Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[PureX]

Very simply -- because far too often they want their beliefs to apply to everybody else.

So what. People want lots of things for us and from us that we don't want to oblige. Does our not wanting to oblige them mean they shouldn't want what they want?

Those who, for Biblical reasons, think same-sex marriage is against God's wishes, want it banned even for those who hold no such beliefs. Those who think the Sabbath falls on Friday, Saturday or Sunday want everybody else to stop working on whichever one it is. Christian Nationalists are more interested in forcing every other American to conform than in actually worshipping themselves -- quite like Muslims in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Well, if we respected and protected our democracy, we wouldn't have to worry about what they want. But instead we're all voting our wallets, and electing anti-democratic criminals because we think this will further our own personal agendas.

The sad truth is that if the majority of people in this country want to live in a religious and wealth plutocracy, that's what we will become. And it's very clear that arguing with them will not stop them from wanting it.

Even members of RF have too often told other members that they are doomed to Hell. We're not, you know.

Who cares about such a silly claim? Do you think arguing with them will change their mind? If you do, you're crazier than they are.

With people who believe as they wish -- and are happy to let others do the same -- I have no problem at all.

People already believecas they wish, and can do nothing to stop anyone else from doing the same. What anyone believes is irrelevant. It's what they do that matters. And even that only when it harms others.

 

[PureX]

How can one even prohibit someone else from believing as they do?

They can't, but it seems they really want to try.

 

[Koldo]

So now I deny ontological naturalism and now I am dead, because that is how objective your claim is or not, right?!!!

What are you talking about?

 

[Quintessence]

Okay, that makes sense. And yes, that is not a "standard" theist.

It used to be. Oh well. Polytheist theology is so divergent from classical monotheism that I might as well be an atheist to most in English-speaking countries. Reasons why I find the entire categories of "theist" and "atheist" to be, on the whole, fairly useless. "God" has been understood as more or less everything throughout human history. Without knowing specifically what someone's understanding of the gods is, knowing they accept or reject "god" tells you nothing about them at all. It's also why assertions like "god exists" and "god does not exist" are almost equally useless and that's setting aside the trouble of articulating what "exists" even means too... haha.

 

[Koldo]

They can't, but it seems they really want to try.

By arguing against their beliefs? How does that constitute a prohibition?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So what. People want lots of things for us and from us that we don't want to oblige. Does our not wanting to oblige them mean they shouldn't want what they want?

When they change the laws so as to impose their will on others, it matters. For example, forcing a pre-teen girl who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's baby. Permitting same-sex marriage didn't force anyone to enter into one, but banning them will deny many the right to form families as they see fit.

Well, if we respected and protected our democracy, we wouldn't have to worry about what they want. But instead we're all voting our wallets, and electing anti-democratic criminals because we think this will further our own personal agendas.

It is clear to me, if not to you, which party is stopping at nothing to meddle with democracy in order to favor itself. You can discover more here:

Voter Suppression

Voter suppression has a long and ugly history in the United States, and over the last two decades, it has resurfaced with a vengeance. Through research, lawsuits, and advocacy, the Brennan Center is fighting voter suppression on every front.

www.brennancenter.org

The sad truth is that if the majority of people in this country want to live in a religious and wealth plutocracy, that's what we will become. And it's very clear that arguing with them will not stop them from wanting it.

And that's what constitutions are for: to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And the fiercest attacks on the Constitution of the U.S. today is from the religious right.

Who cares about such a silly claim? Do you think arguing with them will change their mind? If you do, you're crazier than they are.

Words and reason have power. Not as much as superstition and bigotry, perhaps, but I don't advocate violence. If that means I'm crazy, well, so be it.

People already believecas they wish, and can do nothing to stop anyone else from doing the same. What anyone believes is irrelevant. It's what they do that matters. And even that only when it harms others.

That is what I have been saying. I refer again to the efforts to rig and/or steal elections (which Trump and his supporters actually did, while trying to pretend it was the other side), and the rescinding of rights, as in Dobbs v Jackson.

 

[PureX]

By arguing against their beliefs? How does that constitute a prohibition?

It doesn't. And it doesn't work. But in reality, I think most people just want to be right, not actually change anyone's beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you talking about?

Well, ontological naturalism is not an objective fact, if you want it in general terms.

 

[LuisDantas]

... sometimes I have to truly wonder about what exactly is being left unsaid, be it out of lack of familiarity with some aspects and meanings of what is said or for other reasons.

Are we talking about god-related beliefs? About claims about some specific forms of god-concepts? About epistemology proper?

Those are very different subject matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... sometimes I have to truly wonder about what exactly is being left unsaid, be it out of lack of familiarity with some aspects and meanings of what is said or for other reasons.

Are we talking about god-related beliefs? About claims about some specific forms of god-concepts? About epistemology proper?

Those are very different subject matters.

Well, no. If reality as such is interconnected then god-beliefs, god-concepts and epistemology are all related as how to know what is.

 

[Koldo]

Well, ontological naturalism is not an objective fact, if you want it in general terms.

I have never stated that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, no. If reality as such is interconnected then god-beliefs, god-concepts and epistemology are all related as how to know what is.

Not necessarily. Besides, we still have to decide what we are talking about if meaningful discussion is to exist.

 

[firedragon]

I'll accept that if you'll accept is isn't "you", it is "we". Everyone is equally limited on their ability to know about anything metaphysical, regardless of whether they're believers or not.

We were talking about science. It's not like human limitations or anything of the sort. It's a technical field and has its philosophical underpinnings.

You also keep evading the key question of a metaphysical being having influence on the physical world.

Not at all. I answered it. Maybe if you read a tad on the philosophy of science and the axioms of the scientific methods you will understand my answers. Even if a metaphysical being has influence on the physical world, science will test and hypothesize about the physical process, not the metaphysical influence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What anyone believes is irrelevant. It's what they do that matters. And even that only when it harms others.

The problem with that, is that beliefs inform actions.
So I wouldn't say that what people believe is irrelevant in that context.

Because what they believe, will inform their actions. And thus what they do.

 

[firedragon]

As you said, it is obvious.
The problems arise when apologists try to straw-man atheists who only state "I don't believe that god(s) exist", which happens frequently. But the reverse is also true, as atheists sometimes hear "god does exist" when a believer simply states "I believe in god(s)".

Now, statements about inner states ("I believe gods (don't) exist") are no basis for debate. They have no philosophical meaning and are unfalsifiable anyway.

That's why I don't identify as an atheist (I am, by definition, but as I said, it's not a philosophical position). Instead, I say to the atheists as well as to the believers: "You don't know what a god is". Yes, that's a positive claim, and I'm prepared to defend it.

This is whataboutary. I am definitely not interested.

 

[F1fan]

It doesn't. And it doesn't work. But in reality, I think most people just want to be right, not actually change anyone's beliefs.

As we see in believers who are very liberal at claiming their Gods exist, but then don't bother showing how they are correct, all while suggesting the critical thinker "just doesn't get it". How can we "get" anything when believers can't explain that their beliefs are true and correct?

If a person isn't open to being corrected then they have bad faith and shouldn't bother debating. Critical thinkers are open to being corrected, but believers have no argument that demonstrates their claims are true, so they are rejected by logical default.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) Even if a metaphysical being has influence on the physical world, science will test and hypothesize about the physical process, not the metaphysical influence.

Indeed.

Victor J. Stenger addresses that in several books.

 

[firedragon]

Indeed.

Victor J. Stenger addresses that in several books.

So, how does he go against the scientific method by saying the metaphysical interactions with the physical can be tested by science to be metaphysical? What's the method he had developed? Could you explain?

 

[LuisDantas]

So, how does he go against the scientific method by saying the metaphysical interactions with the physical can be tested by science to be metaphysical? What's the method he had developed? Could you explain?

Aren't you going against your own previous claim?

In any case, he simply points out the claims and their physical consequences and how they can be and are tested.

 

[Jimmy]

Leprechauns are real