Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Atheist "identity"/reply (6)

But why split it up and add extra convolution when it can be far far simpler? I have no reason to *believe* in either: I can simply ask "what are the consequences of your assertion and do we actually observe them?" and see if that's true or not.

"Obama the god" and "Obama the man" require us to define what "god" and "man" are first, which is a distracting issue. Far better to simply inquire as to what someone expects to see of the guy: superpowered finger lightning, for instance? If we don't see it, your assertion is false. End of story.

If someone was to say "Obama is a god" and then follow that with "err... well, nothing really" to the request for real-world expectations then they can say "Obama is a god" all they like, as much as they can say "Obama is a sausage" or "Obama is actually a woman" or "Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in America so isn't eligible to be President". But they've simply said nothing of interest or of value because it conveys no useful information.