Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Revoltingest]

Um, there is no other "wrong but 99% popular belief" in all of human history. AGAIN, if you can name one that isn't spirituality or God you prove their (erroneous) point!

That is unclear.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Does a beleif in God show the believer has severe mental health issues ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does a beleif in God show the believer has severe mental health issues ?

No, typically it shows that an otherwise clearly-thinking person has been conditioned from birth to believe in God.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No, typically it shows that an otherwise clearly-thinking person has been conditioned from birth to believe in God.

More technically a persons Neurolgocial Reference Frame has been formed by progressive Neurological Influence of religion . Believing in a possible God is fine but describing God and beleiving that description that was devised by men , is Neurological Sujectiveness !

 

[Heyo]

I do acknowledge your point, and I've pointed out already on this thread that some believe in a flat Earth or 9/11 conspiracy but that UNIQUELY, 99% of people believe in the divine.

If you can name one thing in the known universe that 90% of people believe in falsely, despite the evidence, I will concede. I thought I made this simple and broad enough for us, THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.

I tell you that I personally believe God loves you, which is why He has provided such clear figures for your review.

I have found one thing that is falsely believed by more people than the divine.
All people believing in the divine also believe in magic (the divine always has a magical component).
Some people who deny the divine may non-the-less believe in some kind of magic.
So, the sum of all people believing in magic is greater than the sum of people believing in the divine.

(Btw.: the percentage of people believing in the divine is estimated at about 85% not 99%.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a little busy to search 16 pages of thread. Respectfully to you, yours cannot be an important question if neither of us recall what it is.

I didn't use the Johnny cliff analogy. I challenged non-theists to tell me ANYTHING ELSE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE that 99% of people believe falsely that isn't God.

God graciously gives even skeptics pointers--here's one--nothing else in the known universe is so rigidly adhered to as faith in the divine. I though you were likewise a theist with faith in the divine?

As I suspected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't say "a plurality or a majority of a sect holds to the tenets of the sect they've joined". I said name anything other than God in the known universe where 99% of ALL humans believe falsely.

Another question that you seem reluctant to answer.

How have you determined that 99% of humans believe in God? If 99% of humans do not believe in God, then how can you expect someone to answer your question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are not addressing your claim of ad populum in context. Let me help you think through the issue. It is indeed true that we cannot cite number of adherent or percentage of adherents in a sub group as fact, however:

1) Most people are rational

So any belief is true, since it was derived at by rational people using rational means?

2) When 90% of people agree on a fact, usually these 90% are correct

Evolution surpasses those numbers among those that understand it.

3) When 10% of people agree on a fact, usually this minority is incorrect

So any new fact that is discovered by even one person is not true until more than 11% accept it? Is this rational? Christ's message was false until 10% of the population believed it?

4) Every culture in history has been religious and 90% of all people, ever, have expressed a belief in the divine

I have no idea. I feel certain you do not either. At least you have offered no evidence to convince more than 10% of us.

You are saying "ad populum" as your mantra (I say that because you feel it's "winning" to do so on four or five of my posts daily) without acknowledging that in this case (God exists) you are claiming that most people who have lived are not rational.

Because he is correct and this post I am responding to supports that you are using that fallacy and more.

If you accept my #1 above, kindly deal with 2-4 above, instead of telling me I don't know what an ad populum is. Of course I know what it is and also that you're guilty of ad populum (most atheists agree, there is no evidence for God).

That most atheists agree with a large number of theists on the fact that there is no objective evidence for God is not belief based on the popularity of the belief.[/QUOTE]

 

[KWED]

And what I'm saying is that a Deistic God is still God with a capital G, in the English language.

To me (and many others) that is still just the idea of "a god" like all the others, so why does it deserve capitalisation when the others don't?

 

[KWED]

No, the rule is that if you are referring to a monotheistic God, the Creator (whether it is the Jewish version or Deistic version or whatever) you use a capital God. You only use a small case g when you are referring to one of many gods.

Ah, I see. Religionists want their god to be capitalised, but not any others.
Fair enough.

 

[KWED]

By implication, you are both making 99% of parents irrational, which still proves my point and claiming that only a fraction of people (atheists) are rational enough to escape such irrational behavior, which also proves my point.

Not so, because those parents were probably also indoctrinated, and conforming to childhood indoctrination is not irrational. It is a natural psychological response to a process.
Breaking such indoctrination is difficult and relies to a degree on outside influence, so it is often not within the ability of the indoctrinated. But yes, anyone who has broken their indoctrination is likely to be a more rational, critical thinker than they were while they were indoctrinated, and than those who are still indoctrinated.
However, this does not mean that the indoctrinated are not incapable of critical or rational thought. They may display it in every situation - apart from addressing their religious beliefs. It is why religionists can present rational arguments against other beliefs but fail to see that those same arguments apply to their own.

 

[Sheldon]

No, the rule is that if you are referring to a monotheistic God, the Creator (whether it is the Jewish version or Deistic version or whatever) you use a capital God. You only use a small case g when you are referring to one of many gods.

Indeed, so as an atheists who doesn't believe there is any one deity, but rather thousands that humans have imagined and created, I never capitalise it.

 

[Sheldon]

Ah, I see. Religionists want their god to be capitalised, but not any others.
Fair enough.

I know that's how I have always read that, I was wondering if it was just me.

 

[KWED]

Um, there is no other "wrong but 99% popular belief" in all of human history. AGAIN, if you can name one that isn't spirituality or God you prove their (erroneous) point!

Just out of interest, what is your argument here - that because belief in the supernatural has been common throughout history, then it is probably true?
Or is it that because many popular misconceptions of the past have been proven false, belief in the supernatural is also probably false?

 

[Sheldon]

By implication, you are both making 99% of parents irrational,

Why would one believe parents are rational where their children are concerned?

which still proves my point and claiming that only a fraction of people (atheists) are rational enough to escape such irrational behavior, which also proves my point.

Do me a favour please, and tell me what you believe rational means, as I am starting to think it means something else to me.

 

[KWED]

And I think you're overstating how many people are theists. Worldwide, only 85% of people are adherents of a religion, and that includes nominal adherents who count themselves as members (and say so on censuses and surveys) but don't actually believe.

Leading questions produce skewed answers, perfectly illustrated in the last UK census.

The religion question on the census was "What religion are you?" and gave a list to pick from. Over 60% picked one of the religions.
When the same people were asked a follow up question "Are you religious?", over 60% said "no".

 

[Sheldon]

Um, there is no other "wrong but 99% popular belief" in all of human history. AGAIN, if you can name one that isn't spirituality or God you prove their (erroneous) point!

It is a bare appeal to numbers you made, and this it is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and so by definition it is irrational.

Now this bit is important, it would still be irrational, even were it the only example ever. So why you keep asking for another example is not clear, well other than you failing to understand why it is irrational.

Do you agree that something is rational if and only if, it adheres to the principles of logic? I think that answer might help us understand why you keep repeating your redundant question.

 

[Sheldon]

You are not addressing your claim of ad populum in context. Let me help you think through the issue. It is indeed true that we cannot cite number of adherent or percentage of adherents in a sub group as fact, however:

1) Most people are rational

2) When 90% of people agree on a fact, usually these 90% are correct

3) When 10% of people agree on a fact, usually this minority is incorrect

4) Every culture in history has been religious and 90% of all people, ever, have expressed a belief in the divine

You are saying "ad populum" as your mantra (I say that because you feel it's "winning" to do so on four or five of my posts daily) without acknowledging that in this case (God exists) you are claiming that most people who have lived are not rational.

If you accept my #1 above, kindly deal with 2-4 above, instead of telling me I don't know what an ad populum is. Of course I know what it is and also that you're guilty of ad populum (most atheists agree, there is no evidence for God).

There is only one context, something either adheres to the principles of logic, or it does not, if it does not it is by definition irrational. Did you not know this?

Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational, you used a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum, ipso facto it was irrational.

1. Most people are not rational, why else would exceptionally intelligent people have created a method of reading with strict principles of validation in order to help us be rational?

2. No, this is by definition an argumentum ad populum fallacy, it is a bare appeal to numbers, and it is by definition an irrational claim. The number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the claim. Again did you not know this? I linked the fallacy for you several times.

3. That is utter nonsense, and it is also irrational.

4. that doesn't make their belief true, and it certainly doesn't make it rational to assert it is as you did.

Argumentum ad Populum (an appeal to popularity, public opinion or to the majority) is an argument, often emotively laden, for the acceptance of an unproved conclusion by adducing irrelevant evidence based on the feelings, prejudices, or beliefs of a large group of people.

So know you know anyway, any thoughts?

 

[Sheldon]

Does a beleif in God show the believer has severe mental health issues ?

Something of a nonsequitur, but no I'd say in the vast majority of theists the very most you could say is they appear to be delusional, but that need not necessarily indicate a mental pathology. Or else every mother that believed her baby was cleverer and more beautiful than most other babies would be locked up.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Something of a nonsequitur, but no I'd say in the vast majority of theists the very most you could say is they appear to be delusional, but that need not necessarily indicate a mental pathology. Or else every mother that believed her baby was cleverer and more beautiful than most other babies would be locked up.

It is my opinion that the entire world is deluded and most neurological reference frames are full of corrupt data .