Atheism is a faith

[Ordya]

I'm claiming that it is irrational for a minority to belittle a majority

Why?

You do know that those who believe in the Christian god is a minority, right? By your ''logic'' that means that your god doesn't exist.

You are also aware of the fact that a majority once thought that the Earth was flat - but that it actually isn't...?

I do not lose.

You most certainly do.

You mean, who believe that Jesus is God, right?

[Individuality-ness]

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

Yeah, doesn't sound like it to me.

[Agymnum]

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You're trying to claim that irreligion/atheism are illogical on the basis of number of adherents.

You're using argumentum ad populum to accomplish this. Your claim is that it's ridiculous for a few to ridicule the many on the basis that "if more believe, who are the few to say that they are wrong?"

Regardless of what the majority believe, what is wrong will remain wrong and what is right will remain right.

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

Because that's argumentum ad populum, and it's a fallacy.

[Ordya]

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherentys of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who said God controls everyone?

[Conservative Idealism]

I'm actually making an inverse of that claim.

I find it perfectly logical that there are people that deny belief in any God, seeing as there are so many who deny mine in particular.

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

Replace theism with slavery, or atheism with women's suffrage, and see how that argument works for you.

Okay, here we go with the civil rights stuff.

Yeah, slavery is bad news, as is denial of rights on the basis of gender. That does not indicate that they never should have occurred - the new world's market would have failed had slavery not been introduced at least in that region, and if women had all rights to begin with, there would never have been a shining example for people to follow if they were discriminated against for other reasons.

I'm glad the past is the way it is. It is irrational to wish it were modified.

[Xathranaar]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherentys of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who said God controls everyone?

I think he was talking specifically of the Abrahamic god, though I suppose it would be a disputed point even then.

[Ordya]

That argument was both sexist and racist, good job.

[Ordya]

Who said God controls everyone?

I think he was talking specifically of the Abrahamic god, though I suppose it would be a disputed point even then.

Right, may I suggest not assuming, you know what they say about it.

[Xathranaar]

Replace theism with slavery, or atheism with women's suffrage, and see how that argument works for you.

Okay, here we go with the civil rights stuff.

Yeah, slavery is bad news, as is denial of rights on the basis of gender. That does not indicate that they never should have occurred - the new world's market would have failed had slavery not been introduced at least in that region, and if women had all rights to begin with, there would never have been a shining example for people to follow if they were discriminated against for other reasons.

I'm glad the past is the way it is. It is irrational to wish it were modified.

Wow, that point just sailed passed you, didn't it?

I was saying that your "argument" could have been used to stifle any progressive movement ever. Because it is nothing more then saying, "you shouldn't challenge the majority's view."

[Conservative Idealism]

What I find illogical is that many atheists find religion completely illogical despite its number of adherents. If more believe, who are the few to say that the more never should have believed in the first place?

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

[Grave_n_idle]

Learn what argumentum ad populum is.
A belief held by majority doesn't make the belief true so number of believers are irrelevant.

I figured that part out. What I can't figure out is why pointing out that irreligion has a much smaller following than religion falls under the fallacy. I'm not using it to prove an argument unrelated to it (that would be non sequitur, or something along those lines). I'm using it to put the whole idea into perspective.

And what do you think that 'perspective' shows?

By the way - atheism and irreligion are not the same thing.

[Xathranaar]

I think he was talking specifically of the Abrahamic god, though I suppose it would be a disputed point even then.

Right, may I suggest not assuming, you know what they say about it.

That it's assum?

[Individuality-ness]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

And that's still argumentum ad populum, as you're claiming validity of an idea because the majority thinks it is so.

[Agymnum]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherentys of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who said God controls everyone?

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-powerful, he is capable of knowing what everyone will do and what will happen.

If he chooses not to control everyone, which some religions may endorse, then the conclusion is that God is an asshole (because he lets humans die and suffer when he can stop such things from happening) and not worth worshiping.

If he chooses to control everyone, which is unbelievable due to the idea of human sapient thought and self-awareness, then he's still an asshole for making humans die and kill each other, and thus not worth worshiping.

EDIT: Also, I'm talking about the Abrahamic God. I'm not qualified to talk about Norse, Hindi, Egyptian, or other polytheistic religion-based gods.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Why?

You do know that those who believe in the Christian god is a minority, right? By your ''logic'' that means that your god doesn't exist.

You are also aware of the fact that a majority once thought that the Earth was flat - but that it actually isn't...?

You most certainly do.

You mean, who believe that Jesus is God, right?

The Christian god, yes.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

The number of people who believe something is not a measure of how accurate the information is.

[Conservative Idealism]

That argument was both sexist and racist, good job.

Devaluing civil rights issues by introducing them into a religious debate wasn't entirely smart on your part, buddy.

Also, I'm not being racist. I would much prefer it if, today, people were not denied (or granted extra) rights based on gender or race, and am glad that the present is not the past. However, the world would be a lot different, and not necessarily better, if there were no struggle to begin with.

[Xathranaar]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

You know, quite a lot of theists don't make any pretense of being logical.

But, as it happens, there is a way to measure who is being logical: observe who is following the rules of logic.

[Conservative Idealism]

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

And that's still argumentum ad populum, as you're claiming validity of an idea because the majority thinks it is so.

Then who gets to lay claim to the validity? A miniscule group of people that have no idea who started it all and deny all attempts to have it explained to them?

[Agymnum]

That's still argumentum ad populum. Just because there are many adherents of religion, does not somehow mean that religion is not illogical.

The idea of believing in a quasi-sky god who controls everyone and created the world - when there is evidence that the world came about naturally through processes which can be proven in nature and via the fossil record - is illogical. It cannot be otherwise.

Who defines what is and isn't logical? I could answer the majority. Or, I could answer God. Or, I could answer that tiny margin of people that doesn't agree with everyone else.

...I think I'll go with the first two, but that's just me. And, you know, six billion other people.

That statement still reeks of argumentum ad populum.

Just saying.

[Ordya]

Right, may I suggest not assuming, you know what they say about it.

That it's assum?

It makes an ass of u & me.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Why does faith in a proposition, such as the sun rising every day, suddenly cease to be faith when it is constantly validated? Would faith in god suddenly cease to be faith if god wrote "I AM HERE ASSHOLES!" in the sky? Lack or presence of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Faith is a general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon.

Faith is general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon without proof.

Note the without proof part. If it's proven, it takes no faith to believe.

Hence, I don't put faith in scientific theory, because scientific theory has sufficient proof to believe without needing to suspend logic (a key tenet of faith).

That's a silly definition. If we are talking about the same phenomenon within the human of trusting a particular phenomenon, the process is the same whether there is proof for it or not. Same activity, yet you are tryng to divide it into two seperate activities.

[Agymnum]

Faith is general trust in a particular quality of a phenomenon without proof.

Note the without proof part. If it's proven, it takes no faith to believe.

Hence, I don't put faith in scientific theory, because scientific theory has sufficient proof to believe without needing to suspend logic (a key tenet of faith).

That's a silly definition. If we are talking about the same phenomenon within the human of trusting a particular phenomenon, the process is the same whether there is proof for it or not. Same activity, yet you are tryng to divide it into two seperate activities.

Belief and faith are not the same phenomenon.

[Individuality-ness]

And that's still argumentum ad populum, as you're claiming validity of an idea because the majority thinks it is so.

Then who gets to lay claim to the validity? A miniscule group of people that have no idea who started it all and deny all attempts to have it explained to them?

1. We do have scientific theories on how the universe started. Evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang Theory.
2. No one does unless there's evidence to support one's claim.