Quote:

---

capliberty said:
You have no way of assessing what the majority of the people on this planet believe.

---

Quote:

---

In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans—95 percent—told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10—86 percent—said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."

What's more, nearly eight in 10 adults—78 percent—say they've always been believers, and another 6 percent say they hadn't believed but now do.

Most Americans firmly believe in God. Throughout the 1990s, the National Opinion Research Center's authoritative General Social Survey asked people about their belief in God. They found that nearly two in three—64 percent—said they "know that God really exists and I have no doubt about it."

---

That is just America, but considering the fact that other countries have state religions, and considering the prominence of religions such as Islam and Hinduism in other countries, I think it is a fair, substantiated thought that the majority of individuals on this planet express that they believe in some form of "god".

Coincidentally, you assert that I have no means by which to assess what the majority of individuals on this planet believe, but you yourself proclaim that those who reject the notion of God are those who think in a conventional manner. Now, you have no manner in which to know what the conventional manner of thinking is on the matter, by your own words. Unless you have some statistics that identify that a majority of individuals profess a nonbelief in God, then your claim is baseless, while mine has some grounds upon which to stand.

Quote:

---

There are those that claim to believe in god and there are those that actually do believe in god.

---

And how exactly do you know the difference between those who express that they believe in a "god" and those who "actually do"? *leans forward in anticipation of a reasonable explanation*

Quote:

---

What reality am I to accept, as for what it is you have no more clue than I do.

---

Well, I cannot speak for your understanding and awareness of reality, but I can assure you that I have some clue as to what reality is, and I base such an assertion on the fact that I trust that the sensory data that I am being provided is the result of the interaction of my sensory devices with aspects of reality. This is the means by which I know reality, and therefore, I am able to have some clue as to what reality is.

Not to mention the fact that I myself am an aspect of reality.

Quote:

---

See this is my whole point, that there are different ways to perceive the same reality.

---

Quote:

---

I have no way of assessing that my perception of reality is anymore accurate than anyone else's

---

Quote:

---

Again you have no real way of determining what reality is, reality is just as ambiguous a concept as god

---

Incorrect. Reality is every aspect of ourselves and our environment, the experience of the interaction of all aspects of reality. That experience is presently in a state of being, and you are experiencing it - reality.

I'm not sure where "god" is in all of that, as I have been directly perceiving reality, with the least amount of obstruction possible, and "god" has not appeared as an aspect of reality.

Quote:

---

Not necessarily  that the axioms are evident, but one is willing to be open minded to the idea

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn't say that I don't have absolutely no grounds, As for your expressions seem to reiterate a common theme that one favors in which is reflective to a particular train of thought

---

"Common theme" seems to suggest consistency in such expressed thought, which certainly isn't undesireable, especially as reality itself is consistent in its nature.

Its simply a side issue that what one chooses to express does not reflect the entirety of an individual's thought processes and reflections on matters, so I will not exert much effort into clarifying the issue, unless you wish to create a new topic for discussion, in its own thread, and I feel compelled to reply to it.

Quote:

---

Look, I am only suggesting that you should extend yourself beyond your normal train of thought, even if it seems non-conventional

---

My entire viewpoint on the matter that I am expressing is that you have no information to consider regarding my thought processes to have any grounds upon which to make the suggestion. You have not the slightest clue what my "normal" train of thought is, so it is amazing that you would feel provoked to suggest that I extend myself beyond it.

Quote:

---

Again you have no clue of what reality is, only your biased perception of what reality should be, to say there is one true reflection of reality is not necessarily true

---

Its simple. If there is one reality, then there is only one reflection of reality that is true. A reflection is an accurate depiction of that which is being reflected. Its like saying "here is a car, and here are a few 1:64 scale models of this car, all shaped differently and painted different colors, but yet all of these models represent the car as it is".

Quote:

---

Do you mean an assumption that there isn't a god, as I was only pointing out that one should be aware of other non-conventional methods of perceiving reality

---

Non-conventional methods of perceiving reality? What exactly does that mean? The conventional method of perceiving reality for human beings is for our sensory devices (you know, eyes, ears, etc.) to interact with our environment to produce sensory data, which is then transmitted to our brain, which processes the information, produces an experience of reality, and then an aspect of our mind interprets that experience and conceptualizes it, which is delivered to a consciousness with the experience....

How exactly does a non-conventional method of perceiving reality work? 


Peace.