The tolerant atheist

@FBM,

No it's not, because I'm not saying anyone should accept it based on popularity. (As if belief in God is popular around here, Ha!)

And your assertion that it is 'a common human trait' is just that - an assertion without evidence. It might be, but it might be something else. My interest is in finding out.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

What are you talking about? You're the one who posted that belief in a higher power has been polled at over 90% of the population. Trying to use that to build an argument for the existence of your god is a perfect example of an ad populum.

Quote:

It does not explain WHY 90+% believe there is a God or higher being.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It could be that we aspire to something that does not exist.

Could be, or could be it does exist. Enquiring minds want to know. Other minds just watch reruns on TV.

1 Reply

What a snotty son of a bitch. FBM, i am reminded of the expression that was common among New Yorkers when i was a kid--don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Heh heh. I recently considered teaching that expression to my students, but decided it wouldn't be worth the effort.

0 Replies

@FBM,

You either did not read or did not comprehend the context of what I have said in total.

If 90% of people buy Chevys and I wonder what the reason why they choose Chevys over another brand is, that is not the same as saying you should buy a Chevy too.

Pro tip: If you're going to throw philosophical Latin phrases around, make sure they apply.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It applies. It doesn't matter how many people believe in this or that god; it says nothing whatsoever about whether the thing exists or not. Did the sun revolve around the earth when everybody thought it did?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Show me the evidence for how it applies.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

I didn't say that that percentage of the population is delusional and that the other fraction of the population is specially gifted or that they know that there is no God. Merely, the larger portion of the population buys into the idea of an intervening God as the explanation for why **** and serendipity happens, the other portion does not. There is nothing illogical or intolerant about that
OK, I'll take you at your word as to your intent, but it really does not address what I was saying. It does not explain WHY 90+% believe there is a God or higher being.

What makes your statement illogical (and a bit intolerant) is that the evidence does not show that their belief is 'buying into the idea of an intervening God as the explanation for why **** and serendipity happens' or that it is reinforced by society at large.

The Gallup poll only gets that high result when the polling is done with strict anonymity and care not to tie the answer to any religion (hence the inclusion of 'higher being' in the poll question). If you ask the question publicly in any way, the percentage of 'yes' answers plummets drastically. That's why there is evidence that something other than 'going along with the crowd' is responsible.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That proves my point, what was your's?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

If you can't understand that the number of people who believe a claim in no way speaks to the truth of that claim, then I'm afraid I can't help you understand that fallacy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

And you seem to be unable to understand that the development of an argument or piece of evidence might involve more than one step. Your assumption must be that I'm not going anywhere with this or that I have no where to go?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Any step along the way that contains a logical fallacy means that the entire argument is invalid. That's not my rule, that's just the way basic logic works. I recommend restructuring the argument without any logical fallacies.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I already explained that I was not making an appeal to popularity, just pointing out that it was and asking why.

There was no ad populum fallacy.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Uh huh.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You don't get it do you Since 'existence' can refer to 'things' without extension in time or apace ( like emotion, loyalty, etc) it follows that a claim for 'existence' can be asserted for any'thing' which has been named in a language. If you agree to talk about 'tooth fairy', it 'exists' even if that existence amounts to 'an example of a childish concept'. The problem is not with 'existence' per se, but the status of that existence for the vocalizer. The pragmatist argues that that status amounts 'utility in directing action'. It is only the 'naive realist' who delimits 'existence' to an ontological state independent of utility in particular contexts.

So thankyou for contributing 'the Tooth Fairy' to the debate and allowing me to reinforce a point.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It could be that we aspire to something that does not exist.
Could be, or could be it does exist. Enquiring minds want to know. Other minds just watch reruns on TV.

I don;t care much whether God exist or not. To me, the aspiration to something more, something bigger, something beyond the reruns on TV, the boring job, the spouse taken for granted, etc. -- that aspiration is very noble and often useful, irrespective of whether the stuff aspired to exist or not. A spiritual journey is always more interesting than its destination.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Your point is always the same yada yada... You're a one-trick donkey.

The problem with the ontological argument is that it moves from the existence of the concept to the existence of its referent, of the object God. Of course, you can't understand that point very well because for you, referents do not matter. But for most people they do...

Yes, the tooth fairy exists as a concept, and as a tale told to children. And to be fair, we all tell the same lies to our children (Santa Clauss, the tooth fairy, etc.), whether we are believers or not, because these lies are beautiful and also they help keep the kids in line. God serves the exact same purpose for adults.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

that aspiration is very noble and often useful, irrespective of whether the stuff aspired to exist or not. A spiritual journey is always more interesting than its destination.

Of course you know I could turn that around and say that you are manifesting that 'urge to know' that I've postulated as the influence of a God on all people whether they know (or care about) the source or not.

Not to knock your aspirations, I do believe they can lead you to worthwhile destinations. But I've never bought into the 'It's not the destination, it's the journey' cliché. I do value the journey (even though it's a cast iron bitch) but if the destination is not a worthy goal - Screw it and find one that is.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Of course you know I could turn that around and say that you are manifesting that 'urge to know' that I've postulated as the influence of a God on all people whether they know (or care about) the source or not.

Of course. You could also say that it's the devil's work to deceives us... Anything can be interpreted in two dozen ways. Metaphysics are a free-for-all.

Beyond metaphysics though, my and your destination are the same: death. Allow me to prefer the journey to its destination, in this case.

1 Reply

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know