Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[BilliardsBall]

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

I've noticed this pattern with you before:

1) I raise issues which you ignore

2) You move the goalposts

3) I ask you to address my issues/questions for the FIRST time

4) You jump your place in line and say I have to answer you FIRST

I must conclude you don't want to respectfully debate me so let's close this discussion for now.

Thanks.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Yes, nearly everyone is highly irrational. Either because there is no god and it is irrational to make one up or because there is a god and nearly everyone believes in the wrong one (and must have come to that belief by irrational means). It is tautologically true that nearly everyone is 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?

It is not a question of chance when I have proven that most people must be irrational in their beliefs.

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

You keep ignoring the fact that people believe in widely different gods.

Do we agree that people in fact believe in different gods or are you denying that fact?

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

I think that it depends on the form the belief takes. Audible voices can be troubling, but visions may be valid. Scriptural literalists are generally those with low levels of education. There are many factors involved, so it's not a yes or no answer.

 

[Sheldon]

What I have told you will become clear once you have Discovered more.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Until then you will just have to muddle through.

I don't see any evidence for that claim. My lack of belief in deities is no more muddling than yours, and you only disbelieve in one less deity than me. And many other theists use your claims here to believe in some of those other deities that you don't believe are real. Maybe you will understand when you know more? Maybe in the meantime you will have to muddle through believing in the wrong deity?

Me I see no objective difference between any deities, only the claims may vary.

 

[Sheldon]

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

It has been explained that this is a false dichotomy fallacy. It is possible to be wrong and not be "highly loony" or even remotely loony.

 

[Sheldon]

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"

1) That's not a concept it is a claim, and I have never made this claim. In fact I have gone to great lengths to explain that my atheism is a lack of belief, and that I don't make assertions or claims to knowledge when the concept of a deity is unfalsifiable.
2) I have never made this claim in the generic way you have, you are using a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
3) That's just ad hominem, you're not addressing what is being said, you're just insulting the person for saying they don't share your belief, and for saying why.

You have of course ignored the entire content of my post you are pretending to respond to. It seems you want to keep using logical fallacies, and don't want to address this when it is pointed out.

 

[Sheldon]

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" .

That's not how logic works at all. If you violate a basic principle of logic, by using a known logical fallacy, then that claim or argument is irrational by definition. You clearly don't want to address that, but blaming me for pointing it out is silly. Secondly this is a debate forum, but it is not formal debate, there is no wining or losing, it is up to each person how much they want to contribute, and how much of what they read they want to honestly digest.

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)?

I answer all you questions, you just either ignore my answers, or resort to ad hominem attacks. However here goes again then.

1. I have answered this repeatedly, the number of people that believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief, to claim otherwise is an ad populum fallacy. So it doesn't matter if this were the only example, it would still be an irrational bare appeal to numbers. It's clear you're unhappy with this answer, but since I am being honest I cannot answer it any other way.
2. Firstly I'd need to see more than the bare claim that is prescience, however even if it were a remarkable occurrence no one could explain, it would be irrational to then leap to an unevidenced explanation, and as I already explained that's because it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. There are 3 separate claims, firstly that someone made a very accurate and unlikely prediction, secondly that this prediction came true later exactly as described, and thirdly that this involved a supernatural prophesy, of divine origin. Even could you demonstrate the first two as objective facts, it would still be irrational to claim they were objective evidence for the third.
3. An argumentum ad populum fallacy is never rational, it cannot be by definition? You are conflating objectively evidenced facts believed by large numbers of people, with a bare appeal to numbers. They are not the same thing, and I don't know how else to explain your error in reasoning here?

 

[night912]

I've noticed this pattern with you before:

1) I raise issues which you ignore
Nope, I already addressed your point. Then instead of giving your counterargument to what I said, you simply ignored it and continued to repeat the very thing that I just addressed.

2) You move the goalposts
Says the person who keeps changing the %.

3) I ask you to address my issues/questions for the FIRST time
And I addressed it successfully. That's why now it's your turn.

4) You jump your place in line and say I have to answer you FIRST
I can't jump my place when I already addressed your point. So now I'm just waiting for you to jump back into the discussion by addressing the point that I made in response to your issue, because clearly right after my response, you've done nothing but dodged my point by jumping away and backwards to something that I've already addressed.

I must conclude you don't want to respectfully debate me so let's close this discussion for now.
Pointing out and explaining why your argument is irrational is not being disrespectful, especially in a debate forum. And I've heard your repeated complaints ad nauseam.

Thanks.

Although your gratitude is welcomed, I prefer a response to my point that I raised regarding your argument, I'm still waiting.

BTW,
What was the percentage of the world's population that convinced you to come to your conclusion that I don't want to respectfully debate you?

 

[Bird123]

No true Scotsman fallacy.



I don't see any evidence for that claim. My lack of belief in deities is no more muddling than yours, and you only disbelieve in one less deity than me. And many other theists use your claims here to believe in some of those other deities that you don't believe are real. Maybe you will understand when you know more? Maybe in the meantime you will have to muddle through believing in the wrong deity?

Me I see no objective difference between any deities, only the claims may vary.

There is a Big difference between believing and Knowing.

Granted from your point you are only using beliefs. Since you appear to only value beliefs, I can see why you are confused and blind.

Your vision is so narrow that you can not see the only possibility of finding me false. The answer: Take the Journey to Discover God. On the other hand, since you deal only in beliefs, I do not see you taking the effort or being open enough with a wide enough view to Discover much of anything. Why? You do not seek. You do not hunger to know.

You seem to deal in trying to discredit beliefs in an attempt to feed your ego. That's ok. It brings others away from beliefs, however I find you and theists more alike than you can imagine. You both know it's easier to believe than it is to do the work necessary to Discover the Real Truth. That's ok too, but what do you really have in the end. Not much.

I have pointed you to the water. Want it?? Knowledge isn't served up like beliefs. It's going to take so much more!!

I find it funny how you keep trying to get me to convince you to Believe what I am telling you. When God made birds, did God try to convince you to Believe you could fly?? Didn't happen. In fact, God isn't trying to convince you of anything.

God is Big on what is. This world has never been about Beliefs. I'm the same way. You might want me to go back to nothing but beliefs, however that is no longer a viable choice I can make. Why not? Reality is so much better.

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

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Religion often pretends to be education. In fact, in any given religion, the more capable one is of knowing its mythology and using that mythology to manipulate people, the higher status one has.
Religions are cultural systems. As such, they are also communication systems - "ways of knowing, ways of talking" - so, on the one hand, within a given culture, being religious can equal being educated. On the other hand, mythologies are fictions, and deeply understanding fiction doesn't equate to either a liberal arts degree or the specialized knowledge that any given field of science offers.

 

[lukethethird]

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


Do you think these hold truth's?

Anyone can learn to think critically, and many religious people do except when it comes to their religion and a belief in god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

If all humans are irrational, how do I know whether theists or atheists are correct?

PS. The Bible says of people, "they have madness in their heart," the answer being of course that we are Jekyll/Hydes who need revelation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, nearly everyone is highly irrational. Either because there is no god and it is irrational to make one up or because there is a god and nearly everyone believes in the wrong one (and must have come to that belief by irrational means). It is tautologically true that nearly everyone is irrational.

It is not a question of chance when I have proven that most people must be irrational in their beliefs.


You keep ignoring the fact that people believe in widely different gods.

Do we agree that people in fact believe in different gods or are you denying that fact?

I'd have to ignore all your facts and all of mine (and I have a LOT of Christian FACTS) if we're all highly irrational, which was my point. I could not tell whether I should worship one nonexistent being, millions of them as in Hinduism, or be an atheist.

Trust no one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Although your gratitude is welcomed, I prefer a response to my point that I raised regarding your argument, I'm still waiting.

BTW,
What was the percentage of the world's population that convinced you to come to your conclusion that I don't want to respectfully debate you?

I apologize, I think this will help clarify. I'm trying to walk in another's footsteps. Thus far, I have:

1) Gods do not exist

2) 100% of people live according to nonexistent beings' dictums (since atheists worldwide live in moderately to severely affected religious nations)

3) Ergo, people are highly irrational, illogical

This explains further your incessant arguing with an entrenched born again Christian (I evangelized three or four people yesterday, I lost count) and so I recommend a therapist, an irrational person who was deeply trained in college or a university by irrational educators to:

1) Engage your (unproven to exist) consciousness in an attempt to help you to

2) Heal your (metaphysical, intangible, yet-to-be-proved-to-exist-in-humans) "mind" in large part via your

3) "Free will" (something none of us actually have in our wholly deterministic universe)

Face it, we're all quite mad, you and I.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not how logic works at all. If you violate a basic principle of logic, by using a known logical fallacy, then that claim or argument is irrational by definition. You clearly don't want to address that, but blaming me for pointing it out is silly. Secondly this is a debate forum, but it is not formal debate, there is no wining or losing, it is up to each person how much they want to contribute, and how much of what they read they want to honestly digest.



I answer all you questions, you just either ignore my answers, or resort to ad hominem attacks. However here goes again then.

1. I have answered this repeatedly, the number of people that believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief, to claim otherwise is an ad populum fallacy. So it doesn't matter if this were the only example, it would still be an irrational bare appeal to numbers. It's clear you're unhappy with this answer, but since I am being honest I cannot answer it any other way.
2. Firstly I'd need to see more than the bare claim that is prescience, however even if it were a remarkable occurrence no one could explain, it would be irrational to then leap to an unevidenced explanation, and as I already explained that's because it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. There are 3 separate claims, firstly that someone made a very accurate and unlikely prediction, secondly that this prediction came true later exactly as described, and thirdly that this involved a supernatural prophesy, of divine origin. Even could you demonstrate the first two as objective facts, it would still be irrational to claim they were objective evidence for the third.
3. An argumentum ad populum fallacy is never rational, it cannot be by definition? You are conflating objectively evidenced facts believed by large numbers of people, with a bare appeal to numbers. They are not the same thing, and I don't know how else to explain your error in reasoning here?

Thank you for your careful argumentation and logic here. I can try to explain it thusly, I'm trying to walk in another's footsteps and this morning, refined my concept. Thus far, I have:

1) Gods do not exist

2) 100% of people live according to nonexistent beings' dictums (since atheists worldwide live in moderately to severely affected religious nations)

3) Ergo, people are highly irrational, illogical

This explains further your incessant arguing with an entrenched born again Christian (I evangelized three or four people yesterday, I lost count) and so I recommend a therapist, an irrational person who was deeply trained in college or a university by irrational educators to:

1) Engage your (unproven to exist) consciousness in an attempt to help you to

2) Heal your (metaphysical, intangible, yet-to-be-proved-to-exist-in-humans) "mind" in large part via your

3) "Free will" (something none of us actually have in our wholly deterministic universe)

Face it, we're all quite mad, you and I.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If all humans are irrational, how do I know whether theists or atheists are correct?

PS. The Bible says of people, "they have madness in their heart," the answer being of course that we are Jekyll/Hydes who need revelation.

You don't. That is why we have faith.

 

[Sheldon]

There is a Big difference between believing and Knowing.

Granted from your point you are only using beliefs. Since you appear to only value beliefs, I can see why you are confused and blind.

Your vision is so narrow that you can not see the only possibility of finding me false. The answer: Take the Journey to Discover God. On the other hand, since you deal only in beliefs, I do not see you taking the effort or being open enough with a wide enough view to Discover much of anything. Why? You do not seek. You do not hunger to know.

You seem to deal in trying to discredit beliefs in an attempt to feed your ego. That's ok. It brings others away from beliefs, however I find you and theists more alike than you can imagine. You both know it's easier to believe than it is to do the work necessary to Discover the Real Truth. That's ok too, but what do you really have in the end. Not much.

I have pointed you to the water. Want it?? Knowledge isn't served up like beliefs. It's going to take so much more!!

I find it funny how you keep trying to get me to convince you to Believe what I am telling you. When God made birds, did God try to convince you to Believe you could fly?? Didn't happen. In fact, God isn't trying to convince you of anything.

God is Big on what is. This world has never been about Beliefs. I'm the same way. You might want me to go back to nothing but beliefs, however that is no longer a viable choice I can make. Why not? Reality is so much better.

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

I see another string of unevidenced assumptions, with the odd ad hominem and no true Scotsman fallacy.

You're selling snake oil, and holding an empty, that's what I see clearly. Your spiel might really be more at home delivered from a pulpit or a revival tent, as it is quite clearly preaching, and not debate.

 

[Sheldon]

I'd have to ignore all your facts and all of mine (and I have a LOT of Christian FACTS) if we're all highly irrational, which was my point. I could not tell whether I should worship one nonexistent being, millions of them as in Hinduism, or be an atheist.

Trust no one.

Well there's no such thing as a "Christian fact", but I think I sense you mean facts that support your belief. Could you list a few for us please, as I'm pretty dubious about the claim.

 

[Heyo]

Trust no one.

That's what I do - and especially not the irrational masses.

I could not tell whether I should worship one nonexistent being, millions of them as in Hinduism, or be an atheist.

Neither do I. That's why I hold my judgement until the facts are available.

I'd have to ignore all your facts and all of mine (and I have a LOT of Christian FACTS) if we're all highly irrational, which was my point.

You don't have to ignore the facts - just the unsubstantiated claims. Go where the evidence leads.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's what I do - and especially not the irrational masses.


Neither do I. That's why I hold my judgement until the facts are available.

You don't have to ignore the facts - just the unsubstantiated claims. Go where the evidence leads.

For which the joke is that evidence is a sort of belief system and even that has limits in practice.