Refuting the "Geography" Argument from non-believers (if you were born in...then you would be a ....)

[scottm]

Start on page 1.

 

[LilyM]

I’d actually say “No.”, but I don’t want to get into an argument with Lily:blush:

No argument here.

If scott thinks ‘not through practicing their religions’ boils down to a simple ‘yes’ answer to his question, which was about salvation THROUGH practicing their religions, then he needs better training in logic.

At best it’s an ‘Only if …’ with such qualifiers (eg being invincibly ignorant of Christianity and Catholicism) that in today’s world it really is a lot closer to a no.

 

[dskysmine]

Start on page 1.

I think it’s more like this, with first variable being location and the second being religion:

Most A are B.
You are A and B.
Few A are D.
But most C are D.
Few C are B.

Therefore, location and religion are highly correlated.

1st-What are variables C and D?
2nd-How is an argument for genetic fallacy any worth in valuing religion or any belief in anyway?

 

[scottm]

1st-What are variables C and D?

I defined them in the very post you quoted. Later I made examples with Italy and Mexico and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and locations, and Christianity and Buddhism and Juperiter-ism and the Mayan as religions. You really do need more practice at being an active listener.

 

[dskysmine]

I defined them in the very post you quoted. Later I made examples with Italy and Mexico and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and locations, and Christianity and Buddhism and Juperiter-ism and the Mayan as religions. You really do need more practice at being an active listener.

1st- If A and C are different locations and B and D are different religions how does it refute in any way the veracity of any of the religions?
If people in A eat more shrimp it is because there is more shrimp in that country. It doesn’t make shrimp “good” or “bad”. We analyze shrimp not by the amount of people eating it but to it’s characteristics…
2nd- I’m trying to answer your line that I never listened to you from the start. If you wanted me to go other posts you shouldn’t have directed me to your first one.

 

[scottm]

1st- If A and C are different locations and B and D are different religions how does it refute in any way the veracity of any of the religions?
If people in A eat more shrimp it is because there is more shrimp in that country. It doesn’t make shrimp “good” or “bad”.

Well, don’t ask me. I never argued for that position.

 

[dskysmine]

Well, don’t ask me. I never argued for that position.

Then what is your position on the “geography argument”?

 

[scottm]

Then what is your position on the “geography argument”?

That question doesn’t make sense. It’s not something that one has a “position” on. Do you mean whether I think non-Christians can get to heaven through their religions? The answer is yes.

Try posts 6 and 20 and 30 and 48 and 50 and 53 over again.

 

[scottm]

And post 9, too.
And maybe another one that I missed.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Blind fate determines your religious convictions.

Oh yes indeed.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Oh yes indeed.

Is it your intention merely to share an opinion? If this is the case, then I would agree that the statement you quoted is usually true, but not always true, since there are a minority of people who claim to have freely chosen their religious beliefs. Rather than call them liars, I tend to take people at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt, unless their character or integrity is suspect.

I would remind you, however, that in my first post I told everyone to pretend that we were in a formal court of law and that there is a neutral and completely non-biased judge and jury who will make a final decision regarding this line of reasoning.

If you wish to contend that the statement, “Blind fate determines your religious convictions”, is true (it is either true or false, not both) you have a lot of work to do if you wish to argue your case with Aristotelian logic; since it is a positive claim and the burden of proof would be yours. I’m not sure if you are really up to the challenge.

It could also be logically argued, if you won your case, that your lack of religious conviction is still a religious conviction, and is therefore determined by “blind fate” and not your own free will because one logical implication of the “geography argument” is to show that children are “indoctrinated” and that therefore, atheism is not the “default” state at birth. This would completely negate the pretentious notion that atheists are “free thinkers”, since from a completely deterministic point of view, there is really no such thing as “freedom”…of thought or otherwise.

In order to win your case to begin with, you would have to logically demonstrate that people who believe they have freely chosen their beliefs are actually mistaken in their meta-belief; their belief about their beliefs, and therefore are only operating under the “illusion” of volition. I don’t know how you would be able to do this.

Lastly, even if you are successful and logically prove that “blind fate determines our convictions”, it would still be theoretically possible for “blind fate to choose correct convictions”. Someone could still be indoctrinated into a justified true belief. This aforementioned conclusion does nothing for either side in the “theism vs atheism” debate.