jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Fun and comforting for you, maybe. Maybe not for someone else. But, for the last time: you're welcome to believe whatever fantasy you want. JUST KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
The point is that you really ought to try to see things from other perspectives before attempting to convince others to see things from yours.
That is a nice example of a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the masses). You cannot conclude a proposition to be true simply because many people believe it.
You are also arguing that most people believe in one god without specifying which god. In this case, fewer people believe in the Christian God than don't believe in the Christian God.
According to Wikipedia, as of 2005 there are about 2.1 billion Christians compared to 1.1 billion who are secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious. The Straight Dope has the number of atheists much closer to that of Christians (2.0 billion Christians compared to 1.8 billion atheists).
Using either source, if you include religions that believe in other gods, the number of people who don't believe in the Christian God far outweighs those that do.
No, that's not a reason to try it any more than the fact that most people in the world aren't Christian would be a reason for you to try a different religion.
There is evidence from the Bible that the Christian God isn't all that loving. Some find more comfort in believing that there is no god than in believing in the Christian God.
Others don't find "comfort" to be a compelling reason to believe something for which there is no evidence.
-Bri
Last edited:
Why do you stress the keep-it-to-yourself point? I agree that these beliefs should not be forced upon others.
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
Yes indeed. But once you do that, you are no longer making a logical argument. You are simply expressing an emotional standpoint that you have. At most you are exploring the ramifications of your emotional standpoint.
Now that's all well and good if you want to do that. But if you are admitting emotional standpoints as a way to decide on evidence, then other people can just as easily do the same - meaning I can equally declare that I have faith in Manson's innocence and work back from there.
I rarely argue with people who make a claim based purely on their faith, precisely because faith is simply not compatible with rational argument. But consider that under your system of argument you cannot be proved wrong, even if you are wrong. Your entire method of argument simply does not admit any possibility of error.
And it ultimately boils down to "I believe in god because I want to." If you choose to believe in god on that basis, then more power to you. But I can't see how you can expect anybody else to take it seriously.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Then what's the point of asserting (as you did earlier in the thread) that you have a right to try to make people to wear green socks because your beliefs tell you that you should?
I don't want to put words in JetLeg's mouth, but it sounds as though he was trying to logically justify forcing one's beliefs on others if you believe that God wants you to do so. He was first forced to consider an inconsequential being whereas the Christian God is generally regarded to be consequential. Then it was pointed out that even in the case of an inconsequential being, the premise that one could force one's beliefs on others is false.
Hopefully he has realized the error of his logic. Now it sounds like he just wants others to consider his point of view without considering other points of view himself. Not exactly the most persuasive approach.
-Bri
Hopefully he has realized the error of his logic. Now it sounds like he just wants others to consider his point of view without considering other points of view himself. Not exactly the most persuasive approach.
-Bri
I don't know for sure that he has. I said hopefully he has!
However, JetLeg did state (emphasis mine):
-Bri
However, JetLeg did state (emphasis mine):
-Bri
I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions. The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?
Last edited:
I think that you mean "no actual reason" and not "no actual evidence", since the imm-beings should be decided by giving reasons, and not evidence - evidence is not possible.
As to no actual reason - on one hand, you sound right. On the other, it works for all the religions, doesn't it? They assert their beliefs on faith, and are being taken seriously.
As to no actual reason - on one hand, you sound right. On the other, it works for all the religions, doesn't it? They assert their beliefs on faith, and are being taken seriously.
JetLeg,
No, I mean evidence. The fact that no evidence is even possible is reason not to believe in an inconsequential being, not reason to believe in one. The fact that they are inconsequential beings means that they are -- well -- inconsequential!
But let's talk about God instead, since that's what this conversation is really about. God isn't typically defined to be inconsequential. However, there is no evidence of God. So you may have other reasons to believe in God, which is just fine as long as you admit that your belief is only opinion. Being opinion, others are justified in holding opposing opinions. My question was why would you expect those with opposing opinions to take your beliefs seriously unless you have some evidence to support your opinion?
Your statement "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true" is ludicrous. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how the idea of God makes you feel.
-Bri
No, I mean evidence. The fact that no evidence is even possible is reason not to believe in an inconsequential being, not reason to believe in one. The fact that they are inconsequential beings means that they are -- well -- inconsequential!
But let's talk about God instead, since that's what this conversation is really about. God isn't typically defined to be inconsequential. However, there is no evidence of God. So you may have other reasons to believe in God, which is just fine as long as you admit that your belief is only opinion. Being opinion, others are justified in holding opposing opinions. My question was why would you expect those with opposing opinions to take your beliefs seriously unless you have some evidence to support your opinion?
Your statement "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true" is ludicrous. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how the idea of God makes you feel.
-Bri
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
I agree that that is what you are doing, but I don't agree with it. God's existence is not subjective; it is an objective fact that god either exists or he does not exist. However you feel about him, whatever meaning it gives to your life, if god truly isn't out there then you are flat wrong. And deliberately operating under a belief system that won't even allow for this possibility makes you deluded and foolish.
Some philosophic ideas can be given for nc-immaterial beings. For example, the onthological argument can be phrased as an argument for an nc-immaterial-perfect being. Whether it is a good argument or not, is another question, the point is that it is based upon philosophic considerations, without evidence.
Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about? Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?