Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[BilliardsBall]

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

Huh? Of course agnosticism is a reasonable position. Here is the unreasonable position of atheism:

1) Gods do not exist

2) Nearly 100% of humans live fully or partially to please nonexistent beings

3) Humans are usually rational except in pleasing nonexistent beings

I've been asking you to explain your disconnect between #2 and #3. It feels like your cognitive dissonance, but I'm open to your response.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I'd answer you, but I noticed how your #2, for example, shifts from your perspective that most people are irrational. Most people live to please nonexistent beings, which is hardly rational.

I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance on your part, but I'm open if you have a response.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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



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.

Um, god-believers are homogenous according to you.

According to you, all god-believers place trust/faith/value in one or more nonexistent beings. That is irrational unless a god(s) exists and makes His presence known to people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.



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



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



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.

You are continuing to claim I ask facile questions, when I'm asking your questions, stepping in your shoes.

Most humans live to please nonexistent beings. Explain.

 

[Sheldon]

I said despite the facts. The atheist perspective:

Fact 1: Gods do not exist

That's not atheism, and does not represent all atheist's perspective. Certainly not the majority of atheists on here.

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

Straw man fallacy.

Fact 3: Most people are rational at most times

Straw man fallacy 2

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

It's a false dichotomy fallacy you've created, and that's your 3rd known logical fallacy in just this post, and every one has been explained to you already, infer what you will.

Thanks!

You're welcome, again...

Isn't atheism implying "all religious/spiritual people are wrong regarding religion and spirituality"?

No, not necessarily. Again why you keep asking the same question when this has been explained to you exhaustively is bizarre?

 

[Sheldon]

Um, god-believers are homogenous according to you.

No, the post you're responding to of mine says precisely the opposite??? Here...

Firstly god-believers are not an homogenous group,

Can you not read?

 

[Sheldon]

You are continuing to claim I ask facile questions

I can only respond to the questions you have asked, you're shooting the messenger.

 

[Sheldon]

I'd answer you, but I noticed how your #2, for example, shifts from your perspective that most people are irrational.

Only if you can't read? Again if people are rational why would humans need to create a method for being rational, like logic?

Most people live to please nonexistent beings, which is hardly rational.

Well I'll take your word for that, since it is your claim, and not mine.

I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance on your part, but I'm open if you have a response.

Yes I do:

1. Please demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, excellent or otherwise. (as per your unevidenced claim)

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?

That's my response, but given your sophistry on this already, it seems you have no intention of ever giving a candid answer.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

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 only know one person who said God speaks to her and she is mentally ill but also she is always correct and everyone is scared of her opinion

I think a lot of people with education dont think about God but I don't think that those who do are not educated or are mentally ill

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? Of course agnosticism is a reasonable position.

If agnosticism is a reasonable position, then "living fully or partially to please" a god is unreasonable.

So are you sure?

 

[Sheldon]

Huh? Of course agnosticism is a reasonable position.

I agree, I am an agnostic atheist about unfalsifiable god claims, though if a claim is falsified I am not agnostic about it.

So why aren't you an agnostic then? If as you say it is a reasonable position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said despite the facts. The atheist perspective:

I think it's funny how it looks like you are actually announcing your upcoming strawman.
"despite the facts, here's what I'll believe instead:"

Fact 1: Gods do not exist

No.

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

No.

Fact 3: Most people are rational at most times

Ok. I have about 20 "but's" and afterthoughts on that one, but I'll agree to it in general terms.

So 1 out of 3.
And none of them have anything to do with the "atheist perspective" which at bottom is just answering "no" to the question "do you believe in any gods?". Everything else that person does believe, is separate from disbelief in theism. Just like it is separate from disbelief in bigfoot.

The things you do believe determine your worldview. The things you don't believe are, at best, irrelevant.

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

You can't even strawman correctly.
Fact 3 could be true while 100% of people hold an irrational belief.

For most people to be rational at most times, it means that all people have room for a few irrational beliefs as long as most of their beliefs and actions are rather rational.

When somebody is irrational most of the time... they don't tend to last very long.
See, being irrational potentially has very fatal consequences.

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?

If they would have the same beliefs, I would lump them together, yes.
But they don't have the same beliefs. Not even remotely.

So to say that "98% of people that ever lived had religious beliefs" is, while probably a true statement, evidence that there is something to those beliefs is
1. fallacious, it's the argument ad populum
2. imo dishonest. As it completely ignores the fact that those 98% are divided into many many mutually exclusive religions. 98% of believers aren't correct. They can't be. It's a false dichotomy in a way. It's pretending that it's either the 98% who are correct or the 2%. In reality, among those 98%, there are followers of sects that comprise only 0.00002%.
Additionally, you could also rephrase the question "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold religious beliefs?" into "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold superstitious beliefs?".







Isn't atheism implying "all religious/spiritual people are wrong regarding religion and spirituality"?[/QUOTE]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Additionally, you could also rephrase the question "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold religious beliefs?" into "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold superstitious beliefs?".
...

Or you could rephrase in more general terms. Is it possible to live a human life based on only evidence and/or rationality?
I as a an atheist and skeptic have not be able to do that. If you have, I would like to hear how you do it.

So for irrationality I for now until shown otherwise consider all human irrationality in a limited sense and don't consider it only relevant to religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think it's funny how it looks like you are actually announcing your upcoming strawman.
"despite the facts, here's what I'll believe instead:"



No.



No.



Ok. I have about 20 "but's" and afterthoughts on that one, but I'll agree to it in general terms.

So 1 out of 3.
And none of them have anything to do with the "atheist perspective" which at bottom is just answering "no" to the question "do you believe in any gods?". Everything else that person does believe, is separate from disbelief in theism. Just like it is separate from disbelief in bigfoot.

The things you do believe determine your worldview. The things you don't believe are, at best, irrelevant.




You can't even strawman correctly.
Fact 3 could be true while 100% of people hold an irrational belief.

For most people to be rational at most times, it means that all people have room for a few irrational beliefs as long as most of their beliefs and actions are rather rational.

When somebody is irrational most of the time... they don't tend to last very long.
See, being irrational potentially has very fatal consequences.




If they would have the same beliefs, I would lump them together, yes.
But they don't have the same beliefs. Not even remotely.

So to say that "98% of people that ever lived had religious beliefs" is, while probably a true statement, evidence that there is something to those beliefs is
1. fallacious, it's the argument ad populum
2. imo dishonest. As it completely ignores the fact that those 98% are divided into many many mutually exclusive religions. 98% of believers aren't correct. They can't be. It's a false dichotomy in a way. It's pretending that it's either the 98% who are correct or the 2%. In reality, among those 98%, there are followers of sects that comprise only 0.00002%.
Additionally, you could also rephrase the question "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold religious beliefs?" into "why does 98% of people that ever lived hold superstitious beliefs?".







Isn't atheism implying "all religious/spiritual people are wrong regarding religion and spirituality"?

[/QUOTE]


Why do 98% of people live (marriage, ceremony, finances, sexuality, etc.) according to superstitious beliefs (when they are generally rational elsewhere)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree, I am an agnostic atheist about unfalsifiable god claims, though if a claim is falsified I am not agnostic about it.

So why aren't you an agnostic then? If as you say it is a reasonable position.

Agnosticism is more reasonable/reasoned than atheism.

I have good reason to trust Jesus for salvation. I pointed to prophecies you can verify, fulfilled in modern times, in Israel.

 

[Sheldon]

Agnosticism is more reasonable/reasoned than atheism.

Well yet another bare claim from you, which you're happy to repeat without evidence or explanation. As I said I am both an agnostic and an atheist, since I don't believe in any deity or deities. However I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, including god claims.

I have good reason to trust Jesus for salvation.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate a single one, instead resorting to irrational use of logical fallacies.

I pointed to prophecies you can verify, fulfilled in modern times, in Israel.

No you claimed they were prophesies, and I explained that a prophesy consist of 3 separate claims.

1. That someone made a very specific claim, that was extremely unlikely to happen.

2. That this claim happened later, exactly as described.

3. That this result could only have happened through divine intervention.

As I explained, and you ignore of course, even were you able to evidence the first 2 beyond any reasonable doubt, which you cannot of course, the third claim is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Despite this you now repeat the fallacy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well yet another bare claim from you, which you're happy to repeat without evidence or explanation. As I said I am both an agnostic and an atheist, since I don't believe in any deity or deities. However I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, including god claims.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate a single one, instead resorting to irrational use of logical fallacies.



No you claimed they were prophesies, and I explained that a prophesy consist of 3 separate claims.

1. That someone made a very specific claim, that was extremely unlikely to happen.

2. That this claim happened later, exactly as described.

3. That this result could only have happened through divine intervention.

As I explained, and you ignore of course, even were you able to evidence the first 2 beyond any reasonable doubt, which you cannot of course, the third claim is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Despite this you now repeat the fallacy.

1) Not a bare claim, atheism, unlike agnosticism, requires omniscience to be stated with confidence.

2) I followed your rules, the Jewish people were to go into diaspora into many nations, be persecuted harshly in each of those nations, while being the intelligentsia of those nations, then be restored to their nation after 2,500 years, in a single day, their enemies surrounding them (after 2,500 years without a nation!), who would then attack them immediately, and over whom they would prevail repeatedly until the Christ returns.

And let me add to that this:

Israel: 8.5 million people, most of them Jewish, but including opposing groups within Israel, even opposition groups allowed to be active members of the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament)
o Egypt: 95.5 million
o Iran: 80 million
o Iraq: 37 million
o Jordan: 9.5 million
o Lebanon: 6 million
o Saudi Arabia: 33 million
o Syria: 18.5 million

• Totals: Israel’s 8.5 million are surrounded by 280 million militant people (33:1 against)
o There are also Hezbollah militants: 65,000 hardened fighters and Hamas militants: 25,000- 30,000 fighters, plus ISIS and others
• Therefore, we would say the odds looked tough for Israel in all these conflicts:
o Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949) vs. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army
o The Sinai War (1956) vs. Egypt, Israel receiving help from the UK and France
o The Six Day War (1967) vs. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq
o The War of Attrition (1967-1970) vs. Egypt, the Soviet Union, Jordan and the PLO
o The Yom Kippur War (1973) vs. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Cuba
o The First Lebanon War (1982-1985) vs. the PLO, Syria, and Lebanon’s Jammoul and Amal
o The Second Lebanon War (2006) vs. Hezbollah
o Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009) vs. Hamas
o Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) vs. Hamas
o Operation Protective Edge (2014) vs. Hamas

Food for Thought: Do you know who won each and all of the above conflicts? Why do you think that is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Food for Thought: Do you know who won each and all of the above conflicts? Why do you think that is?

I would imagine, because that is what G-d has ordained
Perhaps it's not a good idea to go into the political details.

Suffice to say, that Jesus will return some time soon.
There are not many more signs of armageddon that haven't happened..
..one big sign, is the skyscrapers that have spread all over the planet.
Global air travel, climate-change .. need I go on?

 

[Sheldon]

1) Not a bare claim, atheism, unlike agnosticism, requires omniscience to be stated with confidence.

No it doesn't, as has been explained to you exhaustively atheism need be nothing more than the lack or absence of theistic belief.

And this was your original bare claim:

BilliardsBall said: ↑
Agnosticism is more reasonable/reasoned than atheism.

So yes it was absolutely a bare claim.

I followed your rules, the Jewish people were to go into diaspora into many nations, be persecuted harshly in each of those nations, while being the intelligentsia of those nations, then be restored to their nation after 2,500 years, in a single day, their enemies surrounding them (after 2,500 years without a nation!), who would then attack them immediately, and over whom they would prevail repeatedly until the Christ returns.

My rules? What is the point of that claim?

And let me add to that this:

Israel: 8.5 million people, most of them Jewish, but including opposing groups within Israel, even opposition groups allowed to be active members of the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament)
o Egypt: 95.5 million
o Iran: 80 million
o Iraq: 37 million
o Jordan: 9.5 million
o Lebanon: 6 million
o Saudi Arabia: 33 million
o Syria: 18.5 million

• Totals: Israel’s 8.5 million are surrounded by 280 million militant people (33:1 against)....

Food for Thought:

Is it, how so? I have no idea what it is you think those stats mean, since you offered no context whatsoever?

Do you know who won each and all of the above conflicts? Why do you think that is?

Israel, because they they had superior armed forces, butter weapons, were lucky, have powerful allies, etc etc etc. Again what's your point?

 

[Sheldon]

I would imagine, because that is what G-d has ordained
Perhaps it's not a good idea to go into the political details.

Imagined is right. The political details involve Israel have powerful global allies, and a read supply of arms.

Suffice to say, that Jesus will return some time soon.

No, it will not suffice to say, as it is a bare claim.

There are not many more signs of armageddon that haven't happened...one big sign, is the skyscrapers that have spread all over the planet.Global air travel, climate-change .. need I go on?

Just pointing to stuff, then claiming it means what you want it to isn't evidence.