Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Essay talk:Law of Theism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Where was this originally stated? The article seems to be quoting an original text, but the article never supplies what it was. I am also curious how large an audience this law has—has garnered attention in places that discuss religion/philosophy? Or was it something a small-time blogger pulled out of their ass? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Fruitcake. ~ Jellyfish! (TalkContribsLogs) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Just to be clear, I was the one who proposed this. The Law's true. If you disagree, prove me wrong, but I don't think it's possible. Lyra § talk 22:20, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
You'll get no arguments from me. There's probably a "real" version of this argument floating around somewhere, too. Maybe we should hunt it down. ~ Jellyfish! (TalkContribsLogs) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
I feel both smart and slightly reduntant, but let's keep it. It's probably the most solipsistic version. Lyra § talk 22:25, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
We do value original research, but only if it involves a known phenomenon. If it's original research about an original idea, it belongs in the essayspace. But I didn't know it was original to you at the time I asked—I was going to apologize for spurring you to move the page, but I won't now. When I ask such questions as above, it is not because I am totalitarian, but because I am simply curious or want the proper sources cited. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't mind totalitarian sysops as long as they accept input from users higher on the food chain. I moved it because I saw this. Lyra § talk 22:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
We jellyfish know what you mean by "higher on the food chain", and we adjust the evilness of our plans accordingly. Hiss. ~ Jellyfish! (TalkContribsLogs) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I disagree with this law. Yes, a great many statements about gods are completely untestable, but those that have something to say about reality can, in fact, be proven true or false. Case in point - the global flood. We know this didn't happen because of the fact that we have a large amount of empirical evidence against it. On a simpler level, a statement like, "My god will set you on fire within the next five minutes" is both absurd and very easy to disprove. And also, it's a bit odd to see someone on RationalWiki claim that atheism is a belief system. Ryunosuke (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)