Philosophy Now Forum

Making the Santa comparison is offensive. It's telling the fish who is aware of it's water environment that your disbelief is, to you, like its disbelief in Santa. It's not. It's not about belief or disbelief at all; just like a dwelling is not at all the same thing as a home (except when viewed from the outside).

I think it is safe to assume you're "trolling."

Reflex wrote:Making the Santa comparison is offensive. It's telling the fish who is aware of it's water environment that your disbelief is, to you, like its disbelief in Santa. It's not. It's not about belief or disbelief at all; just like a dwelling is not at all the same thing as a home (except when viewed from the outside).

I think it is safe to assume you're "trolling."

That post is too confused for anyone to really get any meaning out of it.
Perhaps if you can mix slightly fewer metaphors it might make more sense.

Reflex wrote:No, it's not. You see see the dwelling place, but not the home. A home is more than just a place. If you cannot see the difference, then you are like a fish that does not see the water in which it swims. ...

I don't think you're understanding what he is saying reflex, he's not comparing 'God' and Santa, he's pointing-out that if the theist wishes to understand how the atheist thinks about 'God' then it's roughly how the theist thinks about Santa, i.e. no belief at all in his existence. Nothing more. Unless of course you are saying you believe in Santa as well?

Maybe it's the title that got you hot and bothered, so maybe it should have been 'Why atheists compare their disbelief in 'God' to the theists disbelief in Santa' or even, 'How ....'

Reflex wrote:

Why the emotional attachment to a mere "disbelief"?

Empiricism provides knowledge; belief is for whimps

The original post talks a lot about the beliefs (maps, dwellings vehicles) of believers, but the author clearly has no insight or perception regarding that to which they refer. So, rather than behave like a rational human being and just carry on with their own private experience/vision of the world, the author chooses to muddy the 'water' in which believers swim. It's 'trolling,' pure and simple.

Reflex wrote:The original post talks a lot about the beliefs (maps, dwellings vehicles) of believers, but the author clearly has no insight or perception regarding that to which they refer. So, rather than behave like a rational human being and just carry on with their own private experience/vision of the world, the author chooses to muddy the 'water' in which believers swim. It's 'trolling,' pure and simple.

Why the emotional attachment to a winding series of unhelpful metaphors involving water, maps, houses and muddy trolls?

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:No, it's not. You see see the dwelling place, but not the home. A home is more than just a place. If you cannot see the difference, then you are like a fish that does not see the water in which it swims. ...

I don't think you're understanding what he is saying reflex, he's not comparing 'God' and Santa, he's pointing-out that if the theist wishes to understand how the atheist thinks about 'God' then it's roughly how the theist thinks about Santa, i.e. no belief at all in his existence. Nothing more. Unless of course you are saying you believe in Santa as well?

Maybe it's the title that got you hot and bothered, so maybe it should have been 'Why atheists compare their disbelief in 'God' to the theists disbelief in Santa' or even, 'How ....'

I'm not 'hot and bothered' at all. I'm just asking why atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Reflex wrote:The original post talks a lot about the beliefs (maps, dwellings vehicles) of believers, but the author clearly has no insight or perception regarding that to which they refer. So, rather than behave like a rational human being and just carry on with their own private experience/vision of the world, the author chooses to muddy the 'water' in which believers swim. It's 'trolling,' pure and simple.

Why the emotional attachment to a winding series of unhelpful metaphors involving water, maps, houses and muddy trolls?

Why do atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool?

Interesting move. Which category is being misused?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Why the emotional attachment to a mere "disbelief"?

Empiricism provides knowledge; belief is for whimps

By 'empiricism,' do you mean logical positivism? That died decades ago (even if some people didn't got the message). 'Hume's fork' doesn’t rise to its own standard.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Interesting move. Which category is being misused?

Santa/God

Reflex wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Interesting move. Which category is being misused?

Santa/God

I think you need to put more exposition in there than that.
Show us your argument.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Reflex wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Interesting move. Which category is being misused?

Santa/God

I think you need to put more exposition in there than that.
Show us your argument.

No argument is necessary because they are 2 completely different categories of existence.

So, why do atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool?

Reflex wrote: No argument is necessary because they are 2 completely different categories of existence.

So, why do atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool?

Do you know how the category error argument works?
Please explain how it applies in this situation.

If you are making it up as you go along, now is the time to admit this.

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?