Never mind Russell's teapot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now we have Musks Sports car...............and if that is too big apparently he sent up a roll of cheese as well.

Another atheist icon bites the cosmic dust.

[Maeght]

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

The teapot was a bit of argumentum ad ridiculing on Russell's part aside anything else it was.
Because of Musk the sneer value of the teapot has dropped a bit.

Yes I am being a bit sarcastic but I am looking forward to somebody putting an actual teapot in orbit...and Atheists here arguing that it doesn't count because it isn't Russell's.

[Stranger]

The teapot was a bit of argumentum ad ridiculing on Russell's part aside anything else it was.

No, it wasn't - it was, and is, a illustration of the philosophical burden of proof. It isn't even directly about religion, it applies just as much to science - hence the requirement for scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable.

Because of Musk the sneer value of the teapot has dropped a bit.

It was never about about sneer value.

Yes I am being a bit sarcastic but I am looking forward to somebody putting an actual teapot in orbit...and Atheists here arguing that it doesn't count because it isn't Russell's.

FFS, really? Even as sarcasm this doesn't work. Russell's teapot was just an example of a claim that couldn't be falsified.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it wasn't - it was, and is, a illustration of the philosophical burden of proof. It isn't even directly about religion, it applies just as much to science - hence the requirement for scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable.

It was never about about sneer value.

FFS, really? Even as sarcasm this doesn't work. Russell's teapot was just an example of a claim that couldn't be falsified.

As an example of what you are saying it has imho to suffer from being dated.
I believe you are wrong to rule out sneer value in antitheism or argumentum ad ridiculing.

I suppose there is nothing even vaguely ridiculous
About
Leprechauns
Invisible Pink Unicorns
And Flying Spaghettii Monsters.

Top of the morning to you.

[Stranger]

As an example of what you are saying it has imho to suffer from being dated.

Well it does date from the early 1950s. In actual fact, it would sill be an unfalsifiable assertion, even with today's technology (unless we actually deliberately placed a teapot in such an orbit) but it is less obviously so. So yes, it is probably not the best example to use today.

I believe you are wrong to rule out sneer value in antitheist or argumentum ad ridiculing.

I suppose there is nothing even vaguely ridiculous
About
Leprechauns
Invisible Pink Unicorns
And Flying Spaghettii Monsters.

Yes, those are arguments deliberately used to point out the absurdity of making unfalsifiable claims about a god - and they are very good at it.

However, they are not instances of an appeal to ridicule or ab absurdo fallacy because they don't misrepresent those who claim that being unable to disprove their god, somehow makes it more believable. They correctly bring out the unreasonableness of such a claim by comparison to comical notions that we are equally unable to disprove.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well it does date from the early 1950s. In actual fact, it would sill be an unfalsifiable assertion, even with today's technology (unless we actually deliberately placed a teapot in such an orbit) but it is less obviously so. So yes, it is probably not the best example to use today.

Yes, those are arguments deliberately used to point out the absurdity of making unfalsifiable claims about a god - and they are very good at it.

However, they are not instances of an appeal to ridicule or ab absurdo fallacy because they don't misrepresent those who claim that being unable to disprove their god, somehow makes it more believable. They correctly bring out the unreasonableness of such a claim by comparison to comical notions that we are equally unable to disprove.

So it's an argument to point out the absurdity but it isn't  ab absurdo?

[Stranger]

So it's an argument to point out the absurdity but it isn't  ab absurdo?

Exactly, it isn't ab absurdo fallacy because there is no misrepresentation or exaggeration.

The concepts, while being obviously absurd, cannot be disproved, which serves to illustrate the fact that claiming that something cannot be disproved is not a reason to take it seriously, let alone believe that it is true. Which is a point that some theists seem to find hard to grasp.

It is, in a sense, a reductio ad absurdum (which is a valid argument, not a fallacy) of the argument: "you cannot disprove this, so you should take it seriously".

If someone were to claim that these notions were directly equivalent to theism in a wider sense, that may constitute an appeal to ridicule fallacy, unless they could point to another specific equivalence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly, it isn't ab absurdo fallacy because there is no misrepresentation or exaggeration.

The concepts, while being obviously absurd, cannot be disproved, which serves to illustrate the fact that claiming that something cannot be disproved is not a reason to take it seriously, let alone believe that it is true. Which is a point that some theists seem to find hard to grasp.

It is, in a sense, a reductio ad absurdum (which is a valid argument, not a fallacy) of the argument: "you cannot disprove this, so you should take it seriously".

If someone were to claim that these notions were directly equivalent to theism in a wider sense, that may constitute an appeal to ridicule fallacy, unless they could point to another specific equivalence.

Examples of things that could not be proved yet have no comic value or sneer value could be used instead therefore there is an unnecessary gratuity about their use.

Therefore your last three posts justifying antitheists showing off with pasta colanders on their heads has been pure turdpolishing

[Stranger]

Examples of things that could not be proved yet have no comic value or sneer value could be used instead therefore there is an unnecessary gratuity about their use.

Things that can't "be proved yet" would be inappropriate, for two reasons:

• Outside of mathematics and logic, positive proof isn't available. Hypotheses can make predictions that can be tested and confirmed (provide some added confidence) or falsified (disproved).
  
  
• The inclusion of 'yet' implies that there is some prospect of getting testable and falsifiable predictions from the 'hypothesis', which is often not the case with god concepts.

Additionally, unless the comparison used is obviously absurd, the point may be lost. Let's face it, we are dealing with people who are apparently unable to understand the point that being unfalsifiable is not an indication of truth...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Things that can't "be proved yet" would be inappropriate, for two reasons:

• Outside of mathematics and logic, positive proof isn't available. Hypotheses can make predictions that can be tested and confirmed (provide some added confidence) or falsified (disproved).
  
  
• The inclusion of 'yet' implies that there is some prospect of getting testable and falsifiable predictions from the 'hypothesis', which is often not the case with god concepts.

Additionally, unless the comparison used is obviously absurd, the point may be lost. Let's face it, we are dealing with people who are apparently unable to understand the point that being unfalsifiable is not an indication of truth...

Yes I see that,

It still though doesn't mean that the laughable cant be replaced by the unfalsifiable unless you deliberately want to cause offence.

Vis theism could be likened to philosophical materialism. Or theisms intelligent creator of the universe might be likened to naturalists intelligent creator of the universe.