Wikipedia wrote:In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Tobin basically wrote:Nuh-uh, it's a totally valid argument.
Well, I guess that settles it.
So it is your position that it is a logical fallacy to question the assertion that 95% of the population of the planet is delusional because they believe in a God. You are being patently absurd.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:It wouldn't make any difference. If tomorrow they discovered pre-columbian horse remains, iron swords, and identified the ancient city of Zarahemla, you still wouldn't be Mormon. Mormonism requires faith and a personal witness of Jesus Christ inorder to believe and follow it. That is what the Book of Mormon asks of its readers and so finding things like horse remains means nothing at all.
Tobin wrote:So it is your position that it is a logical fallacy to question the assertion that 95% of the population of the planet is delusional because they believe in a God. You are being patently absurd.
Poor old Tobin. Can't tell the difference between these two propositions:
1. I think a proposition believed in by many people is not more likely to be true in virtue of that fact alone, and may even be wrong.
2. I think people who believe in a false proposition are delusional.
Still, he can't help it ... we mustn't mock.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Tobin wrote:It wouldn't make any difference. If tomorrow they discovered pre-columbian horse remains, iron swords, and identified the ancient city of Zarahemla, you still wouldn't be Mormon. Mormonism requires faith and a personal witness of Jesus Christ inorder to believe and follow it. That is what the Book of Mormon asks of its readers and so finding things like horse remains means nothing at all.
You need to understand the different nature of evidence. Finding horses and metallurgy during Book of Mormon times would not be evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but would get rid of evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Now Zarahemla I assume would be some type of evidence that clearly supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I would certainly consider it, but then we don't see evidence coming forth, but always more evidence against. DNA is one the newer ones, and as more research goes on especially with parts of our DNA outside of Mitochondrial or Y chromosome I wonder if it will get better or worse. If the past if anything to go on, then much worse.
I think I could buy the “there is not positive evidence for the Book of Mormon because God wants us to have faith” argument if there wasn’t just so much evidence against it. If pre-Columbian steel, horse bones, wheat, wine, etc were found that would not be evidence that the Book of Mormon is true but at least its absence could not be used as evidence against it.
It is like believing the Book of Mormon without positive evidence is not enough for God. He wants you to believe in it even though all physical evidence points against it being true.
Like my quote from Galileo below. If there is a God I don’t believe he wants us to forgo reason and intellect in order to believe in him.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
son of Ishmael wrote: I think I could buy the “there is not positive evidence for the Book of Mormon because God wants us to have faith” argument if there wasn’t just so much evidence against it. If pre-Columbian steel, horse bones, wheat, wine, etc were found that would not be evidence that the Book of Mormon is true but at least its absence could not be used as evidence against it.
It is like believing the Book of Mormon without positive evidence is not enough for God. He wants you to believe in it even though all physical evidence points against it being true.
Like my quote from Galileo below. If there is a God I don’t believe he wants us to forgo reason and intellect in order to believe in him.
You bring up a good point. Most non-believers didn't stop believing due to lack of physical evidence for LDS truth claims, but to much evidence against. I could understand an argument that God is hiding evidence for, but not creating evidence against. At this point I had to start evaluating my spiritual experiences and the meanings I attached to them. Many do not.
Tobin wrote:... 95% of the population of the planet ... believe in a God.
Ignoring the silliness of an argument by popularity (after all, almost everyone once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth, which a huge number of people still believe is only 6000 years old, along with homo sapiens), where do you get this number of 95%?
The percentage even in the USA, one of the most overtly religious nations on the planet, is lower than that. Much of Western Europe is atheist. And what about China?
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
Tobin wrote:... 95% of the population of the planet ... believe in a God.
Ignoring the silliness of an argument by popularity (after all, almost everyone once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth, which a huge number of people still believe is only 6000 years old, along with homo sapiens), where do you get this number of 95%?
The percentage even in the USA, one of the most overtly religious nations on the planet, is lower than that. Much of Western Europe is atheist. And what about China?
Maybe he means 95% of people beleive in god while they are having sex
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
son of Ishmael wrote:Maybe he means 95% of people beleive in god while they are having sex
I wonder what percentage of Latter-day Saints during the days of Joseph Smith believed that his Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 were translated correctly? Probably 100% of the faithful would have lifted their hands up and testified that the translations therein were correct and that Joseph Smith truly knew how to read Egyptian by the gift and power of God!
But look at the faithless nonbelieving Latter-day Saints today (such as Tobin) who have dumped their prophet and refuse to testify that the Explanations are true and correct like the old Mormon church in days of old. Mormons such as Tobin would have been excommunicated by Joseph Smith and thrown out of the kingdom for apostasy.
Tobin wrote:... 95% of the population of the planet ... believe in a God.
Ignoring the silliness of an argument by popularity (after all, almost everyone once believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth, which a huge number of people still believe is only 6000 years old, along with homo sapiens), where do you get this number of 95%?
The percentage even in the USA, one of the most overtly religious nations on the planet, is lower than that. Much of Western Europe is atheist. And what about China?
The vast majority of the planet believes in God. Ninety-five percent is a vast majority if ever there was one. Therefore 95% of the planet believes in God. It's logically sound.
So it is your position that a minority of the planet believes in God. Or else that 95% is not a vast majority. Both assertions are laughable on their face. Stop being absurd.
