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.
well if we go back to my original response
“
Originally Posted by SnakeLord
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?
”
In the absence of any explanation on your behalf as to how one can come to position of determining the existence of a leprechaun, not really.
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 ... )
“
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?
”
I could point out that you have a claim divorced from a methodology
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)
“
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.
Regards,
”
On the contrary, we both know that behind any claim is the means for determining the claim
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
