Logic to refute "Everybody's belief is true for them"

[Rodibidably]

Debating the existance of god with somebody I came to a dead-end in how to explain my rebuttal, so I was hoping the good folks here could give me some tips...

The position of the other person:
Everybody's belief in god is true for them. If you believe in jesus, allah, krishna, ra, thor, etc... nobody else can tell you that your belief is wrong.

Some of my rebuttals:
Let's say I believe I have $1 million in my bank account,
If I do have $1mil, my belief is correct,
If I do NOT have $1mil, my belief is wrong,
Therefore if I believe in any specific god, I could be either right or wrong.

If I say allah if god,
And somebody else says jesus is god,
And somebody else says there is no god,
And somebody else says that Thor is god,
And somebody else says the Fylying Spaghetti Monster is god,
At the VERY LEAST, 4 of the 5 people are wrong (and possibly all 5),
Therefore if I believe in any specific god, I could be either right or wrong.

I also went with a few other "examples" along these lines, and yet each time the response was the same, "Everybody's belief in god is true for them".

Help me:
So, I'm looking for a bit of help, how would you confront this type of belief in a debate?
Frankly, I'm at a loss...

[Silentknight]

I actually don't concern myself with people's personal beliefs at all, as long as they are kept just that. Personal. The moment they do surface in a debate though is when I become concerned, because that's about when the people holding said beliefs will attempt to propose that their beliefs should somehow apply to everyone else. I don't have a problem with religion until it tries to preach its way into our lives, our laws, and our education system.

This however is precisely when different belief systems will start making contradictory claims about reality. Conflicting ideas that are supposed to apply to everything, to objective reality, can't be true at the same time. How does your god intervene with the world? What does your god say about the way we should live our lives? What does your god think about people who believe differently?

You need not even ask them these questions, because they're usually more than willing to tell you, whether you're interested or not.

[KingMerv00]

Help me:
So, I'm looking for a bit of help, how would you confront this type of belief in a debate?
Frankly, I'm at a loss...

Seems like you have a pretty good handle on it. Everyone acts as if there is one objective reality...until it comes to God.

[Earthborn]

Some of my rebuttals:
Let's say I believe I have $1 million in my bank account,
If I do have $1mil, my belief is correct,
If I do NOT have $1mil, my belief is wrong,
Therefore if I believe in any specific god, I could be either right or wrong.Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The truth of a million dollars on your bank account has no influence on any specific God.

If I say allah if god,Allah is God by definition. Whether He exists is a different matter, but you can't claim He isn't God as it is simply the Arabic translation of the word God.

And somebody else says jesus is god,
And somebody else says there is no god,
And somebody else says that Thor is god,
And somebody else says the Fylying Spaghetti Monster is god,
At the VERY LEAST, 4 of the 5 people are wrong (and possibly all 5),No, there could be more than 1 person who is right. Someone who says that Allah is God is for example right, but the person who says there is no God may be right as well. That makes only 3 out of 5 people wrong. To someone who believes that God can take on many different forms, 4 out of 5 (and possibly all 5) may be right.

So, I'm looking for a bit of help, how would you confront this type of belief in a debate?A better question would be: why would you want to?

[Rodibidably]

I actually don't concern myself with people's personal beliefs at all, as long as they are kept just that. Personal. The moment they do surface in a debate though is when I become concerned, because that's about when the people holding said beliefs will attempt to propose that their beliefs should somehow apply to everyone else. I don't have a problem with religion until it tries to preach its way into our lives, our laws, and our education system.

This however is precisely when different belief systems will start making contradictory claims about reality. Conflicting ideas that are supposed to apply to everything, to objective reality, can't be true at the same time. How does your god intervene with the world? What does your god say about the way we should live our lives? What does your god think about people who believe differently?

You need not even ask them these questions, because they're usually more than willing to tell you, whether you're interested or not.
I personally love to debate people with differing views than my own. I find it makes me rethink some of my preconceptions, and look for "better" evidence to support my beliefs in some cases.

However there usually comes a point where it's just not going to accomplish anything, and it's better to just drop the debate. At times you get to a point where both sides are steadfast in their view, and neither side is going to budge or accept any info from the other side. I've had debates on creationism, homeopothy, reflexology, moon landing, etc get to this point, and usually just "agreed to disagree", and hoped that something I said eventually makes the other person think twice about their position, or look for more information about some point I made.

But in this particular case, as much as I'd like to "drop it" as not being worth it, the person I'm debating is somebody close to me, so it basically makes me want to have them at least understand my position, and see why I have thew views I do...

-----

Seems like you have a pretty good handle on it. Everyone acts as if there is one objective reality...until it comes to God.
To me it seems simple, but the fact that I could not get the other person to see the comparison between belief in god, and $1 million, and bigfoot, etc had me thinking that perhaps there was some other way to debate my position that I had missed.

-----

In my view most things are either right or wrong (I'm sure somebody can come up with some examples of things that are neither right nor wrong, but IMO "god" is not one of those). Belief in something, be it bigfoot, nessie, alien abductions, god, or whatever is either true or it's not.

That's not to say we know definitly what the truth is, but the truth DOES exist.
We can say that the odds of nessie existing are low. The odds that rednecks in the southern US being abducted by aliens is low. And the odds are certain specific "gods" are low.
We can also say that gravity, while not fully understood, is a "fact" (even if we're a bit off on some small aspects(s) in our understanding.

That's not to say that new evidence would not change our minds on gravity, nessie, god, etc...

[Rodibidably]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The truth of a million dollars on your bank account has no influence on any specific God.
It's more about the logic used in one case applied to the other case...
I'm not saying $ in my account proves or disproves god, but the logic of belief not always being true, can (and should) be applied to god as well, and leads to the fact that god may (or may not) actually exist...

Allah is God by definition. Whether He exists is a different matter, but you can't claim He isn't God as it is simply the Arabic translation of the word God.
Perhaps I was not being clear. By "allah", I did not mean the word, I ment the specific god described by islam.

No, there could be more than 1 person who is right. Someone who says that Allah is God is for example right, but the person who says there is no God may be right as well. That makes only 3 out of 5 people wrong. To someone who believes that God can take on many different forms, 4 out of 5 (and possibly all 5) may be right.
Again, by allah, I ment the god described by islam. In this view, allah is different then the god of the NT (christian god) or torah or any other incarnation of god.

A better question would be: why would you want to?
Because the person I was debating is somebody quite close to me (not just some random internet troll), and I would like to help them understand the position I have, and why I have that position.

[bokonon]

I say use judo and agree with them.

"Everyone's god belief is true for them."

"You're right, because gods exist only in the minds of believers."

[Rodibidably]

I say use judo and agree with them.

"Everyone's god belief is true for them."

"You're right, because gods exist only in the minds of believers."
I've tried that before, it did not go over well. (I used the John Lennon quote "god is a concept by which we measure our pain")

This person also believes that at least "the big things in life" are "guided" by god. So any attempt to claim that god is only a figment of their imagination won't go over too well...

Right now I'd just settle for acceptance that no matter what your views are on god, that there is a chance that you're wrong. I think if I can get them to that point I will have made significant progress...

[I Ratant]

I personally love to debate people with differing views than my own. I find it makes me rethink some of my preconceptions, and look for "better" evidence to support my beliefs in some cases.

...
.
Only if they're just passers-by, and not people I have to spend time with.
Most of my acquaintances are getting along in years, many with one foot in the grave, and the other on the banana peel.
Disputing their faith would discomfort them, so I refuse to engage in conversations about religion.
The missionary at the door or passing out literature at the Food Court in the Mall, they're asking for it!
And it's fun, especially if they're cute.
And of course here, there's no fear of a fist coming -out- of the monitor screen to emphasize a religious point! :)
Very easy to be brave!

[arthwollipot]

Myself, I'd tend to use the Slippery Slope and the Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Firstly, if each person's religion is true only for them, then each person's morality is true only for them, and therefore you can have no moral objection to me shooting you in the head and stealing your wallet.

Secondly, if people's religions are true only for them, then their perceptions of reality are true only for them, and therefore the entire world is true only for them. I am therefore merely a figment of your imagination, so why are you arguing with me?

Hope this helps.

[Kopji]

I suspect that it matters if someone else's God demands your extermination.

I keep thinking that I'm going to wake up and suddenly realize that I'm vastly over simplifying things... but religion is best understood as a form of art.

We don't really say that art is 'true' or 'false', but that art is like a lie that can tell the truth (Picasso said that). Likewise, religious beliefs have this odd quality that they are beyond true or false because they have no objective basis. Sure, some might more closely reflect something of beauty than others. They don't need to be based on an objective truth to do that.

(To my pov, arguments among religions are a bit like people arguing whether the Mona Lisa is the greatest painting ever, or Jack Vettriano rocks, or 'paint by numbers' are the way we should do everything.)

The reality is that people's beliefs don't betray them as long as they are only internal meditation. It is when they attempt to promote them to the mean ol world that the trouble begins.

[slingblade]

The other points aside, what exactly does it mean that something is "true for you?"

That obviously plays fast and loose with "true," doesn't it? Myself, I hear that said most often in matters of taste or opinion, usually after someone has made a declaration of said opinion as if it were a fact, such as:

"You know, a steak, baked potato, and salad is just the most perfect meal in the world!"

"Well...that may be true for you...."

And that works. In opinion and matters of taste, there is such a thing as "true for you."

But we don't tend to use it much for things that are objectively true, like the function of gravity.

"Wow, gravity means I don't just float off the face of the earth!"

"Well, that may be true for you...."

Nah. Not so much.

So, while the statement that a god or gods exist may indeed be "true for you," you aren't really saying much more than "I hold an opinion." Woot. Happy for ya.

[Cavemonster]

I can imagine someone in your friend's position might argue-
"The actual truth of god is unknowable, just like the blind men discussing an elephant.
One felt the tail and said it was like a snake. One felt the ear and said it was like a leaf. The third felt the tusk and said it was like a spear. They are all saying the truest things they know about the elephant. So Vishnu and Jesus and Allah are the best ways we know to talk about God, even if they seem to contradict each other"

[Rasmus]

The other points aside, what exactly does it mean that something is "true for you?"

That obviously plays fast and loose with "true," doesn't it? Myself, I hear that said most often in matters of taste or opinion, usually after someone has made a declaration of said opinion as if it were a fact, such as:

"You know, a steak, baked potato, and salad is just the most perfect meal in the world!"

"Well...that may be true for you...."

And that works. In opinion and matters of taste, there is such a thing as "true for you."

But we don't tend to use it much for things that are objectively true, like the function of gravity.

"Wow, gravity means I don't just float off the face of the earth!"

"Well, that may be true for you...."

Nah. Not so much.

So, while the statement that a god or gods exist may indeed be "true for you," you aren't really saying much more than "I hold an opinion." Woot. Happy for ya.

Slingblade nailed it.

Yes, of course all my believes are "true for me". If I dind't think they were true, I wouldn't belive them.

But that doesn't mean that I could not simply be mistaken.

In fact, that way the "true for me" makes the most sense. It only makes sense to describe something as "true for me" if it's actually quite wrong. Like Sling said, to claim that "2+2=4" is "true for me" only makes sense if I am mistaken or are at least accepting that possibility.

[FireGarden]

The position of the other person:
Everybody's belief in god is true for them. If you believe in jesus, allah, krishna, ra, thor, etc... nobody else can tell you that your belief is wrong.

By "is true", perhaps the "other person" means that religion adequately explains the items requiring explanation. A kind of "it remains not proven wrong" type of "is true". Some people don't mind that kind of thing.

Some of my rebuttals:
Let's say I believe I have $1 million in my bank account,
If I do have $1mil, my belief is correct,
If I do NOT have $1mil, my belief is wrong,

You're quite correct in saying that the belief is either correct or wrong. But at the moment, I can't say which. I wouldn't commit myself unless I had a reason to guess. In religion, people do seem inclined to commit themselves. You seem to be talking to someone who understands that he has no solid grounds for saying his guess is better than anyone else's. Perhaps he interprets that as equal levels of truth in the beliefs -- or as an acknowledgment that other people believe with the same certainty as he does.



Have you tried using Sagan's Dragon as an example and ask people what the difference would be between a universe where God exists and a universe in which he doesn't?

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

[applecorped]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The truth of a million dollars on your bank account has no influence on any specific God.

Allah is God by definition. Whether He exists is a different matter, but you can't claim He isn't God as it is simply the Arabic translation of the word God.

No, there could be more than 1 person who is right. Someone who says that Allah is God is for example right, but the person who says there is no God may be right as well. That makes only 3 out of 5 people wrong. To someone who believes that God can take on many different forms, 4 out of 5 (and possibly all 5) may be right.

A better question would be: why would you want to?

Happy Birthday!!!!!!!:D

[Rodibidably]

Only if they're just passers-by, and not people I have to spend time with.
This is certainly somebody that I spent a good deal of time with...

Most of my acquaintances are getting along in years, many with one foot in the grave, and the other on the banana peel.
Disputing their faith would discomfort them, so I refuse to engage in conversations about religion.
I agree with this 100%. My father-in-law is very religious. Right now he is fighting cancer, and actually doing surprisingly well (in a relative sense). He is praying to Padre Pio (random catholic saint who supposedly had a stigmata) and crediting his "recovery" to this saint. While I make sure to mention all the doctors and nurses and drugs that are doing such a tremendous job helping him, I have made certain to avoid disparaging his belief in Padre Pio because it makes him feel better to believe, and at this point, being happy is the best i can legitimately hope for with him.

Firstly, if each person's religion is true only for them, then each person's morality is true only for them, and therefore you can have no moral objection to me shooting you in the head and stealing your wallet.

Secondly, if people's religions are true only for them, then their perceptions of reality are true only for them, and therefore the entire world is true only for them. I am therefore merely a figment of your imagination, so why are you arguing with me?
At first glance I REALLY liked these two ideas...
The problem is that them ore I think about them, they are both positions that I don't agree with. In my opinion we get our morality from society, and to argue otherwise seems dishonest to me. The position I take is that no matter what religion you are, your morality comes from your environment. While part of that environment may be religious, the moral ideals most people live by are NOT religious in nature (we don't kill because it behooves us to get along with those in our group, not because some old dude in the sky might get ticked at us)...

As for reality becoming relative based on ones belief, I think this has the same problem. At first glance the argument seems to make a lot of sense to me, but the more I think about it, the more I realize I would be arguing a point I don't agree with, just to make a point i do agree with. I am not a believer in "the ends justify the means", so I'm not sure how I can justify to myself making a deliberate logical fallacy to further my point.

I do appreciate the ideas, I'm just not sure I can go there...

I suspect that it matters if someone else's God demands your extermination.
This gives me a great "next" argument to use.
If everybody's religious belief is true for them, then were the 9/11 hijackers were justified in killing 3000+ people. While this is very similar to arthwollipot's point, I'm not sure why but I see this as somehow different, since I'm not taking the position that it's true, just what are the consequences if it's true.

I'm sure if I thought about it longer, it's really just the same argument as arthwollipot, so I guess I was wrong in my reply to him (her?). C'est la vie...

[Rodibidably]

The other points aside, what exactly does it mean that something is "true for you?"

That obviously plays fast and loose with "true," doesn't it? Myself, I hear that said most often in matters of taste or opinion, usually after someone has made a declaration of said opinion as if it were a fact, such as:

"You know, a steak, baked potato, and salad is just the most perfect meal in the world!"

"Well...that may be true for you...."

And that works. In opinion and matters of taste, there is such a thing as "true for you."

But we don't tend to use it much for things that are objectively true, like the function of gravity.

"Wow, gravity means I don't just float off the face of the earth!"

"Well, that may be true for you...."

Nah. Not so much.

So, while the statement that a god or gods exist may indeed be "true for you," you aren't really saying much more than "I hold an opinion." Woot. Happy for ya.
I like the logic of this. I'm not sure it will work with the person I'm having this debate with, but I do like this logic. I'll have ot give it a try and see what happens...

I can imagine someone in your friend's position might argue-
"The actual truth of god is unknowable, just like the blind men discussing an elephant.
One felt the tail and said it was like a snake. One felt the ear and said it was like a leaf. The third felt the tusk and said it was like a spear. They are all saying the truest things they know about the elephant. So Vishnu and Jesus and Allah are the best ways we know to talk about God, even if they seem to contradict each other"
But just because something is the best way WE know to talk about it, does not mean that our interpretation is correct.

Take the idea of somebody who's never seen or heard of humans being able to fly. If you showed that person a helicopter in flight, they might assume it was magic of some sort. That would be the best way THEY know how to explain what they see, but in fact other people who understand flight would know it's not magic, it's science...

The point I am trying to make to this person, is that while I'm ok with somebody believing in a god (any god in fact as long as they don't try to push their beliefs on others or justify their actions based on that god), it does not mean that their beliefs are TRUE.

Yes, of course all my believes are "true for me". If I dind't think they were true, I wouldn't belive them.

But that doesn't mean that I could not simply be mistaken.

In fact, that way the "true for me" makes the most sense. It only makes sense to describe something as "true for me" if it's actually quite wrong. Like Sling said, to claim that "2+2=4" is "true for me" only makes sense if I am mistaken or are at least accepting that possibility.
And that ability to admit one might be wrong is the point I am TRYING to make (although so far I've had no luck).

I'm a "fundamentalist" atheist, but I admit that there is a chance I'm totally and completely wrong. And if shown evidence that proved to my satisfaction that I am wrong, I'd abandon every preconception I have in favor of the evidence... What I want is for this person to say the same thing (although replace "atheist" with whatever it is she considers herself [some type of deist/catholic hybrid]).

[Rodibidably]

By "is true", perhaps the "other person" means that religion adequately explains the items requiring explanation. A kind of "it remains not proven wrong" type of "is true". Some people don't mind that kind of thing.
I may be wrong, but it seems their position is that no belief in god CAN be wrong, since god is a personal thing to each person. Although this person also holds the belief that god interacts in the lives of people in some way (they are very unspecific on this, but claim that god has acted in their life both positive [to help] and negative [to teach lessons]).
Obviously I think this is a ludicrous position, since if both positive and negative results are examples of god working on your life, god then becomes a bit of a dick, as well as being an unfalsifiable position...

You're quite correct in saying that the belief is either correct or wrong. But at the moment, I can't say which. I wouldn't commit myself unless I had a reason to guess. In religion, people do seem inclined to commit themselves. You seem to be talking to someone who understands that he has no solid grounds for saying his guess is better than anyone else's. Perhaps he interprets that as equal levels of truth in the beliefs -- or as an acknowledgment that other people believe with the same certainty as he does.
I can say that while I believe alien life exists (70 billion trillion stars in the known universe, I think the odds are we're not the only one with life) I can say with almost absolute certainty that alien grays are NOT abducting people, mutilating cattle, making crop circles, etc...
I might be wrong, but I'd be willing to be my house I'm not...
The existence of abductions being true has no impact on my life (other than if it was true, I would SOOO try to get myself abducted), but I still hold a position on the validity (or in this case absurdity) of this claim.

Have you tried using Sagan's Dragon as an example and ask people what the difference would be between a universe where God exists and a universe in which he doesn't?

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Not yet, but thanks for the idea... I'll try that one next time we start this debate back up...

*runs off to start up debate, yet again*

[Tricky]

If "true" is defined as "Whatever I believe in", then, yes. It's going to be a bitch grading test papers though.

[Cavemonster]

But just because something is the best way WE know to talk about it, does not mean that our interpretation is correct.

Take the idea of somebody who's never seen or heard of humans being able to fly. If you showed that person a helicopter in flight, they might assume it was magic of some sort. That would be the best way THEY know how to explain what they see, but in fact other people who understand flight would know it's not magic, it's science...

The point I am trying to make to this person, is that while I'm ok with somebody believing in a god (any god in fact as long as they don't try to push their beliefs on others or justify their actions based on that god), it does not mean that their beliefs are TRUE.


From every example I've seen though, philosophical arguments can never close down the possibility of God. Since ANYTHING is possible, the only way to really disprove god is an evidence based approach. If your friend understands the scientific method, he/she must believe that there is specific evidence which can only be accounted for if a god exists. In that case, review that evidence.

If your friend does not understand the scientific method, then no amount of discussion is going to get you anywhere.

[FireGarden]

Obviously I think this is a ludicrous position, since if both positive and negative results are examples of god working on your life, god then becomes a bit of a dick, as well as being an unfalsifiable position...

That's a Sagan's Dragon situation!

I can say that while I believe alien life exists (70 billion trillion stars in the known universe, I think the odds are we're not the only one with life) I can say with almost absolute certainty that alien grays are NOT abducting people, mutilating cattle, making crop circles, etc...
I might be wrong, but I'd be willing to be my house I'm not...
The existence of abductions being true has no impact on my life (other than if it was true, I would SOOO try to get myself abducted), but I still hold a position on the validity (or in this case absurdity) of this claim.

But now you're talking odds. Which you didn't raise before -- you just talked about being right or wrong.

I also believe that alien life exists. I'm either right or wrong. (And, incidently, it would be very difficult to prove us wrong because the galaxy is not going to be searched in our lifetimes. Probably not even Alpha Centauri). So all we can play is odds. And people are always going to disagree on that. Especially when the topic moves onto intelligent life. But atleast people can discribe why they lean one way or the other.

Which leads to something you can ask: if Hinduism can be true for some people, why isn't it true for you?

Not yet, but thanks for the idea... I'll try that one next time we start this debate back up...

*runs off to start up debate, yet again*

:D

[Cavemonster]

But just because something is the best way WE know to talk about it, does not mean that our interpretation is correct.


My example only shows that the existence of many contradictory faiths doesn't logically preclude that they are all true. Your statement above that at least 4 out of five must be untrue doesn't hold given only that basic premise. That isn't an effective argument against the existence of god.

[Rodibidably]

My example only shows that the existence of many contradictory faiths doesn't logically preclude that they are all true. Your statement above that at least 4 out of five must be untrue doesn't hold given only that basic premise. That isn't an effective argument against the existence of god.
However some beliefs are incompatible with other beliefs.
If islam is true, then chistianity can NOT be true (islam claims jesus was not the son of god, but a prophet).
If hinduism is true, then all 3 abrahamic religions can NOT be true (one god vs many).
If atheism is correct then NO religion that believes in a god can be true (does does not exist, vs god does exist).
etc...

While not all religions are incompatible with all others, there are enough incompatibilities that they can not all be true, and depending on the specific beliefs, you could make an argument that at most only one could ever be true...

[Cavemonster]

But a snake is clearly not a leaf. They are equally incompatible.

Can Jesus be the son of god and not the son of god? Can light be both a particle and not a particle?

Can God be one god and also many? Can a solid object be still in one sense, yet have all the particles be moving.

When talking in the non mathematical language that religion uses, you could easily make true statements about physics that seemed just as contradictory.

[Rodibidably]

If "true" is defined as "Whatever I believe in", then, yes. It's going to be a bitch grading test papers though.
:D

From every example I've seen though, philosophical arguments can never close down the possibility of God. Since ANYTHING is possible, the only way to really disprove god is an evidence based approach. If your friend understands the scientific method, he/she must believe that there is specific evidence which can only be accounted for if a god exists. In that case, review that evidence.

If your friend does not understand the scientific method, then no amount of discussion is going to get you anywhere.
This person is very intelligent on many matters, but on religion tends to throw all concepts of logic and evidence out the window...

But now you're talking odds. Which you didn't raise before -- you just talked about being right or wrong.
I can say that my belief is based on the odds, but my belief does not affect the truth (or lack of truth) of the fact.
When I say I believe that alien life exist somewhere in the universe, I could be 100% wrong or I could be 100% right.
If I were to put a 99% probability on the existence, that does not change my chance of being right or wrong, or my amount of rightness or wrongness, it just a statement of my certainty of my position.

I also believe that alien life exists. I'm either right or wrong. (And, incidently, it would be very difficult to prove us wrong because the galaxy is not going to be searched in our lifetimes. Probably not even Alpha Centauri). So all we can play is odds. And people are always going to disagree on that. Especially when the topic moves onto intelligent life. But atleast people can discribe why they lean one way or the other.
I'd LOVE to think we'll find proof of life before I die (Mars, Europa, Titan, etc), but even if we don't, it won't change my opinion of the odds of life existing elsewhere being astronomically high. but as you say, nobody will lever be able to "prove" my belief on this subject wrong (at least not for a VERY, VERY long time), but it could easily be proven correct.
Belief in god is the same way, it can not be PROVEN wrong (at least not in any real sense) because god can be defined in so many ways, but it could EASILY be proven true (if "god" wanted it to happen).

Which leads to something you can ask: if Hinduism can be true for some people, why isn't it true for you?
I've tried this line of thought many times. This person came to their beliefs over time, and their beliefs are only right for them (which in their defense, at least they are not trying to convince others to believe like them).

[Rodibidably]

But a snake is clearly not a leaf. They are equally incompatible.

Can Jesus be the son of god and not the son of god? Can light be both a particle and not a particle?

Can God be one god and also many? Can a solid object be still in one sense, yet have all the particles be moving.

When talking in the non mathematical language that religion uses, you could easily make true statements about physics that seemed just as contradictory.
Like I said, not ALL tenets of various religions are incompatible. But if the abrahamic god is the only god, then hinduism CAN not be correct, since they believe in multiple gods.
If god created the universe 6000 years ago then the big bang coudl not have created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
If jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead three days later, then he could not have used a surrogate on the cross (as the Koran claims).

If you want to start defining god is such a nebulous way as to remove all claims made about god from the worlds religions, then of course it becomes compatible within itself, but if you are to accept the traditional beliefs held by each of these religions you'll find their definitions are generally much more black and white.

Go to the closest christian church to you and ask ANY christian around if it's possible for their religion to be true, AND islam to ALSO be true. I'll make a bet with you right now, they'll say "no".

Pick ANY major world religion and try this test. Ask the next scientologist you run across if it's possible that their faith is correct AND that the earth was created according to the Hindu legends...

[Cavemonster]

I'll give you one thing, the assertion that each has that the others are untrue makes them mutually excluseive, but that is the only thing that does.

How can there be only one God and also many? What about the god divided into himself and Jesus? Just like the elephant, as long as you don't claim to personally know EVERYTHING, one view of God and another can easily be facets of the same thing.

I'll grant, there are a few dealbreakers, but these are not about the cosmology, they are meta-beliefs.

1) All other beliefs are wrong. (Or x other beliefs are wrong)
2) I have all the knowledge about god and the universe from all relevant perspectives. (which implies #1)

It could be argued that neither of these claims is a statement about the cosmology of the universe, but a clearly inaccurate claim about the information available to any individual.

[Polgara]

If "true" is defined as "Whatever I believe in", then, yes. It's going to be a bitch grading test papers though.

-laughing. That just struck me for a number of reasons. Then, your statement, took me back to my years in school. heh All of the years, and all of the teachers, who I drove nuts, and who were often pressed to disprove the answers I gave. -still laughing

[Rodibidably]

I'll give you one thing, the assertion that each has that the others are untrue makes them mutually excluseive, but that is the only thing that does.

How can there be only one God and also many? What about the god divided into himself and Jesus? Just like the elephant, as long as you don't claim to personally know EVERYTHING, one view of God and another can easily be facets of the same thing.

I'll grant, there are a few dealbreakers, but these are not about the cosmology, they are meta-beliefs.

1) All other beliefs are wrong. (Or x other beliefs are wrong)
2) I have all the knowledge about god and the universe from all relevant perspectives. (which implies #1)

It could be argued that neither of these claims is a statement about the cosmology of the universe, but a clearly inaccurate claim about the information available to any individual.
In your opinion, in a "REAL" sense, can the following beliefs ALL be 100% true (including the specific claims mentioned):

young earth christianity: god does exist; Universe and Earth = 6000-10000 years old; evolution is a "trick" by satan to tear us away from god/jesus; jesus is the messiah; pork ok
catholicism: god does exist; Universe = 13.7 billions years old; evolution happened, guided by god; jesus is the messiah; pork ok
judiasm: god does exist; jesus is NOT the messiah; we're the "chosen" people; pork bad, beef ok
Osama Bin Laden's version of islam: god does exist; kill the jews and chirstians; pork bad
Scientology: Universe is trillions of years old; lord zenu dropped off humanity into the volcanoes from DC-10s; then we evolved out of clams after being sucked into some giant soul vacume inthe sky; pork and beek both ok to eat
latter day saints: god does exist; the chosen people came to the US a few thousand years before any humans set foot on north america
atheism: god does NOT exist; pork and beef both ok to eat
hinduism: multiple gods exist; beef holy (don't eat);

[Cavemonster]

In your opinion, in a "REAL" sense, can the following beliefs ALL be 100% true (including the specific claims mentioned):

young earth christianity: god does exist; Universe and Earth = 6000-10000 years old; evolution is a "trick" by satan to tear us away from god/jesus; jesus is the messiah; pork ok
catholicism: god does exist; Universe = 13.7 billions years old; evolution happened, guided by god; jesus is the messiah; pork ok
judiasm: god does exist; jesus is NOT the messiah; we're the "chosen" people; pork bad, beef ok
Osama Bin Laden's version of islam: god does exist; kill the jews and chirstians; pork bad
Scientology: Universe is trillions of years old; lord zenu dropped off humanity into the volcanoes from DC-10s; then we evolved out of clams after being sucked into some giant soul vacume inthe sky; pork and beek both ok to eat
latter day saints: god does exist; the chosen people came to the US a few thousand years before any humans set foot on north america
atheism: god does NOT exist; pork and beef both ok to eat
hinduism: multiple gods exist; beef holy (don't eat);

1) I think it's very reasonable to set apart prescription from belief. For instance, kill the jews or which meats are acceptable to eat FOLLOW from belief, but they aren't core beliefs themselves. Beef is holy, or pork is unclean are beliefs and we can talk about that later.

2) That's a big old list right there. Why don't you pick two that you think are seriously opposed and we can look for a resolution point by point?

For instance, Cows are holy/ Cows are okay to eat. Alchohol is a poison dangerous to your health/ Alchohol is good for your heart. Both can be true.
Give me two really extreme examples from life and we'll show that.

[Rodibidably]

2) That's a big old list right there. Why don't you pick two that you think are seriously opposed and we can look for a resolution point by point?
Jainism: Non-violence to the point of sweeping the path in front of them so as to not accidentally kill any insects while they walks

vs.

islam: 9/11
christianity: inquisition, bombing abortion clinics, etc
judaism: Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (yada, yada, yad: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)

Either killing is NEVER justified (jainism) or it's frowned upon, unless you have a reason (basically EVERY OTHER religion in the planet's history)

-----

Also, let's try age of the universe:

Young-earthers: 6k-10k years
Old-earthers (and science): 13.7 billion years
scientologist: at least many trillions of years

[I Ratant]

I recall the head Jain flew from there to here for some reason.
I bet he would have been appalled had he observed the thousands of insects splattered against the front parts of the plane he used to get here.
Or maybe not.
"Their sacrifice was for the greater (my) good."

[schlitt]

It seems to me that you are wasting your time with this person. You have already presented sound logic which he is blatantly ignoring, or incapable of understanding.

Going by your friend’s logic you could make up a new god right there on the spot and it is “true”.

Has he been suckered into the quantum flapdoodle in such things as the (non-existent) law of attraction, and “What the bleep do we know?”, and thinks existence is magically created by his thoughts?

[Ikarus]

It seems to me that you are wasting your time with this person. You have already presented sound logic which he is blatantly ignoring, or incapable of understanding.
I'd agree if by "person" you mean "argument" or "debate". But there is more to human relations than logic and religious debate. (I hope so anyway)

Going by your friend’s logic you could make up a new god right there on the spot and it is “true”.
That would be a lie, unless you told it to yourself over and over and over. You are forgetting that people with religion are actually convinced that the belief they hold is true, much like you are convinced that gravity works, and while their belief may not be consistent with perceived reality and accepted logic, it is not fair towards believers to think these people summon gods just because they feel like it or to be a nuisance.

Why they actively or passively choose to have a god, I have no idea at all. I've heard no real satisfying answers on that topic yet (though I admit I could've searched harder, perhaps). Can I invite OP to share why this person needs a god?

[I Ratant]

...You are forgetting that people with religion are actually convinced that the belief they hold is true, much like you are convinced that gravity works, and while their belief may not be consistent with perceived reality and accepted logic, it is not fair towards believers to think these people summon gods just because they feel like it or to be a nuisance.

....
.
"People with religion" are people, with all the flaws of people.
In another thread, the saint Padre Pio, a stigmatic, is mentioned.
There's every reason to believe his stigmata were self-inflicted, using carbolic acid.*
His stigmata began to appear after his ordination as a priest.
Where does obvious chicanery fit into "true belief", when the charlatan is misusing the very tenets of the faith?
And of course, there's the 800-....... guys yelling at us on Sundays to send every spare (and not so spare) cent to them for our "salvation", and their business expansion plans and condos.
.
*"Skeptical Inquirer, v32, #5, Sept/Oct 2008

[arthwollipot]

At first glance I REALLY liked these two ideas...
The problem is that them ore I think about them, they are both positions that I don't agree with. In my opinion we get our morality from society, and to argue otherwise seems dishonest to me. The position I take is that no matter what religion you are, your morality comes from your environment. While part of that environment may be religious, the moral ideals most people live by are NOT religious in nature (we don't kill because it behooves us to get along with those in our group, not because some old dude in the sky might get ticked at us)...

As for reality becoming relative based on ones belief, I think this has the same problem. At first glance the argument seems to make a lot of sense to me, but the more I think about it, the more I realize I would be arguing a point I don't agree with, just to make a point i do agree with. I am not a believer in "the ends justify the means", so I'm not sure how I can justify to myself making a deliberate logical fallacy to further my point.You're illustrating the absurdity of the statement "everybody's belief is true for them". You're not actually arguing in favour of solipsism, you are arguing that if the statement is true, then solipsism logically follows, therefore the statement cannot be true.

[gnome]

I think it's false by omission.

If I have blinders on, I may believe that a bus is not coming. But I would get hit by it if I stepped in front of it, regardless of what I believed.

[Silentknight]

The other points aside, what exactly does it mean that something is "true for you?"

That obviously plays fast and loose with "true," doesn't it? Myself, I hear that said most often in matters of taste or opinion, usually after someone has made a declaration of said opinion as if it were a fact, such as:

"You know, a steak, baked potato, and salad is just the most perfect meal in the world!"

"Well...that may be true for you...."

But then you've got those people who say, "You will eat my potatoes and you will like it!" Where potatoes of course is an allegory for God. Where God of course is a euphemism for lower anatomical extremities...

[slingblade]

But then you've got those people who say, "You will eat my potatoes and you will like it!" Where potatoes of course is an allegory for God. Where God of course is a euphemism for lower anatomical extremities...

In that case, of course, you then invite those sorts to Kiss Hank's Ass. (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)

[Kopji]

Tell them that every belief can't be true unless belief does not matter to how people behave.

[arthwollipot]

Everyone's belief can be "true" only by some radical redefinition of the word "truth". One common definition is consistent with fact or reality. The only way something can be true for one person, and something else true for another, is if different people have different realities, and then we're getting back to solipsism.

So I would ask for a definition of "true" that does not imply that different people experience different realities.

[schlitt]

I'd agree if by "person" you mean "argument" or "debate". But there is more to human relations than logic and religious debate. (I hope so anyway)


There certainly is.
I did not mean to imply terminating a relationship with a person over a disagreement. However I suspect time spent arguing this topic could be time wasted, given the description of the persons behavior.


That would be a lie, unless you told it to yourself over and over and over. You are forgetting that people with religion are actually convinced that the belief they hold is true, much like you are convinced that gravity works, and while their belief may not be consistent with perceived reality and accepted logic, it is not fair towards believers to think these people summon gods just because they feel like it or to be a nuisance.

Why they actively or passively choose to have a god, I have no idea at all. I've heard no real satisfying answers on that topic yet (though I admit I could've searched harder, perhaps). Can I invite OP to share why this person needs a god?

I assure you I am not "forgetting" that believers are convinced the beliefs they hold are true. :)

To clarify, if you take the position that truth is whatever any individual wants it to be, then any individual can make anything up, and it is true.

Which is why I said he could make up a god on the spot and going by his friends logic, what he just made up is "true".

Obviously this logic is seriously flawed if you consider the truth to be an objective thing.

Someone may be convinced and sincerely believe the earth is flat, but in objective reality it is spherical and their belief is plain and simply wrong. The fact they believe it with great passion and conviction has no bearing on its truth.

[Ikarus]

I assure you I am not "forgetting" that believers are convinced the beliefs they hold are true. :)

To clarify, if you take the position that truth is whatever any individual wants it to be, then any individual can make anything up, and it is true.

Which is why I said he could make up a god on the spot and going by his friends logic, what he just made up is "true".

Obviously this logic is seriously flawed if you consider the truth to be an objective thing.

Someone may be convinced and sincerely believe the earth is flat, but in objective reality it is spherical and their belief is plain and simply wrong. The fact they believe it with great passion and conviction has no bearing on its truth.
I think that this passion is in the way of reason and reality. If you want to debate the subject, I think you should explore where this passion comes from.

The mutual misunderstanding is not how logic works or what reality really looks like. It's like arguing about the color orange, where one side says it is a warm color and the other party says it is a combination of yellow and red. There's no amount of evidence or arguments that can be used to convince the thermo-color person of the fact that color in itself has nothing to do with warmth. They will always find reasons to find warmth in colors. The only interesting question (in my opinion) is: "why does this person need warmth as a measure of color". What is the benefit of it to him or her. If you can understand that, I think you've reached your goal in finding out why they won't understand your point of view.

[Ladewig]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1220752.stm

A Ghanaian man has reportedly been shot dead while testing whether a magic spell has made him bulletproof.

A Ghanaian news agency reported that the man, Aleobiga Aberima, from the village of Lambu in northeastern Ghana, had asked a jujuman -- a local witchdoctor -- to make him invincible to bullets.

This man was so convinced that he was bulletproof that he stood in front of a loaded gun. His belief was very true for him, but objective reality produced a corpse.

[gnome]

Nah, he was killed because he had a moment of doubt just before being shot, obviously.

[Ikarus]

He's a hero. He tried to prove to the people of this tribe that the witchdoctor is full of nonsense and they should convert to modern medicine. Under proper observing conditions, the witchdoctor obviously failed to do what he claimed he could. This was published in press worldwide and so everyone could see that woo can cost lives. He is truly a hero.
I made this version up, but I like it.

Sidetracked..

[millwallfan]

I actually don't concern myself with people's personal beliefs at all, as long as they are kept just that. Personal. The moment they do surface in a debate though is when I become concerned, because that's about when the people holding said beliefs will attempt to propose that their beliefs should somehow apply to everyone else. I don't have a problem with religion until it tries to preach its way into our lives, our laws, and our education system.

This however is precisely when different belief systems will start making contradictory claims about reality. Conflicting ideas that are supposed to apply to everything, to objective reality, can't be true at the same time. How does your god intervene with the world? What does your god say about the way we should live our lives? What does your god think about people who believe differently?

You need not even ask them these questions, because they're usually more than willing to tell you, whether you're interested or not.

:jaw-dropphugh thats deep

[Kuko 4000]

Rod, just a little variation of some of the ideas here.

I think the 1 million analogy is workable. Discuss about the difference between believing the 1m is in your bank account and the 1m actually being in your bank account. There is a big difference. If she is interested in the truth of that matter, you will come up with a simple way to see if your belief matches the reality. If your friend is not interested in the truth, well, it's going to be a lot harder.

Why not try this after you've discussed the nature of beliefs:

Declare that you are the God that created everything.

You believe in it, so it must be true.

Be serious about it.

If your friend doesn't take you seriously, why should anyone (including your friend) take his / her beliefs seriously?

If your friend wants proof, promise to give it, but only after he / she gives you a concrete evidence that his / her God can provide the same evidence. You will find that you can manage the sun coming up the next morning, the flowers growing and everything else of that nature, you will also find that you can do just as well as your friends God in things like mind reading, walking on water, healing the dead, etc.. Just remember to ask your friends God to do the trick first.

I haven't tested this approach too much in practise, but because of it's nature, it could make your friend think about it from a fresh perspective. I assume he / she believes in a personal God who is intervening our daily life.

Good luck, I hope you guys make progress.

:)

[Rodibidably]

I'd like to thank everybody here for their great suggestions. Some of them actually came in very helpful.

I went to see Religulous with this person, which brought up another conversation on religion (I know, shocking isn't it).

Basically this person continues to hold on to their belief that god does exist (which as long as people don't justify their actions based on their faith and are willing to accept that others can have different faiths than I'm fine with us not agreeing on the whole "existence of god" thing).

This person still is of the opinion that the good things in their life are god looking out for them, and the bad things are god "testing" them. However they now admit that this is not a rational position and they could never prove it to anybody, but it's still their belief. We don't agree on this topic (at all), and as much as I would love to change their mind on this, I don't see how it's possible for me to.

This person does agree with me that the specific claims of many (if not most) belief systems are ridiculous and obviously in many cases outright false.

This person agree that there was NOT a virgin 2000 years ago that gave birth to a guy who was able to walk on water, come back from the dead, etc.

Essentially it seems that their position is somewhere between deism and an abstract theism that does not directly relate to any specific religion (at least none that I know of).

In the end it seemingly all boils down to we won't agree on this subject, but I'm not quite as militant an atheist as they thought I was, and they are not as woo as they came across previously.

And as an added bonus, I think this was one of the few times we've discussed religion without them getting all mad at me and forcing us to change the subject.

[arthwollipot]

And as an added bonus, I think this was one of the few times we've discussed religion without them getting all mad at me and forcing us to change the subject.Then you've made progress. Congraturlations!

[billydkid]

I don' t even know what "true for them" means.

[jadey]

This person does agree with me that the specific claims of many (if not most) belief systems are ridiculous and obviously in many cases outright false.

This person agree that there was NOT a virgin 2000 years ago that gave birth to a guy who was able to walk on water, come back from the dead, etc.

Essentially it seems that their position is somewhere between deism and an abstract theism that does not directly relate to any specific religion (at least none that I know of).

In the end it seemingly all boils down to we won't agree on this subject, but I'm not quite as militant an atheist as they thought I was, and they are not as woo as they came across previously.

And as an added bonus, I think this was one of the few times we've discussed religion without them getting all mad at me and forcing us to change the subject.

That's not so bad ... your discussions may have even helped this person flush out their beliefs.

IMO, to look around the universe, and our place in it, and have a sense of awe, this can easily be (mis)interpreted as GOD. I think that gods have been invented throughout history in this very manner. To me, it doesn't really get that absurd until they start inventing attributes of these gods, and deciding that these gods are interested in humans, interested in testing humans (WTF), interested in being worshipped by humans, etc. When these gods decide that they would like to bring a critical message of salvation to all of humanity, they always decide to reveal the message by choosing a single messenger (the world's first celebrities), rather than to broadcast this message to all of humanity; that's where it all breaks down.

So, your friend has probably come to believe in god via one of these ridiculous religions, but at least he/she has done away with the some of the more absurd portions of the religion.

As for this:

This person still is of the opinion that the good things in their life are god looking out for them, and the bad things are god "testing" them. However they now admit that this is not a rational position and they could never prove it to anybody, but it's still their belief. We don't agree on this topic (at all), and as much as I would love to change their mind on this, I don't see how it's possible for me to.

I guess you'll just have to let that one lie awhile:rolleyes:

[FireGarden]

People don't always change their minds in a road to Damascus kind of way. A slow change can be disappointing for those who are trying for an outright "win" in an argument.

:D

[Dancing David]

Debating the existance of god with somebody I came to a dead-end in how to explain my rebuttal, so I was hoping the good folks here could give me some tips...

The position of the other person:
Everybody's belief in god is true for them. If you believe in jesus, allah, krishna, ra, thor, etc... nobody else can tell you that your belief is wrong.

Some of my rebuttals:
Let's say I believe I have $1 million in my bank account,
If I do have $1mil, my belief is correct,
If I do NOT have $1mil, my belief is wrong,
Therefore if I believe in any specific god, I could be either right or wrong.

If I say allah if god,
And somebody else says jesus is god,
And somebody else says there is no god,
And somebody else says that Thor is god,
And somebody else says the Fylying Spaghetti Monster is god,
At the VERY LEAST, 4 of the 5 people are wrong (and possibly all 5),
Therefore if I believe in any specific god, I could be either right or wrong.

I also went with a few other "examples" along these lines, and yet each time the response was the same, "Everybody's belief in god is true for them".

Help me:
So, I'm looking for a bit of help, how would you confront this type of belief in a debate?
Frankly, I'm at a loss...


Sorry I did not enter this sooner.

Here is the issue, people do have thoughts emotions and perceptions. they are actual true experiences for them, in that they exist for that individual.

The ability of those thoughts, emotions and perceptions to make valid statements about reality and the behavior of reality is another issue.

[arthwollipot]

I don' t even know what "true for them" means.As far as I can tell, it means that everyone creates their own reality, and whatever they decide is true in that reality is therefore valid.

[Adam Savage]I reject your reality, and substitute my own![/Adam Savage]