The downward trend continues

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So what are you using to challenge it then Floo? I could easily run around saying, "As has been said many times just because a lot of people don't believe something is true doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true"

The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.

Nope. All that's actually being said here is that the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy - evidently so. There may be other reasons to think that something is true, but the fact of lots of people cohering around a common opinion is not of itself a sound basis to argue for the truthfulness of that opinion. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Nope. All that's actually being said here is that the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy - evidently so. There may be other reasons to think that something is true, but the fact of lots of people cohering around a common opinion is not of itself a sound basis to argue for the truthfulness of that opinion.

Except I haven't seen anyone here attempting to do that, hence the options I presented to Floo.

[Gordon]

The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.

Nope: when what is claimed is fallacious then the claim fails on that basis.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Nope: when what is claimed is fallacious then the claim fails on that basis.

But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?

Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?

One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!

The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Except I haven't seen anyone here attempting to do that, hence the options I presented to Floo.

Then you haven't been looking. Here's Sassy just a few posts ago:

How many people believe in Jesus Christ throughout the world since he came?

How long have the belief in elves ride unicorns been around or they would be able to knock on the door riding a unicorn?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?

Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?

One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!

The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.

No it isn't. The "world view" that rationalism is probabilistically a better guide to truths than just guessing isn't affected by that at all - the possible answers are still rationally obtained. 

[Gordon]

But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?

Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?

One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!

The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.

You seem confused - you using mathematics is just you using logic. Even if someone thought it mysterious the explanation is still logical just as a magician doing seemingly magical card tricks isn't actually doing 'magic': it looks that way to those not 'in' on the how - but there is a how.

You seem to have created your particular take on 'worldview' as a hook to hang your approach to theism on in much the same way as Alan Burns uses 'souls'.     

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Then you haven't been looking. Here's Sassy just a few posts ago:

I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?

[floo]

I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?

Because they are just as credible/not credible as the things attributed to the Biblical god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?

And now you make the same mistake!

What possible connection do you think there to be between the number of believers in a proposition and it probable truthfulness?

They're being compared because sometimes it's a useful rhetorical device. If, say, someone says "You can't disprove god, therefore god is real" (the negative proof fallacy) then the same argument can be expressed as, "You don't believe in leprechauns, therefore leprechauns are real". Whether a billion people believe in "God" and none believe in leprechauns (or vice versa) makes no difference for the purpose of the argument.

Blimey O'Reilly!