What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(22-12-2014 08:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  ... If it's invisible then how come it's also pink?

Logic, Mathilda, logic. The adjective "invisible" by definition tells us the unicorn is colorless, hence the adjective "pink" cannot be referring to the unicorn's color. The "pink" of the unicorn is therefore its sense of overall well being, which is "in the pink". A happy unicorn. Its friend, the invisible blue unicorn, is not so cheerful.

And all this time you probably thought the OP was just being careless with adjectives. Actually, he (she) probably was, but fortunately for him (her) the opportunities for metaphor can twist any mistake into something else.

Just like with bible passages. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
24-12-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 07:49 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Your problem is that while we may be of limited intellect we are clever little buggers.

Clever in comparison to what? Here's why this is an important question....

The god thesis is a proposal about the ultimate nature of everything. It proposes that all of reality arises from and is controlled by a form of intelligence.

If we wish to debunk this theory with something more than snarkiness, we have to establish our credentials to speak to the ultimate nature of everything.

And to do so you have pre-assumed the very thing that you chastise your opponents for. See the bottom of this post.

(24-12-2014 07:49 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:When one of us figures out that there is something else out there yet again we don't just wander back to our mundane humdrum lives. We poke and we prod and we bombard it with exotic particles at relativistic velocities until we crack the fool thing open and peer inside. From subatomic microcosms to galactic cluster macrocosms and from Galilean moons to dark matter we find more new "niches" to explore. The ones that we couldn't see we built machines to see for us and the ones that resisted direct observation we inferred. When we needed conditions that could only be produced by the collision of two galaxies we went out and found two that were colliding and watched to see what would happen. This is what science is.

Um, this is what science worship is... :-)

Nope. That's what science is. Prying into the unknown.

(24-12-2014 07:49 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:And yet, for all that we have had religion since the beginning, every time that we poke or prod it we find... Nothing. We have cracked that nut and found it empty.

This reveals you know nothing about religion, and thus aren't yet in a position to debunk it.

I never said that religion didn't have utility for society, just that there's nobody behind the curtain. If we're going to be thorough, it needs to be noted that religion has also done huge amounts of harm to humanity and that this outweighs any utility it may have.

(24-12-2014 07:49 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Now let's get something straight before you play the "Ineffable God" card. Yet again. I don't need to eff your God. I do not need to comprehend the totality of God's overarching infinity in order to understand the simple fact that it exists. The amoeba does not need to understand the intricacies of elephant physiology in order to comprehend the very simple fact that it has just been trod upon by something large and heavy. For that matter, every theology and religion ever conceived has been packed to the gunwales with miracles, souls and a whole host (literally) of phenomena that should be entirely effable but not one effing one of which has ever been effed. And you effing-well know what that means.

Emotional outburst, ignored.

Actually, no. That was word play on the multiple connotations of "eff".

I'll put it more simply. As amusing as ignostic theism is it doesn't work. You have one of two choices:

1) Some facet of God can be understood by mere mortal minds. Not the whole beasty to be sure but enough to ask the most basic of questions. Do it be? Such facets would include the very finite concept of the soul, miracles, etc.

2) God is utterly ineffable. No mortal mind will ever be capable of understanding the tiniest fragment of such an entity. There can never be any evidence for such an entity because we can never figure out how to meaningfully ask the proper questions. By definition, any religious belief that you or anybody else may have is utterly wrong. Since there can never be any evidence for such a critter and since you know that anything and everything that you believe about it is wrong, why would you persist in believing? It's an amusing exercise in philosophy but pointless and useless so far as religion is concerned.

You seem to want option 1 for the theists but option 2 for the atheists. That's what we lovingly call a double standard.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
24-12-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 12:11 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(22-12-2014 08:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  ... If it's invisible then how come it's also pink?

Logic, Mathilda, logic. The adjective "invisible" by definition tells us the unicorn is colorless, hence the adjective "pink" cannot be referring to the unicorn's color. The "pink" of the unicorn is therefore its sense of overall well being, which is "in the pink". A happy unicorn. Its friend, the invisible blue unicorn, is not so cheerful.

And all this time you probably thought the OP was just being careless with adjectives. Actually, he (she) probably was, but fortunately for him (her) the opportunities for metaphor can twist any mistake into something else.

Just like with bible passages. Tongue

Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(22-12-2014 07:48 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  I often joke that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the atheist deity, :-) because the "IPU" is so often used on atheist forums as the classic example of an obvious absurdity.

If there is interest, the purpose of this thread is to 1) have some fun and 2) illustrate how sometimes looking at something from a different angle can convert the obviously impossible in to something at least plausible.

And so I invite members to offer their case that the Invisible Pink Unicorn actually exists.

Think outside the box. Come at it from a new angle. Strain your brain and work up a sweat. Pretend you are an attorney in court and have to make the case as convincingly as you can, even if you don't actually personally believe it.

Lazy little cutesy tootsy sarcastic quipy one liners will be cheerfully ignored as being not worthy of inclusion in this advanced scientific investigation of the utmost importance. :-)

I'll offer my own "proof" of the IPU's existence later in the thread if other members are making the same effort. Yes, if needed I will demonstrate the IPU is real, and exists in your own home.

You are hereby challenged to see if you can do the same! :-)

As homework research, please view this actual real life photo of an IPU, so you'll know what is being investigated.

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/20...4p18mx.png

Of course the invisible pink unicorn exists! I have photographic evidence right here:





























Yes, I know it's invisible. What's your point? Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 01:40 PM)Impulse Wrote:  ... I have photographic evidence right here ...

Another botched photo by a damn amateur: Over-exposed, depth of field too narrow, no polarizing filter employed, poorly focused, camera not held steady, film spooled in backwards, excess fill flash, and on and on. Why did you use a film camera anyway; digital cameras these days auto-compensate for all these amateurish productions. Sheesh!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
24-12-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 02:16 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Another botched photo by a damn amateur: Over-exposed, depth of field too narrow, no polarizing filter employed, poorly focused, camera not held steady, film spooled in backwards, excess fill flash, and on and on. Why did you use a film camera anyway; digital cameras these days auto-compensate for all these amateurish productions. Sheesh!

Well, I tried that, but it came out too pink and didn't support the invisibility all that well. You can prove that pink is not invisible (so not good evidence), but you can't proved that pink, when invisible, is not pink. So my photo is better evidence of an invisible pink unicorn as is. Smartass

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
If it's invisible, how do we know it's pink? Consider Do we take it on faith?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Well, that's a tough one. I could present a photograph of the pink unicorn from one of the times when it's visible, but there would still be an element of faith, I suppose, that the picture of the invisible unicorn is the same unicorn. So, you'd probably have to see the unicorn actually transitioning from one visible state to the other in order to remove the faith aspect. Even then, there would need to be evidence that it's not just an illusion. Consider

Ok, I'm off to ponder how to come up with that evidence. Tongue

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 03:08 PM)Impulse Wrote:  ... I'm off to ponder how to come up with that evidence

No pondering necessary, all the evidence you need is at the Evidence Store
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Quote:I'd say most are here for like-minded conversation, not because they have any certainty that god doesn't exist.

Ok, fair enough. All posters are not equal, I agree to that.

But like I said, there is belief system which competes with theism, primarily the belief that human reason is qualified to analyze the god question.

And it's largely a faith based belief system, given that pretty much no one can be bothered to try to prove this fundamental assumption.

Quote:While it's likely true that there is no knowledge about the nonexistence of gods,

Ok, you say that, and I agree.

But you're probably going to argue against gods, and thus religion in general, in pretty much every post from here, right?

This is what I mean. You have a particular viewpoint, which you are surely entitled to. And you're pretty darn certain about it, right? But you won't own up to that certainty, but sort of waffle and dodge about it. Classic atheist forum material.

Quote: One thing that the majority of us agree on is that religion is demonstrably harmful to the survival of the human species. The terrible and stupid things done in the name of religion - That is more of the unifying topic than "god doesn't exist".

Right, forum atheists always say this.

But they never show any concern for the fact that the vast majority of people needlessly slaughtered in the twentieth century were killed by explicitly atheist regimes.

Wait, watch, see all the dodging, weaving, and rationalizing which will someone will now type to try to wash away this well known fact.

My point is NOT that atheists are evil.

My point is that turning off reason and facts so one can be a faith based atheist true believer is no different than turning off reason and facts so one can be a faith based theist true believer.

Here's a suggested solution...

1) If someone can prove a god exists, they should proceed to do so.

2) If someone can prove a god doesn't exist, they should proceed to do so.

3) Otherwise, we should all just say "I don't know".

------------------

This post has been brought to you by the Fundamentalist Agnostic Association, a fanatic non-profit foundation which seeks to rudely shove uncertainty in to every little corner of the world, whether anybody wants it or not. So there! :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: