For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
"Category ERROR" what a laugh!!!Reflex wrote:It's Theology 101. If you are not up to it, why don't you just admit it?
Why do atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool?
Santa Also transcend existence. Only a transcendent being could delivery a package to all the children of the world in one night.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?
Get laid, man. And learn to chill. So much rage. After all its just God. No big deal. Meditate. Pray. Aren't you supposed to be more peaceful since you are one with God? Or is yours the one that goes Thor on everyone's ass? Never know with you guys. You believe in some weird sh@t.attofishpi wrote:sthitapragya wrote:Why atheists compare God to santa.Make your mind up idiot.sthitapragya wrote:I still wonder what the few Theists who responded got so angry about. I basically told them that atheists do not compare santa to God.
Because god as portrayed in any scripture is a work of fiction, the same as Santa, and can be dismissed just as readily. The same is not true of god as some metaphysical entity.Reflex wrote:Why is any of that relevant?uwot wrote:Well, here's a bit of my ignorance. For all the wrangling over categories, I don't think that anyone made the distinction between a scriptual god and any hypothetical metaphysical god.Reflex wrote:Of course, atheists will never admit to their ignorance no matter how much they put it on display.
The god of any scripture is in precisely the same category as Santa, because it is a work of fiction. The opening lines of genesis are a reworking of the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek creation myths. The rest of the old testament is a tribal history myth; while the new testament is a political propaganda fantasy, based on the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, about a figure for whom there is no historical evidence and whose name just happens to mean messiah, and who tells his target audience, the uppity Hebrews, to turn the other cheek and to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. It really couldn't be much more blatant.
On the other hand, the universe is an extraordinary thing, and I cannot rule out the hypothesis that there is some supernatural being responsible, but, as an atheist, I do not believe it.
But Santa is also a metaphysical entity.uwot wrote:Because god as portrayed in any scripture is a work of fiction, the same as Santa, and can be dismissed just as readily. The same is not true of god as some metaphysical entity.Reflex wrote:Why is any of that relevant?uwot wrote: Well, here's a bit of my ignorance. For all the wrangling over categories, I don't think that anyone made the distinction between a scriptual god and any hypothetical metaphysical god.
The god of any scripture is in precisely the same category as Santa, because it is a work of fiction. The opening lines of genesis are a reworking of the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek creation myths. The rest of the old testament is a tribal history myth; while the new testament is a political propaganda fantasy, based on the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, about a figure for whom there is no historical evidence and whose name just happens to mean messiah, and who tells his target audience, the uppity Hebrews, to turn the other cheek and to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. It really couldn't be much more blatant.
On the other hand, the universe is an extraordinary thing, and I cannot rule out the hypothesis that there is some supernatural being responsible, but, as an atheist, I do not believe it.
I made no such claim.sthitapragya wrote:And that is why we have to get back to Santa. When you claim that your Asantaism is simply a 'lack of belief' you are either mouthing a meaningless phrase ( something a rock would do if it could make noises), or making a positive statement i.e. you believe there is no Santa.
The dictionary.And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?
Because it makes the 'who made God?' question look foolish.Why do you think God is a non-contingent being? Why is it an axiom for you?
Does a fish need anything more than insight with respect to its own existence to believe in water?sthitapragya wrote: The problem is the belief in being itself. You have nothing except your emotions to back up the existence of being itself.
Since existence itself would cease to exist, the question is moot at best and incoherent at worst.And you didn't answer the question: what would happen to you if you found out that God does not exist?
Didn't Paul say something like that in the Bible?Childish beliefs need to be left behind in your childhood.
Ignorance always offends me.And you still have to tell me why you get so offended with the Santa comparison considering your identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief?
So no real answer, huh? And why would your axiomatic belief of God being a non-contingent being make the 'who made god' question look foolish? Does it occur to you that calling god a non-contingent being in this day and age and at your age makes you look foolish too?Reflex wrote:I made no such claim.sthitapragya wrote:And that is why we have to get back to Santa. When you claim that your Asantaism is simply a 'lack of belief' you are either mouthing a meaningless phrase ( something a rock would do if it could make noises), or making a positive statement i.e. you believe there is no Santa.
The dictionary.And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?
Because it makes the 'who made God?' question look foolish.Why do you think God is a non-contingent being? Why is it an axiom for you?
The former is non-contingent being; the latter is a contingent being.sthitapragya wrote: So what is God? Santa?
Sometimes, but I usually weep for their lack of understanding.Are you laughing at other theists who claim God is a non-contingent being?
A fish does not have the capacity to believe in water. pretty much like a rock that way, you know?Reflex wrote:Does a fish need anything more than insight with respect to its own existence to believe in water?sthitapragya wrote: The problem is the belief in being itself. You have nothing except your emotions to back up the existence of being itself.
Oh. So you refuse to even contemplate a world without God. That's an open mind for you.Reflex wrote:Since existence itself would cease to exist, the question is moot at best and incoherent at worst.sthitapragya wrote:And you didn't answer the question: what would happen to you if you found out that God does not exist?
Do you do everything Paul says? Try Simone Weil next time. She seems to be developing a cult following.Reflex wrote:Didn't Paul say something like that in the Bible?sthitapragya wrote:Childish beliefs need to be left behind in your childhood.
Well, then you must have a tough time living with yourself. I am sorry about that. Must be really hard on you.Reflex wrote:Ignorance always offends me.sthitapragya wrote:And you still have to tell me why you get so offended with the Santa comparison considering your identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief?
Reflex wrote:The former is non-contingent being; the latter is a contingent being.sthitapragya wrote: So what is God? Santa?
oh, because they use "a"? Yeah, how stupid of them. I weep for their lack of understanding too. That is why I tell you guys to get together and come to a conclusion about what you believe in. It would make it easier for us guys too. We would have only one version to disbelieve instead of everything from Baal to Bob. Sometimes it gets hard to keep track of all the guys we don't believe in.Reflex wrote:sthitapragya wrote:Sometimes, but I usually weep for their lack of understanding.Are you laughing at other theists who claim God is a non-contingent being?
True, but irrelevant.Lacewing wrote: It is difficult to acknowledge something that does not feel true.
Well, for starters, I didn't say I lacked beliefs. I said, "My identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief.Since you think this is how it works, can you provide an example of how your own complete lack of belief in anything at all entails different beliefs?
Not-knowing trumps 'knowing' and feigned ignorance (the much overused phrase 'I don't know') every time.Can you explain how this is possible for you?
I'm sure it does. It takes a bit of insight to grasp the 'deep.' And you've demonstrated a severe lack of that particular quality.It seems nonsensical that you think an atheist's lack of belief entails different beliefs, while your theism is not contingent on any belief.
Yes, or at least in a certain sense. It doesn't have existence the way Mt. Everest and my Subaru have existence. It's Theology 101 -- really elementary stuff that atheists here can't seem to grasp.Arising_uk wrote: So basically you admit that this non-contingent being is non-existent?
It does, at least in the sense of Mt. Everest having existence.Let me help you, you appear to think that 'non-contingent' also means non-existent, it doesn't.
Of course, but in the same sense that other theists mean when they say 'God does not exist.'As if it does you are just confirming that your 'God' does not exist.
By using the 'scientific method.' (Which is applicable because Santa is a contingent being.)How does you self-consciously disbelieve in Santa?
I'm sure the author means well, but his reasoning misses the target. It's the old finger-moon metaphor.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I don't like that it talks about apples when the issue is about oranges.Reflex wrote: You don't like it that's clear enough.He's simply doing you the curtesy of explaining the REASONING behind the comparison. If reasoning is offensive to you then that explains why you choose to accept god and reject Santa. Maybe philosophy is not for you if you can't deal with reason?
