FlashDangerpants wrote:Is this going to be something about God transcending existence?
Is it going to make any difference for somebody who doesn't already believe in God?
It's about perception, not belief. So the answer to both questions is 'no.'
FlashDangerpants wrote:Is this going to be something about God transcending existence?
Is it going to make any difference for somebody who doesn't already believe in God?
It's about perception, not belief. So the answer to both questions is 'no.'
If the second one is not affected, then your category error argument will remain toothless for the previously stated reason.
If you hound me into a restatement I will just say they both inhabit the category of "imaginary things".
FlashDangerpants wrote: I will just say they both inhabit the category of "imaginary things".
That's where your mistake lies, and it is the very heart of the category error. You're like a fish denying the existence of the very water in which it swims. And all because of a category error: you think the water is like a reef.
Make a philosophical argument that demonstrates this. All you are doing now issuing bald assertions with crazily useless metaphors.
You won't achieve extra credit for pretentiously wrapping it as a category error argument when you don't know how to construct them.
Reflex wrote:Are you asking as a rock that simply lacks belief, or as a rational being acknowledging that self-conscious disbelief entails beliefs of another kind (such as empiricism or materialism)?
No, I'm asking you why think it is a category error to say that if the theist wishes to understand how the atheist thinks about 'God' then they should examine how they think about 'Santa'. Unless of course you think Santa exists as well.
FlashDangerpants wrote:Make a philosophical argument that demonstrates this. All you are doing now issuing bald assertions with crazily useless metaphors.
You won't achieve extra credit for pretentiously wrapping it as a category error argument when you don't know how to construct them.
LOL! Did you know lack of insight is a mental disorder called "anosognosia"?
Arising_uk wrote:
Reflex wrote:Are you asking as a rock that simply lacks belief, or as a rational being acknowledging that self-conscious disbelief entails beliefs of another kind (such as empiricism or materialism)?
No, I'm asking you why think it is a category error to say that if the theist wishes to understand how the atheist thinks about 'God' then they should examine how they think about 'Santa'. Unless of course you think Santa exists as well.
I'm assuming that you are asking as a rational being who acknowledges that self-conscious disbelief entails beliefs of another kind.
Your suggestion doesn't work with a category error. (That's why it's called a category error.)
Lacewing wrote:Reflex, can you give a better example of how an atheist could demonstrate to a theist the way in which an atheist thinks about 'God' -- rather than using the example that it's roughly how the theist thinks about Santa, i.e. no belief at all in his existence. Nothing more. (Arising, I used your words because it was good phrasing, thank you. )
How does the atheist get it across to a theist: a lack of belief is not a belief. The theist's attachment to their own concept of god seems to discard this explanation every time. So the atheist tries to find something that the theist can identify with in the same way -- something that the theist simply lacks belief in, and that "lack" is not a belief itself.
How would you say/explain it better?
Reflex wrote:Rocks, too, 'lack belief in God.' Should I consider an atheist's lack of belief to be at the same level?
So you can't do it... and you can't even understand the reason for doing it... and you can only think to distort the point? Then your criticisms are too self-absorbed to be useful.
Are there any theists here who can provide a better way of demonstrating to theists what is being attempted by atheists, as described above, or is it just not possible? Are theists completely incapable of acknowledging that when they lack belief in something, that is not a belief for them?
FlashDangerpants wrote:Make a philosophical argument that demonstrates this. All you are doing now issuing bald assertions with crazily useless metaphors.
You won't achieve extra credit for pretentiously wrapping it as a category error argument when you don't know how to construct them.
LOL! Did you know lack of insight is a mental disorder called "anosognosia"?
I did not. But I also did not construct the failed argument. Now I am not the one who resorted to base abuse instead of making a point.
If you have the chops, present a properly constructed argument. Nobody here is phased or impressed by abusive taunts and petty tantrums.
Reflex wrote:No. Both those ideas belong to the same category of existence.
See the 'regardless' bit?
Whether or not they actually exist, they belong to the same category of (assumed) existence -- just like Mt. Everest and my Subaru belong to the same category of existence.
Tell me, Arising_uk, do you understand the difference between contingent being and non-contingent being? Or do you believe contingent vs. non-contingent is a false dichotomy?
)
