Originally posted by lucaspa
We seem to be discussing two separate topics.
Two topics, but not entirely separate. They are entagled. The second topic stems from the first. Judy's signature is a comedic way of pointing out how ridiculous the common canard that "atheists are just mad at God" really is. Specifically, it points out that it is just as ridiculous as "You (lucaspa) are just mad at Santa (or Leprauchans)." The second topic - that Santa and Leprauchans can be falsified seems to be a red herring of this sort: "No, it is less ridiculous because God is unfalsifiable and Santa and Leprauchans are falsified."
The idiocy of the platitude doesn't really rest on the falsifiability of the thing not believed in, merely on the ridiculousness of the idea that anyone who doesn't believe in the same thing you do has less than rational reasons for their lack of belief. Anyway, going on...
So, let's get back to your claim that the epistemology of deity is equal to that about Santa and leprechauns. As you noted, you had to change the original hypotheses about Santa Claus and leprechauns.
Not entirely true, and not entirely relevant, as we will see.
Your original claim was that Santa brought presents and leprechauns left pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
But that hypothesis was never "Santa brings presents but does not work through your parents to accomplish it." It was only that Santa brought presents. You complain that you only see your parents bringing them: I respond by explaining that perhaps Santa is working through your parents ("there is no falsification, there is only an
apparent inconsitency which vanishes when we take a more mature view of Santa").
The Leprauchan hypothesis never REQUIRED that the gold be detectable to the unfaithful. It didn't specify that it was not, but that doesn't mean that we must believe that it is detectable in order to accept the hypothesis. So in the same way, the hypothesis wasn't changed at all - just more information given to help explain the failure of the test to detect its truth.
Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation.
Let's test that. Over the centuries theists have decided that nearly all versions of deity are false. I submit that one reason that versions of deity get rejected is that they do make statements that can be falsified. For instance, a major claim of the ancient Greek pantheon was that the gods lived in palaces atop Mt. Oympus. Well, climb the mountain and there are no palaces. Again, you can attempt to save the statement from falsification by making the whole thing invisible. But theists didn't buy it.
Lets not get into the whole question of why the Olympian gods went away. Let's just say it was an unsuccessful theology in the end, and that it doesn't falsify the premise that theology, successfully performed, removes its Gods from the realm of the empirical. I didn't postulate that in order to debate it much -- it seem self evident. If you disagree and would like to challenge it, I will think it over and see if it is empirically supportable or just a hunch I have & will debate it if it seems to be the latter.
What I do know is that Augustine of Hippo discarded a literal reading of Genesis 1 almost 1300 years before science made such a literal reading falsifiable. I also know that Butler made his comment: "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion. long before evolution or modern physics made it "necessary". The bottom line is that Yahweh already had the characteristics to avoid falsification by science long before anyone had any notion of science.
I would say that Yahweh had
some unfalsifiable characteristics from the beginning. I think that He gathered more as time went on, and the rules changed.
I note that when scientific studies do seem to support predictions made by theism -- such as the effect of intercessory prayer or near death experiences -- atheists are just as quick to condemn and drop the science as young earth creationists. So perhaps we can also say that atheism is, at least in part, the denial of empirical observations of deity.
Funny. I am an atheist, and I acknowledge near death experiences, and am aware that there is some evidence for effectiveness of intercessory prayer (though it can hardly be called confirmed with certainty). I've not met any atheists who reject the phenomena. I think most, like me, expect that these phenomena may or do exist, but are not currently explained. They may well be explained in the future (as so many mystical phenomena of the past have been) by purely natural causes. I expect that the true explanation for them lies in nature.
So, no, I don't think atheism is in part the denial of empirical observations of deity. We acknowledge the empirical observations, but point out that they never empirically point to deity.