(December 11, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Chas Wrote:(December 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: Okay, so let's parse it like this: Some claims about God purport to be true (God exists) but not factual in the sense of verification; others more specifically claim to be both (God came to earth, say, in the form a politician). Do you agree with me that an atheist is mistaken, perhaps naively so, to reply to the theist who is asserting God as a truth (nay, THE truth) in "necessarily abstract" terms (rather than as "a fact") with the statement that "claims demand evidence"?
No, I would not. Any claim about the nature of a thing is meaningless without evidence of the existence of that thing.
Talk of the attributes of any god is meaningless drivel.
Yeah, it's like Tracey Harris pointed out on The Atheist Experience, about the nature and the habits of the yeti. It's all just wankery unless you actually produce a yeti.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
