Sure but we don't know that anything at all doesn't exist, where do we draw the line?

That's not a non starter, that's where I am already am with all the 'gods'. Ain't it a bitch. Even better, all those (enough) people who now believe in Bugs Bunny aren't even deluded, they're just 'religious'...

Now, in this hypothetical, I have to tell my kids I'm not sure if Bugs Bunny exists or not. Sigh. There's a part of me fighting to escape and accuse most of the human race of being bat **** crazy.

You tell me. Given the below, are you actually going to tell your children that Bugs Bunny might exist? Why or why not?

Sure, when enough people think that he does for the believers not to be considered deluded. Is there something you're trying to tell me?

You didn't answer (you sure didn't elaborate): Will you tell your children that Bugs Bunny might exist if enough people start believing in him? Why or why not?

What do you call 'enough people'?

Are you attempting a Reductio ad absurdum here?

...this is not the important part of the question, and you know it (at least, I hope you know it).

It would be if we were trying to establish the point at which a belief that Bugs Bunny is real stopped being delusional and became the cultural norm, at which point I might have to give the 'don't know, what do you think' answer.

I think it matters that this is my way of dealing with religion since it's so important to our societies and yet so unknowable because I certainly don't tell my kids that the KKK might be right simply because there are a lot of them.

I think as a reductio ad absurdum this is failing because there's nothing that really compares to religion.

I guess you really don't know what's going on.

Stop referring to culture or delusion, or what qualifies as "enough", they are completely inconsequential to the discussion. Stop trying to 'guess' where I'm going and answer the question I've now posed three times: Will you tell your children that Bugs Bunny might exist if enough people start believing in him? Why or why not?

No proof-of-god talk itt please. I'm sure you can prove or disprove gods and such in other threads.

Plus, obv there is no god because if there was, someoone would've given Ricky and Bubbles and Dad some love by now.

I'm trying to make you understand that in order to treat Bugs Bunny as if he were a religion and for which I'd then have to make a decision about how I'm going to deal with it with my kids, I first have to make Bugs bunny similar to a religion and that means talking about the things that you think are inconsequential.

If Bugs Bunny became similar to a religion and 'enough people' (your phrase) believed in him to the point where it was a cultural norm, regardless of the fact that I might consider the believers to be completely wrong, I would give the 'don't know, might exist, might not, what do you think?' answer. Don't forget that built into this approach is an intention to get the kids thinking about it critically for themselves.

That's my best answer to your question currently. Can you progress this by explaining what it is you're trying to achieve or what's 'going on' that I'm not getting?

Zeus is not a cultural norm any more then Bugs.

I'm demonstrating that you're basing a character's ontology and your understanding of epistemology on whether 'X' number of people people in 'Y'. I would hope you would agree that a character's existence or whether we can ever know anything about this character's existence is not based on what (other) people believe as related to these topics. Thus, you need to rethink both what you know about ontology and epistemology.

In other words, this should never happen barring other relevant evidence:

Mighty Jr: Daddy, does Bugs Bunny exist?
Mighty Sr: No, son. He's a cartoon character and does not exist.

Three years later after the Bugs Bunny cult has gained 'X' members.

Mighty Jr: Daddy, does Bugs Bunny exist?
Mighty Sr: Well, we can't be for sure. Bugs Bunny might exist.

@Mightyboosh:

You went full false equivalency, man. Never go full false equivalency.

Ok. [Two seconds pass] Done.

The only reason that X has come into it is because of the conversation about what constitutes delusion and I was trying to use it establish the point at which a belief in Bugs stopped being delusional and became a cultural norm, to be taken 'seriously', like the current religions.

If 2.6 billiion people had believed Bugs Bunny was real for the last two thousand years and it was as deeply integrated with our culture as Christianity is, for example, would what you're saying still apply? What's the difference between believing in bugs and believing in God?

Isn't that exactly how religions go from delusion to religion? How else can we deal with the question 'do gods exist' ? When their teachers are telling them that god is real, with no equivocation, should I simply contradict them?

Big mistake, one thing its the "Christianism God, the God of the bible who judges you and blablabla"

Other, the god you create for yourslef.

Being atheist its just ******ed as being Chrstian

Create your own god, you cant reach nothing without a deidity ( of your own...and if you make yourslef big, maybe other follows, but you just dont care about that)

There is no hard figure. A tribe of 25 people in the Amazon who believe in Bugs would almost certainly qualify as part of a culture, whereas 1.2 million people spread across North America might not.

Again, this discussion has nothing, nothing to do with delusion or culture. The singular fact that 2.6 billion people believe in a particular religion should not affect your views on epistemology and ontology as it relates to this religion (unless you believe this fact implies some 'truth' about their religion, which presumably, you don't).

Not much as it relates to this discussion.

No! If you haven't learned this from the lengthy exchanges with Brian and gansta, then I really don't know what I can say to get you to understand.

However, just in case this hasn't got through: the amount of adherents to a particular religion has (basically) zero to do with whether someone is actually delusional. It is a useful culling tool only.

*If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in the "Census" thread, as not to muck up this one.

Yes, you simply contradict them.

If it somehow isn't obvious, I'm trying to show that your views on epistemology and ontology are flawed by getting you to justify the exchange below:

I don't have any views on epistemology and ontology, I'd never even heard those terms until I started posting here. I think we'll have to shelve this until I'm capable of understanding your argument.

How do I reconcile this with my belief that it's wrong to urge religious, or non-religious views on young children?

You certainly have views on these topics; you just don't label them as such.

It depends (I'm just trying to get your views to be consistent, because as is, I don't think they are). You are either going to have to tell your children that both Zeus and Bugs might exist (using perhaps a weaker version of solipsism), or you're going to have to tell your children that neither of them exist. Note: the latter argument does not necessarily imply absolute certainty.

In any event, you need to make sure whatever you tell them doesn't change based on the number of people that believe in it (unless you consider that fact to be evidence, which, again, I assume you don't).

Also, if you haven't already, give this thread by OrP a read. It may help to clear up some of the issues we're having. I think you have some epistemological hang ups regarding say "Zeus does not exist" when you really shouldn't.

You seem to be applying those terms as if there were rules inherent to them that I'm breaking or at least that I'm not being consistent with, and that's the bit I don't understand. You've provided an example of how that's happening but it doesn't mean anything to me.

Urk. Now I'm very uncertain.

Ok, currently giving that a read.

Generally speaking, if a ton of people say something exists... we should at least consider it. I'm with Mightyboosh on this one.

It is unproblematic to say that Bugs Bunny does not exist (it is both indisputed and all the evidence to that extent seems rational), but if a ton of people suddenly says he exists... then we have to raise the bar in our skeptic effort. Public opinion is in itself not necessarily good evidence, but it warrants searching for evidence more closely. It is not Mightyboosh who is acting as a solipsist here.

Also; we wouldn't even be discussing Christianity on this forum if it was the belief of only one man.

Sure. I agree.

If a ton of people say something exists - without evidence, then no, you shouldn't. A ton of people say MANY things, and I don't buy into it unless I can look up some facts for myself.

Where is the questioning? Where is the search for facts and proof? Where is the desire to really find the truth?

I don't understand your sentiment at all. I don't care how many people say something is true, I don't just take it for granted to go with it. It's a REALLY bad way to live your life.

That's not what he's said, at all. (It's almost like you stopped reading after what you quoted) He said, given that a bunch of people believe in something, it warrants searching for evidence more closely.

In other words, if a singular person claims that he saw a person come back from death, you can confidently treat them as something of a crackpot. However, if 5000 people saw the same thing, then it warrants searching for evidence more closely.

Ahh, ok. I thought he meant something much different. Sorry.