[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, theists are in the majority on this planet. So whose naive claims are you dismissing exactly? That of the majority of people who are convinced there is a God of some sort?

Church attendance != % of people who pray or believe. Isolating the Christian God flaws your atheist argument, as there are a multitiude of religions that are convinced there is a supereme being of some sort.

So it can be said more people believe in God than understand the provable principles of gravity. It may be both things are instinctive.

People know things fall from trees, and not to put glass near a table's edge. They pray to deities too, because they instinctively believe there is an afterlife and a chance to balance the books, as it were.

What tells you that they're wrong? Your individual bias, perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they were wrong..and I didn't evaluate the truth of any claim..so I don't know where you got that from.

[ QUOTE ]
So it can be said more people believe in God than understand the provable principles of gravity. It may be both things are instinctive.

[/ QUOTE ]

these are not necessarily (I would say not) equal...

experiencing god and expeiencing gravity perhaps..in which case, my claim still stands

[ QUOTE ]
Well, theists are in the majority on this planet. So whose naive claims are you dismissing exactly? That of the majority of people who are convinced there is a God of some sort?

[/ QUOTE ]

"experiencing god" is usally attributed to an individual god..obviously experiencing jesus may be that way..and other religions are the same way..although I'm sure there is a great number of theists whose experiences are not specific to a god..or perhaps they mistakenly attribute this experience to a specific god..

still this is only talking about the fact that people "trust" in gravity because of experiences (which we are equating to experiences of god)..so this is only focusing on that one point...the others still remain since someone picked at only this one.

I do agree that there is something to be said about the large number of people who claim to have experienced some form of "experiencing god"..again not specifically..

note that with falsifiable theories such as the theory of gravity, even a few..or even just one case of someone or something not being affected by gravity is enough to shake the whole theory.

the god theory does not lend itself to this, so the fact that it has not been falsified is not evidence in support of it..whereas the fact that the theory of gravity has not been falsified IS evidence in support ot it.


it is clear that there is a reason or many reasons that so many people, both currently, and throughout history have has "experiences" of a religious nature..(again mutually exclusive experiences are another story as I discussed)..

it is certainly hard to evaluate without making crucial a priori assumptions...but I think we can go into it somewhat..

I might say that there is a natural reason for all of it...no need to invoke a god..but there is no way of coming to this conclusion without making the assumption that nothing supernatural is happening..so that doesn't work..

but I think it can still be evaluated somewhat because of the nature of the situation...

all these experiences may be compatible with eachother or
some of these experiences may not be compatible with eachother

I think that most of us could agree that at least some of the experiences are not compatible with others..not all of these claims can be exactly as they are claimed to be and not clash...

so consider that one of these may be the correct one..let's say the christian experiencing god...since an experience that is incompatible with this cannot be true, there must be another reason for this experience..since this person did not have the true experience...(basically everyone cannot have a true experience..by "true" I mean clearly indicative of the true god that exists)

so there must be an another reason for this...in claiming that theirs is the true experience, they must admit that there must another explaination for these contradictory false experiences...

they must admit that there IS another way that such an experience occurs.

those who aim to show that ALL of these experiences are like this other experiences (in that they aren't indicative of a true god that exists), we simply push it one group of experiences further...

so we go off of an accepted notion of how such experiences can occur, it is not without reason that we discredit such a large number of people..since even in giving them all full credit, the fact that these experiences are unrelaible is still shown

it is no longer based on blind a priori assumptions, but rather one of these assumptions CAN be made because it is shown to be true for either position..

this is by no means proof..and isn't even what I would call strong evidence, but it IS at least a nudge in that direction, whereas it was previously at a stalemate

EDIT: err.. I just realized that it wouldn't be even a nudge in any specific direction since it would only show that it must be due to some other cause..what that cause is not evaluated..I was thinking that the wide variety of natural causes would be contained under it, but since we are also still considering supernatural causes, there is also in an infinite number of possible supernatural causes