Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[BilliardsBall]

No it certainly isn't a logical response as has been explained to you exhaustively. To claim remotely that that validates the belief in any way, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no matter how many times you ignore this, it remains an irrational claim.

I've noted your objection but also that you won't answer a simple question, for example:

Which does Occam's indicate 98% of people, god-believers, are rational, or irrational?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is excellent evidence for God, and also excellent evidence that most persons are rational (my original point).

So did you change your mind? Earlier you were saying that agnosticism is a reasonable position.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Everybody used to believe the sun orbits the earth instead of the earth the sun.
And it was based on observation. They saw the sun come up one side, move across the sky and settle at the other side. Come next morning, the same. And again. And again....
Meanwhile the earth felt and looked very "stationary".

The earth being the center and the sun orbiting the earth, was actually a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at their disposal.

Later on, new data came up that couldn't be explained with this geocentric model. This new data ultimately lead to a revision of said model and it was replaced a heliocentric model.

It's called learning and progress.




Now... any time you wish to rise up to @night912 's challenge and prove that negative...

Yes, once some leaders like a Copernicus or Galileo pressed the facts--after early adopters--everyone (nearly everyone) now adheres to the facts.

What atheists tell me is that unlike astronomy, where people adhere to facts--or anything else you can name in the known universe--98% of people are religious/spiritual DESPITE THE FACTS.

Occam's therefore leads me to conclude that rather than 98% of people are irrational ONLY in religion, it is that 2% of persons (as individuals) either reject God or haven't yet encountered God.

I await your response to these facts/statements.

 

[Sheldon]

There is excellent evidence for God, and also excellent evidence that most persons are rational (my original point).

How you love to reel off unevidenced assertions. Quick questions then...

1. Please demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, excellent or otherwise.

2. If most people are rational why did humans invent a method like logic with strict principles of validation?

3. If most people are rational, why do you keep making irrational claims using known logical fallacies?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

According to the Lancet, in 2019 there were 1.1 billion smokers in the world. Smoking accounted for 7.7 million deaths in the world then as well. Knowledge of the dangers of tobacco use has been available and growing for 50 years. But, since the number of smokers is so large and considering the logic that large numbers of proponents justifies the rationality of a position, smoking is completely rational.

More evidence that most people are rational.

 

[Sheldon]

I've noted your objection but also that you won't answer a simple question, for example:

No you haven't, not only that but you keep using the same fallacies.

Which does Occam's indicate 98% of people, god-believers, are rational, or irrational?

Your question makes no sense. Firstly god-believers are not an homogenous group, they are vast and widely varied collection of differing beliefs and religions, as has been explained. Secondly theism as a belief need not be irrational, as has also been explained, though theists may and do make irrational claims and arguments. Lastly the majority of people, adhere to irrational beliefs is to be expected, since people are by nature irrational, otherwise we would not have invented a method of reasoning with strict principles of validation to avoid being irrational. Your error is in lumping all god beliefs together, as if they represent a single belief.

This has been explained to you now multiple times, the gotcha moment your hoping for isn't going to happen, because your question makes no sense. Instead of asking questions that are too facile to answer accurately, why don't you offer some rational argument for the deity you believe exists.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, once some leaders like a Copernicus or Galileo pressed the facts--after early adopters--everyone (nearly everyone) now adheres to the facts.

Leaders? Copernicus served as a canon of the church in Frombork, in the region of Polish Warmia where he lived, and Galileo studied astronomy, engineering and physics. Neither were leaders? Galileo championed the Copernican theory of heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the sun) was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture.

What atheists tell me is that unlike astronomy, where people adhere to facts--or anything else you can name in the known universe--98% of people are religious/spiritual DESPITE THE FACTS.

Well can demonstrate any objective facts to support your belief in a deity?

Occam's therefore leads me to conclude that rather than 98% of people are irrational ONLY in religion, it is that 2% of persons (as individuals) either reject God or haven't yet encountered God.

That 98% figure you keep using a widely varied group of beliefs, not one single belief.

I await your response to these facts/statements.

You've had them repeatedly but apparently you still are perusing this risible nonsense in search your facile gotcha moment you think it deserves.

People are irrational by nature, that's why humans created a method to reason rationally. So why is it any surprise that a group of beliefs encompassing 98% of the population might contain irrational beliefs, or be based on irrational arguments.

Again your question is too facile to answer accurately. A far better idea would be for you to demonstrate a rational argument for the deity you yourself believe in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
People are irrational by nature, that's why humans created a method to reason rationally. So why is it any surprise that a group of beliefs encompassing 98% of the population might contain irrational beliefs, or be based on irrational arguments.
...

Well, it depends on how you understand rationality and if you consider it to have limits or if it is only an idea.

There are 3 versions.

1. There is actually no rationality.
2. There is rationality, but it is limited for its usage.
3. Rationality works in all contexts.

Historically rationality is a Classical Greek philosophical idea and at least classical rationality was shown to have limits by Rene Descartes.
You have to check what is the case by testing if it has limits or if it is not actually possible. Can you do that?

 

[Sheldon]

Well, it depends on how you understand rationality

No it doesn't rational means in accordance with the principles of logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it doesn't rational means in accordance with the principles of logic.

Well, one definition. I use this one: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. Then the question becomes for your version if the principles of logic have a limit? Or in mine if facts or reason have limits?

 

[Sheldon]

Well, one definition. I use this one: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings.

That's the definition of objective, not rational. However know we know that when I say rational I mean in accordance with logic. Which tbh was pretty clear in my post anyway, if you'd read it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the definition of objective, not rational. However know we know that when I say rational I mean in accordance with logic.

So does logic have a limit?

 

[Sheldon]

So does logic have a limit?

I would imagine all human reason is fallible and limited, since the creators are fallible, and since our knowledge is not limitless. Though I don't see what this has to do with BilliardsBall's claim that most people are rational, or logical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would imagine all human reason is fallible and limited, since the creators are fallible, and since our knowledge is not limitless. Though I don't see what this has to do with BilliardsBall's claim that most people are rational, or logical?

Well, you claim that we have rationality or rather logic. So I am asking if it has limit?

 

[Sheldon]

Well, you claim that we have rationality or rather logic. So I am asking if it has limit?

I don't claim it, the method axiomatically exists, and I read your question the last time, and answered it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't claim it, the method axiomatically exists, and I read your question the last time, and answered it?

So does the method have any limits?

 

[Sheldon]

So does the method have any limits?

I just answered that? Scroll up?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would imagine all human reason is fallible and limited, since the creators are fallible, and since our knowledge is not limitless. Though I don't see what this has to do with BilliardsBall's claim that most people are rational, or logical?

Oh, I misread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, once some leaders like a Copernicus or Galileo pressed the facts--after early adopters--everyone (nearly everyone) now adheres to the facts.

What atheists tell me is that unlike astronomy, where people adhere to facts--or anything else you can name in the known universe--98% of people are religious/spiritual DESPITE THE FACTS.

There are no facts when it comes to supernatural claims.
These ideas originally weren't established through facts.
Religion is faith based. Always was and always will.

Occam's therefore leads me to conclude that rather than 98% of people are irrational ONLY in religion, it is that 2% of persons (as individuals) either reject God or haven't yet encountered God.

Your should review what Occam's Razor actually is about. You're not using it correctly.
Also....

1. your figures are made up
2. you dishonestly lump all religious people together in one group, as if they share the same beliefs. This is ridiculous. In your (false) 98%, you are including voodoo believers, scientologists, muslims, christians, hindu's, ... as if they all share the same beliefs. This is ridiculous. A hindu is just as much an atheist when it comes to your religious beliefs, as I am.

I await your response to these facts/statements.

The first is a false comparison and the second is a misrepresentation of occam's razor while using made up statistics.

So, you fail on both points.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are no facts when it comes to supernatural claims.
These ideas originally weren't established through facts.
Religion is faith based. Always was and always will.



Your should review what Occam's Razor actually is about. You're not using it correctly.
Also....

1. your figures are made up
2. you dishonestly lump all religious people together in one group, as if they share the same beliefs. This is ridiculous. In your (false) 98%, you are including voodoo believers, scientologists, muslims, christians, hindu's, ... as if they all share the same beliefs. This is ridiculous. A hindu is just as much an atheist when it comes to your religious beliefs, as I am.



The first is a false comparison and the second is a misrepresentation of occam's razor while using made up statistics.

So, you fail on both points.

I said despite the facts. The atheist perspective:

Fact 1: Gods do not exist

Fact 2: A number approaching 100% of people live lives to please nonexistent beings

Fact 3: Most people are rational at most times

I'm asking you to explain your disconnect between Facts 2 and 3, please.

Thanks!

PS. I don't understand how being Hindu, Mormon or Jewish affects living to please a nonexistent being(s), which per your facts is irrational. Of course I can put in one lump anyone who believes in nonexistent beings. Don't you? Isn't atheism implying "all religious/spiritual people are wrong regarding religion and spirituality"?