Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[BilliardsBall]

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.



So know you know anyway, any thoughts?

PASS THE BUTTER!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

God told me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So any belief is true, since it was derived at by rational people using rational means?
Evolution surpasses those numbers among those that understand it.
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?
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.
Because he is correct and this post I am responding to supports that you are using that fallacy and more.
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]

I'd be tempted to answer you, but nothing of what you said address my point.

Let's reduce from 99% to 90% of people affirm/say/LIVE their truth that God IS.

Name ANYTHING OTHER than God that 90% of people FALSELY adhere to.

Still waiting, and I've asked this multiple times of multiple skeptics and scoffers at RF.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

I was not expressing any belief, you were, so your dishonesty is manifest here again. I don't believe in your god, anymore than you believe in Zeus or Apollo. The difference is that I am open minded.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

The real irony is you are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but don't understand that.

What does irrational mean?

Start there....

 

[Sheldon]

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!

Sadly until you learn and understand what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is, and what a logical fallacy means, the idiocy of your claim is going to be lost on you.

 

[Sheldon]

quod erat demonstrandum:

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

Then you clearly don't know what quod erat demonstrandum means, just as you don't understand that a bare appeal to numbers is a known logical fallacy, since you keep hilariously repeating it here, as if you have deciphered the dead sea scrolls.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Genetic science has shown unequivocally that the human genome could not have emerged from just Adam and Eve ever, let alone a few thousand years ago, which is preposterous.

<HERE>

 

[Sheldon]

Being an atheist means you think 99% of people are irrational

No it doesn't, it means you don't believe in any deity or deities, and nothing more.

 

[Heyo]

quod erat demonstrandum:

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

I don't understand what you intend to say with that. It seems to me your argument is that a belief in magic is not false. And you want to support that argument with an anecdote?

 

[Sheldon]

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!

So you don't know then, thought so. That was the impression your posts were giving.

 

[Sheldon]

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!

So you haven't even the pretence of an answer, thought so, that is certainly the impression your posts were giving. Thank you for confirming you can't even explain what rational means, despite you accusing others of being irrational.

That's pretty ironic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you haven't even the pretence of an answer, thought so, that is certainly the impression your posts were giving. Thank you for confirming you can't even explain what rational means, despite you accusing others of being irrational.

That's pretty ironic.

Well, even logic has a limit. For X is Y or X is not Y, where both are unknown, you can't use logic to decide anything.

You can also see that with the distinction between sound and valid in deductions.

 

[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).

NB A response, which billiard balls has ignored of course.

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.

So know you know anyway, any thoughts?

PASS THE BUTTER!

So clearly you're either trolling, or way way out of your depth. Or both of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, even logic has a limit. For X is Y or X is not Y, where both are unknown, you can't use logic to decide anything.

You can also see that with the distinction between sound and valid in deductions.

Sorry I don't see any relevance to my post at all, again?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry I don't see any relevance to my post at all, again?

Does logic has a limit for what it can decide?

 

[Sheldon]

Does logic has a limit for what it can decide?

1. I asked another poster what rational means, since he was clearly misusing the word.
2. You interjected with an irrelevant question.
3. Logic doesn't make decisions, look the word up.
4. Why do you persist with this nonsense?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't get it. Whether you believe in any particualar god has no bearing on the grammatical rule of capitalizing a name. And "God" is the functional name of the monotheistic god.

 

[Sheldon]

You don't get it. Whether you believe in any particualar god has no bearing on the grammatical rule of capitalizing a name. And "God" is the functional name of the monotheistic god.

1. Who are you talking to?
2. Yes it obviously does as you yourself have used monotheistic belief multiple times to justify your argument, you cannot have it both ways.
3. There is no monotheistic god to an atheist, thus your repetition is meaningless to any atheist, just as god is not a proper noun to me as an atheist. I shall let other atheists speak for themselves.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Who are you talking to?
2. Yes it obviously does as you yourself have used monotheistic belief multiple times to justify your augment, you cannot have it both ways.
3. There is no monotheistic god to an atheist, thus your repetition is meaningless to any atheist, just as god is not a proper noun to me as an atheist. I shall let other atheists speak for themselves.

You keep on engaging in flawed reasoning. It doesn't matter that the Atheist doesn't believe in Loki -- he still is to capitalize Loki. In the exact same way, he capitalizes God when speaking of the monotheistic god because it functions as the name of the monotheistic god.

This is not my opinion as a theist. This is my knowledge as a person who has studied English and spent time editing grammar books.