Question(s) for the Religious

[Bad Writer]

If he was just ranting about some divine entity, and it was made-up (unbeknownst to you), on what grounds would you be able to dispute it?

He's asking what your process is to discern that which is made-up, from that which is divine. What criteria do you have to distinguish TRUE claims of divinity from false ones?

1. I couldn't dispute it on any grounds. I couldn't
believe it either, for the same reason: I know nothing about it.

2. I think that's more you're question. Information is all we have to go on. I found the information persuasive enough to then believe in its truth.

1. If someone is making up a religion, then you're going to have information to go on for it. The example he put forth is pretty shallow, but I'm sure he wasn't out to formulate an entirely new religion just for the sake of his point. What if this made up religion was Mormonism, for argument's sake. What criteria would you use to distinguish its falsehoods from claims of true divinity?

2. I think I covered this in my reply to #1...yeah, I did.

[The Reality Salesman01]

No. There are numerous ways to evaluate a claim. I typically start as Frodo did - the very first thing I'll assess is whether the claimant actually believes it himself.

...So, if someone REALLY believes it, that increases the possibility of it being true?

You admittedly don't, so why should I?

Why did you give him the power of telling you what you can believe?

This criterion isn't restricted to spiritual claims.

Believing stuff, if somebody else really believes it. This is criterion of truth to you? I know of a few philosophers that would probably not agree with you there.

If I tell my kids that there's a turkey in the back yard, they'll run to the window to see it. If one of them sees me wink as I say it, indicating that I don't believe it myself, she won't run to the window.

If you tell your kids that Santa's coming, and run out of convincing reasons to keep them believing you, they'll stop believing that Santa's coming. The same is true for us, and why we don't believe your God. However, if you're willing to accept the things you've been talking about here as convincing reasons to continue believing, well, my guess is that there also won't be any lit fires on Christmas Eve at the John V household. Kids or no kids.

---

1. I couldn't dispute it on any grounds. I couldn't
believe it either, for the same reason: I know nothing about it.

Would that be the only reason you wouldn't believe it? Knowing nothing about it? There are plenty of religions available to choose from now. There is plenty of material available to read about each of them. You just choose Christianity because its the one you "know about"? Surely there must be more to it than that.

2... I found the information persuasive enough to then believe in its truth.

1) Can you give a specific example of the nformation you found to be persuasive?

2) What process did you use to evaluate this persuasive information, and determine that it was more likely true than false?


That's what I've been trying to get you to tell me.

[Esquilax]

...So, if someone REALLY believes it, that increases the possibility of being true?

I'll play devil's advocate for a minute: yeah, it actually does, as true belief in a claim eliminates the possibility that the claimant is posing it sarcastically, or lying. Granted, it's not a huge increase in likelihood, but at least you've eliminated two possibilities where the claim would be false by definition.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Dammit, fine. It's still completely subjective, and not at all reliable. Even if they secretly don't believe it, or they're posing it sarcastically, that wouldn't necessarily make it less true either...would it? It would tell me that they don't believe it, but whether or not it's actually true would still be in the air. Right?

[fr0d0]

Interesting that you're as quick to accept him merely at his word that his belief isn't justified as you aren't at taking that same word expressing his belief. Why is that, I wonder?

Because he dismissed it himself. Whilst I try to respect the beliefs of others and try hard to understand them (I'm hugely interested in that anyway), I don't always agree with them. I think this is allowed

[Walking Void]

It would tell me that they don't believe it, but whether or not it's actually true would still be in the air.

The Swimming Pastrami Creature does not like to be related to the airborne Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[fr0d0]

1. If someone is making up a religion, then you're going to have information to go on for it. The example he put forth is pretty shallow, but I'm sure he wasn't out to formulate an entirely new religion just for the sake of his point. What if this made up religion was Mormonism, for argument's sake. What criteria would you use to distinguish its falsehoods from claims of true divinity?

The only criteria available to me. What they tell me/show me.
Mormonism is a good one, because like I've said already, and I think you agreed, Mormonism feigns Christianity until you dig deeper.
I test, research, study, compare, criticise etc until I can be satisfied something is true. So far I haven't found a challenger to my current belief, not for the want of trying. Before, for more than 45 years, I was an atheist with the same goal. My enquiry led me here.
My sources wouldn't be your sources. The people I grilled and the influences around me will not be the same as yours.
All we can do is honestly reflect our understanding.

[Chas]

1. If someone is making up a religion, then you're going to have information to go on for it. The example he put forth is pretty shallow, but I'm sure he wasn't out to formulate an entirely new religion just for the sake of his point. What if this made up religion was Mormonism, for argument's sake. What criteria would you use to distinguish its falsehoods from claims of true divinity?

The only criteria available to me. What they tell me/show me.
Mormonism is a good one, because like I've said already, and I think you agreed, Mormonism feigns Christianity until you dig deeper.
I test, research, study, compare, criticise etc until I can be satisfied something is true. So far I haven't found a challenger to my current belief, not for the want of trying. Before, for more than 45 years, I was an atheist with the same goal. My enquiry led me here.
My sources wouldn't be your sources. The people I grilled and the influences around me will not be the same as yours.
All we can do is honestly reflect our understanding.

And you feign critical thinking until we dig deeper. You believe something without objective evidence. You seem to believe something that 'feels good' or 'sounds good'.
I am not claiming that I know why you believe, but just point out the lack of evidence, therefore the lack of critical thinking.

[Cyberman]

Interesting that you're as quick to accept him merely at his word that his belief isn't justified as you aren't at taking that same word expressing his belief. Why is that, I wonder?

Because he dismissed it himself.

In the same virtual breath that he expressed it. What makes one more readily acceptable than the other?

Whilst I try to respect the beliefs of others and try hard to understand them (I'm hugely interested in that anyway), I don't always agree with them. I think this is allowed

Not only allowed but positively to be applauded - with the caveat that respect oughtn't be something accorded automatically merely because they are beliefs.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Frodo, answer the two questions above so that we may have an accurate idea of how to proceed.