Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[night912]

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.

It's irrational to believe that the author of the gospel of Luke was an eyewitness to the events surrounding Jesus. And what's written in Luke 1, is a good reason to not believe that the author was an eyewitness. Don't you think so? Or have you not read it yet and just believe that it's true because a lot of people said that it's true?

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.

Hahaha!!!

Apparently you recognized that your argument is illogical. I didn't mention god and yet you brought it up. So instead of dodging, why don't you just addressed what I said about evolution and this time hold back the strawman. Let's finish the first point before moving on to the next one. Please explain why you believe evolution was wrong at one point in time and then suddenly became true. Explain this first then we can move on to topics relating to god.

And one more thing, you just demonstrated that you are willing to believe that something true even if it's not close to being 100% true.

 

[night912]

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.

I apologize for making you wait, I didn't realize that you need me to explain something this simple to you. So here's what I need you to, read this very carefully so you can understand.

100% - 90% = 10%
It does not equal to 99%. Now do you understand?

And that 90% was from you.

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

It's like what I've said in the past to some other people.

"Sooner or later, your dishonesty will catch up with you and bite you in the a**."

 

[night912]

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.

Sorry, but not all atheists are irrational like you.

Can you explain how a person can be in your way and block you from hearing the audio voice in your head.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Maybe if you had studied more than one language, you'd see your error. You ignored one argument form a previous post, the vastly different "names" of god in different languages.
How do you explain that Latin or Greek based languages all have some variant of "deos" as the name whereas Germanic languages all have a variant of "gott"? There is no way to get from one to the other by simple sound shifts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe if you had studied more than one language, you'd see your error. You ignored one argument form a previous post, the vastly different "names" of god in different languages.
How do you explain that Latin or Greek based languages all have some variant of "deos" as the name whereas Germanic languages all have a variant of "gott"? There is no way to get from one to the other by simple sound shifts.

I don't have to study any other language. I'm making a comment on standard English grammar.

 

[Heyo]

I don't have to study any other language. I'm making a comment on standard English grammar.

Maybe you should start studying English semantics? We are way past the simple grammar. I already conceded that capitalizing god is correct English grammar. But it isn't for the reason you presented. "God" is not a name and it isn't treated as a name, it is a category. Capitalizing god is a religious exception to the normal rules. It is a reverential capitalization. The reverential capitalization also allows you to capitalize "lord" and even "he".

When to Capitalize Religious Terms | Proofed's Writing Tips

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

Okay, can you decide everything using only logic?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Sigh, is Loki a generic term or a proper noun? Do take your time here as you seem to be struggling with this distinction. When I use the word god, am I ever using it as a proper noun? Again think hard, as you are missing the point here, is it deliberate?

In the exact same way, he capitalizes God when speaking of the monotheistic god because it functions as the name of the monotheistic god.

Sigh, not for an atheist, just why you think repetition is going convince me to start using using god as a proper noun only you can know, for me god is a generic term, irrespective of whether I'm speaking about the Aztec god of gluttony or any of the Abrahamic versions of 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.

Yes you already used your appeal to authority fallacy once, it cuts no ice as your bias here is not knowledge. No one is arguing that someone using the word god a proper noun should capitalise, so your grammar argument is redundant. As has been explained exhaustively now, I am not using god as a proper noun, as I don't believe in any one god, rather that god is a generic term.

I'll try an analogy, I know a lot of theists love those. You're swinging away with all your might, but the pinata is behind you.

 

[Sheldon]

Okay, can you decide everything using only logic?

Again that question has no relevance to my post, please stop spinning every post in the direction you want. The questions were addressed to another poster and in a very specific context.

If you want to start a thread on the limitations of logic do so, in this context that is not the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, if most humans are irrational and that includes non-religious, which contradicts each other, then how do you explain that? How come so many humans make irrational claims? What is the explanation?

 

[Sheldon]

Well, if most humans are irrational and that includes non-religious, which contradicts each other, then how do you explain that? How come so many humans make irrational claims? What is the explanation?

Nothing in there addresses my post sorry.

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 don't ignore the specific and spin it in a completely different direction, I have asked politely several times. Or maybe start a thread on logic and epistemology as you seem to want a broad discussion on those topics only.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing in there addresses my post sorry.



Please don't ignore the specific and spin it in a completely different direction, I have asked politely several times. Or maybe start a thread on logic and epistemology as you seem to want a broad discussion on those topics only.

A different definition of rational:
based on or in accordance with reason or logic. From google per Definitions from Oxford Languages.

So according to your rule of how to use definitions, you are wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

A different definition of rational:
based on or in accordance with reason or logic. From google per Definitions from Oxford Languages.

So according to your rule of how to use definitions, you are wrong.

OK, wrong about what? Or is it a secret?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, wrong about what? Or is it a secret?

You didn't use the correct definition of rational.

 

[Sheldon]

You didn't use the correct definition of rational.

Did I offer one then, quote the post please, as I am dubious about your claim?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Although your more of a one-liner comic than interested in engaging the issues, I'll gladly discuss all with you if you can confine yourself to posting to me once or perhaps twice a throw, rather than epexegetically spewing all across this thread and onto conversations with other (more engaged, more sincere) people.

Also, please pass the butter, Sheldon!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Two arguments were made:

Belief in God is false, demonstrating that nearly every person who has ever lived is irrational.

Belief in God leads to belief in magic, anchoring the point above.

Which is it? Only atheists are rational and should be the masters of society or what?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I apologize for making you wait, I didn't realize that you need me to explain something this simple to you. So here's what I need you to, read this very carefully so you can understand.

100% - 90% = 10%
It does not equal to 99%. Now do you understand?

And that 90% was from you.




It's like what I've said in the past to some other people.

"Sooner or later, your dishonesty will catch up with you and bite you in the a**."

You're likely only reading our posts and not the whole thread, where I've mentioned I can live with 90-99% of people are not as irrational as atheists--who won't even admit to agnosticism, because their argument "I am omniscient and therefore know that an invisible God or even a galaxy-sized God nowhere exists."

You're omniscient? I find that irrational. We now have:

All atheists are irrational, so either EVERYONE is irrational or GOD EXISTS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but not all atheists are irrational like you.

Can you explain how a person can be in your way and block you from hearing the audio voice in your head.

Of course they are irrational.

I can prove a negative, "Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge" by simply opening the fridge and having a look.

You are claiming that NOWHERE in the UNIVERSE is POSSIBLY a God, which is a statement of eyes big enough to see the whole fridge (omniscience) and is utterly, of course, irrational.

I'd consider you rational if you were agnostic or just like me, a lover of Jesus Christ, or somewhere between.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's irrational to believe that the author of the gospel of Luke was an eyewitness to the events surrounding Jesus. And what's written in Luke 1, is a good reason to not believe that the author was an eyewitness. Don't you think so? Or have you not read it yet and just believe that it's true because a lot of people said that it's true?



Hahaha!!!

Apparently you recognized that your argument is illogical. I didn't mention god and yet you brought it up. So instead of dodging, why don't you just addressed what I said about evolution and this time hold back the strawman. Let's finish the first point before moving on to the next one. Please explain why you believe evolution was wrong at one point in time and then suddenly became true. Explain this first then we can move on to topics relating to god.

And one more thing, you just demonstrated that you are willing to believe that something true even if it's not close to being 100% true.

I don't follow what you are asking here.

I've repeated (not just with you but every skeptic on this thread) how if you can name ANYTHING in the universe that is NOT GOD that 90-99% of people believe in FALSELY, you can claim an ad populum in the God case.

Since you cannot think of anything else in the universe to describe, you keep coming back to a God argument, proven elsewhere to you today that is an IRRATIONAL argument at best and wholly arrogant (I KNOW EVERYTHING SO I KNOW NO GOD EXISTS, even in the GALAXY OVER THERE) at worst.