₦airaland Forum

butterflylion:
Well I am not a theist and I do not do religion.

I am a son of God and an heir to my Father in heaven.

purem:
I see

Never knew this before

I think it really worth it

butterflylion:
You cannot say something does not exist unless someone first declares that it exists and for anyone to say it exists they must be first speaking from a position of knowledge.

budaatum:
A certain Bertrand Russel once said that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. I guess if he hadn't said so, I wouldn't be able to say, "Bollocks Mr Russell! There's no teapot anywhere in space between the Earth and Mars"!

You sure that's tea you been drinking?

butterflylion:


It's for me to say FIRST based on what I know and for you to disbelieve SECOND based on what you do not know

butterflylion:
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

You and the person who liked your comment obviously did not think it to be an analogy and not a reality.

This was why I said this to you earlier

.

Bertrand only made an analogy and did not speak about what he KNEW but was being somewhat sarcastic.

Even at that the very purpose of Bertrands analogy has been disproved because WE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE or DISPROVE it as it were. But somehow atheists never believe that they can actually show proof for a negative.
So they always attempt shifting the burden of proof to others despite also making claims of their own. Such grandiose proportions of dishonesty.

budaatum:
So, someone can say something that doesn't exist does exist? Or they can sarcastically be stating an analogy and so don't have to be speaking from a position of knowledge?

Is God an analogy perhaps? An analogy for what, exactly?

butterflylion:
Have you ever read about the teapot analogy by Russell?

butterflylion:
God is not an analogy same way you are not an analogy but we both know that the teapot by Bertrand Russell was an analogy

budaatum:
In 1952, in an article titled, What is God? Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.


The full article can be downloaded as a pdf. It's only 11 pages, and Russell is a fine writer worth the read.

butterflylion:
Unfortunately all the Christians say about God when compared to this analogical teapot would render the teapot redundant.

We say God speaks to us
We say God hears us
We say God blesses us
We say God heals us
We say God causes us to receive favour
We say God protects us
We say God causes us to prosper in spirit and in reality when we know the truth
We say God reveals himself to us through his word
And so on

I guess a teapot (which by name means it is used to serve tea) can only be used for what it is called.....to serve tea in whatever variants. But for those who wish to follow a different path, they could hide their coins and cash in same teapot but a teapot is still a teapot.

Gracias

budaatum:
And if someone said the same about their teapot, I doubt I'd want to argue much except when they tell me to bow down and worship it, at which point, Pirate Flag!

butterflylion:
Not when the "teapot" carries the import and holds the attributes I enumerated! For a lot such experiences with their "teapot" is personal to them. You are free to bow down and worship Bertrand Russells teapot since you wish to use his analogy to argue a reality (on my part).

Enjoy.

budaatum:
Regardless, it matters not till they tell me to worship it too.

butterflylion:
The funny thing here is that you are already worshipping a certain teapot known to only you and nobody needed to tell you to worship it before you even began doing it

You just do not realise it yet because you haven't sat down to think about it.

Enjoy!

butterflylion:
The funny thing here is that you are already worshipping a certain teapot known to only you and nobody needed to tell you to worship it before you even began doing it

You just do not realise it yet because you haven't sat down to think about it.

Enjoy!

superhumanist:
WTF?

budaatum, how do you manage this guy's nonsense?

superhumanist:
WTF?

budaatum, how do you manage this guy's nonsense?

budaatum:
Do you not realise that many people read what he writes and disassociate themselves from him?

If you were his god, would you not hide your face in shame and say "dude, please stop worshipping me"? In fact, isn't it obvious his previous god must have said that already? He used to be a Christian but now he's some sort of whatever he calls his faith!

Only a very tiny few subscribe to his sophistry. Still, he serves a purpose. I just picked up Bertrand Russell's, On Education from a secondhand bookshop because of him and I'm sitting in Costa drinking a latte while I further enlighten myself. Trust me, Butter is a walking advert screaming "Please become an atheist", least that's what discerning people hear from reading him

My hope is that one day he might read what he has written and see how unintelligent he sounds, though I must confess that a teapot will exist between the Earth and Mars before that happens as he has a profound inability to hear himself and reflect.

butterflylion:
Or do you not also think that I know that many are reading yours and also disassociating themselves from you? Atheist subjectivity in full bloom

budaatum:

budaatum:
I look way beyond him really knowing there are a lot of intelligent people silently seeing how deep the pit he digs himself into gets. Just when you think he might have hit the bottom, out comes his shovel and the deeper he digs.

Do you not realise that many people read what he writes and disassociate themselves from him? If you were his god, would you not hide your face in shame and say "dude, please stop worshipping me"? In fact, isn't it obvious his previous god must have said that already? He used to be a Christian but now he's some sort of whatever he calls his faith!

Only a very tiny few subscribe to his sophistry. Still, he serves a purpose. I just picked up Bertrand Russell's, On Education from a secondhand bookshop because of him and I'm sitting in Costa drinking a latte while I further enlighten myself. Trust me, Butter is a walking advert screaming "Please become an atheist", least that's what discerning people hear from reading him.

My hope is that one day he might read what he has written and see how unintelligent he sounds, though I must confess that a teapot will exist between the Earth and Mars before that happens as he has a profound inability to hear himself and reflect.

superhumanist:
Very true.

Butterflyl1on has no sense of self reflection. He thinks no one apart from a few atheists reads his comments and then he fails to understand why people say that he sounds like a scammer with his dodgy logic.

butterflylion:
I write for ALL to read. After all this is a public forum, let it sink into your head. Nobody can censor or stop whoever wants to read anything so DELIBERATELY I put my thoughts out there for posterity and posterity shows that those who read your comments can deduce you to be unintelligent since you hardly ever bring anything to the table except ad hominems.

Na intelligence be dat? Mtcheeew.

superhumanist:
no one is censoring you. stop the victim mentality

butterflylion:
Chai he doesn't get it.

I am talking about OTHERS not me.

You know people actually see your moniker "superhumanist" and the "super" in it first gives them the impression that you must be smart and dripping pure undiluted smarts but once you start typing you become an anticlimax.

So sad to always watch.

budaatum:
Was thinking of you all and hope you've escaped the virus.

LordReed:
So far so good. Really hoping that with lockdowns being loosened it won't change for the worst.

budaatum:
Glad to hear you good. Seems lifting of lockdown will reintroduce corona but the plan is to keep it off the news so deaths are not noticed.

Maximus69:
No atheist can deny the existence of air, WHY? Because everyone is seeing the effect of air.

So to prove before anyone that something or someone that's invisible like the air exists, you must at least show the visible effect of such an entity.