God in the Forest

[Raithere]

I think the problem with proof is that you demand an inter-personal proof that exists independet of observers. There is no such proof.

No, I'm quite aware that observation is dependent upon having an observer. I can even accept the possibility that God may be discernable only through subjective experience (although this contradicts any reason to evangelize or indoctrinate the experience).

However, what I do demand is congruence and some manner of verification. Most religion provides neither in my experience, certainly no personality driven religion. As a whole the notion of God, to me has become useless. And honestly, I've yet to come across anyone who seems to be able to put the notion to good use.

Then this is it for you, for now. But this doesn't mean that other people didn't or don't experience interaction.

I believe it does. You see the issue is that I used to believe. I used to interpret experiences as revelatory. But under examination they fell apart. No one yet has been able to describe to me anything different than I have already experienced. IMO, theistic experience is simply a premature interpretation of what is natural. I experience the same things as an atheist as I experienced as a theist... I simply interpret the experience differently.

Looking for a proof of God without God's intervention does not yield positive results.

In which case it makes no sense to go around looking for God or to tell others to do so. The most one would ever say is, "Wait and if God decides to show you then you will know."

The talk was about underpants GNOMES.

Yes. And as Wes said, the bastards keep stealing my underpants. Not just mine, yours too... everyone's. Those pussys.

For one thing, religionists are told to spread the message.

What, does God just like to fuck with people? What is the point of God telling you to talk about something which nobody will believe unless God shows them himself?

For two, the world is in sin, and even while God incites faith in some people, these people, if surrounded only by spiritually dead people, will not be able to act on this incitement. For this, theists (and also other people, whom God may use for His purposes) are needed to help.

What, atheists broadcast some sort of God jamming signal? Why would God make a world of sin? And what's this "spiritually dead" accusation? I'm a living, breathing, loving person. I get joy out of a sunset or a playful kitten. I look at the stars and am filled with the same sense of wonder and insignificance as everyone else. None of this changed when I became an atheist, I just stopped attributing it all to God. I'm sorry water, but I require that a concept makes sense before I can believe it. This is just emotional laden propaganda; it has no value or real meaning.

Those who have ears, will hear. Those who have ears, want to hear.

More nonsense. I was once a believer, questing to understand. Now that I do I am no longer a believer.

It is not that they wouldn't understand statistics. They do not care about statistics, and they believe in luck.

This is called stupidity.

~Raithere

P.S. Don't bother quoting scripture. I'm well familiar with it.

 

[wesmorris]

How so bud? Faith is an unconditional trust that a fantasy-being is going to meet an crazy expectation: "Oh I just know santa will bring me that pony for Christmas", "God will get me through it", etc. Trust is simply not a factor here.

I disagree on what you think faith is. IMO, faith is acceptance. As I see it, faith is the opposite of criticism. It's a consequence of the following relationship:

I'll try to paraprase what I was originally trying to communicate. For the sake
of exemplification, lets say string theory is proven true and everything is
made up of open or closed loops of tiny vibrating strings of energy. Every
nanometer of space would be compose of trillions of strings. As I occupy
some segment of space, I would be composed of the same stuff as the rest
of space. I am thus a construct of reality. My segment of strings can
interact with all the other strings.

I'm with you because of my faith in reason. What says reason is relevant besides your mind, which is in the trap I modeled above? The only way to remove the question mark after "Reality" is via faith. You think it real, you believe it. You do not doubt it, nor do I. This is the smallest leap of faith necessary, but it's still necessary to remove those question marks.

Let me know if this clarifies or confuses my assertion.

I think I understand your position. Did I clarify my own or are we missing each other?

 

[§outh§tar]

Interesting point. As an atheist, my personal opinion is this.

Personal happiness is where you find it. If belief in god makes you happy, go for it. But you cannot then claim an equal footing for god against the testable realities of life and nature that affect our prosperity and survival.

Take theism and put it in perspective. I could easily make the argument (and I have) that theism, by its predisposition to assert religious "truth" as fact and force others to follow it with no provable foundation, is the root of much avoidable suffering. Thus I argue that it is much better, in the big picture, to be an atheist.

Why, for instance, are there certain foods that I may not eat? And on certain days? And why are there certain sexual preferences that are not allowed? Why must I close up shop on Sunday when I could be making some good profit? Why should stem cell research be forbidden?

You get the idea.

Yup.

But very rarely theists try to "force others to follow" their religion. Theists may try to make you follow some aspect of their religion; a Christian may lobby for legal prohibition of abortion but this is no different from an atheist objecting to abortion on 'ethical' grounds. Of course, no theist will force you to close up shop on Sunday. But the other examples of stem cell research and homosexuality may reflect aspects of the theist's philosophy which are viewed as morally decadent.

And this is why time and time again I have asked for atheists to provide a rational, non circular standard for determining what is 'moral' and what is 'not'. A standard which is objective; that is, does not change with time and society ; a standard which is not subjective.

Failure to produce such a standard means without a shadow of a doubt, and by logical necessity, that the theist is as much entitled to his belief on what is immoral as the atheist is entitled to his belief on what is amoral.

It is difficult for me to give you cart blanche to assert a priori that you have a logically consistent standard for 'right' and 'wrong' while the theist does not. After all, you may fight for homosexual rights because you believe that homosexuality is amoral while the theist may fight against this because he believes that homosexuality is immoral.

So. Do you have a rational standard to determine whether eating pork is moral or immoral? What about homosexuality? Do you, as a rationalist, have a consistently non circular standard to determine its morality?

If not, then we again find that there is little difference between theists and atheists. Both parties, living in a ward, call all other men lunatics.

 

[wesmorris]

For instance...

There was once a LONG drawn out debate here where a guy debated the SNOT out of A=A. Remember that?

He had a point.

What if you simply reject logic or reason?

What if you're not equipped for comprehending either, or the same only in a specific context of your mind?

What then?

No... it doesn't change reality to YOU... but what about someone else?

Certainly nature rules the day. Science, reason, logic, love, conviction, blah blah... none of them are as meaningful as a baseball bat to the face. Anything we do to scratch into the tao is a model of it. It cannot BE it by the very nature that it isn't. Thus, we can never say our model is more accurate than our perception of it, no matter how much experimental data we produce. We can only say that is seems to be correct. We can say within some confidence level that it's predicatable... but we cannot be 100% accurate from our model, as we are only in the now. To know for certain it will alway be as it is now, we'd have to inhabit all of time simultaneously. So far as I know, that's one for Q or the tralfamadorians.

Meh.

Logic will always be limited by its boundary conditions. In humans, the apparent natural limit is our perception and the limited time we inhabit (the present).

IMO however, Reason encompasses logic, and accounts for boundary conditions. We might ask... what is the limit of our logical capacity.. and look to reason as the answer. I think we see that what is reasonable is "to depend on our stimulous as reality unless we can determine this process is unreliable" - at which point we adjust our model to compensate.

(Considering this, the "faithful" as it those who envision deities take the exact opposite approach)

But reason is an act of faith as shown above.

 

[Raithere]

I was talking to superluminal in another thread about how definitions of God were meaningless since they would always be anthropomorphizations, or at least restricted by human perspective. .

As I said to LT, we do not have to have complete definitions. But some foundation must be laid before one can even begin to postulate the existence of anything. If the term God is meaningless then the statement "I believe in God" is also meaningless.

Human beings can hardly define themselves. We can't look into the mirror and point at a specific place and say "here I am!".

I sure can. Here I am. I am located directly in front of my monitor, typing away on my keyboard, contemplating your words and forming replies.

Subjective bias is the mode by which all people in society operate. There is not one person who lives exclusively by objective reasoning.

True. But we can endeavor to eliminate that which we cannot support and is unnecessary rather than submerging oneself ever deeper in fantasy. I became an atheist when, as an agnostic, I asked myself what reason I had to continue to believe there might be a god.

Human beings are not meant to be reasoning machines. If we were, we would all be nihilists.

I don't see how that follows.

You have opinions on the subject of God (though you don't believe in it or even know what it is), don't you?

I have opinions on the subject of God based upon my understanding of the concepts involved.

What determines 'truth' then and what does 'truth' mean?

A true statement is one that is congruent with reality.

Your example is a little strawmannish since a person who doesn't believe in God can still have a 'lucky rabbit's foot'.

My example was an analogy. I am well aware that atheists can be superstitious.

By analogy, we can also conclude that going on vacations is irrational since money would be wasted on frivolity when it could be used for college funds, bill paying, and so on.

I never said that people should ignore their emotions. I said that emotion doesn't validate a belief. Getting away from work, going to a nice place and doing things that you enjoy simply to enjoy them is a perfectly logical thing to do. Where do you get the idea that logic and emotion are incompatible?

The main thing to ascertain is: Is it better to be a theist or an atheist?

I don't find that it matters really.

~Raithere

 

[invert_nexus]

I haven't been following this thread, nor am I really interested in the topic enough to catch up. But, this caught my eye and I will break one of my own rules of forum etiquette to respond in a thread flirting manner.

What if you simply reject logic or reason?

This is in a way connected to Zeno's Paradox. Lewis Caroll told the story well in "What the Tortoise said to Achilles." I suggest you give it a read if you haven't already. It is definitely something you can add to the puzzle that you're toying with.

Carry on.

 

[wesmorris]

What a clever story. I likey. It illustrates a point I was making quite well, much better than did I.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I disagree on what you think faith is. IMO, faith is acceptance. As I see it, faith is the opposite of criticism. It's a consequence of the following relationship:

I see where you're coming from. The delta is definition. In the one
presented faith is being defined as an opposite to criticism where I am
defining it as unconditional trust in something. The definition I am using
is how Christians use it in modern context. The alternative definition is an
identity to a single word and I would have to ask the question, why have two
words with the same meaning?

I'm with you because of my faith in reason. What says reason is relevant besides your mind, which is in the trap I modeled above? The only way to remove the question mark after "Reality" is via faith. You think it real, you believe it. You do not doubt it, nor do I. This is the smallest leap of faith necessary, but it's still necessary to remove those question marks.

I don't think we see completely eye to eye one this one. I see reality as
the model for reason itself. I can choose to accept something as real and
reality will ultimately validate or contradict what has been accepted. If I
align my reasoning based on validation and contrandiction then I am
merely discovering a model that already exists.

I think I understand your position. Did I clarify my own or are we missing each other?

I do understand your position now and while we are using some different
defintions, I think we may be in disagreement concerning the relationship
between reason, validation, contradiction, and acceptance.

 

[wesmorris]

I see where you're coming from. The delta is definition. In the one
presented faith is being defined as an opposite to criticism where I am
defining it as unconditional trust in something.

I'm not being unnecessarily contarary, but I see no difference in those two definitions, as per the diagram in which we're both trapped (with the tao always between us).

The definition I am using
is how Christians use it in modern context.

I understand what you're saying, but it's ultimately the same thing is the point. The difference is honesty IMO, but that understanding is consequential of my faith.

The alternative definition is an
identity to a single word and I would have to ask the question, why have two
words with the same meaning?

Same word, different context perhaps. Context is important and stuff.

I don't think we see completely eye to eye one this one. I see reality as
the model for reason itself.

I don't disagree... but you're ignoring the model. If you take issue with it, please tell me how to escape our trap. I'll flee with you and we can shoot some pool afterwards maybe.

I can choose to accept something as real and
reality will ultimately validate or contradict what has been accepted.

Sure, because you unconditionally trust that it is as you think it is - as do I. As a good skeptic, musn't we allow for the possibility of being wrong, even if the error in our assertion may be non-consequential?

If I align my reasoning based on validation and contrandiction then I am
merely discovering a model that already exists.

So it would seem and so I'd agree in general... however to be consistent, we must admit the potential error in our model no?... even if it's negligable? You sure your instruments were calibrated? Nobody dropped them? How precise are they? What if I don't care? Surely in such a case YOU have an "objective model" from your perspective, but what about from mine? Can I claim more than how things seem to me? If so, on what authority? Who granted it? Hell maybe you can tell me things as they are to you.. but did you communicate it 100%? Should I believe that things as they are to you are as they are to me? Why? Which things? Damn that trap! The only way out is that dirty, dirty word. I prefer the short step (as you seem to as well, so short you missed it!). Others, they come ass-backwards. Hence - conflict.

Speaking in evolutionary terms it makes perfect sense that it takes both kinds. A faithless individual can take no assertive action. Acts of will require faith in your premise. You and I both decide to keep our premise minimal: "reality is real", "reason is valid", etc. Those who take their premise to the hilt are more easily motivated to accomplish tasks related to their perception of survival, though perhaps less likely to be accurate in the outcome. Wait, a better idea: Given the human mind as a hueristic problem solving mechanism (by nature, though alternatives can be cultivated)... is it not, dependent on the personality and capability of the individual, better to minimize the solution set, such that solutions (though perhaps not the REAL solution) are found more quickly... especially if your ass depends on it (or SEEMS to depend on it)????????????

Every person has a bit of both it seems.

Bah.

I do understand your position now and while we are using some different
defintions, I think we may be in disagreement concerning the relationship
between reason, validation, contradiction, and acceptance.

Perhaps. I'd prefer to hash out the differences if you're interested. If we are both reasonable, surely we can reach a mutual understanding eh?

Did you read the story? Hehe.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

P.S. Don't bother quoting scripture.

Why shouldn’t she quote scripture?
If it helps to give more clarity to her statement, then she should have the freedom to quote.

I'm well familiar with it.

Then you should know what they are for.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

Raithere,

I'm sorry water, but I require that a concept makes sense before I can believe it.

Of course. No one is saying otherwise.

Belief in God is NOT A CHOICE that you would make.

The only choice about God that YOU make is whether you will obey God or not.

Theists are there to tell you what obeying God entails.


* * *


SouthStar,

Do you, as a rationalist, have a consistently non circular standard to determine its morality?

Yes, that is one of the main questions.



Keep the flame burning, brother!

 

[Raithere]

Why shouldn’t she quote scripture?
If it helps to give more clarity to her statement, then she should have the freedom to quote.

I wasn't trying to restrict her freedom. Of course she can do whatever she pleases. It simply adds nothing to the conversation as far as I'm concerned because I don't recognize it as an authoritative source and I'm not questioning her interpretation of it. It's simply redundant for her to state something and then back it up with scripture. I'd rather have her words than something quoted from the Bible anyway.

Then you should know what they are for.

I'm pretty sure we disagree on this point.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Of course. No one is saying otherwise.
Belief in God is NOT A CHOICE that you would make.
The only choice about God that YOU make is whether you will obey God or not.
Theists are there to tell you what obeying God entails.

I have a number of problems with this:

Since I don't believe in God, why should I pay any heed to what theists tell me God says I should or shouldn't do?

If I believed in God, for what reason should I automatically obey God's rules?

Regarding those rules, theists have all kinds of contradictory messages; how do I know which one is correct?

And even if I believed that one of these messages was accurate I note that theists themselves pick and choose between which rules they will obey and which they will ignore (how many Christians send women out of town when they menstruate, for instance?) how do I then determine which to follow?

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

Belief in God is NOT A CHOICE that you would make.

?

Belief in god is a choice. Failing to realize that doesn't change it.

The only choice about God that YOU make is whether you will obey God or not.

That's only if you've made the choice to believe, even if you've done so unwittingly.

Theists are there to tell you what obeying God entails.

LOL. Yes, this is true. The mighty Zues commanded me to kill jesus though. I was just obeying my god.

 

[Light Travelling]

?

LOL. Yes, this is true. The mighty Zues commanded me to kill jesus though. I was just obeying my god.

But is someone did say that Zeus had appeared to them and commanded them something, what then. I'll tell you what, you'll say they are mad, possibly lock them up.

What if someone said Jesus spoke to them, or Shiva appeared before them, or Mary gave them a message. God told them to write a book. Mad mad mad mad mad - you won't believe a word of it. mad lol lol.

All these people who say they see angels (there are alot at the moment) - Are they all barking!, will you condemn them because you cant see??

But the main reason people dont believe in any of this is that it is not detectable by our senses. But when it becomes detectable to someones senses - they are not believed.

So it is not enough to have a witness of experience of god. It has to be you personally who have to witness this in order to believe. But then your fellows will tell you you are mad and wont believe you.

Well strangely enough this only occurrs if the thing in question disagrees with your beliefs. If a thing is in agreement with your beliefs you will accept second hand accounts. I mean have you personally verified all that you hold true, gravity, relativity - have you personally done the math - have you been to the moon -do you know whats at the bottom of the sea. - No you take someone elses word for it, why becuse it fits with your beliefs.


I remember this quote but cant remember who it came from
"The large numbers of people that a society will condemn as mad is a result of its members increasingly desperate attempts to convince themselves that they are sane "

And I think theres some truth in that.

 

[wesmorris]

You've just given a discertation on relativism, which is truth. Theists reject this with their core, while the more they stand to their convictions, the more they prove the realism of relativism correct.

 

[water]

wesmorris,

Faith is given by God

I have plenty of faith, and I'm an athiest. My faith has little to do with deities. I have faith in people, emotions, stimulous and reason.

My apologies. I meant:
Faith in God is given by God.

However, there are things that come from God, God's gifts, and love is one of them. Without God, people wouldn't love. Now, even though you say you are an atheist, this does not mean that God is not working in you.


* * *


§outh§tar,

Now that is 100% wrong.

Unless of course, you want to accept the necessary corollary: disbelief is also given by God.

Yes.
But not disbelief. Lack of belief.
I say lack/absence of belief is ordained by God, but disbelief is not, disbelief is the person's own doing (because they oppose God, and to do so shows they have gotten to know Him but chose to disobey -- which they then cover up into "lack of belief" or "disbelief").

I was talking to superluminal in another thread about how definitions of God were meaningless since they would always be anthropomorphizations, or at least restricted by human perspective.

It doesn't matter that they are anthropomorphizations. Without full knowledge of God (and this we are unless God intervenes), we cannot but anthropomorphize. And as long as in the state of lacking full knowledge of God, we are bound to ourselves, and thus bound to anthropomorphize.
The important thing to note with anthropomorphization is that we can, for the time being, understand only on human terms. We should concentrate on our human tasks -- which are clearly set by religions. For this purpose, athropomorphized conceptions of God do not stand in the way.

Essential is that we do not believe in God because there were convincing arguments for that, that exist independet of us and of God. We believe because God wills it so.


* * *

Raithere,

What I typically find is that a theist's reason for belief is emotional. That the belief in a God fulfills certain desires and/or needs. The problem with this is that desire does not determine truth. Instead it tends to become a self-reinforcing fantasy that ignores the facts.

For instance: I want to be able to affect the outcome of a situation I cannot control. I believe that rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot will help affect the outcome in my favor. I have a strong emotionally driven motivation to acknowledge the positive outcomes and ignore the negative ones. This reinforces my belief in my luck rabbit's foot, making me feel more secure when faced with worrisome situation. The problem is that proper analysis reveals that my luck rabbit's foot has no effect on the outcome of, for instance, a roulette table. My belief is false. Unfortunately, since I feel more secure when I have no real reason to, I am more likely to bet again at the roulette table and loose more money.

What you are describing is UNTRAINED REASON, not "an emotional need".

Believing in God has, at least for me, nothing to do with emotionality.


* * *

SouthStar,

The main thing to ascertain is: Is it better to be a theist or an atheist?

I do not think this is a possible choice.
There are:
1. theists (those whom God has appointed to be so; they are for God),
2. anti-theists (those who know God and oppose God),
3. atheists (those who lack any mental contents about God).

True atheists are those who have never heard of God, in any way.
The only choice one can make is to be an anti-theist, and this is possible after God has offered the person to be a theist.

There are happy atheists, I'm sure, but there are also happy theists. Members of both groups can be intelligent, belligerent, insightful etc. I have a feeling that theists are not that different from atheists (although you both strive to be).

The main difference is in how they justify their actions. This is a very clear difference. Theists strive to serve God, anti-theists ridicule serving God.


* * *


superluminal,

Interesting point. As an atheist, my personal opinion is this.

Personal happiness is where you find it. If belief in god makes you happy, go for it. But you cannot then claim an equal footing for god against the testable realities of life and nature that affect our prosperity and survival.

You can say this because you are basing on the assumption that God is a sky-daddy or something like that -- but essentially a thing like any other.

Why, for instance, are there certain foods that I may not eat? And on certain days? And why are there certain sexual preferences that are not allowed? Why must I close up shop on Sunday when I could be making some good profit? Why should stem cell research be forbidden?

Why should everything be allowed?


* * *


Crunchy Cat,

I am not sure if it's the position that's the issue. I think it may be individual
values. I like truth alot and it is probably my topmost motivator. What about
you?

Yeah. Whereby you know insist to know in advance what this truth is ... your expectation is a farce. You have already set the criteria of what you deem acceptable and what not.

The exercise of thinking logically and refining thinking
based on supportive / contradictory evidence that reality provides is a great
way to begin resolving those problems you outlined.

They cannot be resolved, they are inherent to the method of analysis.

The answer provided to the sight question is an answer and probably has a
relvenace and completeness that is less than 1% of what's available. The
other 99%+ is a result of asking reality the right questions. Of course our
current 100% may not be perfectly aligned with truth and it's ok to
have an approximation.



Time will get the answer closer and closer to it.

And in all that tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime, I will only get old, my life will pass, while I have waited and tried to participate (albeit minuscully minuscle) in the next breakthrough scientific discovery!

I don't look down on it at all. I have emotional need... humans are just
that way. I simply choose to understand it and try very hard not to let
it misalign my interpretation of reality.

Because "emotions" have nothing to do with the true image of reality!!

Only an untrained reason would say a thing like that.

Emotions are a convenient scapegoat those who refuse to admit untrained reason use to excuse their mental laxness. This goes both for them as well as for those they describe to be "emotional" or "following emotional needs and confusing them for reality".

You have to distinguish between "being emotional" and "faulty logic". The two have nothing to with one another, even though the popular argument goes that "when emotional, you can't think straight".

If you cannot think straight, you won't think straight, no matter what emotional state you are in.

Being in an intense emotional state only brings out the untrained reason even more, but emotions don't interfere with your reasoning abilities; your logic doesn't become faulty because you are happy or sad.

If your logic becomes faulty when you are (intensely) happy or said, this only testifies that you are holding inconsistent beliefs. The intense emotional state only highlights the inconsistencies pertinent in that given situation.

People who hold consistent beliefs keep them regardless of the emotional state they are in; their logic doesn't become faulty once they are in an intense emotional state.

 

[water]

?

Belief in god is a choice.

For YOU, NOW, belief in God indeed is a matter of choice.

This is why you can't choose to believe in God.

People can choose many things, but belief in God is not one of them.
God was there first.

LOL. Yes, this is true. The mighty Zues commanded me to kill jesus though. I was just obeying my god.

Ridiculing proves nothing.

 

[water]

You've just given a discertation on relativism, which is truth. Theists reject this with their core, while the more they stand to their convictions, the more they prove the realism of relativism correct.

Without God, everything is relativistic and ultimately arbitrary.
Theists agree on that.

 

[water]

Raithere,

I wasn't trying to restrict her freedom. Of course she can do whatever she pleases. It simply adds nothing to the conversation as far as I'm concerned because I don't recognize it as an authoritative source and I'm not questioning her interpretation of it. It's simply redundant for her to state something and then back it up with scripture. I'd rather have her words than something quoted from the Bible anyway.

I present scripture so that you can see my argument isn't just something I made up.
As a theist, I feel responsible to present such arguments that fellow theists recognize as valid.
Our understanding is after all based on a consensus. Otherwise, we are speaking incommunicable and unintelligble languages -- which is mere noise.

In science, also, we are bound by the common scientific discourse. We can't just go and make up something without all back-up, and claim it to be science.

Quoting scripture or referring to established scientific theories is a matter of keeping the individual discourses meaningful.

Since I don't believe in God, why should I pay any heed to what theists tell me God says I should or shouldn't do?

You don't have to pay heed to what theists say. It is all up to you.

If I believed in God, for what reason should I automatically obey God's rules?

But you don't believe in God.

Regarding those rules, theists have all kinds of contradictory messages; how do I know which one is correct?

God knows best what will work for you, presently. If He sees fit, He will lead you to gain intelligence and discernment.
Having faith in God is not a matter of convincing arguments.

And even if I believed that one of these messages was accurate I note that theists themselves pick and choose between which rules they will obey and which they will ignore (how many Christians send women out of town when they menstruate, for instance?) how do I then determine which to follow?

Faith in God is between you and God. Other people may point in directions towards God, directions that they have found to be right, but ight for them. But this doesn't mean this will work for you. Some things might work though.

Stop trying to decide which religion to choose, or how to believe, or that those things are a matter of choice. It is beyond human ability to make such choices on their own, without God's intervention.