Emnos Or alternatively Some theists say that it is some where between 1 and -1, 2x4-8 or 0. Agnostics say that x is always unknown (and that this is the best answer since its the middle ground everyone can agree on) Atheists say that algebra is non-existent and that there is no merit in having a correct answer for x since it is an imagination. And all three, remain (either in your example or mine) algebraic answers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Snakelord “ oh err .... sorry I didn't realize that you took leprechauns so seriously. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On the contrary, I think we are both indicating the necessity for satire for an atheist to make their point of view. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is this going to be one of those large circles where I continually mention that there was no satire in my post and you keep saying it's necessary for atheists to use satire? If so.. let's just stop now heh. Of course, before we forget, it simply serves to make my point all the more apparent. I mention something and because you think it's nonsense, it's not worth taking seriously. There is of course no onus on you to prove that my claims are not serious or that the entity mentioned in my claim doesn't exist. Yes, I feel exactly the same about your claims. With no disrepect meant but I find them ridiculously pathetic and childish. The point: There is no onus on me to show that your claims are false. Yes, that was the point: That, if you're interested, was made specifically because of the statement: "But, the atheist must also carry a burden of proof that there is no God" The statement is incorrect, there is no burden of proof on the person that considers your claim nonsense.
ahhh the flexible consistencies of an atheist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I dunno maybe you could opt for an umbrella of altruistic issues to dress up your IPU/FSM or leprechaunism, eh? duh! You just spelt out satire in the above post, buddy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! particularly when one is making a claim divorced from a means to verify the claim, eh? (BTW the original precursor of your leprechaunism, and more notable the FSM and IPU, is Bertrand Russell's flying teapot - it was specifically formulated against fideism which asserts that god is essentially unknowable, you just gotta believe etc etc and all that other stuff that that really stokes the fire at an atheist get together .... if you have a claim that comes with a means, it doesn't quite work ....)
:bugeye: Of no surprise that the actual point wasn't addressed. Seemingly you prefer to make pointless one liners and try to make comparisons to other things you equally don't believe in, (which simply serves to reiterate the point).
Actually its not things I don't believe in. Its things atheists insist on using to meet the needs of satire (IPU, FSM, etc) As pointed out, the preceptor of them (Russell) used them to meet the demands of a specific scenario (fideism). If you want to pretend that all of theism's demands are contained within fideism you really are better off with your leprechauns ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Have you any idea how much he invested into his leprechauns theory?! He can't give up on it now! :bawl: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. It seems you're not avoiding the point, you just didn't understand it. I refer you to my original post on the matter. If it's still a problem I'll draw you a picture.
On the contrary, if I didn't understand the satire behind your leprechaun suggestion it would certainly make for a strange discourse. you mean this? 2. If I said that leprechauns did in fact actually exist and you said "don't be silly, of course they don't", would you consider yourself as having any onus whatsoever upon you? Would you honestly think for so much as one second that you have the duty of going about proving [?] to me that my claim is bogus nonsense? Of course not, such a notion is very silly indeed. Having said that, your outright denial doesn't mean leprechauns don't exist but we both know where the onus firmly lies. You can't see the similarity between a leprechaun and a fideistic conception of god? (sheesh - if in doubt, consult bertrand russel) :shrug:
Just so I know that it's not my fault.... Can you please explain to me what I am saying in the statement that you have quoted above? For some bizarre reason you've become overly fixated on leprechauns when that isn't the point of the statement. To me that seems a little bizarre, but hopefully, once you've given the explanation, I'll know why you're making the error.
You can't give up on the farce you invested your life into. You are a satire. You set the bar for it.
well if we go back to my original response Here you are asking whether there is any onus on a person to disbelieve a claim, using leprechauns as a parallel for the claims of theists. I hint that in the absence of also including a means for an assertion, there is no onus. (as a side point, leprechauns - much like the FSM, IPU and flying teapot - don't come equipped with a means for verification .... much like fideism ... ) Here you clearly determine that in the above case there is no onus. Actually we are in agreement at this point. What we don't agree on however is that leprechauns are an effective means for illustrating the claims of theism (outside of a fideistic view of course). In other words what you are neglecting is along with the claim of god comes the claim of a means. As a no-brainer, this is the standard pattern for all knowledge based claims. (as a side point, it is a convenient tool of satire to partially represent the topic, as a means of establishing a narrative - political cartoonists do it all the time ..... for instance if one drew a politician like a leprechaun, you are certainly entering into the realm of satire ... as opposed to suggesting that the politician really looked like a leprechaun) Here you come to your "check mate", namely that god is silly ... or more specifically, just like the idea of a leprechaun being a governing force in determining high end ethical issues is silly, so is god. Once again, obvious satire in 10ft high letters. You make it clear that that the onus lies on the person making the claim. Answering to that onus, the first thing one would provide is a means to determine the claim. Ironically atheists are not at all eager to work with such an idea, preferring to work with the fideistic model. This leads to a final point - your entire argument is tentative and can easily be manipulated to an opposite end. For instance if we were discussing the claims of something that does come with a means (like nanotechnology) and asked where the onus lies, the answer would be on the person who disbelieves, since if they want to know about it, they have to get off their laurels. :shrug: anyway, hope this clears a few things up
Incorrect. I am asking whether there is any onus on a person that doesn't believe a claim. I see. My entire point was that there is no onus on the person that doesn't believe a claim. You agree. Should have just said "I agree", and that would have been the end of that. I'm quite astonished that it took you ten posts of going on about leprechauns before you even noticed that you agreed with the point, and it actually had nothing to do with leprechauns. Hey, it was fun anyway. Oh dang it. :shrug: It's a shame you know.. all that "I agree" stuff out the way and you're back to missing the point. I am not talking about leprechauns, I am not talking about gods or goblins or werewolves or floating omnipotent bananas. I am talking about onus and who it rests upon. It does not rest upon the person that does not believe in a claim - be that gods, goblins, leprechauns or any other asserted existing entity. The reasons it doesn't were mentioned in my original post.. yes, the one you didn't understand the point of. Almost. You missed the: ".... to the individual that thinks it's silly". For the sake of discussion consider the following: I think the god concept is silly. I think the leprechaun concept is silly. Absolutely regardless to evidence or claims to evidence, the onus does not lie on the person that thinks it's nonsense to prove that it's nonsense. There is your fault. The individual that doesn't believe in nano-technology has no onus upon them whatsoever. They can sit there happily not believing in it all they like. They can claim it fiction or nonsense for the rest of their lives and have no onus on them to [prove] that what they consider nonsense isn't really nonsense. The people making the claims to the reality of nano-technology provide the evidence that it does exist. That is their onus. Hopefully I wont now have to resort to pictures, although... it's still 50/50.
