What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2014, 07:32 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Ahem....

Ok, so I've edited my theory in response to member's good feedback.

As you know, in the original version of my theory I proposed that the mental image we have of the IPU is the seed form of the living breathing IPU that I predicted will be created by a theist genetic engineer. And thus I proposed the IPU currently exists in the form of a seed.

Thanks to member feedback I now see this theory is only plausible to degree we can imagine the genetic engineer someday creating the mature living breathing form of the IPU.

So each member can decide for themselves what they feel the future of genetic engineering holds.

Suppose I now hold a mental image of a donkey as big as 15 trillion universes. There is no plausible case that such a mental image will somehow develop in to the mature donkey. Thus, I couldn't claim my mental image is the seed form of a huge donkey. Thus, I can't claim said donkey currently exists.

My mental image of the huge donkey might be the seed form of a book, movie, painting or other work of art, but it's not credible to say it is the seed form of a huge donkey, as we can not propose any method by which that might happen.

So, in summary, I now declare my original theory plausible only to the degree a member believes genetic engineers will someday be able to create a living breathing pink unicorn.

If you believe genetic engineers will be able to create the mature form of the IPU, the IPU currently exists.

If you don't believe genetic engineers will be able to create the mature form of the IPU, the IPU is only an idea, not a seed of a coming living creature, thus the IPU does not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Quote:There were probably more concise ways to state that human intellect is limited.

Agreed. Work in progress.

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.

My proposal is that while we are indeed clever in comparison to other life forms and our ancestors, we aren't even vaguely close to being clever enough to make meaningful statements about the ultimate nature of everything.

Adamant atheists are making a very simple, obvious and totally unwarranted leap of faith. They are in effect saying, we humans are smarter than all other known life forms (true), therefore we are smart enough to know what does or doesn't exist.... in an arena we can't even define. (false)

What's obstructing a clear minded awareness of this obvious unwarranted logical leap is that many (not all) atheists have created a self flattering image of themselves as being smarter than theists.

That's where all the angry slam down on the reply button snarkiness all over all the atheist forums comes from, it's an emotional reaction to a perceived threat to that flattering self image.



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... :-)

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. Here's my evidence.

Billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world have chosen to be part of some religion or another. This in no way whatsoever proves a god exists, but it does demonstrate that religion has proven beyond all doubt it's usefulness to a huge segment of the human race.

Perhaps YOU PERSONALLY have found the nut empty, you would be the authority on that, ok, no problem.

But your personal experience, whatever it may be, does not automatically equal valid huge sweeping assertions about the largest cultural event in human history.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 05:27 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  You're being a dick.

Agreed.

The congregation has heard your feedback, and rechristened Baba Bozo as His Most Glorious Flatulence Sri Baba Dickhead.

Sri Baba Dickhead is still however still the founder of Bozoism, the next great atheist world religion.

Sri Baba Dickhead has magic powers, and can sometimes morph before your very eyes in to Nun Sister Bozo, who wields her meanie ruler upon the lazy sloths among us.

THIS POST HAS NO MEAT ON THE BONES!!! WHERE IS SISTER BOZO WHEN WE REALLY NEED HER????
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
^And now you've been upgraded to a lazy, dismissive dick. Terribly fucking sorry.

(23-12-2014 05:27 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Diagnostic traits of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
It cannot be seen by human eyes. Despite that; it is pink.
It shares large chunks of it's morphology with that of a horse. (Clydesdale to Pony gives us a lot of leeway here in the specifics.) Despite that; it is not a horse. No known horse or horse relative has a horn like that.
It has a horn.
We have no evidence for it's existence.

Possible explanations for these traits.

It cannot be seen by human eyes. Despite that; it is pink:
1. It has psychic powers that wipes the minds of humans that see it.
2. It interacts with light in such a way that the light is bent around it.
3. It does not reflect light.
4. It has simply never been seen. (And so is an "Invisible" Pink Unicorn.)

1. Explains invisibility and colour. Brings in an unknown factor.
2. Explains invisibility and colour but we have no evidence for any mechanism through which it may be achieved.
3. Explains invisibility and not colour but we have an example of a mechanism through which this could be achieved. (Dark Matter does not interact with any form of electro-magnetism.)
4. Doesn't explain invisibility and does explain colour. We also know how this could have been achieved.

As "Magic" is not a suitable explanation we must default to the fourth answer. (Not the third except as a possible explanation for why it's never been seen. "Dark Chemistry" exists is a big step.)

It shares it's external morphology with that of a horse. Despite that it is not a horse:
1. It is a horse subspecies.
2. It has evolved to fill the same niche and so required the same advantages. Specializing in the same way.
3. It was artificially created at some point in order to be a Unicorn. (Movie special effects or genetic engineering. Doesn't matter what interfered with it.)

1. Unlikely due to it's horn.
2. Possible. We have many examples of convergent evolution. Especially in quite generalized shapes like that of a horse. This possibility is also given a boost due to our lack of rigid definition as to what exact type of horse it is.
3. Entirely true but unhelpful to our argument and impossible due to other traits.

The horn is not used in the same way as other horns we have examples of: It is not set in a reinforced location so it's not used for combat.
The simplest explanation is that it's sexually selected but sexual selection is most often done through apparent advantages so it probably serves at least one other purpose: Therefore the horn serves some purpose that I cannot define.

Combine all our most likely explanations together and we have:
A non-horse life-form that evolved under a very similar set of selective pressures as Earth horses while being different enough to induce the growth of a horn. We have never seen it because it is "invisible" and possibly intangible (if it is infact made from dark matter) and so have no evidence for it's existence.

So we reduce the existence of the "Invisible" Pink Unicorn to a simple probability game. Roll enough dice and that particular animal, or one very much like it will evolve somewhere in the universe.
Making belief in the IPU reasonable. (Sorry Free.)

Rather than saying that my argument is horseshit and violates the null hypothesis, I'd appreciate if it was referred to as either "unicornshit" or fewmits.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 08:41 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ^And now you've been upgraded to a lazy, dismissive dick.

Thank you for observing and sharing that I excel at anything I do. :-) Soon I will become the biggest dickhead of all time, and then you can say you knew me way back when before I became famous. If you'd like an autograph, I'd be happy to oblige.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 07:20 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 08:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I loved the reveal Bozo, god existing... as an idea!

Um, I said nothing about any gods, unless you are referring to my joking reference of the IPU as the atheist deity.

Quote:It's the same kind of thinking that I was sarcastically spouting back in grade 8. Unfortunately, I'm a bit concerned that you think it's clever.

Are you still in 8th grade? I ask, because like so many of the posters above, you seem incapable of adding anything to the thread other than one of those sarcastic quipy little blurby thingies that so often pass as intelligent conversation on atheist forums.

See the forum title please:

THINKINGatheist.com

and not....

Facebook.com

If my idea is foolish as you seem to be claiming, and perhaps it is, it should be easy to rip it to shreds with intelligent reasoning.

So why not do that, instead of the lazy little quipy thingy, which seems a way to pose oneself as being somehow superior, without doing any actual work? In other words, nothing more than.... an emotional ego outburst.

1) Challenge me. YES!

2) Insult me. Ok, no problem!

3) Be funny. Sure, go for it.

4) Drop a clever one liner. Yea, let's hear it, so we can steal it. :-)

BUT ONLY.....

If you can also add something relevant and intelligent along with the snarky insults and jokes.

I'm ok with snarky, I'm snarky too. Maybe I'm the King Of Snarky, not sure. :-)

But include meat on the bones too please, meat on the bones. None of us are really that interested in a white bread and mayonaise sandwich with no meat inside.

Sister Bozo will now put away her meanie nun's ruler and get back to business. Sorry for the outburst.

Woah, easy there. I don't think I'm superior to you...

Just smarter, more attractive, and better reasoned.

Sister, need I paraphrase the valid responses you've already received, when I'd rather mock your stubborn ineptitude? The "Thinking" Atheist has already considered your exercise, and you're the only one who continues to see it as having any value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
24-12-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Quote:Woah, easy there. I don't think I'm superior to you... Just smarter, more attractive, and better reasoned.

Ha, ha. :-) Ok, so your sense of humor is trumping mine recently, so I bow to your superiority in that regard. :-)

Quote:Sister, need I paraphrase the valid responses you've already received, when I'd rather mock your stubborn ineptitude?

Ah, whoops, I see now, you're looking for theEmotionalAtheist.com. It's an easy mistake to make.

(Trying to make a humor come back here..... )

Quote:The "Thinking" Atheist has already considered your exercise, and you're the only one who continues to see it as having any value.

Other than a few pretty excellent posts, WHERE is the thinking????

What I see is a long list of empty ego emotion fueled little blurbs that confuse characterizing an argument with debunking an argument.

Thinking. That's all I'm asking for. Thinking. Just a little thinking.

If you will think and share, you can call my grandmother a whore and I won't complain. :-)

Laziness will be met with laziness until even the laziest among us will no longer find this forum interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 07:49 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Adamant atheists are making a very simple, obvious and totally unwarranted leap of faith. They are in effect saying, we humans are smarter than all other known life forms (true), therefore we are smart enough to know what does or doesn't exist.... in an arena we can't even define. (false)
...
That's where all the angry slam down on the reply button snarkiness all over all the atheist forums comes from, it's an emotional reaction to a perceived threat to that flattering self image.

By "adamant" atheists, I'm guessing you mean gnostic atheists. They comprise only a small portion of the atheist population. The vast majority of atheists make no knowledge claims on the existence of gods.

"God exists"
"I don't believe that claim" - atheist

"Does god exist?"
"I don't know" - agnostic atheist OR agnostic theist
"Yes" - gnostic theist
"No" - gnostic atheist

Another thing you should consider: Stop projecting. You're assuming that these replies are angry in nature, or stem from some kind of insecurity. Some may be frustrated from repetition, but I'd say that most are far less emotional that you think.

Not everyone who calls you an idiot is upset; maybe you're just an idiot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Quote:By "adamant" atheists, I'm guessing you mean gnostic atheists. They comprise only a small portion of the atheist population. The vast majority of atheists make no knowledge claims on the existence of gods.

I would divide it this way.

1)In the offline world beyond the net, most atheists probably do simply lack belief and that's the end of it.

2) In the online world, such as forums, this is rarely the case. Nobody comes to an atheist forum regularly because they "simply lack belief".

Instead, they have their own belief system, a set of assertions which compete with theism. When that belief system is challenged, they often (not always) retreat in to clever little definitional games.

Here's evidence. So far, as best I can tell, not a single person on this forum has attempted to prove that human reason is qualified to know what doesn't exist in all of reality, an arena no one can even define.

They just assert it over and over and over again, just like the religious tend to do.

Quote:Another thing you should consider: Stop projecting. You're assuming that these replies are angry in nature, or stem from some kind of insecurity. Some may be frustrated from repetition, but I'd say that most are far less emotional that you think.

Ok, fair enough, I plead guilty to my own emotions, primarily impatience with the glacial pace of such conversations. I agree this impatience is entirely my problem.

Quote:Not everyone who calls you an idiot is upset; maybe you're just an idiot.

I sincerely don't mind being called an idiot, really, if the poster will explain in a thoughtful, articulate, intelligent manner WHY I am an idiot.

I get extremely bored when the threads clog up with a hundred different slothful people simply characterizing me or something else as being idiot in lazy little quipy blurbs. You know, if I wanted that, I'd be on Facebook.

I came here looking for....

The...

THINKING....

Atheist.

Show me the evidence for the existence of the THINKING atheist, or I will refuse to believe in that existence! :-)

Watch....

Someone will reply to this post....

With a little quipy blurb.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(24-12-2014 11:06 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  2) In the online world, such as forums, this is rarely the case. Nobody comes to an atheist forum regularly because they "simply lack belief".

Instead, they have their own belief system, a set of assertions which compete with theism. When that belief system is challenged, they often (not always) retreat in to clever little definitional games.

Here's evidence. So far, as best I can tell, not a single person on this forum has attempted to prove that human reason is qualified to know what doesn't exist in all of reality, an arena no one can even define.

I'd say most are here for like-minded conversation, not because they have any certainty that god doesn't exist. While it's likely true that there is no knowledge about the nonexistence of gods, or well, any vague thing, some well defined things CAN be said to not exist. That is why definitions and characteristics are so important. Anyone can say a mysterious creature exists without it being falsifiable. As soon as you give it measurable qualities and a specific location, it becomes falsifiable.

While not everyone here is agnostic atheist, most are. 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".

You're looking for a very specific type, and most of us here aren't it. Arguing that we can know about the nonexistence of some vague thing with an undefined location in all of the Cosmos... You're looking for someone more confident and far less intelligent than the average TTA member.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: