Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Why the emotional attachment to a mere "disbelief"?

Empiricism provides knowledge; belief is for whimps

The verifiability criterion undermines itself. The requirement that a meaningful statement must be either empirically verifiable or else a matter of definition is itself neither one of these, and so the verifiability criterion doesn’t meet its own requirements.

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

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: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?

Poor choice. Construct your argument. Don't try to deflect.

Lacewing wrote:

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

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?

Rocks, too, 'lack belief in God.' Should I consider an atheist's lack of belief to be at the same level? I don't normally converse with rocks, thank you. Are you telling me I should?

FlashDangerpants wrote:

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?

Poor choice. Construct your argument. Don't try to deflect.

Just waiting for an answer, though having considered Lacewing's post I wonder if I should bother.

Will you at least acknowledge that Santa and God belong to entirely different categories of existence?

Reflex wrote: Will you at least acknowledge that Santa and God belong to entirely different categories of exisrence?

Many of us (myself included) have read Ryle. I and many others know how the category error argument works. And I at least don't see how you can hope to invoke it by just saying Santa/God = Category Error.

A follow up of "theology 101" is absolutely useless.

Explain your argument. You had your opportunity to back out and admit you had aimed too high. You doubled down instead, that was your choice. Show us that you aren't committing the sin of pride.

God and Santa not inhabiting the same "category of existence" isn't how that arg works. Especially not when the point of the discussion is that we don't believe either of them belongs in the category of things with the property of existing.

Your going to have to point out this category error as it's Philosophy Now not Theology Now.

Reflex wrote:Rocks, too, 'lack belief in God.' Should I consider an atheist's lack of belief to be at the same level? I don't normally converse with rocks, thank you. Are you telling me I should?

Now this is a serious category error.

Arising_uk wrote:Your going to have to point out this category error as it's Philosophy Now not Theology Now.

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)?

FlashDangerpants wrote:
God and Santa not inhabiting the same "category of existence" isn't how that arg works.

Sorry, but that's exactly how it works (unless you're just trolling).

Oh fine then. In that case - the argument doesn't work because they both inhabit the category of things which don't exist.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Oh fine then. In that case - the argument doesn't work because they both inhabit the category of things which don't exist.

Oh. So, you're just a troll with nothing cogent to say.

What's the problem here?
If that's what you have for your category argument, it requires nothing more than blunt denial.
God doesn't exist.
Santa doesn't exist.
The argument presented by Sthith required no other similarity between the two.
You presented no categorical confusion so we are done and you failed.

FlashDangerpants wrote:What's the problem here?
If that's what you have for your category argument, it requires nothing more than blunt denial.
God doesn't exist.
Santa doesn't exist.
The argument presented by Sthith required no other similarity between the two.
You presented no categorical confusion so we are done and you failed.

"God does not exist" is a phrase found in Theology 101. Many theists say it. Do you know why?

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?