God & the Fairy Tree

There aren't a lot of intellectually mature people saying that the sign is correct and that the fairies do exist like there are for god.

You can't tell who's "intellectually mature"? Why not?Do you think I am? I thought the question was 'what's the difference'. It assumes that the difference is 'tell-able'.

Some are, some aren't but sure, they tend to be. I have beliefs that are intellectual, one being the belief in god. M=?What does 'M' represent in my post? I haven't added anything and don't even see the phrase 'becauase of' in my post.The question is 'what is the difference' and here is one of the defferences I provided:

quote:

---

There aren't a lot of intellectually mature people saying that the sign is correct and that the fairies do exist like there are for god.

---

Sure but there was a difference explicitly stated: One is an obvious joke and the other is to be taken seriously. The difference is there and the question is why? or What makes them different.Not all people that believe in god aren't intellectually mature. There are a lot of intellectually mature people saying that god does exists while there are not a lot saying that fairies exist.People generally assume that fairies don't exist so the sign is an obvious joke. People don't generally assume that god doesn't exist so it is to be taken seriously.What additional variable have I added?

Pertaining to which is the obvious joke and which is to be taken seriously, yes it's a matter of majority opinion. Then it won't be so obvious that the one is a joke or the other one shouldn't be taken seriously anymore. Of course not. I can see why you can't accept an argumentum ad populum as a reason to take the belief in god seriously, but I think that you should be able to see that this is one of the differnces, the lacking of it, that makes the belief in fairies an obvious joke.If there were lots of people professing belief in fairies, do you think that the sign would have obviously been a joke to you? Well, there are mature minds that believe in god. That should tell you something. I wouldn't expect it to convince you that god exists, but you can tell that it isn't an obvious joke, right?

The variable of intellectual maturity was in the op, I didn't add it.I'm not saying that belief in god is neccessarily intellectually mature. I'm saying that there are people who are intellectual mature who also believe in god, so belief in god can be intellectually mature.There aren't people who are intellectually mature who believe in fairies (well there might be some, but for the purpose of this thread we can assume there are none, or not enough to matter at least). This doesn't mean that the belief in fairies cannot be intellectually mature, just that it currently isn't. The ability to determine intellectual maturity is assumed in the op so I don't feel the need to show how I can determine it.I'm not even claiming that theists are more intellectually mature than fairyist. I'm saying that there are a lot of people who are intellectually mature that believe in god while there are not a lot of people who are intellectually mature that believe in fairies. I'm not comparing the intellectual maturity of theists and fairyists to each other.

So?The argumentum ad populum is enough to take the belief seriously but it does not establish intellectual maturity. That the belief can be taken seriously makes it no longer obvious that the belief is a joke.I'm saying that being intellectually mature and having the belief allows it to be taken seriously, not that being taken seriousy makes it intellectually mature.

---

No difference whatsoever between any other supernatural thing? Yeah right Too bad that's off topic.

True.The questions of this thread is why is it obvious that fairy-ism is intellectually immature while it is not obvious that theism is.The answer is because there are a lot of intellectually mature people who are theists while there are not a lot of intellectually mature people who are fairy-ists.Intellectual maturity and theism are not mutually exclusive even if you still consider theism, itself, to be intellectually immature.

Your going to have a hard time getting theists to accept this premise.If you change it to:

quote:

---

P: It is absurd to believe in something without objective any evidence for it.

---

Then I can accept it.But then we can include subjective evidence and perhaps even the argumentum ad populum as some evidence. That way, god has more evidence than the fairies and then you have your difference.

Right, and if the sign was seen in Celtic Britain, then it wouldn't have been obvious that it was a joke.

You shouldn't. Its bullshit I see that its the same arguement.I'd hafta agree with you that the people who use that argument are not intellectually mature. But that other, intellectually mature, people believe in god, gives some weight to the idea that god could exists. Nobody believes in fairies anymore so they are an obvious joke. Ok, but I don't believe in god because of some rational argument for its existance.The fact that some people believe in god for intellectuall mature reasons should show you the difference in why the sign was an obvious joke and theism is not.But still, the argument:"If you don't feel the presence of God in your life, it's probably because you don't believe hard enough."is, itself, intellectually immature, I agree.There's still that difference with the fairies that makes it an obvious joke, though.

That's not neccessarily true.There are intellectually mature reasons for believing in god, depending on what your defining as mature. I don't think that belief in astrology is neccessarily intellectually immature either.

No, it does have a part in it. Nope, my belief in god is of its own accord.

Damn, I was going to say that 'being taught' could explain my particular flavor of theism, but the belief in god, itself, is of its own accord.But then I thought that you meant what you typed when you said "believe in god" and not that you meant whatever specific religion. I mean, you did just say "belief in god" and that's what I thought you meant. Now you're changing it.I guess it just goes to show that you should never leave anything out. Sure, but I have concluded that god exists on my own through my own experiences (after I was an atheist for a while). I even go as far as to claim that I "found Jesus" on my own too. But as far as Catholicism, yeah, that just because that's the way I was raised and that's what my family and friends are (and that it was Confirmed).But that is just a label. All else being the same, why wouldn't I take the same label as my group?But anyways, my claim still stands:

Thanks for pointing out your ignorance of what faith is

So doesn't that make god different from fairies. I don't have some event or perspective in my personal, subjective experience that I hold as evidence of the faiies like I do for god.So when you say: Maybe to the outside believer, but to the inside believer, they ARE different and should be held to a different standard.