Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Dan From Smithville]

I have increasing difficulty to understand your argument.

@Sheldon, @Dan From Smithville, @IndigoChild5559, @night912, sorry to bother you but could you look into our dispute and give your opinion on whether I met BilliardBall's challenge to name an equally irrational belief to theism? Can you explain to me BilliardBall's argument why I didn't meet the challenge?

Unless he can show otherwise, all I see is an argumentum ad populum fallacy from @BilliardsBall and then doubling down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know BillardBall's thoughts, but I recognize something as a skeptic. For all humans for all times and all cases of different contradictory claims, not just about gods, you get that 99% of all humans properly were or are irrational. But that is absurd, because it becomes normal. All normal humans are irrational, so now what?
There is still a humanity, babies are born, lucky people have lives, have children and live good lives if lucky.

Further in an even more absurd sense, to claim to be rational is how weird it might sound a case of special pleading.

Now for this version of rational, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings, I have found it impossible to be rational all the time. And i doubt any other human can do it, including you.

I have often questioned my rationality in going round and round with creationists and literalists and battling it out over the same claims for years and years. I must like it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have often questioned my rationality in going round and round with creationists and literalists and battling it out over the same claims for years and years. I must like it.

Well, I do it with other skeptics. I am a global skeptics, yet most skeptics are limited skeptics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I do it with other skeptics. I am a global skeptics, yet most skeptics are limited skeptics.

I question my own motivations and actions most of all. I have been doing that battle for far longer than any other. Sometimes I win. Sometimes I lose. Sometimes things just get accepted as they are and I live with it.

 

[Sheldon]

One must be open for all possibilities until the truth is Discovered.

I'm going to have to disagree sorry. Open minded yes, accepting something might be possible prima facie without any objective evidence, no.

 

[Sheldon]

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

It's indivisible butter, you have to believe it is there, and have a personal relationship with it, then you will know the butter is there...

Disprove it know...

 

[Sheldon]

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

I suppose the irony of you making this claim while using a no true Scotsman fallacy is wasted on you? though not on others I suspect.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, the best we can is strive to adhere to those principles if we accept rationality is more efficacious way to validate claims beliefs and arguments. The fact that you have relentlessly used known logical fallacies in post after post after post, and again here speaks for itself. The fact you don't seem to care also infers something to me. Other theists here are less evasive and state unequivocally they don't care whether their beliefs or claims are rational.

The real irony is when those same theist call me closed minded, or irrational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suppose the irony of you making this claim while using a no true Scotsman fallacy is wasted on you? though not on others I suspect.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, the best we can is strive to adhere to those principles if we accept rationality is more efficacious way to validate claims beliefs and arguments. The fact that you have relentlessly used known logical fallacies in post after post after post, and again here speaks for itself. The fact you don't seem to care also infers something to me. Other theists here are less evasive and state unequivocally they don't care whether their beliefs or claims are rational.

The real irony is when those same theist call me closed minded, or irrational.

Well, everything can't be done using validation. That is a human behavior and like all other human behavior it only works in some cases and not others.
The way I understand it, is that there is the thinking/feeling independent part of the world, the abstract reasoning, the social world, the individual world and how we all do some of it with variation.
So there is no one validation method for all of it.
So for example for this version of ratitional, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings, I can't be rational all the time.

Even I could avoid all fallacies, I still can't figure out how to be rational all the time.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, everything can't be done using validation. That is a human behavior and like all other human behavior it only works in some cases and not others.
The way I understand it, is that there is the thinking/feeling independent part of the world, the abstract reasoning, the social world, the individual world and how we all do some of it with variation.
So there is no one validation method for all of it.
So for example for this version of ratitional, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings, I can't be rational all the time.

Even I could avoid all fallacies, I still can't figure out how to be rational all the time.

So it's ok for him to use vapid rhetoric about atheism being irrational, in a post where he uses not one, but two known logical fallacies?

 

[Heyo]

I'm going to have to disagree sorry. Open minded yes, accepting something might be possible prima facie without any objective evidence, no.

Accepting something might be possible doesn't require evidence, just imagination. Denying the possibility of something requires proof.
The possibility of something says nothing about the probability of it. That requires some precedent and calculations.

 

[Sheldon]

Accepting something might be possible doesn't require evidence,

Of course it does, are flegaallafoops possible?

just imagination.

I just imagined a flegaallafoop, does that mean you accept they are possible?

Denying the possibility of something requires proof.

I agree, but disbelieving a claim that something is possible does not.

The possibility of something says nothing about the probability of it.

Well one would need to demonstrate something is possible first, as probability is moot otherwise. How probable is a flegaallafoop?

That requires some precedent and calculations.

Again without demonstrating something is possible first, we would appear to be putting our wheezy clapped out old pony behind our cart.

 

[Heyo]

Of course it does, are flegaallafoops possible?

I don't know. Tell me more about flegaallafoops.
(Note that I'm not asking about evidence, just about a definition.)

I just imagined a flegaallafoop, does that mean you accept they are possible?

That claim neither raises nor lowers the probability of it existing.

I agree, but disbelieving a claim that something is possible does not.

I agree, but I didn't object to you disbelieving, I objected to a possibility needing proof.

Btw. do you believe it is possible that life, capable of communicating with us, exists outside of the solar system? What's the evidence (for either case of your answer)?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know. Tell me more about flegaallafoops.
(Note that I'm not asking about evidence, just about a definition.)

That would be evidence, obviously. One cannot assert anything is possible with no evidence, which was what you asserted, and what I gave you.

That claim neither raises nor lowers the probability of it existing.

Clearly as we don't know it is possible, so how can we ascertain probability?

I agree, but I didn't object to you disbelieving, I objected to a possibility needing proof.

Not sure who asked for proof, but it wasn't me. However I'd still maintain we cannot know something is possible without objective evidence.

Btw. do you believe it is possible that life, capable of communicating with us, exists outside of the solar system?

Possible, yes.

What's the evidence (for either case of your answer)?

It is already an objective fact that life can and does exist in the universe.

 

[Heyo]

That would be evidence, obviously. One cannot assert anything is possible with no evidence, which was what you asserted, and what I gave you.

Oh, OK, I have a very detailed description of a school for wizards named Hogwarts. That is a lot of evidence for its existence, isn't it? That makes Hogwarts possible to exist - by your logic and definition of evidence. Right?

[Extrasolar technological life]
Possible, yes.
It is already an objective fact that life can and does exist in the universe.

Is it possible that no technological life exists outside the solar system?

 

[rational experiences]

Human behaviour groups.

Separated from natural family life. Family living conditions. An equal. A place to be innocent. A place to work for the family. A place to be old resting.

Life.

Group says I use my language. My worded explanations agree or else.

No says the single mind.

Okay I will bully you with word use. Or I will bash you. Or murder you......will you agree now?

Does not make any scientists belief reality. Being the history structure into civilization invention control science group first. Religious group second. Too bad natural family life first.

 

[Bird123]

I'm going to have to disagree sorry. Open minded yes, accepting something might be possible prima facie without any objective evidence, no.

Religion has truly corrupted your thinking. You are still into Believing. One who discovers does not accept. One who discovers considers all the possibilities.

Religion has corrupted your thinking. You want knowledge served up so that you can decide what you will believe in. You still do not get it. Burden of proof rests solely on those who seek the knowledge. If you demand it the other way, then you seek others to convince you to believe.

Can you even grasp what I am saying to you or has religion corrupted you to the point you can not see this at all?

As far as your video, it would not take long to discover the truth and one might just get the opportunity to really help another person.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[rational experiences]

Kindergarten for humanity.

Taught by God our father any man's lived human recorded memory. Adult self.

Says my man baby was innocent first. Not guilty of science.

I am a human.

Sex owns my life only and not science.

Basic.

I stand living on O a planet.

Men named it earth as humans and named it God. One God only. The planet.

It owns its own planet heavens.

I live inside of the heavens.

God as one basic natural state. Basic God answer for basic teaching the human baby.

Do not listen baby to anyone else.

Just basic human reality only.

God. The human chosen living evaluation. Do not change it.

Without a planet I don't exist.

Theists talk not about the planet. Not existing in any status first. Theism.

Reason for saying God the one only no other thin king allowed. No explanation needed either.

Human egotists please just stop thinking. Your words hurt my mind. The big con...science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So it's ok for him to use vapid rhetoric about atheism being irrational, in a post where he uses not one, but two known logical fallacies?

The short answer is that I don't know. To me it ends up somewhere between an opinion, a question of morality, politics and psychology.
So do you want the long answer?

 

[rational experiences]

If a group of liars just humans said God is just an atom. I will take God the atom and cause a chain reaction.

God gone. Theist says told you nothing was first.

So his other lying brother two liars science then religious science theists say God has lots of everything substances.

And a human is not one of them.

So the natural neither one of you observer says no man is God.

As both of you argue that he is.

Brother said the three told the only holy truth number one natural observed two brothers.

Position one holy human man natural taught because forced to restate one by position three.

One and three correct as a man. Two of you wrong.

Two reason father and son. Is the same one natural male.

Notice man had to be changed to the same meaning as a male. To teach you were misquoting a humans place. Dominion.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh, OK, I have a very detailed description of a school for wizards named Hogwarts. That is a lot of evidence for its existence, isn't it?

Obviously not, since one can create an imaginary cocept and add detail. Have you ever heard the phrase that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I know schools are possible, as there is sufficient objective evidence for them, there is no objective evidence that wizardry is possible.

That makes Hogwarts possible to exist - by your logic and definition of evidence. Right?

No, that was your logic not mine.

Is it possible that no technological life exists outside the solar system?

Not sure why you've added the word technical, but I just answered that question. All you've done is change it to a negative, can something be both possible and impossible?

Btw. do you believe it is possible that life, capable of communicating with us, exists outside of the solar system?
Possible, yes.

Again we have objective evidence that such life is possible.