|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:36:21 GMT
It's not an argument. It's a fact. You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop) I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:39:10 GMT
You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop) I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. " Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:42:31 GMT
I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. 1) "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia then. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. 2) "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion." Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this. 1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:45:17 GMT
1) "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia then. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. 2) "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. " Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this. 1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion. 1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 15:59:39 GMT
Religious people have a LOT more children.
Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:03:15 GMT
Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman. Yeah again, this isn't a good argument for religion, quite the opposite, you're basically admitting the spread of religion has more to do with believers having more children and childhood indoctrination rather than it's actual sound validity. I've already addressed this.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:04:33 GMT
1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion. 1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making. 1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 16:06:40 GMT
“Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.”
My answer: “No. Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.”
(The percentage of religious people on Earth.)
I’m talking about the MATH!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:09:08 GMT
1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making. 1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers. 1. Yes you're presenting facts, but you're using them in a fallacious manner ("A lot of people believe in religion, therefore there must some truth to it") I've already addressed this. 2.) Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religios only because so many countries are underdevoped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:10:41 GMT
“Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.” My answer: “No. Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.” (The percentage of religious people on Earth.) I'll just copy and past what I said to movieliker: Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religious only because so many countries are underdeveloped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2021 16:28:23 GMT
That's just an argument from ad pop fallacy. The world wide spread of Christianity has more to do with centuries of European imperialism and colonialization rather than how true and valid it actually is. Also you do realize Islam is going to eventually surpass Christianity, right? That would still mean believers out number non believers. And not too long ago, before humanity knew much about bacteria and viruses, the people who believed diseases were a divine punishment outnumbered those who believed that diseases had natural causes. Does this mean they were right?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:29:33 GMT
1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers. 1. Yes you're presenting facts, but you're using them in a fallacious manner ("A lot of people believe in religion, therefore there must some truth to it") I've already addressed this. 2.) Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religios only because so many countries are underdevoped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop. )1) But of course, that goes without saying. 2) I looked up statistics on my own. And "religious" and "believer" are two different things. Many people in 1rst world countries (like me) don't belong to any organized religion. But they still believe. Intelligent and educated people can think for themselves. They don't need a church to tell them what to believe, think or do. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:33:53 GMT
That would still mean believers out number non believers. And not too long ago, before humanity knew much about bacteria and viruses, the people who believed diseases were a divine punishment outnumbered those who believed that diseases had natural causes. Does this mean they were right? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean everything they used to think is wrong either. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2021 16:40:54 GMT
And not too long ago, before humanity knew much about bacteria and viruses, the people who believed diseases were a divine punishment outnumbered those who believed that diseases had natural causes. Does this mean they were right? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean everything they used to think is wrong either. No one said this. I was just using this example to illustrate that the fact that a majority believes something doesn't mean that this something is factually true.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 16:44:41 GMT
The massive numbers of believers of higher powers among human beings for thousands of years doesn’t prove anything about a god.
It shows the propensity of believing.
It’s part of the human race’s characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:47:11 GMT
No, of course not. But it doesn't mean everything they used to think is wrong either. No one said this. I was just using this example to illustrate that the fact that a majority believes something doesn't mean that this something is factually true. I agree. I've long been for legalized drugs. But until recently, most states said no. I've long been for universal healthcare. But the United States is one of the few 1rst world countries that doesn't have it. One reason I don't belong to any organized religion is I don't agree with their positions on many things. But still, many people need religion for morals, ethics, and spirituality. Because the Atheists and anti religious aren't teaching morals, ethics and spirituality. And people gotta go somewhere for a positive and constructive message. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2021 16:53:00 GMT
No one said this. I was just using this example to illustrate that the fact that a majority believes something doesn't mean that this something is factually true. I agree. I've long been for legalized drugs. But until recently, most states said no. I've long been for universal healthcare. But the United States is one of the few 1rst world countries that doesn't have it. One reason I don't belong to any organized religion is I don't agree with their positions on many things. But still, many people need religion for morals, ethics, and spirituality. Because the Atheists and anti religious aren't teaching morals, ethics and spirituality. And people gotta go somewhere for a positive and constructive message. I agree with your post, except for the last line. And the next to last line is problematic as well IMO. There are plenty of ethical and moral frameworks that don't need the divine. Utilitarism is one, and the Golden Rule doesn't require a deity either. So saying that atheists don't teach morals or ethics is wrong. As for positive messages: Utilitarism teaches that the pursuit of happiness is a valid goal. How much more positivity can you get? As for many people needing religion for morals: If without religion they'd be people who do evil things, then maybe they are just bad people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 6, 2021 17:00:00 GMT
Hey, SciFive , here's a fun math problem I posted on the board a while back. I was curious to see who could solve it. Besides myself, only two others did. Interested to see if you can solve it given your math background: ***** PROBLEM: Say you're given a hairy bag with ten balls in it. You reach in and pull out a blue ball. You're told that one of four things is possible: a. The bag only has blue balls in them. b. The bag only has blue and red balls in equal amounts. c. The bag has two blue balls, two red balls, two green balls, two yellow balls, and two purple balls. d. The bag has one blue ball and nine variously-colored balls. Questions: 1. Is one bag more probable than the other? 2. If one bag is more probable than the others, what is the probability it's that bag? What are the prior probabilities for the choices (before a blue ball was pulled out)? The odds for a particular choice are a product of the prior odds times something computable from the problem statement. I intentionally left that vague because the idea is that without listed priors you basically have to assign equal probabilities to each bag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 6, 2021 17:02:37 GMT
 1) See, here's the problem we're having: you don't have the first clue about (ir)rationality and logic. All you know is that they're bad things, and since you don't want to think anything bad about your beliefs, you're denying that they're irrational/illogical. What's funny is that you literally defined what you're doing as illogical when you said "Your desire to believe God exists as a reason for being happy, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists" ( IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/4521946/thread). Irrationality and logical fallacies are literally defined as methods of thought that lead to beliefs that have nothing to do with the truth of that belief. So you already admitted to being irrational, to believing in God based on a logical fallacy, but because you don't know what either of those things mean, you're still denying it. It's like someone saying "oh sure, I stabbed the guy until he died just because he laughed at me, but I didn't MURDER him!" The fact that you refuse to read those links (even one) says all anyone needs to know about your lack of intellectual integrity/honesty, and at this point you're just trying to project your own ignorance on to me, pretending that I'm the one that doesn't understand something, despite not having said a single thing that you can show I didn't understand. Pretty much your (and SciFive's) entire schtick is a display of various psychological defense mechanisms to protect your ignorance. 2) How about this, I'll give you one more chance to recognize what you refuse to recognize. What if I start a poll on the Politics forum and phrase the question like this: "Is it irrational to believe things only because you want them to be true?" with the options "no, that's a logical fallacy" or "yes, that's perfectly rational" and see what they respond. Not that I have tremendous confidence in what people over there know about logic/rationality either, but this is so basic I have to be optimistic enough to think most recognize that such a thing is blatantly irrational. 1) I disagree. 2) You are welcome to start that poll if you want. But what would that prove? That most posters here are Atheist? (I don't have time right now. Maybe I'll click those links later.) 1) I don't care if you disagree. You can also disagree that 2+2=5, which is the equivalent of what you're doing. You admitted to a logical fallacy but don't know enough about logical fallacies to recognize that's what you did. 2) I didn't say I'd start it here, I said I'd post on Politics, and word it in such a way that it has nothing to do with God. Again, the poll would read: "Is it rational to believe things just because you want them to be true?" With the choices of "Yes, that's perfectly rational" or "No, that's a logical fallacy." No reference to God at all. In fact, I imagine most on Politics would interpret it as being political.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 17:08:33 GMT
What are the prior probabilities for the choices (before a blue ball was pulled out)? The odds for a particular choice are a product of the prior odds times something computable from the problem statement. I intentionally left that vague because the idea is that without listed priors you basically have to assign equal probabilities to each bag. If your prior odds for cases a - d are W : X : Y : Z (for example, 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 if you consider each to be equally likely) then after drawing one ball and observing that it is blue you update the odds to W : X/2 : Y/5 : Z /10 (equivalently, but without fractions, 10 W : 5 X : 2 Y : Z). If W : X : Y : Z is initially, say 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 (10% case a, 20% case b, 30% case c, 40% case, sum = 100%) then after drawing one ball and observing that it is blue you update the odds to 10 : 10 : 6 : 4 (probabilities 1/3, 1/3, 1/5, 2/15). The answers to the two questions depended on the prior. For equal prior probabilities of 25 % each, the posterior odds are 10 : 5 : 2 : 1 and so there is a probability of 10/18 = 5/9 that you have "type a" hairy blue balls. |
|
