Here’s a humorous site as well: http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html ;D
Verifiable evidence (religious people think that other religious people and/or atheists are delusional and visa versa) together with bad logic does nothing to suuport fallacious conclusions. Bad logic is still bad logic.
Apply it to classical theism. Not theistic personalism or neo-theism where god is comparable to Zeus, or your favourite sky-daddy with a beard, or the FSM or the teapot or some personal and anthropomorphic conceptions of God. Apply the example to the God of classical theism of Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Augustine, Leibniz, Athanasius and central to Christian orthodoxy.
What is your understanding of classical theism and apply your example.
Believing in things for which there is no verifiable evidence is at best rather dubious and regarding it as delusional does not amount to bad logic, as you claim. If people believe in things of which the existence cannot be verified, how do you determine which are delusions and which not? “Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?”
This seems rather absurd. You are asking me to describe my understanding of something which does not exist. How classical theologists viewed God is completely irrelevant. Whether one views God as a personal God, a physical being, a spirit, a creator, a force or the universe, I do not believe in any of those. How am I then supposed to portray my view which I do not have?
Surely you don't think God is the same as some incorporeal fire breathing (lol) entity.I think exactly that. Whether a fictitious character breathes fire or not is immaterial. In your mind you can give the dragon a long tail or you can give God a long tail, you can give the dragon fangs or you can give God dentures; you can make it up in whatever way you like, and nobody can prove you wrong. The point is they [i]do not exist[/i].
Well, you are stuck with that silly example. Like I said, apply it to a proper understanding of the concept you actually wish to show is “incoherent” or “unverifiable”.
Actually no. It can’t be more relevant. Let me give you a simple example.
I think I am an aXX25rist. I don’t believe XX24r exists. Now, I think I would be pretty dumb and ignorant to claim I am an aXX24rist if I don’t know what classical XX24rists believe XX24r to be in the first place. If that was the case, I would simply be an agnostic with regards to the existence of XX24r and not have an opinion. But, since I call myself an aXX24rist, I make sure I know what the classical conception of XX24r is in order not to make up lame and straw men arguments that no XX24rist take serious anyway. That would make me look stupid and would force me to rather consider agnosticism with regards to the existence of XX23r. The point being: aXX25rists know what they do not believe in.
Exactly, you have to have some clue as to what you believe does not exist in order to have such a specific view otherwise your view becomes incoherent.
Well, you seem to have built and burnt a circular a priori straw man (Something like: God does not exist because imaginary incorporeal dragons do not exist and God is the same as these silly dragons). No classical theist or any theist for that matter think God is the same as some incorporeal dragon.
Sigh!
How can I put it simple enough for you to understand?
You look at a blank, unpainted wall.
Describe the painting on the wall in terms of surrealism, impressionism and cubism.
Who built the wall and painted? 
Was he a surrealist, impressionist or a cubist >:D.
Point still being, if you have do not have some clue as to what you believe does not exist, you are just demonstrating your ignorance.
Johnny built the wall. There is no verifiable evidence that anybody painted it. Now let’s assume you’re not a troll and answer my question:
You look at a blank, unpainted wall.
Describe the painting on the wall in terms of surrealism, impressionism and cubism.
I think the surrealists, impressionists and cubists will agree with me that Johnny (if he painted the wall) is good at painting walls white but sucks at trying to be a surrealist, impressionist and cubist. So I am going to have to be a modest realist about this and follow the evidence where it leads and just reserve judgement on this since I don’t know Johnny (or whoever the painter was) personally. Who knows, perhaps Johnny (or whoever) is not finished and the example is a bit flawed like the others.
EDIT: But if Johnny (or this so-called painter) tells me he is finished and asks me if I see anything in terms of surrealism, impressionism and cubism, I’ll tell him it is a white painted wall and that he should go back to art school if he wants to make a name for himself :D.
Hermes, I think you have found another version of the naked emperor.
skeptic looking at blank wall: I’m sorry there is no painting.
teleological looking at blank wall: hmmm, Johnny (the builder and not a painter at all) sure sucks at surrealism, impressionism and cubism. Perhaps he isn’t done yet. I’m going to reserve judgment.
Why Johnny is brought into his musings only teleo will ever know. Personally I think it is the reading with comprehension part that he struggles with. But that may just be me.
Old Johnny built the wall silly, why ignore that fact in the flawed analogy?
realist looking at the blank, newly built wall, wonders who’s going to paint it, what colour
and at who’s cost. (wtf!!)
The wall, even though it’s a plain color all the way through, is probably part of a bigger structure, which was quite possibly designed by an architect, who may have chosen to arrange the walls to be cubist or modernist or whatever. Johnny, being charged with painting the wall a solid color, is probably oblivious as to the artistic merit of the wall, nor could an onlooker ascribe the genius of the wall’s design to the guy who built or painted it.
But then again, perhaps this is johnny’s own house, but he has no idea about design or ergonomics, so he just makes it up as he goes along and unintentionally creates a deconstructivist aesthetic. Does this make johnny a genius or a lucky idiot. And if decostructivism is not appealing to everyone, is the house only any good if someone who likes it looks at it?
… Yeah, this is turning into a very bad analogy.
Well, when someone offers up a gem like, “Apply the example to the God of classical theism of Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, Augustine, Leibniz, Athanasius and central to Christian orthodoxy,” you can’t be sure whether they mean to pull your leg or not. This request is on so many levels so fraught with bad flaws – historically, factually, conceptually – that if it isn’t meant as a poor joke, then you can be sure that the one who offers it is either deeply disingenuous, inordinately ignorant or cerebrally challenged. The reader may guess which one I’d put my money on.
So, is it a prank or isn’t it?
'Luthon64
Lol, I guess you are another one of those who think “God is the same as some incorporeal fire breathing”. Talk about historical, factual and conceptual ignorance.
Or wait, perhaps you have a few straw man fallacies up your sleeve. Goodness knows you are fond of those.
Something like: “Oh noes, looky, not all of them are Christian, therefore not all of then can be classical theists”…
Perhaps read some more in that case I say.
Say as you please but you haven’t answered my question. It wasn’t rhetorical, you know.
'Luthon64
Assume it was a prank (wasn’t btw as you can glean from the previous post). Let’s have some fun muffles. Let’s also assume you know what classical theism is. Could you perhaps help out Hermes?
Because whomever build the wall has absolutely nothing to do with who didn’t hang a painting on the wall?
I (and I think hermes and perhaps every single other reader except you) found that bit obvious.
Oh noes… a mystery blank painting. Let’s call Johnny to ask him if the purpose of building the wall was to put up paintings by anonymous wannabe crackpot painters. Maybe we can get more out of this flawed analogy that way >:(.
You do that. We’ll wait for your feedback then.
Hermes is doing just fine all by him- or herself. I’ll leave it to each individual to play their own rendition of spot-a-flaw with your not-a-prank prank, including yourself too should you choose to play. I’m a little surprised though that you left out such venerables as Descartes and Melanchthon. I mean, I can sort of fathom leaving out Kierkegaard and even Spinoza. Still, as it is, that not-a-prank prank is a rich mother lode full of fraud, fallacy, fault and flaw. By assumption and consumption. By omission and commission. And if you’re convinced I’m kidding, do whatever you feel you need to, as ever was your habit.
See, it’s both much more edifying and much more fun finding the errors for oneself. Less spoon-feeding and more promoting what the forum’s all about. The one with the longest list wins. Do try to have fun. Judge’s decision is final – you should be used to that, your beliefs being what they are. No correspondence will be entered into and all that. You should be used to that also.
'Luthon64