Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Essay talk:Law of Theism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)