Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[IndigoChild5559]

If Dog is used as a name, like "Give this to the Dog," that is appropriate use of capitalization. If you are referring to A dog, rather than one in particular, you use the lower case dog.

Does that feel right to you?

exactly, because in the example you give, Dog is the name of one particuoar dog. Same with why monotheists capitalize God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But nothing that I've said is like what you're saying here. My post was addressing WHEN you were using capital "G" God improperly. Below is an example of what I mean. Your grammatical error is in bold. The second time is being used as a type of god and not as a name of a particular god. Being an atheist or theist is irrelevant because capitalizing the letter "g" on the second "god" is grammatically wrong.



And just in case you think that you can wiggle yourself out of this by saying that I'm using an example from a post you made after my response, here's the evidence of your improper use of the word "god" before I posted my comment. Ready?



WAIT. There's more. Note what's in red. That is an adjective that's being used to describe a type of god. There should be a lowercase "g" instead of an uppercase one.





Agreed. But you broke that rule in the examples that I've posted above. You are using a capital "g" when the word, "god" is not being used as a proper noun, or simply put it, a name. Your belief in God caused you to make this grammatical error when referring to a particular type of god such as, the monotheistic god(of Christianity) is equivalent to saying, "the polytheistic god known as, Thor." See how I only used capital "g" once? That's because it's being used as a name. It's a simple matter of using proper English grammar. Your belief does not change anything. Proper English grammar does not care if the user is an atheist or theist, monotheist or polytheist. You should read about "proper English grammar" instead of "English grammar conspiracy theories."

An easy way to recognize English grammatical errors is by replacing the word with a different one.

Example:
"the monotheistic god" = "the monotheistic deity"

Now compared that to "the monotheistic Deity."

Sorry for the long post but I just don't want information to be presented as being true when in fact, it's false information. This is one of the reasons why even some educated people are ignorant of certain topics.


BTW,
Capitalizing pronouns (he, him etc) when referring to God, is only a preference and not a rule for proper English grammar.

Referring to the monotheistic God is no different than referring to the polythiestic Zeus. In both cases you are using a NAME

 

[Heyo]

exactly, because in the example you give, Dog is the name of one particuoar dog. Same with why monotheists capitalize God.

Doesn't the article before "Dog" point to it not being a name? Wouldn't you say "Give it to Dog" in that case? Do you say "Give it to the Timmy"? No, you might say "Give it to the child". And even though it is one specific child, "child" is not a proper noun but a (single) selection of a class.

(I'm feeling weird, giving English lessons to a native speaker as a German.)

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, but whether you believe in a god or not has no bearing on its name.

Oh really?

The name for one specific god, God.

That's a belief no?

Go study some religion before you make ridiculous claims like that. There is a substantial difference in the KIND of God a monotheistic god is over a polytheistic god.

Ho hum, another belief

most monotheists simply believe in one God.

Belief....

They don't think Jews worship one God and Muslims worship a different God.

Belief

All of those are names for the One God,

and...a belief.

So it appears my lack of belief is irrelevant to you, but I have to accept your belief and capitalise god, however you don't get to decide what I think god means.

 

[Sheldon]

Referring to the monotheistic God is no different than referring to the polythiestic Zeus. In both cases you are using a NAME

Only if you believe there is one monotheistic god, which atheists do not, now imaginary or not, is there more than one Zeus?

 

[Sheldon]

exactly, because in the example you give, Dog is the name of one particuoar dog. Same with why monotheists capitalize God.

Atheists are not monotheists though, is my computer not working, I see the words on my screen?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It may be that it is more common for those with less education to believe in God or some god. But less education does not mean lack of intelligence or ability. A lack of education can be arrived at through more than one route. Even those with plenty of education and with intelligence established by the latest and greatest testing can and do believe in God or some god.

None of this verifies or falsifies the existence of God or any god.

Now the discussion has turned to capitalization and the manner of convention one follows in capitalizing God if referring to the name applied to the monotheistic god of Abrahamic religions or god in referring to a deity in general. Perhaps it is too much education that leads to such discussions.

I really like RF.

 

[night912]

Referring to the monotheistic God is no different than referring to the polythiestic Zeus. In both cases you are using a NAME

You're worse than I thought. For someone who claimed to have edited grammar books, you sure are ignorant of this subject. Either that or you've realized your mistake but is unwilling to admit it.

Even elementary school level knowledge of proper English grammar knows that an adjective modifies a noun. Of course, proper nouns are modified differently from common nouns in the sense that it's not the entity that is being modified, instead it's the entity's name.

So if we are to look at those two cases:
"the monotheistic God"
monotheistic = adjective
God = proper noun
This means that "God" is being modified by monotheistic. So if it's grammatically correct, you are saying that there are more than one god named, God. And you're just referring to the monotheistic version of God among other Gods out there.

This is illogical because it's a contradiction. The idea of the existence of more than one god with the name, God contradicts monotheism, therefore the god that you're referring to cannot be monotheistic god.

"the polytheistic Zeus"
polytheistic = adjective
Zeus = proper noun
This means that "Zeus" is being modified by polytheistic. So if it's grammatically correct, you are saying that there are more than one god named, Zeus. And you're just referring to the polytheistic version of Zeus among other Zeus out there.

This would mean that all of the gods named, Zeus are polytheistic. This means that "polytheistic" cannot be the differential factor that distinguishes this Zeus from the many other Zeus that exist.

Sounds like nonsense? Well, it's only going off of your argument using proper English grammar.


BTW,
If you are using "the" then you've made a grammatical error. The proper English grammar would be to do this:

Saying that the Monotheistic God is equivalent to the Polytheistic Zeus because monotheistic and polytheistic are part of those two gods' name, and they're not being used to describe the two gods..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh really?



That's a belief no?



Ho hum, another belief



Belief....



Belief



and...a belief.

So it appears my lack of belief is irrelevant to you, but I have to accept your belief and capitalise god, however you don't get to decide what I think god means.

No, your belief has no bearing on whether something is a name or not. I do not believe in Loki, but I still capitalize the word.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's irrational to believe(in this case it's you) that evolution was once false because majority of the population didn't believe in evolution, but it's now a fact since majority of people now believe in evolution.

I believe in Evolution.

Less than 90% of people worldwide do not.

We agree that some are irrational (who disbelieve in Evolution) now explain how 99% of humanity believes in God IF THAT IS IRRATIONAL.

STILL . . . waiting.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Everyone has failures of critical thinking. The question is whether we try to find them and fix them, or proclaim them as holy and demand tax breaks for them.

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.

I didn't say everyone sometimes has failures of critical thinking, rather I'd say that everyone except a very few--atheists who won't admit the logic that points to agnosticism--LIVE THEIR LIVES in the light of an invisible creator.

Which is it? 99% of us are insane or you are the outlier?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ah, you've just explained every atheist on RF. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

People can indeed be irrational.
To believe that a religion is absolutely true simply
because of popularity is one example of it.

I didn't say "sometimes people are irrational". I said nearly every human ever responds to conscience and etc. as under divine rule.

WHO DO YOU KNOW WHO CHANGED RELIGIONS BECAUSE ONE WAS MORE POPULAR THAN ANOTHER?! Oh YEAH, there are LOT of Muslims so THAT must be true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is unclear.

NAME ANYTHING NOT GOD that everyone believes in falsely except for a tiny minority, you know, the way atheists say only they don't feel/see/hear God.

STILL WAITING!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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%.)

quod erat demonstrandum:

I see magic/miracles frequently from my dad, and you don't know my dad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I'll go on a limb and agree with you, Adam and Eve were indoctrinated by their Father, and it descended from there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Neither, of course.

Resolved: Being an atheist means you think 99% of people are irrational - simply name ANYTHING other than God that nearly everyone believes FALSELY and your assertion about collective insanity is correct.

Otherwise, get out of the way and stop interfering with we who hear from God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's being used in the same context. Even though the majority believes in a particular thing as being true, the fact of the matter is that it's actually not true, which is the belief of the minority. So your excuse above is useless in defending your argument.

Also, I already gave an example and showed why your argument is irrational in post #309. Feel free to explain why the majority was correct in my example.

Huh? That is circular: There is no God, evidence that most people untrue things. Except you have nothing but an argument from silence or proof of a negative.

Name ANYTHING THAT IS NOT GOD that close to 100% of believe adhere to FALSELY and I'll agree with you. PLEASE STOP BRINGING GOD INTO THIS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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



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.

SHELDON!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

PLEASE!