Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Revoltingest]

What are the statistical odds that most people who've ever lived are wrong?

Approaching 100%.
Consider that all these various groups believed different
mutually exclusive things, eg, the number of gods.
So no matter who might've stumbled upon The Truth,
all the others (who comprise the majority) were wrong.
Note also that we heathens (atheists) are growing as
a percentage of the population. Our vote will be added
to the mix, making religious belief less & less likely to
be True (by your probabilistic argument).

 

[Sheldon]

What are the statistical odds that most people who've ever lived are wrong?

That is dependant on the belief, and what objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, the number of people who hold a belief tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

Without evidence it is a bare appeal to numbers, and that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

Approaching 100%.
Consider that all these various groups believed different
mutually exclusive things, eg, the number of gods.
So no matter who might've stumbled upon The Truth,
all the others (who comprise the majority) were wrong.
Note also that we heathens (atheists) are growing as
a percentage of the population. Our vote will be added
to the mix, making religious belief less & less likely to
be True (by your probabilistic argument).

That's a good answer, way better than mine, I want to change to that answer...

 

[Heyo]

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.

Astrology, ghosts, homeopathy. When you combine all paranormal phenomena and all quackery the numbers are comparable with the number of the combined belief in any spiritual "higher power". (And it makes sense to bundle the non-spiritual irrational beliefs as you also bundle all the different and often contradicting god beliefs.)
Humans, on average, are not very rational in their beliefs.

 

[Truthseeker]

What's the difference between having faith in God and having faith that there is no God? If a theist has faith that God exist and an atheist have faith that no God exist, which belief is the correct one? Both have equal amount of faith for their beliefs, so how do we determine which one is true? Of the two, which one is the one who is being rational? Both? Neither one of them?

And the follow up question. Why?

The atheist and the theist should consult with each other about this, not argue, then it is barely possible they may agree on the same position. It is more likely if they consult each other that they can find some points of agreement. None of us has the whole truth. I don't know, though, that atheists having faith in no God represents them very well. They usually simply say there's no evidence of God existing.

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps the people that told you there was a God and Devil are the deceivers.

That's probably a serious question you've never pondered.

I believe since I know God personally and He verifies what has been said by Him and about Him and the devil then they spoke truly.

 

[Muffled]

No. I was not saying that.

I believe you should say whether you have a personal contact with God. There is a person saying there is no-one but me saying that.

 

[Muffled]

Astrology, ghosts, homeopathy. When you combine all paranormal phenomena and all quackery the numbers are comparable with the number of the combined belief in any spiritual "higher power". (And it makes sense to bundle the non-spiritual irrational beliefs as you also bundle all the different and often contradicting god beliefs.)
Humans, on average, are not very rational in their beliefs.

I believe you qualify. Generalizations are rarely logical and I don't think yours is either.

 

[F1fan]

I believe since I know God personally and He verifies what has been said by Him and about Him and the devil then they spoke truly.

Of course you know God personally.

 

[F1fan]

The atheist and the theist should consult with each other about this, not argue, then it is barely possible they may agree on the same position. It is more likely if they consult each other that they can find some points of agreement. None of us has the whole truth. I don't know, though, that atheists having faith in no God represents them very well. They usually simply say there's no evidence of God existing.

Atheists and theists could agree that pizza tastes pretty damn good. As far as an atheist agreeing on any theistic claims, that isn't negotiable. If claims are fantastic and not consistent with reality then the claims will be dismissed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe you should say whether you have a personal contact with God. There is a person saying there is no-one but me saying that.

The point was over the use of a logical fallacy and not about the object of belief, so mentioning my personal belief would be irrelevant to the point of my response.

 

[Heyo]

Generalizations are rarely logical

Generalizations are a hallmark of logic.
A generalization is reached through analysing the traits of individuals and identifying the communalities and similarities and constructing an idealized abstract. It is also important to keep the significance of the generalization in mind. Some are defining and others only have a higher chance of being true.
E.g.: in a pair of randomly selected atheists/theists I can't say who is more educated/intelligent but if I'd bet on the atheists in a series of picks, I'd win more often than not.

 

[night912]

The atheist and the theist should consult with each other about this, not argue, then it is barely possible they may agree on the same position. It is more likely if they consult each other that they can find some points of agreement. None of us has the whole truth. I don't know, though, that atheists having faith in no God represents them very well. They usually simply say there's no evidence of God existing.

Who said that they were arguing? All they're doing is consulting each other about what they believe is the truth. And they've realized that eventhough they have both used faith, they conclusions are different. So what now?

I don't know, though, that atheists having faith in no God represents them very well. They usually simply say there's no evidence of God existing.

Show me where I said that having faith that no God exist represents the position of atheists?

This is what I said, "What's the difference between having faith in God and having faith that there is no God? If a theist has faith that God exist and an atheist have faith that no God exist, which belief is the correct one?"

One atheist does not represent the position of all atheists.

 

[Truthseeker]

Who said that they were arguing? All they're doing is consulting each other about what they believe is the truth. And they've realized that eventhough they have both used faith, they conclusions are different. So what now?

You didn't say they were arguing. I'm just recommending that they not argue and consult.

Show me where I said that having faith that no God exist represents the position of atheists?

This is what I said, "What's the difference between having faith in God and having faith that there is no God? If a theist has faith that God exist and an atheist have faith that no God exist, which belief is the correct one?"

One atheist does not represent the position of all atheists.

Okay, I didn't realize you were referring to a specific situation. I think this has all been a misunderstanding.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Astrology, ghosts, homeopathy. When you combine all paranormal phenomena and all quackery the numbers are comparable with the number of the combined belief in any spiritual "higher power". (And it makes sense to bundle the non-spiritual irrational beliefs as you also bundle all the different and often contradicting god beliefs.)
Humans, on average, are not very rational in their beliefs.

I didn't say "numinous" or "spiritual" I said "people say they converse with God".

You claim humans are generally irrational in belief. Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE clear EVIDENCE. The logical conclusion: God exists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Approaching 100%.
Consider that all these various groups believed different
mutually exclusive things, eg, the number of gods.
So no matter who might've stumbled upon The Truth,
all the others (who comprise the majority) were wrong.
Note also that we heathens (atheists) are growing as
a percentage of the population. Our vote will be added
to the mix, making religious belief less & less likely to
be True (by your probabilistic argument).

You claim by implications that humans are generally irrational in belief. Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE the evidence. Conclusion: God exists and we are aware of him except for statistical outliers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is dependant on the belief, and what objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, the number of people who hold a belief tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

Without evidence it is a bare appeal to numbers, and that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Several times you've ducked my follow-up:

Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE the evidence.

Yes, "the number who believe tells nothing about the validity" of the belief, however, I challenge you to name ANYTHING besides God where the vast, overwhelming majority of all people falsely believe when presented with the type of rational evidence you claim for your own beliefs.

Stating that nearly every human ever believes in God is not an ad populum, it is a claim that you would need to prove that most people are utterly irrational or insane to prove your LACK of belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

You claim by implications that humans are generally irrational in belief. Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE the evidence. Conclusion: God exists and we are aware of him except for statistical outliers.

So you're still arguing for the idea the that if a majority
believe something, that this is proof of being The Truth, eh.
It's a poor objective, since mass hysteria is also possible.

If you really want to pursue it, you must address how
there is no majority for any particular belief system.
Believers cannot agree upon....
- How many gods there are.
- What these gods require of us.
- The powers of these gods.
- What these gods have done.
- The language of these gods.
- Slavery being right or wrong.
- Which scared books are real.
- The images of these gods, eg, animal, human.
- Whether humans or animals are sacrificed for successful crops.
- Whether women are lesser creatures than men.
- Circumstances justifying violence towards others.

So all you have is a common tendency for humans
to believe in supernatural beings. This is clearly not
a reliable basis for making claims for a true religion.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't say "numinous" or "spiritual" I said "people say they converse with God".

You claim humans are generally irrational in belief. Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE clear EVIDENCE. The logical conclusion: God exists.

People claim all sorts of nonsense, that doesn't make it true. there is no objective evidence for your claim, just unevidenced anecdote and a bare appeal to numbers fallacy which you have used here again.

Conclusion: An unevidenced claim you have evidence, is not evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Several times you've ducked my follow-up:

Name something else where the vast, overwhelming majority of persons disbelieve or believe falsely DESPITE the evidence.

That's a false dichotomy fallacy, since no one has demonstrated any objective evidence. Though a lot of creationist deny the scientific fact of species evolution of course, despite the overwhelming objective evidence to support it, and from converging fields of science at that.

Yes, "the number who believe tells nothing about the validity" of the belief, however, I challenge you to name ANYTHING besides God where the vast, overwhelming majority of all people falsely believe when presented with the type of rational evidence you claim for your own beliefs.

You've consistently made irrational claims, like the argumentum ad populum fallacy you used previously, and the false dichotomy fallacy you used in that post. You don't seem to know you're doing it, or what it means. Again then, no one needs a counter example to your claim, as asserting someone disprove something is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

Stating that nearly every human ever believes in God is not an ad populum, it is a claim that you would need to prove that most people are utterly irrational or insane to prove your LACK of belief.