3 ms·

This argument is fun but not much more. "Why don't you have any children?. This seems strange to me." "Well, there are billions of children in the world that

by aero142 16y ago

This argument is fun but not much more. "Why don't you have any children?. This seems strange to me." "Well, there are billions of children in the world that are not yours, I just have one less than you. We're basically the same." The difference between having no children and one child is big. So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God. I think the original argument is useful to point out that there are billions of people who don't believe in your particular God, and that it isn't that strange to not believe.

hugh3 16y ago
A better analogy would be as follows: "Why don't you believe the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium?" "Well, there have been hundreds of theories of what the sun might be composed of; giant birds, fire, holes in the sky... I just believe one less than you do" That analogy still only works if there's some particularly good reason for believing that one God is significantly more likely to exist than any other.
ErrantX 16y ago
> So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God. Im not sure that takes into account the fact that belief in one particular God (or set of gods) usually precludes belief in all the others. In that respect belief/non-belief is not very different.
dionidium 16y ago
I disagree. The point of the argument is that the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do. Your analogy isn't equivalent in that way. Thinking through why you don't believe in Thor might help you reveal a double-standard or inconsistency. Thinking through why you didn't -- what? -- give birth to all the other children in the world is nonsensical.
- aero142 16y ago
  I think there are two points. The conventional use of this argument is the one you are talking about, and that is why I said at the end of my post that it IS useful for that. However, the article specifically says “So, I guess we're not compatible, huh?”, meaning that we can't get along because we are different. And the response to that is “Of course we are! I like you a lot. And we do agree on 519 of the gods, so we'll just not mention that last one.” My response is that zero to one is a big jump. Darek seems to be a "lets all get along" kind of guy, and that is great, but this quote doesn't justify that.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  > "the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do." Not if the reasoning you use to rule out the other 519 gods is "exclusivity of god #520". Or if the reasoning is "I haven't explicitly ruled them out, I just don't have any positive evidence for their existence, but I do for #520". It's certainly worth thinking about whether your reasoning for whatever god(s) you believe in is consistent. The original argument sort of touches on that, but it does it quite poorly.
lotharbot 16y ago
"Me and Bernie Madoff have a lot in common. There are 6.8 billion people on earth neither of us have defrauded." A similar argument can be used with Jeffrey Dahmer and murder, various priests and child molestation, Kobe Bryant and defeating people in a 1-on-1 basketball game, or Fred Phelps and funerals protested. There is a big difference between no children and one, no murders and one, no gods and one, no felonies and one, and so on.

by aero142 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

A better analogy would be as follows: "Why don't you believe the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium?" "Well, there have been hundreds of theories of what the sun might be composed of; giant birds, fire, holes in the sky... I just believe one less than you do" That analogy still only works if there's some particularly good reason for believing that one God is significantly more likely to exist than any other.

ErrantX 16y ago

> So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God. Im not sure that takes into account the fact that belief in one particular God (or set of gods) usually precludes belief in all the others. In that respect belief/non-belief is not very different.

dionidium 16y ago

I disagree. The point of the argument is that the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do. Your analogy isn't equivalent in that way. Thinking through why you don't believe in Thor might help you reveal a double-standard or inconsistency. Thinking through why you didn't -- what? -- give birth to all the other children in the world is nonsensical.

aero142 16y ago
I think there are two points. The conventional use of this argument is the one you are talking about, and that is why I said at the end of my post that it IS useful for that. However, the article specifically says “So, I guess we're not compatible, huh?”, meaning that we can't get along because we are different. And the response to that is “Of course we are! I like you a lot. And we do agree on 519 of the gods, so we'll just not mention that last one.” My response is that zero to one is a big jump. Darek seems to be a "lets all get along" kind of guy, and that is great, but this quote doesn't justify that.
lotharbot 16y ago
> "the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do." Not if the reasoning you use to rule out the other 519 gods is "exclusivity of god #520". Or if the reasoning is "I haven't explicitly ruled them out, I just don't have any positive evidence for their existence, but I do for #520". It's certainly worth thinking about whether your reasoning for whatever god(s) you believe in is consistent. The original argument sort of touches on that, but it does it quite poorly.

lotharbot 16y ago

"Me and Bernie Madoff have a lot in common. There are 6.8 billion people on earth neither of us have defrauded." A similar argument can be used with Jeffrey Dahmer and murder, various priests and child molestation, Kobe Bryant and defeating people in a 1-on-1 basketball game, or Fred Phelps and funerals protested. There is a big difference between no children and one, no murders and one, no gods and one, no felonies and one, and so on.