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

[Dan From Smithville]

It's hard to research whether evolution happened or not but we believe that because of the evidence.
People having experienced the supernatural is also evidence.

It is evidence about people and not about the supernatural. How would you differentiate the claims of liars and the mentally ill from those that may have actually experienced the supernatural? How is it known that it was the supernatural? If there is evidence, then it would be natural.

You are claiming something without explanation or support of the claim.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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?

If people become fans of Star Wars, does that make Jedi real if they improve their lives?

 

[Kooky]

Evidence for the supernatural comes usually in the experiences of people both in history and now.

Evidence for the natural, however, tends to be far more widespread, and is typically not limited to personal accounts, which tend to be highly subjective by their very nature. Since science tends to favor the impersonal and the objective in lieu of the personal and subjective in terms of evidence, it should be fairly obvious why these personal accounts are not granted the same weight in the conversation as, say, fossil records or archaeological findings.

Another, more crucial weakness of supernatural frameworks is that they lack the predictive power that is the hallmark of many scientific theories. With evidence, our theoretical framework of evolutionary biology has become robust enough that we can measure genetic drift and predict the existence of certain 'missing links' before they have been found.

Supernatural explanations, due to the very nature of the miraculous and the supernatural, tend to stop at the level of "just-so" stories, without giving us a way to predict or project our existing findings towards future applications

(edit: fixed last sentence to be more coherent)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The only reason my beliefs are considered to be opinion is because of all the other BS beliefs around.

There it is! Your beliefs aren't BS, all the others are!

And how, exactly, do you know this, and how can you demonstrate it to us?

 

[RestlessSoul]

If people become fans of Star Wars, does that make Jedi real if they improve their lives?

Do you know many people who credit Star Wars with saving their lives, when seemingly no human power could?

If you do, then good for George Lucas. Unlikely, though tbh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know many people who credit Star Wars with saving their lives, when seemingly no human power could?

If you do, then good for George Lucas. Unlikely, though tbh.

You haven't met my ex then.

 

[Valjean]

Do you know many people who credit Star Wars with saving their lives, when seemingly no human power could?

If you do, then good for George Lucas. Unlikely, though tbh.

Jediism - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.
If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?
It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?
Why do humans fight about what they believe?
Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

I don't think that anybody's faith or belief is wrong, if it is just what they believe in.
I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think that anybody's faith or belief is wrong, if it is just what they believe in.
I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

But lots of true beliefs have harmed people. Right and wrong are unrelated to effects or outcomes. Objective truth is objective truth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.

I wouldn't quite phrase it in that manner, but essentially I agree.

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

That seems obvious. Because I don't believe in God. Just like Joe think I am wrong and he is right, because he believes there is a God. Whether one judges another, or takes any action on that difference of opinion is quite a different question.

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

I wouldn't speak for others. I could care less if Joe believes in God or not. It's worth remembering that plenty of folks like 'Joe' find atheism at best distasteful, and at worst believe us servants of the devil. Are you as interested in that position, and what is your opinion on it?

Why do humans fight about what they believe?

Because belief informs action. If you want to argue that humans should all be pacifists, and there is nothing worth fighting over, I honestly get it. But 'beliefs' aren't some individual choice which live in isolation. They inform world views, decisions and actions.
Women are burned alive in Papua New Guinea on almost a daily basis, with various beliefs enabling that. Dealing with the crime and action itself is obvious, but should we not be interested in the root cause of such behaviour, or try to address it? Really?

Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

Of course. I make lots of personal choices all the time. I can decide whether I want tea or coffee, and I doubt other people care. However, if that equates to me using the last coffee pod in the house, my wife is impacted by my personal choice. It comes down more to the impact of belief on the world around me than whether I can hold a belief in and of itself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is it actually? Do we consciously choose what we think is true, certain, or even just plausible?

It very much seems to be like the opposite may be true - that we are raised, or absorb, certain beliefs without consciously choosing, or sometimes without even knowing why or for what purpose; and then these beliefs we have absorbed inform what choices we consider viable or reasonable.

Mostly I completely agree with this.
We don't get to consciously decide what is true.

One small addition I believe is increasingly important, though. We do, to a degree, get to decide what influences we expose ourselves to.
If I can jump on an 'old man rant' for a second, I do worry about the ability people now have to reinforce existing beliefs through accessing curated information which confirms rather than challenges.

Obviously this has always been the case, through human history, but now more than ever the ability to access information which confirms bias, and to avoid (or at least demonize) conflicting information is approaching standard mode of operating for many.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't think that anybody's faith or belief is wrong, if it is just what they believe in.
I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

Hah! Funny...
When I read the original question suggesting people might be 'wrong', I was thinking more in terms of accuracy. As in, 'Joe believes there is a large fluffy poodle who sits on a golden throne and rules the world from a mountain on Mars. I think he is wrong about that.'

But on reflection, perhaps the OP was talking more about it from a moral point of view. As in , 'Joe believes there is a large fluffy poodle who sits on a golden throne and rules the world from a mountain on Mars. That is wrong, and immoral, and I need to verbally eviscerate him and those like him.'

To paraphrase my position, I think Joe is wrong (in terms of accuracy) but any moral consideration is more based on the same measure as you are taking. How is Joe directly impacting and/or harming others?
It's worth noting, I can think someone is 'right' in terms of accuracy on some issues (so, other atheists or agnostics in my case), but have issues with them in more of a moral sense.

 

[oldbadger]

But lots of true beliefs have harmed people. Right and wrong are unrelated to effects or outcomes. Objective truth is objective truth.

True beliefs?
What is truth?

Objective truth?
With whose vision?

I say again: I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

 

[oldbadger]

Hah! Funny...
When I read the original question suggesting people might be 'wrong', I was thinking more in terms of accuracy. As in, 'Joe believes there is a large fluffy poodle who sits on a golden throne and rules the world from a mountain on Mars. I think he is wrong about that.'

I quite like that! Compared with some religions ....!

But on reflection, perhaps the OP was talking more about it from a moral point of view. As in , 'Joe believes there is a large fluffy poodle who sits on a golden throne and rules the world from a mountain on Mars. That is wrong, and immoral, and I need to verbally eviscerate him and those like him.'

That's it. That's the grenade on the plane, the bomb in the arena, the assault rifle in the park.

To paraphrase my position, I think Joe is wrong (in terms of accuracy) but any moral consideration is more based on the same measure as you are taking. How is Joe directly impacting and/or harming others?
It's worth noting, I can think someone is 'right' in terms of accuracy on some issues (so, other atheists or agnostics in my case), but have issues with them in more of a moral sense.

I can understand all that, but for one word. 'Moral' I've got 'a thing' about that blooming word!
The trouble with 'moral' is that it is decency and truth, but also danger, wickedness and trouble.
I expect that the suicide bomber believes that their actions are 'moral'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can understand all that, but for one word. 'Moral' I've got 'a thing' about that blooming word!
The trouble with 'moral' is that it is decency and truth, but also danger, wickedness and trouble.
I expect that the suicide bomber believes that their actions are 'moral'.

Yep, totally agree with you on this.
I guess I'm using the word in an individual and subjective sense (as in, there are certain things I believe are moral), rather than an overall objective sense (as in, some things are moral and some are not).

My views on morality are 'just' mine, but they're also important to me.
I work hard to try and NOT impose my morality on others, but as with all human-types, I'm a work in progress...lol

 

[Valjean]

I don't think that anybody's faith or belief is wrong, if it is just what they believe in.
I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

True beliefs?
What is truth?

Objective truth?
With whose vision?

I say again: I only think a belief is wrong when it is leading towards harming other folks.

One faith holds that the earth is flat. Another that it's spherical. One thinks dank air causes malaria, another that a mosquito born microbe causes it.
Are all of them right, as you say? How can unevidenced beliefs be considered equal to evidenced beliefs?
Belief that bad air causes disease results in harm, is this why it's wrong, or because testable evidence weighs against it?

 

[oldbadger]

Yep, totally agree with you on this.
I guess I'm using the word in an individual and subjective sense (as in, there are certain things I believe are moral), rather than an overall objective sense (as in, some things are moral and some are not).

My views on morality are 'just' mine, but they're also important to me.
I work hard to try and NOT impose my morality on others, but as with all human-types, I'm a work in progress...lol

That's a thread, actually., giving that word 'moral' a damn good kicking.
I would feel better... that's got to be good.

 

[oldbadger]

One faith holds that the earth is flat. Another that it's spherical.

That's OK, let each cling to their truth, so long as neither one launches an Inquisition of terror against the other.

One thinks dank air causes malaria, another that a mosquito born microbe causes it.

Meh....... One of my Grannies believed stuff that could turn your hair grey.
But maybe the medics could choose a colleague carefully?

Are all of them right, as you say? How can unevidenced beliefs be considered equal to evidenced beliefs?

Do you see what you did there? You took my '...anybody's belief isn't wrong...'
and turned it in to 'everybodies' beliefs are right'.
I believe in letting people be, is all. I live close to Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, a few Christians, Buddhists.... all those titles covering so many sub-titles. And I'm damned if I'm going to spoil a meet-greet with any of them by stuffing my opinions down their throats. Some in those groups even argue with each other.

I's even let @lewisnotmiller 's fluffy poodle on golden throne alone.... I might even go to a soup-n-chat 'fluffy poodle' meet.

Belief that bad air causes disease results in harm, is this why it's wrong, or because testable evidence weighs against it?

My country is dead set against 'bad air' Valjean. In the 50's it killed hundreds of thousands! Just you drive a big truck in to London this morning and see just how big the fine will be! You see? It's best to leave folks ideas alone, unless they are causing danger to others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.

Not "technically." Rather, "by definition," since God is defined to be supernatural.

Could either of you clear something up for me?

Personally, I don't think that "supernatural" is a valid concept. It seems that the only things that ever get called supernatural are things that:

- someone really wants to believe are real, and
- can't be demonstrated to be real to a reasonable standard.

... but maybe one of you has something different in mind for "supernatural" than I do.

So, in your minds, could something "supernatural" ever be outside the realm of scientific inquiry AND be demonstrated to the point where it would be reasonable to believe in it (wherever you set the bar of "reasonable")?

From my perspective, these are two contradictory things.

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?" - Steven Novella

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Over the centuries many 'reasonable' regimes have attempted to build atheistic societies and have failed.

I’ve never heard about a theocratic utopia either.