Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Tomef]

Claiming that nobody really believes in the gods (in this case Inana) is outright dishonest, imo.

Your claim is that there are people who believe Inana, Sauron, and the phantom tollbooth are real?

Whatever your point it, I don’t think you understood the post you responded to.

 

[Tomef]

Read the OP, read your comment, and you would know.

That’s a bit cryptic. Maybe you can’t explain why you think it’s a straw man?

Your OP states that ‘god does not exist’ is a positive claim. Definitions of what is meant by ‘god’ are not straw man arguments. God, in this case as in all beliefs about god that arose from literate cultures, means a character in a book. That is simply a fact; all of the gods we know about as part of the world’s major religions are characters in books. That’s the only way we know anything about them. If those books did not exist, those religions would not exist. People would invent some other thing to believe in. There’s no more need to formulate positive claims for the non-belief in those ancient gods than there is for non-belief in the real existence of any other fictional character.

 

[Tomef]

Correct.

Reading a book is experience, and hopefully when doing so you apply reason. These are not mutually exclusive.

Your argument is a bit inconsistent. ‘Reading a book is an experience’ hardly makes sense of it - without the book, you would not know about the relevant god. You arrive at knowledge of that god through the book, not through ‘experience and reason’. Without the book, your ‘experience and reason’ would lead you to some other set of beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s a bit cryptic. Maybe you can’t explain why you think it’s a straw man?

Your OP states that ‘god does not exist’ is a positive claim. Definitions of what is meant by ‘god’ are not straw man arguments. God, in this case as in all beliefs about god that arose from literate cultures, means a character in a book. That is simply a fact; all of the gods we know about as part of the world’s major religions are characters in books. That’s the only way we know anything about them. If those books did not exist, those religions would not exist. People would invent some other thing to believe in. There’s no more need to formulate positive claims for the non-belief in those ancient gods than there is for non-belief in the real existence of any other fictional character.

Yeah, well. Philosophy is not your strongest side.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, well. Philosophy is not your strongest side.

Applying philosophy to fictional characters is not to question whether they actually exist or not. Philosophy as applied to whether or not there actually is a god is something contemporary philosophy as moved on from as irrelevant. Why argue over what is no longer relevant? The arguments that do exist may be of some interest, but only as curiosities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Applying philosophy to fictional characters is not to question whether they actually exist or not. Philosophy as applied to whether or not there actually is a god is something contemporary philosophy as moved on from as irrelevant. Why argue over what is no longer relevant? The arguments that do exist may be of some interest, but only as curiosities.

Well, they, the Gods, are still there in philosophy as in effect a part of how we use methodological naturalism and the axiomatic assumptions behind science.

 

[firedragon]

That’s a bit cryptic. Maybe you can’t explain why you think it’s a straw man?

The OP does not discuss the existence of God, or any theistic claim whatsoever. It only discusses the philosophical meaning of a particular statement.

So debating me about anything related to theism as if I made that argument as a whole is a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it's the actions that matter. The beliefs are irrelevant.

But I just brought to your attention that beliefs inform actions.
So you can't call the beliefs irrelevant if the actions matter.
If the actions matter, then the stuff that informs / motivates the actions matters also.

There is no question that human behavior has to be controlled. There is no question that we cannot control what people tihnk or choose to believe. So why on Earth are you so insistant on wasting time trying to control the latter? Why is anyone?

I don't think I said anything about wanting to engage in thought control, or even that such a thing is possible.
I just said that if actions matter, then so do beliefs.

This means that debate, discussion and education is worth it.
Sure, people are free to believe whatever they want. Other people are also free to try and change people's minds about whatever through discourse, debate, discussion, education, what-have-you.

And there is absolutely NOTHING you or anyone else can do about that.

Sure we can. Through discussion, discourse, debate, education,...

If you want to argue about something, argue about what behaviors support the well-being of your social collective, and what laws we should impose as a result.

I think you can not have that discussion without also talking about the causes of the behaviors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Discussing belief is a waste of time. Focus on the actions and their effect on the social collective. And use that criteria to control behavior through the law.

That's like focusing only on the hate crimes against blacks without trying to tackle the underlying problem of racism.

Sure, you can't throw someone in jail merely for having racist beliefs, nor should you.
But to completely ignore it is not helpful either. And to say racist beliefs are "irrelevant" to the actions of hate crimes against blacks is most definitely obvious bs.

 

[HonestJoe]

Give me the exact method. Look for it.

You can't present broad hypotheticals but then demand specific practical responses. The exact methods would depend on the exact claims, the starting point being a formally defined hypothesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't present broad hypotheticals but then demand specific practical responses. The exact methods would depend on the exact claims, the starting point being a formally defined hypothesis.

What is philosophy of science and how does it relate to the axiomatic assumptions regarding science as such? That is it.

 

[Tomef]

Well, they, the Gods, are still there in philosophy as in effect a part of how we use methodological naturalism and the axiomatic assumptions behind science.

I think Latour’s work has moved the whole kit and caboodle beyond that, there rest is just inertia.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think Latour’s work has moved the whole kit and caboodle beyond that, there rest is just inertia.

Yeah, you think. Well, the problem is that objective is in the end not what you think. Nor what I think. So when we are debating in effect how to know what objective reality is, you properly should look beyound how you think.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, you think. Well, the problem is that objective is in the end not what you think. Nor what I think. So when we are debating in effect how to know what objective reality is, you properly should look beyound how you think.

I think Latour’s thinking represents a way of thinking about the world that is an improvement on earlier modes of thinking that involved thinking there were gods, so insofar as I think his thinking potentially represents thinking that has thunk through earlier modes of thinking in order to think of new and more accurate ways of thinking about our place in the world, that isn’t to say his thinking or my thinking about his thinking is objective thinking, just that he thunk through how other ways of thinking don’t match up so well as his thinking with observable realities, so thinking the way someone thinks is more useful when it comes to thinking about the world is not the same thing as whatever your idea about something being objectively real is.

 

[firedragon]

You can't present broad hypotheticals but then demand specific practical responses.

I didn't present anything. It was the anti theists in this thread who did. And if you are making a certain claim, you should present exact methodologies. Not preach like someone is in a church. Just breezy general preachy statements of blind faith and belief.

If that's the kind of discussion you intend to have my brother, I am not interested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think Latour’s thinking represents a way of thinking about the world that is an improvement on earlier modes of thinking that involved thinking there were gods, so insofar as I think his thinking potentially represents thinking that has thunk through earlier modes of thinking in order to think of new and more accurate ways of thinking about our place in the world, that isn’t to say his thinking or my thinking about his thinking is objective thinking, just that he thunk through how other ways of thinking don’t match up so well as his thinking with observable realities, so thinking the way someone thinks is more useful when it comes to thinking about the world is not the same thing as whatever your idea about something being objectively real is.

Yeah, as for the bold what is methodological naturalism?

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, as for the bold what is methodological naturalism?

Something you like to talk about?

 

[Tomef]

The OP does not discuss the existence of God, or any theistic claim whatsoever. It only discusses the philosophical meaning of a particular statement.

So debating me about anything related to theism as if I made that argument as a whole is a strawman.

Maybe. But when I say ‘god does not exist’, and also I think when those well-known western atheists who are public speakers say it, they mean the god that people read about in religious texts. It’s those ‘gods’, those fictional characters, that the whole debate is about. It’s not about some other idea that we might have if we didn’t have those books. So it’s a positive or negative assertion in relation to those fictional characters, not about the nature of reality. The whole position of religion is a fictional construct, hence any claims about it one way or another cannot be classified as specific propositions about the nature of reality. Religion is only ‘real’ in the sense that it is something people do and think about, and the gods religions invent are only real in the sense of being part of that activity. If I say I don’t believe in man-made climate change, that’s a proposition about the nature of reality; if I say the phantom tollbooth isn’t real, that’s a proposition about a fictional construct, something intentionally created by a person, and the idea of gods falls into the second category.

 

[Koldo]

Well, yes, It is in both cases words but the referents are different when it comes to how you interact. One is a concrete and the other an abstract as their referents go.

Not at all. The word 'leaves' doesn't refer to any discrete concrete object in particular. In other words, it is not a proper noun. Just like the word 'natural' doesn't either. Both are categories, with one being simply much larger than the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something you like to talk about?

Well, yes. It is a part of one version of modern science, so in a sense you should at already have heard of methodological naturalism. And since you have a better version of science, you should be able to explain how methodological naturalism is irrelevant other than just claiming that your version is better.