Sheldon
Veteran Member
Atheism is not a belief.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does a belief in a god show lack of education?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Atheism is not a belief.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I don't know what you mean sorry. can you demsonrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity?
Anyone can claim to have experienced anything, it is meaningless to anyone else unless they can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support the claim, and extraordinary claims necessarily require extraordinary evidence.
If I claimed I had an invisible dragon, and all you had to do was have faith, would that be sufficient for you to believe it was real? If so I have a lovely bridge to sell you, in a prime London location.
It's literally a steal...
Very often not the same.
Belief no god exists: 1 belief
Belief god exists: Usually over 1000 beliefs per religion
Yazata
Active Member
The original post in this thread said this: "I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god."
That appears to be a conditional of the form 'If A, then B'
If (they believe in a god) then (they are not highly educated)
All it takes to show that particular conditional is false is to produce one example of a highly educated theist. That's trivial.
Pretty much any theologian would do. As would the 51% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science who say that they believe in God (33%) or in a "higher power" (18%).
Scientists and Belief
And the first post in this thread also contains this: "I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness."
I would agree that mental illness is a possibility. My judgment in that regard would depend a great deal on the content of the purported revelation. And I would expect to see some evidence of disturbed cognition in other areas of the theist's life as well.
But apropos of the argument over ad populum arguments, I would point out that the whole idea of mental illness conceives of it as a disease of the mind of some mysterious sort. And a disease is a disfunctional abnormality.
So pointing out that a majority of the world's population have historically been (and probably still are) theists, isn't an ad populum fallacy at all, if the observation is intended to rebut the suggestion that theism is abnormal somehow. It isn't. Statistically, theism is quite normal.
But what about the idea that a god has spoken to particular individuals? As I said above, mental illness remains a possibility. But it will require additional justification to convince an intelligent person that the possibility is indeed an actuality.
I think that most theists have historically believed that the gods communicate. And some unknown percentage of theists have believed that they were recipients of divine communications. That needn't be by means of grand miracles or audible speech heard by the ears. It might come in the form of an intuition, or as an observation that the course of one's life has changed in a way consistent with the idea of divine purpose. The category of religious experience is vastly diverse and it's hard to generalize about it.
There's the obvious problem that religious experiences are typically profoundly private. That doesn't necessarily discredit the idea that the experiences are actual divine communications, let alone indicate that they must be signs of psychiatric illness. Maybe that's how the divine makes itself known, privately and individually. But that being said, the private and (perhaps) subjective nature of these experiences does seem to deprive them of the kind of objectivity required to convince other people who haven't shared the experience themselves. Particularly in our day and age when society isn't nearly as ready to believe supposed prophets as it was in past times and places.
That appears to be a conditional of the form 'If A, then B'
If (they believe in a god) then (they are not highly educated)
All it takes to show that particular conditional is false is to produce one example of a highly educated theist. That's trivial.
Pretty much any theologian would do. As would the 51% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science who say that they believe in God (33%) or in a "higher power" (18%).
Scientists and Belief
And the first post in this thread also contains this: "I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness."
I would agree that mental illness is a possibility. My judgment in that regard would depend a great deal on the content of the purported revelation. And I would expect to see some evidence of disturbed cognition in other areas of the theist's life as well.
But apropos of the argument over ad populum arguments, I would point out that the whole idea of mental illness conceives of it as a disease of the mind of some mysterious sort. And a disease is a disfunctional abnormality.
So pointing out that a majority of the world's population have historically been (and probably still are) theists, isn't an ad populum fallacy at all, if the observation is intended to rebut the suggestion that theism is abnormal somehow. It isn't. Statistically, theism is quite normal.
But what about the idea that a god has spoken to particular individuals? As I said above, mental illness remains a possibility. But it will require additional justification to convince an intelligent person that the possibility is indeed an actuality.
I think that most theists have historically believed that the gods communicate. And some unknown percentage of theists have believed that they were recipients of divine communications. That needn't be by means of grand miracles or audible speech heard by the ears. It might come in the form of an intuition, or as an observation that the course of one's life has changed in a way consistent with the idea of divine purpose. The category of religious experience is vastly diverse and it's hard to generalize about it.
There's the obvious problem that religious experiences are typically profoundly private. That doesn't necessarily discredit the idea that the experiences are actual divine communications, let alone indicate that they must be signs of psychiatric illness. Maybe that's how the divine makes itself known, privately and individually. But that being said, the private and (perhaps) subjective nature of these experiences does seem to deprive them of the kind of objectivity required to convince other people who haven't shared the experience themselves. Particularly in our day and age when society isn't nearly as ready to believe supposed prophets as it was in past times and places.
Last edited:
Hi @Sheldon
Clear said : “I maintain that a real event is real independent of proof and that the fact that an event occurred itself IS proof it occurred.
Hence my example that if a tree falls in the forest then it fell whether or not someone can prove it feel. The fallen tree is proof that the tree fell.
I am referring to the characteristics of real events and I am not referring to the characteristics of “bare claims”.
I do not maintain that a “bare claim” either needs or doesn’t need to be proved.
Given the definition of a tautology as “a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation” then you are correct, I am stating a tautology.
I assume that, since it is correct and difficult to argue against, this is why KWED and you want to re-characterize and re-write and change what my claim is.”
Sheldon replied : I don't know what you mean sorry. “
I mean that any real event that actually happened, happens independent of whether it can be proven or not. It is a simple point.
Sheldon asked : “can you demsonrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity?”
I see problems in the nature of proving either the existence of God or the non-existence of God.
For examples :
Can you demonstrate that you, as an judge are objective regarding recognizing objective evidence regarding diety? As you've already admitted, it's difficult for you to understand the simple tautology that real events are real whether they are proven or not.
Once an atheist has developed a religious belief that there is no God, objectivity is lost and at that point, even potentially objective information is filtered through a subjective lens. How does one overcome this bias?
Since you cannot provide objective evidence that there is no God, why should you expect others to prove objectively there is a God?
I don’t believe God is supposed to be proveable to those who are not seeking him.
To dislodge an atheist from his religious belief that there is no God seems to be as difficult as dislodging other religionists away from their chosen belief system.
There are other problems but these are difficult problems
Clear
τωακφυειω
Clear said : “I maintain that a real event is real independent of proof and that the fact that an event occurred itself IS proof it occurred.
Hence my example that if a tree falls in the forest then it fell whether or not someone can prove it feel. The fallen tree is proof that the tree fell.
I am referring to the characteristics of real events and I am not referring to the characteristics of “bare claims”.
I do not maintain that a “bare claim” either needs or doesn’t need to be proved.
Given the definition of a tautology as “a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation” then you are correct, I am stating a tautology.
I assume that, since it is correct and difficult to argue against, this is why KWED and you want to re-characterize and re-write and change what my claim is.”
Sheldon replied : I don't know what you mean sorry. “
I mean that any real event that actually happened, happens independent of whether it can be proven or not. It is a simple point.
Sheldon asked : “can you demsonrate anything approaching objective evidence for any deity?”
I see problems in the nature of proving either the existence of God or the non-existence of God.
For examples :
Can you demonstrate that you, as an judge are objective regarding recognizing objective evidence regarding diety? As you've already admitted, it's difficult for you to understand the simple tautology that real events are real whether they are proven or not.
Once an atheist has developed a religious belief that there is no God, objectivity is lost and at that point, even potentially objective information is filtered through a subjective lens. How does one overcome this bias?
Since you cannot provide objective evidence that there is no God, why should you expect others to prove objectively there is a God?
I don’t believe God is supposed to be proveable to those who are not seeking him.
To dislodge an atheist from his religious belief that there is no God seems to be as difficult as dislodging other religionists away from their chosen belief system.
There are other problems but these are difficult problems
Clear
τωακφυειω
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
God sometimes directs me to actions for my benefit. God sometimes gives me vital knowledge about a new acquaintance (for example, their father has terminal cancer) via which I minister to the person, etc.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It's not "an appeal" to numbers because you are lacking context, Watch:
1) Most people talk to God and say God answers
2) Most people are rational, sane, practical
1+2 = atheists are the deluded minority
You totally missed the point that I was making.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
If you ever demonstrate anything like that we might find out.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
it is a bare appeal to numbers, and the context is self evident. Here it is again.
An argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Clear said : Can you demonstrate that you, as an judge are objective regarding recognizing objective evidence regarding diety? As you've already admitted, it's difficult for you to understand the simple tautology that real events are real whether they are proven or not.
Once an atheist has developed a religious belief that there is no God, objectivity is lost and at that point, even potentially objective information is filtered through a subjective lens. How does one overcome this bias?
Since you cannot provide objective evidence that there is no God, why should you expect others to prove objectively there is a God?
I don’t believe God is supposed to be proveable to those who are not seeking him.
To dislodge an atheist from his religious belief that there is no God seems to be as difficult as dislodging other religionists away from their chosen belief system.
Sheldon replied "If you ever demonstrate anything like that we might find out."
Sheldon, why don't you simply find the motivation to seek God out with sincerity and willingness to commit to him if he exists, tell him you will do whatever he tells you to do if he exists and ask him yourself to answer your prayers to him?
Clear
Once an atheist has developed a religious belief that there is no God, objectivity is lost and at that point, even potentially objective information is filtered through a subjective lens. How does one overcome this bias?
Since you cannot provide objective evidence that there is no God, why should you expect others to prove objectively there is a God?
I don’t believe God is supposed to be proveable to those who are not seeking him.
To dislodge an atheist from his religious belief that there is no God seems to be as difficult as dislodging other religionists away from their chosen belief system.
Sheldon replied "If you ever demonstrate anything like that we might find out."
Sheldon, why don't you simply find the motivation to seek God out with sincerity and willingness to commit to him if he exists, tell him you will do whatever he tells you to do if he exists and ask him yourself to answer your prayers to him?
Clear
Bird123
Well-Known Member
OK, you make a very good point. On the other hand, what is important the number or the action?
Bird123
Well-Known Member
It is a Belief that God does not exist. You can color it anyway you like, however it comes out the same.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Why do you believe that all gods exist?
Actions matter.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You're talking but what are you saying?
Most persons are considered rational, most talk to God--you are the outlier. How do you account for it (besides intellectual snobbery)?
But ALL people are capable of being wrong. This includes rational people as well.
And you are committing an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I also want to point out that you've demonstrated that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. If you weren't, then using your own reasoning, you should've agreed that you have committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy since you're the only one who says that you did commit that fallacy vs more than one person have said that you did. So by your reasoning you're the one who is wrong.
With that said, I'll just sit back and see if you will commit the argument by repetition fallacy. And based on my observations from the past til now, I can say that there's a really high chance that will commit that fallacy. I would be using faith as my reasoning if I was to come to the conclusion that the chance that you won't do that is low, but then I would be irrational if I was to use faith as the basis for my reasoning.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
All gods??? There is only 1 God. I have found no religion that understands God at all. Religions are creations of mankind. That is who they reflect more than anything else.
I know God exists because I have bumped into God. I now know you exist because I am bumping into you now.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Sheldon
Veteran Member
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
What are the statistical odds that most people who've ever lived are wrong?
What is an example of something that most people believe in error DESPITE evidence? For examples, a minority disbelieve in COVID vaccination, Moon landings and 9/11 as a result of terrorism. But you contend that most people who've ever lived--past and present--falsely believe in a deity despite evidence, is that correct? Name ANY other as-common deception.