Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Sheldon]

I understand your Boolean/overlap diagram and your concepts. I'm not making an appeal to numbers, I'm rather suggesting that you, not I, by implication, are suggesting that nearly every person on Earth is irrational, making countless decisions based on their belief in invisible beings.

No I got the straw man fallacy, continued within your false dichotomy fallacy. You can keep trying to assign the claim to me, it is still a fallacy as I never made it. rationality can't be applied in an absolute sense like that. For a start there is no one deity, as theists believe in and have believed in a large number of different deities, that they believe there is only one deity, belies this fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't talking about things that may exist but be undetectable, I stated that non-existent things necessarily leave no data to examine.

Yeah, that is a sort of a tautology.

 

[Heyo]

Help me flow what you're saying so I understand:

1) 90%-99% (and we know 90% is generous) of people in our modern enlightened times believe in one or more nonexistent beings and live their lives as if those beings will judge them for their moral code

I didn't say that the beings they believe in are non-existent - just that they don't have a rational reason to believe.
And the ad populum doesn't help - as they all believe in different beings with different morals.
About 68% of people don't believe in Jesus as a saviour. By your logic you must think that 68% of people are irrational in their beliefs.
Of those 32% about half believes that the Pope is Jesus' representative on Earth. I.e. an additional 16% must be irrational for a total of 84%.
From the remaining 16% at least 1 out of 16 don't "live their lives if they will be judged for their moral code".
The remaining 15% are atheists.

2) Either everyone is a nut job and only atheists are rational or vice versa

There are quite a few nut job atheists. They just happen to be rational about the belief in gods. That doesn't say they are overall rational. (And theists can be rational in other topics than religion.)

3) Occam's Razor -- atheists are either irrational or morally not wishing to have God in conscience or -- as individuals -- have not yet encountered God in their lives

Doesn't apply. See 2)

4) Fortunately, the Bible prescribes what to do when you encounter God, reverence God and trust in God for eternal life

As does the Qur'an, the Tao te Ching, the Wiccan Rede and the Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Unfortunately they all say something different.

 

[Sheldon]

Knowing both ad populum and its obvious modifier, that, for example, most people believe gravity enough to not jump off buildings AND they are right, and most people disbelieve in a flat Earth AND they are correct, etc., etc. ad infinitum

the difference has nothing to do with the number of people who believe those things, it is that they are supporetd by sufficient objective evidence. A bare appeal to numbers as the bare part suggests, is not, that is why it is a fallacy.

--people are generally rational--

I don't agree, since inventing a complex method of reasoning with strict principle of validation would be pretty pointless if as you keep asserting "most people are generally rational".

most people adhere to facts and not fiction which modifies an appeal to numbers--

No, you're just misrepresenting an ad populum fallacy, as it is a bare appeal to numbers, if there were facts it would not be a "bare" appeal. A scientific consensus is significant because the demographic it appeals to would not validate a bare claim. Again you made a bare appeal to numbers, that's why everyone has tried repeatedly to explain this to you.

YOU have the burden of proof to explain why most of us humans consistently obey or attempt mightily to obey invisible sky gods.

No I don't, that's called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and of course is also another bare appeal to numbers. Lets try this once more then...

The number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

In logic, nothing is proved nor disproved because of a lack of evidence. Thus it is irrational to insist someone has a burden of proof to "disprove" your claim.

You are also not describing one belief, as I and others have explained, though we refer to it as theism, this encompasses many different beliefs, and a massive number of different deities, and different versions of the same deity. You believe one is real, try explaining why you think it is objectively different to the others, without using logical fallacies, or bare subjective claims.

You've explained ad populum and my appeal to numbers over a dozen times, which seems excessive.

Oh I agree, but yet you still keep using them. like here:

Perhaps now answer why nearly everyone but a handful of atheists STILL obeys invisible nonexistent sky gods who've never appeared to us in all of recorded history.

That is the very definition of a bare appeal to numbers.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, that is a sort of a tautology.

No it isn't they are different assertions.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't say that the beings they believe in are non-existent - just that they don't have a rational reason to believe.
And the ad populum doesn't help - as they all believe in different beings with different morals.
About 68% of people don't believe in Jesus as a saviour. By your logic you must think that 68% of people are irrational in their beliefs.
Of those 32% about half believes that the Pope is Jesus' representative on Earth. I.e. an additional 16% must be irrational for a total of 84%.
From the remaining 16% at least 1 out of 16 don't "live their lives if they will be judged for their moral code".
The remaining 15% are atheists.

There are quite a few nut job atheists. They just happen to be rational about the belief in gods. That doesn't say they are overall rational. (And theists can be rational in other topics than religion.)

Doesn't apply. See 2)

As does the Qur'an, the Tao te Ching, the Wiccan Rede and the Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Unfortunately they all say something different.

How about asking BillardsBall to offer a rational argument for his deity, that way he can demonstrate whether your claim is wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it isn't they are different assertions.

Everything that exists has properties. If there are no properties, there are no data.

 

[firedragon]

Ah. So you asked to feel good.

Nice. Have a good day.

All I know is that you can't deal with atheists, which is your problem, not mine. There are thousands upon thousands of priests indoctrinating their flock every week and you claim atheists are indoctrinated because of four people. Do you realize how silly you sound?[/QUOTE]

Thanks some ad hominem.

You asked a question, I answered, you use ad hominem.

Please ask if you have any more questions.

 

[Sheldon]

Everything that exists has properties. If there are no properties, there are no data.

Now you're just repeating my original claim back to me?

If something doesn't exist there would be no data to examine,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you're just repeating my original claim back to me?

Yeah, non-existence has no properties and data requires properties, so no properties is no different than no data.

 

[lukethethird]

Thanks some ad hominem.

You asked a question, I answered, you use ad hominem.

Please ask if you have any more questions.

You have a problem with atheists, too bad, your problem, not mine.

 

[night912]

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.

Gladly, after you stop dodging my points and address them.

 

[firedragon]

You have a problem with atheists, too bad, your problem, not mine.

Lol. Alright mate. Cheers.

 

[rational experiences]

We live and are conscious.

Men theoried designed invented created own control thinking non stop.

But you never invented created presence of form.

All you consciously can claim I personally created from is sperm.

As conscious claim I was involved as two making one. A human baby.

As a human in science.

Now you know machines use our heavens to transmit recorded image of anything from machine to machine. Of anything active inactive in darkness or in light.

And the transmitted conditions speaking owning noise music is not any God.

Proven to you every single technical moment by components of particles you manipulate

So you have to conclude your machine theme a God status totally fake AI.

If you say there somehow seems to be another condition that human and animals own then it is true as we are not all actors in a movie. Nor as we live do we act or speak spiritually in the transmitted machine relays.

So if we own the manifested unconditional eternal spirit direct. That changed its form. Then we did.

We are the living spirit identified as ownership. Who tried to re own where they came from.

So lost half our natural identified life to a transitional recorded status that only bio existing owns.

Personally.

Never a machine. Machine recordings. Machine transmissions.

Direct inherited spirit life. A pre existing being having a lowered life experience.

To clarify what we caused to ourselves is real and only the living biology relate to it.

Just so science owning their machine partner keeps their machine relationships just for their own science selves.

As your machine transmitting at my life did not invent me.

 

[Bird123]

No you haven't, you have just made a bare unevidenced claim, as do many others who find a very different deity to yours.



You will have to give me some clue what you're referring to?



Indeed, but why don't we focus on your posts, as they are not being very clear, despite being overly verbose.



Then what are these endless unevidenced claims for?



Do you know what a begging the question fallacy is?



Great, but you need to make sure what you're claiming is clear, and that you offer something more than bare assertions.

What I have told you will become clear once you have Discovered more. Until then you will just have to muddle through.

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't understand the bold one.

Pardon me, suggested either God IS (exists) or nearly everyone is highly looney!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Pretty sure you are have implied precisely that with your false dichotomy about either a deity exists or everyone is irrational. See you believe a deity exists so...well you can see the implication without it being spelled out surely?



Where do you get all these wonderful stats from? As if we didn't know. 99.99999% of all stats are made up on the spot...



Same as every other time you asked, you're using a false dichotomy fallacy. Firstly there is no one deity, as theists believe in a large number of different deities. Secondly one irrational belief doesn't justify calling someone irrational in an absolute sense, rationality is something you strive for, not something you achieve as an absolute. So people are not either rational or irrational, but rather some people are more rational than others, think of it as a scale, and if someone uses known logical fallacies in pretty much every post, and even repeats them after they are explained, then which end of that scale do you imagine they would be?

Why do not accept your own concepts?

1) There is no god(s)

2) Anyone who believes in one god or more than one god is in error, without the facts

3) Therefore, only atheists are "put in here whatever makes you feel superior"

 

[BilliardsBall]

the difference has nothing to do with the number of people who believe those things, it is that they are supporetd by sufficient objective evidence. A bare appeal to numbers as the bare part suggests, is not, that is why it is a fallacy.



I don't agree, since inventing a complex method of reasoning with strict principle of validation would be pretty pointless if as you keep asserting "most people are generally rational".



No, you're just misrepresenting an ad populum fallacy, as it is a bare appeal to numbers, if there were facts it would not be a "bare" appeal. A scientific consensus is significant because the demographic it appeals to would not validate a bare claim. Again you made a bare appeal to numbers, that's why everyone has tried repeatedly to explain this to you.



No I don't, that's called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and of course is also another bare appeal to numbers. Lets try this once more then...

The number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

In logic, nothing is proved nor disproved because of a lack of evidence. Thus it is irrational to insist someone has a burden of proof to "disprove" your claim.

You are also not describing one belief, as I and others have explained, though we refer to it as theism, this encompasses many different beliefs, and a massive number of different deities, and different versions of the same deity. You believe one is real, try explaining why you think it is objectively different to the others, without using logical fallacies, or bare subjective claims.



Oh I agree, but yet you still keep using them. like here:



That is the very definition of a bare appeal to numbers.

I appreciate your pursuit of claiming where I've failed to win a debate, for example, an ad populum claim from you is a way to say "In a debate, you've not proved X is a fact" yet I may still be claiming a fact, i.e., c'mon Sheldon, everyone knows gravity tugs at objects with mass.

I'd love for you to answer some of my questions with an answer and not "you made this error of debating", for examples:

1) Name ANYTHING in the KNOWN UNIVERSE that 90% of people believe in error (that isn't God or magical thinking)?

2) Explain the Bible's prescience that the Jews would be persecuted in nations around the world, get back their land in a day and defeat all their enemies soundly for decades after?

3) Why do you not place appeals to numbers or ad populums in context (when most people agree on a fact they are very often correct because people are rational and not as irrational as you claim)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say that the beings they believe in are non-existent - just that they don't have a rational reason to believe.
And the ad populum doesn't help - as they all believe in different beings with different morals.
About 68% of people don't believe in Jesus as a saviour. By your logic you must think that 68% of people are irrational in their beliefs.
Of those 32% about half believes that the Pope is Jesus' representative on Earth. I.e. an additional 16% must be irrational for a total of 84%.
From the remaining 16% at least 1 out of 16 don't "live their lives if they will be judged for their moral code".
The remaining 15% are atheists.

There are quite a few nut job atheists. They just happen to be rational about the belief in gods. That doesn't say they are overall rational. (And theists can be rational in other topics than religion.)

Doesn't apply. See 2)

As does the Qur'an, the Tao te Ching, the Wiccan Rede and the Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Unfortunately they all say something different.

You are begging the question (my question), for example, telling me "the Qur'an, the Tao te Ching, the Wiccan Rede and the Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy" is supporting my resolution:

Resolved: Nearly everyone has some god(s) beliefs and live by the light of them, therefore, if no god exists, nearly everyone is highly irrational.

You cannot have it both ways. Either 95% of people are irrational (nonexistent sky god beliefs) or atheists are willful/or have yet to encounter God as have the 95%

Which is more likely, let's keep it simple?

95% of people are irrational or 5% of people are willful or lack certain experiences?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pardon me, suggested either God IS (exists) or nearly everyone is highly looney!

Yeah, but I understand highly looney differently. So to me you are using a cultural version of how to "shame" people by claiming they are something they are not. So to me irrational is not the same highly looney.
All humans are irrational, because nobody can do this as rational: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings.
As cultural history is a greek philosophical idea, that is not possible in practice.

Ask for more if you want my opinion, but remember I am a global skeptic.