Most theists believe wholeheartedly that they have the evidence to support the existence of their deity. They claim to know that their god is real. Out of the thousands of deities, there are millions of people who favor one over another and claim that the others are not real. If Religion-X claims to have as much proof and conviction for the existence of their god as Religion-Y claims to have for the existence of their god, who is one from either religion to claim that the other is wrong? If Religion-X can reach a logical conclusion that other deities are myth, what prevents them from knowing that their own god is also myth? After all, Religion-Y use exactly the same logic to dismiss the god of Religion-X as Religion-X uses to dismiss the god of Religion-Y. What would it take for Religion-X who realizes that countless other gods are not real to also come to the logical conclusion that the likelihood of the their god being real is just as unlikely? Added as an aside, my answer to the question: From what I can understand, it basically boils down to Cognitive Dissonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). It does not allow for reasoning to be accepted by those who tenaciously hold onto particular beliefs because they are veritably afraid to lose the comfort those beliefs provide.
Not each and every theist by far. Did not bother to read further for now. Your generalizations on theists are so plenty, repetitive and lame. That 'clearly' is what annoys me most. How in earth do you get such certainty's...
I wish it would have been edited purely because of your own reasoning but it's a good start for sure edit: I'm willing to add (yes, I'm aware not for the first time) most religions are not about proof. You seem to be all about proof, which is perfectly fine and logic of course, but religion is not science, nor is it a religion vs. science as it is often regarded on this forum as it seems. So to look and/or ask for proof in religion about the existence of their deity is fairly pointless. They proclaim their certainty out of faith not proof. I can imagine this is very annoying for some but to keep demanding for it or pointing out there's no proof at all in all kind of creative topic questions remains pointless also. It is simply not about proofing what is real. It is to you or that is what it looks like.
Why is it more silly to believe leprechauns are real than to believe god is real? Just as there is no proof for the existence of god, there is also no proof for the existence of leprechauns. Why dismiss other things for which there is no proof to support their existence, but choose one thing in which to believe that fits into the same category of nonexistence? Having faith in things that are not real seems quite a bit like insanity to me. There is a very good reason that people are placed into asylums when they believe in things that are not real. Why is belief in god any different than belief in leprechauns? Neither can be logically explained as real, and each can be explained by the same psychosis.
The only good reason to do such a thing is when such a person is a menace or danger to other people or society. Not merely because they believe in fictional things of course.
Imagine this scenario where neither individual seems to present a menace to society. Whom would you allow to babysit your children? One, a man who truly believes he is nightly visited by aliens and sometimes taken to their ship. He is rather outspoken about his encounters. Two, a man who believes in god. He is also outspoken about his beliefs.
I would need more info about both persons cause I would not make my decision on the fact wether they are religious or not. At first instance though I would prefer not to take the person who thinks he was abducted by aliens.
Precisely, my point is that neither individual is a menace to society, but one belief is considered more insane than another only because of majority perception. Of course, I would have liked to choose neither and find someone else. However, the scenario asked that one of the two scenarios presented had to be chosen. Thus, I would personally chose the alien guy over the god guy. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for, certainly, but I believe children are more susceptible to indoctrination through godly belief than alien abductions. The children are more likely to think the alien guy is crazy than the god guy, and thus their minds would remain preserved from accepting silly beliefs as true. Am I being just as biased as you in my decision? Most certainly.
This is a really bad scenario, because the two examples are not directly comparable. Here are two better scenarios: 1.option: The first man believes that aliens exist and is quite outspoken about it. The second one believes god exists and is outspoken about it too. 2. option: The first man is like you describe him and the second one believes that he hears gods voice as he speaks to him every night and is very outspoken about it. Do you see the difference between the two options? I would rather spend time with anyone from the 1. option than with someone from option number 2. Edit: Most theists believe that their god is real. The essence of religion is simply faith. It's axiom not evidence, proof, logic or rational thought. Religious dogma is trying to justify itself with so called 'evidence' but that doesn't change the fact that it is dogma, not deduction. It is emotion, not objective, rational thinking. Trying to prove or disprove religion on the basis of logic is simply pointless, because the very core of religious belief denies/transcends what we scientifically know to be real. Rational thinking is just one ability of the human brain. Emotions, artistic expression, belief, etc. are others, which are different and rather irrational.
definitely fairer examples, i was struck by the imbalance of the original. one thing i would argue though, and it is only a little niggle and quite possibly off-topic a little, but i would argue that the distinction between rationalism and emotion is, if not a fallacy, then at least less clear than is often portrayed. traditionally we think of ourselves as fighting an internal battle between the rational and the emotional (and have a tendency to externalise or project this perceived battle onto the outside world), but this is not so. we know that emotions are central to the ability to make rational decisions, rather than a seperate impulse which vies for control over the rational side of our brain. people with brain damage which prevents them from simulating possible futures; the inability to simulate ones emotions in a hypothetical future scenario (for example, imagining the death of a loved one and not feeling any emotion about it) make consistently terrible (we would say irrational) life decisions. emotion and rationalism are, to a certain extent, reliant on each other. i agree with the rest though, religious knowledge, for pretty much every theist i know, is separate from empirical or scientific knowledge. it is not a double standard for them, but two incomparable systems of measurement. i personally know no theists who claim to have evidence sufficient to expect to satisfy anyone other than themselves of what they believe. indeed, i know a few for whom the lack of evidence is integral to their belief system.
Interesting. Religion X believes in God A. Religion Y, Z, and ZZ believe in Gods B, C, and D. No problem so far. But now Religion X encounters Religions Y, Z, and ZZ and is confronted with beliefs that contradict his own beliefs. What it takes is a recognition that all Religions other than his own are based on beliefs that are contrary to each other. As his religion is a sub set of all Religions, logically his Religion is also based on contrary beliefs. If all other Religions are found to be false because they are contrary to each other, and if his Religion is also contrary to them, then there is no bases for him to believe that his Religion is any different than any other and so deserves no more belief than any other. But as someone implied, logic does not pertain to Religion.
Bingo. Everybody is different: different cultures speak different languages, but many of them talk about some of the exact same things. We all understand the world in our own way (our own dialect, if you will), but--in all honesty--that doesn't mean that we should be completely closed off to new ways of thinking, or novel ways of looking at things. Diversity (both ideological and genetic) is a good thing: it rounds us out as a species, and further equips us to engineer both eclectic, and inclusive, social models.
