Turning the tables on atheism

[LadyForCamus]

I believe in fairies despite the fact that people who don’t believe in fairies have been pointing out to me my entire life that there is no evidence or good reason to believe in fairies. I believe in fairies anyway, therefore fairies exist.

And as you’ve already pointed out yourself, multiplying the number of entities that hold the belief does not increase the likelihood of it being true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people are thickheaded nuts.  If those thickheaded nuts can fail to see an issue, it doesn't exist.  

That's not how the argument goes. There is a large group of people who are theists despite the issue I, therefore there is high probability that they managed to reconcile issue I , which they know exists, with theism.

Large groups of people can be wrong.  You must also believe as much..believing, as you do, that atheists are wrong.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Okay, tell me if I have this straight.

Klorophyll steps up to the plate with "Here's the best words against 'The Atheist'." Or against being an atheist.

Klorophyll then proceeds to reference the book of a certain theism as 'Evidence' for such a claim?

So, to continue the train of thought/words. We find said stanza can be summed up as "Some folks managed to 'Square the circle' in their minds in regards to the impossibility of such an actual real thing and so accepted said theology. "

Am I following along correctly so far?

I'm not just bloviating or some such?

[Angrboda]

Belief doesn't imply rational reconciliation.  

I didn't say it does. But if a lot of people managed to believe despite the existence of some obstacle O to belief, then there is a high probability that someone among them ratioally reconciled his belief with the obstacle O.

Belief implies belief.  Full stop.  If you want to show that something is highly probable, that's an inductive argument that rests upon the evidence.  You have provided none.

A lot of people believe conspiracy theories. Their belief is evidence of nothing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The OP doesn’t really lend itself to a rational reconciliation. It comes off more as an obstinate persistence in belief, regardless of ANY objections. 

Sort of like believing that unicorns live in your shoes. No matter how many times it is explained to you that 1) unicorns don’t exist, 2) if they did exist, they wouldn’t fit in your shoes, and 3) a close examination of your footwear reveals a convincing lack of shoe-dwelling unicorns, you cling to your belief.

The technical term for this is ‘stupid’.

Boru

[Angrboda]

[The Grand Nudger]

I bet it would be a gas to see the list of things he knows to be an issue with his own beliefs.

[Angrboda]

Just for giggles, there are about a half-billion more Christians than Muslims. By this line of argument, it's highly probable that more Christians have rationally reconciled their beliefs than Muslims have.

[R00tKiT]

I believe in fairies despite the fact that people who don’t believe in fairies have been pointing out to me my entire life that there is no evidence or good reason to believe in fairies. I believe in fairies anyway, therefore fairies exist.

And as you’ve already pointed out yourself, multiplying the number of entities that hold the belief does not increase the likelihood of it being true.

You're misstating the argument. It has nothing to do with proving the existence of anything, let alone the existence of God. It only deals with objections which attempt to show that theism is logically incoherent. Since there is no valid argument that theism is incoherent, we are left with the equally compelling choices of either take the easy way out of belief and say there is too much evil/God doesn't show himself/etc. or reconciliate belief - for which there are other arguments that are not the subject of this thread- with these weak objections. Since there are people who did the latter, atheism becomes unjustified.

[Nay_Sayer]

Turning Tables? In metaphorical terms you haven't even passed tying your shoes.

RAmen