Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Sheldon]

You seem to deal so much in Beliefs.

What's your point?

Is this sufficient evidence of religion's corruption?

I don't know what you're asking.

Your actions and choices demonstrate the evidence in question.

What actions, what evidence, all you've done is make a bare claim.

It's just like God's actions demonstrate God. Can you see??

All I see is a begging the question fallacy, and a circular reasoning fallacy.

Once again, you want me to supply you evidence so you can decide whether to Believe or not.

I want nothing, you are making claims, if you want me to believe those claims then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence.

Clearly, you do not understand what I have been saying.

You do seem to have the theistic penchant for vague cryptic and unevidenced claims.

What do you do when things are not clear??

I don't have enough information to answer.

Do you wait for the answers to come to you? Do you seek in life??? What do you seek?

Again these questions seem cryptic, so I can't give a candid answer.

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

That is not the impression your posts give. You didn't address the logical fallacies you used that I explained, and have now used more here. I'm not sure clarity is demonstrated in irrational claims.

 

[Bird123]

What's your point?



I don't know what you're asking.



What actions, what evidence, all you've done is make a bare claim.



All I see is a begging the question fallacy, and a circular reasoning fallacy.



I want nothing, you are making claims, if you want me to believe those claims then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence.



You do seem to have the theistic penchant for vague cryptic and unevidenced claims.



I don't have enough information to answer.



Again these questions seem cryptic, so I can't give a candid answer.



That is not the impression your posts give. You didn't address the logical fallacies you used that I explained, and have now used more here. I'm not sure clarity is demonstrated in irrational claims.

your quote:I want nothing, you are making claims, if you want me to believe those claims then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence.

My Answer: This is where you have been corrupted. Religion wants you to Believe. Getting you to Believe or to convince you of anything has never ever been my goal.

Widen your view really wide!!! Open your mind and stretch your thinking!! Look around you. It is all there.

I copy God. I am placing Truth in the world. This is all God and I am doing. The rest has always been in your hands. God isn't telling you any more. God doesn't try to convince you of anything. Neither am I.

Is it getting clearer for you?? I know this isn't what you expect from most people, however it is the best way and I copy it from High Intelligence.

I might shine a light in your eye or place a bit of knowledge in your lap, however you decide it all for yourself. You have the information. What will you do with it? This is what Life is truly about.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to have ignored the objective evidence, and I don't know what "text" your talking about.

" When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.

If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. "

I don't know what you are claiming is meaningless, or why you are claiming it is meaningless, so that at least is meaningless.

In your experience does debate always lead to learning?

I've learned a little bit about how to navigate this forum, and a few of the editing functions are becoming a little less obscure.

I've learned that using a dictionary as a point of reference for common usage, can be misrepresented as some sort of absolute, by people who make absolute claims while citing obscure tomes most people won't even know exists.

I've learned that many people don't ever seem to have seen a Venn diagram.

I would like to know if it is objectively true as intendent of all thinking/feeling that these obscure tomes are actually objectively obscure tomes?

 

[Sheldon]

your quote:I want nothing, you are making claims, if you want me to believe those claims then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence.

My Answer: This is where you have been corrupted. Religion wants you to Believe. Getting you to Believe or to convince you of anything has never ever been my goal.

Yet you keep reeling of claims, and claiming everything is clear, so an oddly incongruous thing to say. If religion wants me to believe, and you want your claims to have any meaning, then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence. However you goal seems safe enough, as you have offered me nothing to examine let alone believe.

Widen your view really wide!!! Open your mind and stretch your thinking!! Look around you. It is all there.

Open minded simply mean treating claims without bias. What is all where? You're still making cryptic claims.

I copy God. I am placing Truth in the world. This is all God and I am doing.

Three more entirely unevidenced claims, now that really is very clear.

God doesn't try to convince you of anything. Neither am I.

That is patently untrue, you made unevidenced claims endlessly.

Is it getting clearer for you?? I know this isn't what you expect from most people, however it is the best way and I copy it from High Intelligence.

Nope, your unevidenced claims are as cryptic as ever, and describing your verbiage as high intelligence is ludicrous hyperbole most intelligent people would be embarrassed to make.

I might shine a light in your eye or place a bit of knowledge in your lap, however you decide it all for yourself. You have the information. What will you do with it? This is what Life is truly about.

Unevidenced assertions are not knowledge. Your posts make claim after claim, but offer no objective evidence.

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

Every time you say that, all it shows is a closed mind. It's odd you can't see it.

 

[Bird123]

Yet you keep reeling of claims, and claiming everything is clear, so an oddly incongruous thing to say. If religion wants me to believe, and you want your claims to have any meaning, then they will need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence. However you goal seems safe enough, as you have offered me nothing to examine let alone believe.



Open minded simply mean treating claims without bias. What is all where? You're still making cryptic claims.



Three more entirely unevidenced claims, now that really is very clear.



That is patently untrue, you made unevidenced claims endlessly.



Nope, your unevidenced claims are as cryptic as ever, and describing your verbiage as high intelligence is ludicrous hyperbole most intelligent people would be embarrassed to make.



Unevidenced assertions are not knowledge. Your posts make claim after claim, but offer no objective evidence.



Every time you say that, all it shows is a closed mind. It's odd you can't see it.

Look in the mirror. Do you see how you value beliefs? Do you see how you want to value beliefs? Do you see how you want to be convinced to believe?

You say atheists aren't about beliefs yet that's all you want. Are you really any different than theists? I don't see it.

If I place truth in the world to you. It is your choice to determine what I say is true. It is your choice to investigate further and Discover what is the truth. If you seek, based on anything I say, you must be the one who Discovers the answers. I can not do it for you. You will have to do the work.

Since, I am not trying to convince you to believe anything, you can not expect me to be the religious way you seem to need. I will not feed those beliefs.

Want to know the truth? Work at Discovery. Don't care to know the truth? Your free choice is an important part of God's system. Why would I ever want to undermine that??

Maybe a story will help you: We are all lost in the desert. It's hot, dry and there is no water. We happened to come across each other. I say to you: If you walk due east you will find water after two hours of walking. Isn't the rest up to you???

Your journey is up to you. Your choices are up to you. Do I really need to feed your need for beliefs? Do I really need you to follow me? I want you able to stand on your own two feet. Throw the crutches away.

Make those choices. Discover those answers. Must you wait for others to discover the answers for you so you can rely on what you want to rely on most? BELIEFS!!!!

I think religion has corrupted your thinking in ways you are blind to see. That's why you hang onto them so tightly even as you fight to get away.

Sure, I will be a kind soul and point. The water is two hours walking to the east. The rest is up to you. I will not be the crutch that binds you into the world of Beliefs. Venture out and see what you can Discover. It's the only way things can become really clear.

Question is: Will you find the water??

Life is Grand. We are all surrounded by Genius. Hopefully, one day you will Discover this for yourself. On the other hand, there is no time limit on learning. It is all just a matter of time.

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

 

[Sheldon]

Look in the mirror. Do you see how you value beliefs? Do you see how you want to value beliefs? Do you see how you want to be convinced to believe?

I have no idea what it is you're trying to convey here.

You say atheists aren't about beliefs yet that's all you want.

I've not only never claimed this, I have stated more than once that all humans must form beliefs about the world in order to function. However a belief need not be unevidenced.

Are you really any different than theists? I don't see it.

Theists believe in a deity or deities, atheists do not, that is the difference. beyond that you'd need to ask an atheist what they do or do not believe.

If I place truth in the world to you. It is your choice to determine what I say is true. It is your choice to investigate further and Discover what is the truth. If you seek, based on anything I say, you must be the one who Discovers the answers. I can not do it for you. You will have to do the work.

That's nonsense, do you believe in bellygloopolose? Off you go and find the evidence.

Since, I am not trying to convince you to believe anything, you can not expect me to be the religious way you seem to need. I will not feed those beliefs.

You are contently making claims, albeit unevidenced claims, thus you are trying to convince me. I need nothing, if someone makes a claim it is for them to demonstrate sufficient evidence for the claim.

Want to know the truth? Work at Discovery. Don't care to know the truth? Your free choice is an important part of God's system. Why would I ever want to undermine that??

Again you are making a claim that a deity exists, and therefore it is entirely incumbent on you to evidence that claim. I don't know what you think is being undermined, or why?

Maybe a story will help you: We are all lost in the desert. It's hot, dry and there is no water. We happened to come across each other. I say to you: If you walk due east you will find water after two hours of walking. Isn't the rest up to you???

I have no idea what your analogy is meant to explain? I also know water exists and is possible, I don't know that any deity is possible.

Your journey is up to you. Your choices are up to you. Do I really need to feed your need for beliefs? Do I really need you to follow me? I want you able to stand on your own two feet. Throw the crutches away.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy, and you're making one unevidenced assumption after another. I don't need to follow anyone, you don't need to feed my beliefs, those are based on how much objective evidence can be demonstrated to support them. You're making a claim, I am asking you to demonstrate some objective evidence to support it. The analogy of the crutches is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Make those choices. Discover those answers. Must you wait for others to discover the answers for you so you can rely on what you want to rely on most? BELIEFS!!!!

What answers, all I've seen in decades is theists making bare claims, if there is more than a subjective anecdotal belief that allows theists to believe all manner of conflicting ideas they like, then why can they not demonstrate anything?

I think religion has corrupted your thinking in ways you are blind to see.

Another no true Scotsman fallacy, I believe I explained this already, so an irrational claim.

That's why you hang onto them so tightly even as you fight to get away.

Hang to what? Fight to get away from what/ I have no idea what that means.

Sure, I will be a kind soul and point. The water is two hours walking to the east. The rest is up to you. I will not be the crutch that binds you into the world of Beliefs. Venture out and see what you can Discover. It's the only way things can become really clear.

Question is: Will you find the water??

It's a meaningless analogy sorry, water I need, and know exists, and is therefore possible. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity is possible or is real? I can't find something until there is something to find. No matter how many other people claim to have found it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you think these hold truth's?

No, those are really just more stupid attempts from antitheists to insult those who don't agree with them. It sounds like eugenicist thinking, honestly. If you believe in God, spirits/souls, an afterlife, you're "mentally ill", "poorly educated", "stupid", "low IQ", "superstitious", "primitive", etc.

 

[lukethethird]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness.

Do you think these hold truth's?

Victims of religious indoctrination are not necessarily mentally ill.

 

[firedragon]

Victims of religious indoctrination are not necessarily mentally ill.

A lot of evangelical type atheists are indoctrinated. Heavily But they are not mentally ill.

 

[lukethethird]

A lot of evangelical type atheists are indoctrinated. Heavily But they are not mentally ill.

How does that work?

 

[firedragon]

How does that work?

Let's take the famous four horsemen, one of them being the man, Richard Dawkins. They have a habit of making it not an epistemic entitlement to "belief". Forgetting if God really exists or not, lets say all of that is just blind belief, the idea that people dont have an epistemic entitlement but has to prove their proposition or position is a new thing and most of the Atheistic apologists have adopted that blindly. It is repeated, and indoctrinated.

Some atheistic apologists have a habit of making religion to be the cause of violence throughout history. It is repeated by these so called atheistic big guns in all of their speeches and the hearers are indoctrinated to believe that. Atheists generally have an idea that they hold a monopoly on science and reason, but this is an unscientific and unreasonable claim. When people keep repeating it even though there is no evidence to it it is indoctrination. Two people considered to be atheists wrote probably the most sophisticated book on wars in history. It was called the encyclopaedia of wars. The two gentlemen are Alan and Charles, I cant remember their surnames. One was Axelroid. If you take a count of all the wars only 7% of them can even be remotely associated with religion. So this famous atheistic missionary proposition is just false, but they are indoctrinated to repeat it.

This could go on to be a book.

Cheers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Puerile ad hominem, and your is a possessive pronoun.



I will post as and when I am minded to, and you may engage or not as you are minded to. If you continue to make unevidenced claims, and base arguments on known logical fallacies, like the argumentum ad populum fallacy you used repeatedly, that a few posters including me pointed out, while you kept implying you were being rational, then I will point out such contradictions. Since this is a debate forum after all.

I'd like for you to address what I wrote. I acknowledge your insistence of my ad populum and know what an ad pop is. I'm asking you to respond to the context, because sometimes the majority believe something true.

1) In most cases, the majority are correct regarding established facts.

2) Most people, past or present, are religious/believe the numinous.

3) Your resolution--most people believe in god despite the facts--is equivalent to "nearly every person is so irrational, they disobey #1 above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd be tempted to answer, but I do not understand the question. It does not seem rational or based on any evidence. At least, none you have supplied.

Or is this some hypothetical situation? In that case, any answer is sufficient. Just change the parameters of the hypothetical.

Why don't you provide the evidence you have used to derive your percentages. Do 99% of people believe in God? Do 90%? What is the standard you are using to show belief? Is it merely saying they believe?

You seem to be posting a lot and saying nothing at all.

I understand ad populum.

Are you claiming that a minority of persons are religious/believe in God/the numinous?

Let's start with most people are religious combined with the context: most of the time, when most people agree on a fact, they are correct.

I'm dealing with atheists at RF, a tiny minority of the population of the world, who are de facto insisting in the extreme irrationality of most people because they believe in an invisible sky god(s).

YOU are highly intelligent and highly rational, how do you respond to atheists who tell you that you are also highly deceived or that your parents or teachers "tricked" you into being religious?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd like for you to address what I wrote. I acknowledge your insistence of my ad populum and know what an ad pop is. I'm asking you to respond to the context, because sometimes the majority believe something true.

1) In most cases, the majority are correct regarding established facts.

2) Most people, past or present, are religious/believe the numinous.

3) Your resolution--most people believe in god despite the facts--is equivalent to "nearly every person is so irrational, they disobey #1 above.

He is using a folk belief about irrationality. It is that simple.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

My apologies, I can clarify:

I understand ad pop, but also that most of the time it follows that when most people believe in an established fact the fact is also true (people are generally rational).

Therefore it strikes me that the underlying argument for atheism if God does NOT exist is "most people are irrational and not rational". I find that ridiculous on its face.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How about you stop dodging and actually address my points. That means no strawman arguments.

Gladly after you address my point:

1) Most people are rational, therefore, despite the occasional use of ad populum, because majority belief does NOT equal truth, in general, when a majority believes in an established fact it IS also a true fact

2) Therefore, the atheist rationale (most people are irrational to believe in a non-existent God) seems highly irrational.

If #2 isn't true, please explain why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My apologies, I can clarify:

I understand ad pop, but also that most of the time it follows that when most people believe in an established fact the fact is also true (people are generally rational).

Therefore it strikes me that the underlying argument for atheism if God does NOT exist is "most people are irrational and not rational". I find that ridiculous on its face.

The problem is that no humans are in the strict sense rational all the time as far as I can tell. Rationality is a Greek philosophical and it was shown not to work by Rene Descartes. But the idea of rationality lives on as a folk belief.

 

[Sheldon]

I'd like for you to address what I wrote. I acknowledge your insistence of my ad populum and know what an ad pop is. I'm asking you to respond to the context, because sometimes the majority believe something true.

I'm not seeing your point, and an ad populum fallacy is by definition an irrational claim, and you kept repeating it, but now you seem to be admitting that you knew it was irrational?

1) In most cases, the majority are correct regarding established facts.

Are they? That seems like another bare appeal to numbers to me, since it is an unevidenced sweeping generalisation. I'd need to see some objective evidence for that claim, perhaps context would also be valuable.

2) Most people, past or present, are religious/believe the numinous.

That seems correct.

3) Your resolution--most people believe in god despite the facts--is equivalent to "nearly every person is so irrational, they disobey #1 above.

The first claim is not mine, it's a straw man you've created, the second claim is another straw man I have never claimed, and it seems like a false equivalence fallacy to me. Though given the number of known logical fallacies you indulge per post, I suspect you're not helping your cause here.

I can't help address what all theists believe as the demographic is pretty diverse, however if you want to present a rational argument for a deity I'm happy to listen. Though i should say up front I don't believe it is possible to argue something into or out of existence, that objective evidence would be required to demonstrate something is extant. If something doesn't exist there would be no data to examine, so I would be inclined to disbelieve any claim for which no, or insufficient objective evidence could be demonstrated. though it would be irrational to claim something was disproved through a lack of evidence, as that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

If a claim is unfalsifiable I must be an agnostic about it, but I would also disbelieve such claims.

 

[Sheldon]

I understand ad populum.

Yet you keep using the fallacy? As you have done here again:

when most people agree on a fact, they are correct.

I'm dealing with atheists at RF, a tiny minority of the population of the world, who are de facto insisting in the extreme irrationality of most people because they believe in an invisible sky god(s).

No, most atheists here have not made that claim, in fact I have only seen you make it and assign it generically to "most atheists". I've never made the claim in that way, though you do keep using known logical fallacies in almost every post.

YOU are highly intelligent and highly rational, how do you respond to atheists who tell you that you are also highly deceived or that your parents or teachers "tricked" you into being religious?

Well this wasn't addressed to me, but I inclined to think I have a fairly middling intellect, and rationality is not really something one achieves as much as strives to be. lastly no atheist has ever said that to me. Though my mother did try to get me indoctrinated into the christen faith, it didn't work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not seeing your point, and an ad populum fallacy is by definition an irrational claim, and you kept repeating it, but now you seem to be admitting that you knew it was irrational?



Are they? That seems like another bare appeal to numbers to me, since it is an unevidenced sweeping generalisation. I'd need to see some objective evidence for that claim, perhaps context would also be valuable.



That seems correct.



The first claim is not mine, it's a straw man you've created, the second claim is another straw man I have never claimed, and it seems like a false equivalence fallacy to me. Though given the number of known logical fallacies you indulge per post, I suspect you're not helping your cause here.

I can't help address what all theists believe as the demographic is pretty diverse, however if you want to present a rational argument for a deity I'm happy to listen. Though i should say up front I don't believe it is possible to argue something into or out of existence, that objective evidence would be required to demonstrate something is extant. If something doesn't exist there would be no data to examine, so I would be inclined to disbelieve any claim for which no, or insufficient objective evidence could be demonstrated. though it would be irrational to claim something was disproved through a lack of evidence, as that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

If a claim is unfalsifiable I must be an agnostic about it, but I would also disbelieve such claims.

One small note about the bold.

For objective reality in itself, it exists, but it is unknown what it is other than it exists. It has no observable properties because that requires a mind and then it is not objective reality in itself.