated by an atheist, David Hume, and no one has successfully challenged it since. Theists have that type of evidence.

It is atheists who want to change the rules and decide to change what counts as evidence.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
But eating is something ALL people do and, more importantly, NEED to do. A better analogy is this: Let's say we have a box in a room whose contests are a mystery to us. The box is about cubic 1ft. Then the following exchange occurs:

You: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box?"
Me: "No. I haven't any reason to think there's a watch ."
You: "Ah! So you think there is no watch."
Me: "No. I don't know that there isn't a watch either."
Ah, I see you are still using the refuted philosophy of Positivism. The second line is Positivism. Let's redo the conversation and see what you fill in for the last line:

Me: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box."
You:. "No, I haven't any reason to believe there's a watch."
Me: "Do you believe there is not a watch in that box?"
You: " No. I don't believe that, either."
Me: "So you don't know whether there is a watch or not."
You:

Everyone is born NOT believing in the watch in the box.
Here's the semantics. "not believing" in this context is "believing there is no watch in the box". You don't know what people are born like because babies can't talk and tell you. It's possible that babies are born agnostic about watches in boxes. Or it's possible that they are scientists and accept the hypothesis is true in order to test it. However, I sincerely doubt that all babies are born Positivists.

This is the default AND correct idea unless you have reason to believe otherwise, regardless of the belief of the majority.
No, it's not "correct". "not believing" in this circumstance has no more epistemological value than believing. There has been no testing, so "not believing" has no more reason to think it is correct than "believing". And this is the root of the problem: you are trying to give "not believing" or "believing there is not" a higher epistemological value than it has. You see, even by your standard of Positivism, you have no reason to "not believe"! You have no more evidence to back that position than to back the position of believing!

That is what most atheists I know think, regarding a generic deity.
Let's put this quote out there again. What is the position, do you think, of most atheists:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

What do most atheists you know think about the idea that what is natural requires and presupposes a generic deity in order for what is natural to work?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I'm saying it, you would have to be an idiot to believe anything was in the box right?
Why? Especially when you say "anything". Don't lots of things come in boxes? So why would you be an idiot to believe that the box wasn't empty and contained something?

Let's try something else: there is a futon in my living room. Without looking in my living room, would you have to be an idiot to believe that there was?

We have evidence that futons exist. We have evidence that some people put futons in their living rooms. So, why would someone be an idiot to believe there was a futon in my living room?
 
Upvote 0