I feel you have tried to deflect the category question back to consideration of mere unfalsifiability.
How can you have a category question about asserted concepts without any means to determine anything categoric? It's not that there's a 'mere' consideration of unfalsifiability about the existence of these things, it's that there's an unfalsifiability about anything to do with them. How can you definitively state that there's a categoric difference between two things that we have no evidence for? You're making assumptions about their natures in the absence of any justification.
There is a whole antitheist industry or modus of entertainment/expression based around ridiculing all of theism which rides on the back of unfalsifiability.
And there's an entire industry of suppression and denigration from various theist groups at anyone outside of their 'in-group' - hardly surprising, given that religion is used (or perhaps even created purely for) the purposes for determining tribal in- and out-groups.
Neither of which, of course, actually impacts on the validity of the claims. If I laugh at formulations of the idea of god because of their unfalsifiability, that doesn't undermine the fact that they are unfalsifiable claims.
Apart from revealing the inner redneck there is real social harm to be had here.
As there is in supporting the unsubstantiated claims of religion: terrorism, abstinence-based sex education, ideological wars on certain drugs and over-reliance on others, political interference, gender discrimination, sexuality discrimination...
If there wasn't any social harm here, no-one would have a problem with religion, it would be no more than a personal choice like wearing a hat.
The term ''there might be categoric differences'' is disingenuous.
Only in the sense that it was giving the benefit of the doubt that any of these claims might have a basis. There is only a categoric difference between God and Russell's teapot if either of them can be shown to exist - otherwise you've just got claims of categoric difference, just like you've only got claims of existence.
These are either points to take seriously or humourously. If we are to take philosophy seriously we must look to non categorising or generalising.
If anything becomes so serious that you can't laugh at it, at least a little, then it's got a power over you. That's why things are described as 'sacred' in the first place - if you put them beyond question, beyond humour, beyond mockery then they have power. We have to laugh at them, after all...
... there's real social harm here.
Atheists find God unfalsifiability.
That doesn't make sense as a statement - I presume you meant 'unfalsifiable'? We aren't the only ones - all agnostics find the notion of god to be unfalsifiable, that's the definition of agnosticism, and many agnostics are theists.
Atheists find ridiculous things unfalsifiable
Boris Johnson. Donald Trump. Both eminently falsifiable, eminently ridiculous. I think you meant to suggest that atheists find unfalsifiable things ridiculous, in which case I'd accept that I personally (and let's assume I'm representative) find some unfalsifiable things ridiculous, and some claims about unfalsifiable things ridiculous, but not all ridiculous things or claims about ridiculous things.
Atheists then conclude that all unfalsifiables are ridiculous
Neither in the attempted formulation, nor in what I think you meant, as demonstrated above.
Atheists challenged by multiverse
Aren't we all challenged by the idea of a multiverse? I don't struggle to accept the concept, I struggle to get my head around all of the possible implications.
Atheists conclude not all unfalsifiables are ridiculous.
Given that it wasn't a valid claim in the first place, this doesn't come as a surprise.
Antitheists still like the ridicule link though.
Are antitheists definitively a subset of atheists? What's the criteria? Some of them probably do, it can be useful. Sometimes the best defence is to make it clear that the pretentious sounding waffle being espoused is just multi-syllabic jibberish; Theology is, after all, the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy.
Antitheists arbitrarily single out which unfalsifiables are ridiculous and include God.
I think it more likely that those people who find the unfalsifiables relating to God to be ridiculous are subsequently branded anti-theists as an attempt at an ad hominem argument.
Antitheists take the rise out of theists and mock them on the same bases that homophobes might ridicule say a gay pride march........ based on logical fallacies.
What's the 'logical fallacy' of a gay pride march? Anti-theists mock theists for any number of reasons, from the pretty dresses the Pope wears to the lack of awareness that leads billions to be spent on suppressing sex education in favour of abstinence programmes in the face of the evidence of their ineffectiveness.
Of course we know we are talking about the FSMers here.
Well at least you've come to the light - it's good to see you've been touched by his noodly appendage (he boiled for our sins, you know. Allegedly.)
Other than that lapse though Outrider, a fair post.
I think you'll find there might be a categoric error between your claims of a lapse in my post, and the actuality of my post - but at least we can both agree that there's something there to make the determination on, right?
O.
