Atheists and theists are the same.

[Mike375]

If we'd been discussing this back at the start of the 20th century, that consensus would quite likely have pointed the other way. I don't see how popularity is any kind of reliable indicator of truth - so what else is there?

Popularity is not on its own an indicator of truth. But it can add something to the equation.

For example, let's say someone knows nothing about Word or Excel. They learn the basics and as they progress they might wonder if Word and Excel are OK for the job. Once they find out that Word and Excel totally dominate the word processor and spreadsheet programs then that will probably remove any doubt about Excel and Word being able to do what will be required.

If you wake to the sound of some real weird noice you might eb thinking you had too much to drink But if learn the next day that 1000s of people heard the noise then you can assume you did hear it.

 

[JamesLast99]

If we'd been discussing this back at the start of the 20th century, that consensus would quite likely have pointed the other way. I don't see how popularity is any kind of reliable indicator of truth - so what else is there?

What is there that sets apart current notions of God from Victorian-era notions about Nessie or the Yeti?

Apologies if I'm raking over ground that has already been covered - I think I probably wasn't here last time the topic was discussed.

I don't know if there is a differnace - or to that of old ideas of the existence of a duckbilled platypus. Which is why I don't know if God exists or not. But Nessie hasn't been on video - and I expect he would have - and do most others. God hasn't either - shock horror!

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Sorry yes - I am so out of line - with the idea that God may or may not exist - but that I find Nessie extermely unlikely. Silly me!

I don't think you're out of line. I just don't understand how you draw the distinction between one idea and the other.

It can't just be that lots of people accept the notion of a God - because that doesn't address why they do so, or even if they all mean the same thing when they say 'God'. And besides, lots of people spell Hamster with a P in it - but that doesn't make it correct.

So on the one hand, there's the notion of a God, which you have said may or may not exist, on the basis of evidence you say is all non-compelling.

And on the other hand, there's the notion of Nessie, which you say probably doesn't exist, on the basis of evidence which I'm going to describe as non-compelling.

Clearly there's some other factor in your decision process I haven't addressed - but what is it?

Edited to add: Most of the above is rendered moot by your most recent reply, except the last few bits which is only to say that it appears slightly inconsistent to be saying there may or may not be a God, but there probably isn't a Nessie, when you've described rather similar stimuli for belief in both cases.

 

[Alc]

What is there that sets apart current notions of God from Victorian-era notions about Nessie or the Yeti?

Sorry yes - I am so out of line - with the idea that God may or may not exist - but that I find Nessie extermely unlikely. Silly me!

I warned you Mike, you're wasting your time asking for a proper answer.

 

[JamesLast99]

I can dismiss a goat being present in the room with me - cos the evidence that is needed is failry well agreed on - and I don't see it. I cannot do the same with God, he may be here he may not. The fact that I haven't seen him - isn't anywhere near a consensus of a valid argument that hes not here.

 

[JamesLast99]

I warned you Mike, you're wasting your time asking for a proper answer.

I gave up answering you - cos you have proved sufficiently in the other thead - that you make up what others say and pretend other things they said haven't been - and you totally lack logic. Is that emphatic enough for you?

 

[Mike375]

The difference between God/god/supernatural and the fairy at the bottom of the garden is beleivers in the supernatural have seen evidence but have not seen any for the fairy.

I acknowledge the atheist will say the evidence the believer sees to support a belief in the supernatural is false. However, that is from the atheists perspective and the question of "why a god but why not a fairy" is addressed to the believer and the believer has seen evidence for one but not the other.

 

[Rich]

Sorry yes - I am so out of line - with the idea that God may or may not exist - but that I find Nessie extermely unlikely. Silly me!

So this is a fake then?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That photo IS a fake. I saw the interview with a couple of old codgers who took the photo. It was purposely taken with a low-quality camera from a distance such that it had to be enlarged, thereby playing Hob with the resolution. They used a float device that carried a cutout atop it. The float device was counterbalanced so that the actual flotation part was completely submerged but the fake top was above water.

I won't repeat the post I just added to the other "atheism" thread in this same general heading. But it is relevant to the issue of what is and what isn't evidence of the existence of God.

A reminder is appropriate in passing about saying that something is popular. Numbers don't tell the whole story. After all, over the course of the last several thousand year, at least 50 TRILLION flies have eaten sh**. But I won't be joining them for dinner. Popularity might only mean that you have to have a brain the size of a house-fly to like something or think it is great. In which case, there WAS a correlation after all, but not the facts you wanted to express.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Popularity is not on its own an indicator of truth. But it can add something to the equation.

For example, let's say someone knows nothing about Word or Excel. They learn the basics and as they progress they might wonder if Word and Excel are OK for the job. Once they find out that Word and Excel totally dominate the word processor and spreadsheet programs then that will probably remove any doubt about Excel and Word being able to do what will be required.

If you wake to the sound of some real weird noice you might eb thinking you had too much to drink But if learn the next day that 1000s of people heard the noise then you can assume you did hear it.

Sure, but that's popularity or rather, corroboration of a physical observation. How does that relate to popularity of some non-falsifiable notion.

1000 people saying they heard a similar noise

vs

1000 people saying they can't absolutely disprove the existence of an invisible, intangible entity in the room.

Not really the same process happening in both these cases - there are any number of other things we could get that second group to agree that they can't actually disprove, but we can't get the first group to agree they heard something else.

 

[Mike375]

Mike,

You can say it how you like but that does not change the fact that since the "something must be out there" is across the whole world and across the spectrum of education levels adds to things. It is just one more thing.

The believer is not a believer because of one thing such as the Bible or whatever. The belief is there because of many things.

As I have posted before I am inclined to think the believer and the atheist are both products of the personality.

For example, I don't think you would be a real hard core atheist. Alisa would be. Alc on the hard core side but not as much as Alisa.

In fact I reckon you would be agnostic/atheist, that is, not sure but if there is an answer it will be atheism.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Mike,

You can say it how you like but that does not change the fact that since the "something must be out there" is across the whole world and across the spectrum of education levels adds to things. It is just one more thing.

Yeah, but what appears to be a massive consensus, isn't. Everyone has their own version of what that 'something' means - they're not explicitly agreeing on anything, except when they choose to agree on specific details within their individual religions.

The believer is not a believer because of one thing such as the Bible or whatever. The belief is there because of many things.

As I have posted before I am inclined to think the believer and the atheist are both products of the personality.

For example, I don't think you would be a real hard core atheist. Alisa would be. Alc on the hard core side but not as much as Alisa.

In fact I reckon you would be agnostic/atheist, that is, not sure but if there is an answer it will be atheism.

I'm not an atheist at all - it's just that in discussions such as these, I nearly always find the theists arguments to fall short of what they are trying to do - and it just happens to be the case that in questioning those arguments, one ends up sounding quite a lot like an atheist.

I've actually given up trying to argue in support of my own beliefs - I am where I am, and believe what I believe because of the things that have happened to me in my life, but I think it's literally impossible (for anyone) to translate those experiences into arguments - it always comes out sounding a lot weaker than it really is.

 

[JamesLast99]

About the consensus thing - If theres a consensus of opionion - based on facts and logic which you agree with - you go with that consensus. It would require additional, superior knowledge or logic - to reasonable go against that consensus.Thats how I get to my disbelief of Nessie, the Yeti - whatever whatever - but don't know on God.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

About the consensus thing - If theres a consensus of opionion - based on facts and logic which you agree with - you go with that consensus.

In that case, though, isn't it just the facts and logic you're agreeing with? The consensus is irrelevant.

 

[JamesLast99]

Kind of - think of it as peer review of the thought process. I understood the logic and facts and came to the same answer.I may have though I understood the facts and logic and come do a differnat answer.Surely you can see - if most people in the world work out - 123 * 123 = 15129you can work it out for yourself 15129 - and then feel happy that you got it right cos everyone else agrees with you.Whereas if you made an error and had 15139 - the consensus would lead you to review your thinking. Its just an added check - that of whether you are on the right path or not.I struggle to see the difficulty with this concept.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

No, I agree that the consensus can provide a useful check of the facts (it's not always reliable, but few things in life are.)

But it's the facts and logic that are the important part - therefore, in a discussion such as the one in this thread, it's the facts and logic that need to be presented, not the consensus alone. Facts+logic+consensus is great, but all these people agree on something or other is just not useful.

 

[JamesLast99]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that - only certain extreme atheist posters - who think everyone else is necessariliy stupid - thought that argument ever existed here.

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
Mike,

You can say it how you like but that does not change the fact that since the "something must be out there" is across the whole world and across the spectrum of education levels adds to things. It is just one more thing.

Yeah, but what appears to be a massive consensus, isn't. Everyone has their own version of what that 'something' means - they're not explicitly agreeing on anything, except when they choose to agree on specific details within their individual religions.

The common ground is a "supernatural".


Quote:
The believer is not a believer because of one thing such as the Bible or whatever. The belief is there because of many things.

As I have posted before I am inclined to think the believer and the atheist are both products of the personality.

For example, I don't think you would be a real hard core atheist. Alisa would be. Alc on the hard core side but not as much as Alisa.

In fact I reckon you would be agnostic/atheist, that is, not sure but if there is an answer it will be atheism.

I've actually given up trying to argue in support of my own beliefs - I am where I am, and believe what I believe because of the things that have happened to me in my life, but I think it's literally impossible (for anyone) to translate those experiences into arguments - it always comes out sounding a lot weaker than it really is.

Agree completely.

 

[Rich]

Quote:
The believer is not a believer because of one thing such as the Bible or whatever. The belief is there because of many things.

Yes and the word you're looking for is called indoctrination

 

[Rabbie]

The difference between God/god/supernatural and the fairy at the bottom of the garden is beleivers in the supernatural have seen evidence but have not seen any for the fairy.

I acknowledge the atheist will say the evidence the believer sees to support a belief in the supernatural is false. However, that is from the atheists perspective and the question of "why a god but why not a fairy" is addressed to the believer and the believer has seen evidence for one but not the other.

If the believer has seen evidence why don't they produce it? As for the popularity argument there are a lot of theists who are not Jewish, Christian or Muslims (Hndus for example) who would disagree with the argument that their religion/beliefs must be wrong because it is not a majority belief. There was a time when a majority of people worshipped other gods so the popularity argument is surely not valid.

BTW Mike I have had more cash from the tooth fairy than from any supernatural