Well, if society made out that two plus two equals five, fixed calculators, eliminated antagonists, etc, and everyone said two plus two equals five, then two plus two equals five. On that same token, if one billion people make out that the Catholic God exists, than a certain amount of credibility for their belief, the same belief that could make two plus two equal five, would make it more credible than Enchiladotuilluptah.
some of those atheists don't believe in an afterlife, which means they probably won't go to said afterlife. I think it's a more of mind over matter thing.
I will repeat myself, how does a belief effect our going or not?
If "mind over matter" is how, the spirit and the afterlife is usually looked at as non material in existence, then there is no matter for the mind to effect. So that really doesn't explain it.
On that same token, if one billion people make out that the Catholic God exists, than a certain amount of credibility for their belief, the same belief that could make two plus two equal five, would make it more credible than Enchiladotuilluptah.
Honestly I think the better comparison here is to political parties (more members more likely to get elected etc.) and while it might mean the belief is "better" it doesn't make it right. Christianity has been made an easy religion with leaders who strive only to convert thus it has more followers.
Well, if society made out that two plus two equals five, fixed calculators, eliminated antagonists, etc, and everyone said two plus two equals five, then two plus two equals five. On that same token, if one billion people make out that the Catholic God exists, than a certain amount of credibility for their belief, the same belief that could make two plus two equal five, would make it more credible than Enchiladotuilluptah.
Not true. The absolute value of 2+2 would be unchanged, regardless of how many people called it differently. The argument you are making here seems like an appeal to majority, a very common fallacy. For example, at one time everyone on the Earth believed it was flat. Yet that did not have any effect on the fact that it is, indeed, (roughly) round.
What was the common saying? 2 billion people can't be wrong? Yes, in fact they can, and amazingly enough usually are.
Well, if society made out that two plus two equals five, fixed calculators, eliminated antagonists, etc, and everyone said two plus two equals five, then two plus two equals five.
That would require redefining the meaning of the word five or two to express a different count. We could call the numbers what ever we wanted but it wouldn't change that when we have a grouping like this && and a grouping like this && and we put those groups together, we get a grouping like this &&&&. No matter what society say it won't change that.
if one billion people make out that the Catholic God exists, than a certain amount of credibility for their belief, the same belief that could make two plus two equal five, would make it more credible than Enchiladotuilluptah.
The absolute value of 2+2 would be unchanged, regardless of how many people called it differently.
As long as 2 is defined as half of four but as it is I suppose I've nothing else to say.
Along these lines societal truth is still extremely important; in believing the world was flat Europeans sent out an expedition that came to be responsible for the discovery of the Americas, by the Europeans.
Okay I've gotten you guys a bit off with the whole majority thing; think of it this way; there are two unproven ideas, one supported by Freakenstein and one supported by millions of people. some with prestigious titles, degrees etc. Which one would you be more inclined to believe, if you either had to choose, or had no other knowledge of the ideas?
there are two unproven ideas, one supported by Freakenstein and one supported by millions of people. some with prestigious titles, degrees etc. Which one would you be more inclined to believe, if you either had to choose, or had no other knowledge of the ideas?
The idea which refrains from asserting anything as fact without evidence. If both assert as fact a premise yet has no evidence then I will believe neither.
The point I'm making here Cinna is that no religion is more credible than the other, no matter if one is more popular than the other, because they all stem from the psyche.
When I die, I go to a 6 star restaurant--unheard of in modern society, where I am served enchiladas by beautiful, virgin waitresses every time I am hungry. When I am not hungry, I will celebrate being chosen to be in this culinary haven, done by free will. In other words, I get to celebrate my ascension the way I want to, empirically celebrating or not.
My religion does not have a name, for Enchilladotuilluptah wishes to keep the follower population dim, because any follower wishes to eat in peace with no rowdy noise. I cannot reveal how to ascend to the 6-star restaurant, for that would void my passage.
Okay I've gotten you guys a bit off with the whole majority thing; think of it this way; there are two unproven ideas, one supported by Freakenstein and one supported by millions of people. some with prestigious titles, degrees etc. Which one would you be more inclined to believe, if you either had to choose, or had no other knowledge of the ideas?
There are two different unsupported ideas. One is supported by you, the other by millions of children worldwide. That is right, I am talking about Santa Clause! Thus you are wrong and Santa exists. Which would you be more inclined to believe, if you either had to choose, or had no other knowledge of the ideas?
