Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

But that really isn't much different from religion.

Go to a village that has never heard of a unicorn, stick a fake horn on a horses head, have it run through town, then spread word about how it is magical. People will probably start worshiping it as a god and years later it will be a full-blown religion..... And then they make contact with the outside world and the outside worlds goes O_o What?! and then 5000 youtube videos about it will appear.


Possible example of how Jesus was believed to be god's son:

Mary slept with a guy, didn't want anyone to know, said god told her she would bear his child, every fanatic (or people who knew she was lying but planning on using the story to their advantage) jumped all over it.

That or he didn't exist considering that there was no trace of him his supposed grave.

[Jackrabbit]

I'm sorry for perpetuating this hypocritically but I'm actually enjoying writing all this down now.

No, that argument isn't different from religion. It's intended to be a statement about how easy it is to create a god simply by claiming that whilst you can't detect the god, it's there. My response is, so? That's true. It doesn't disprove God, it doesn't prove God, it just proves that people can invent a god, which I'm pretty sure we all knew anyway. I suppose it's supposed to get you thinking, but it doesn't really add to the discussion in any more meaningful a way than someone saying "well, God might exist and you can't disprove that". Because its point (that people can invent a god) is completely obvious to anyone who thinks about it and, get this, religion still exists. People still believe, and trotting out the invisible pink unicorn isn't going to change squat. Belief makes the god, you see. Certainly people's beliefs could be wrong, could be invented without them knowing but since it's impossible to prove it doesn't matter whilst they're still alive and might not even matter after they're dead.

So what's the point of pointing out that people can make stuff up? Did you know that the north is to the north? Or that breathing is a thing that happens? And if you do, what good would it do to explain that to you using a metaphor?

[Micro102]

I just felt like it.

[Jackrabbit]

That's no reason to do anything if it doesn't have meaning behind it and, apparently, you knew that. But I was actually addressing FuzzyZergling.

[Micro102]

Well it might not have meaning to you but it could have meaning to someone else.

[Jackrabbit]

Then that person doesn't realize that it's possible to make things up and as such they have more pressing matters on his plate than an uninteresting and useless proposition about an invisible unicorn.

[Retro]

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to all, the invisible pink unicorn snuck up behind the thread and pierced Jack through the stomach while everyone was busy debating its existence. "Fools!" said Lord Pinkus the Steadfast. "You dare to disprove me?!"

He then faded back into the land of imagination because his parents never kissed at the Sea Dance.

[Jackrabbit]

I think we're more debating the merit of using the concept to prove a point which everyone already knows and doesn't affect the argument any.

[Ampersand]

The invisible pink unicorn was intended to illustrate mutually exclusive properties that are somehow held concurrently. Something that is both invisible and pink is impossible, because being invisible, it cannot have a color. I forget the exact thing this is supposed to contrast in Christian theology.

[Shade-o]

You're right on that. The Teapot in Space is the one that refers to something unprovable and inconsequential.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I forget the exact thing this is supposed to contrast in Christian theology.

I think it was either:

A. God is three people, but also one person.

or

B. God has a fully predetermined set of events for the universe that cannot be changed, but anyone can alter outcomes through prayer.

[Jackrabbit]

The invisible pink unicorn was intended to illustrate mutually exclusive properties that are somehow held concurrently. Something that is both invisible and pink is impossible, because being invisible, it cannot have a color. I forget the exact thing this is supposed to contrast in Christian theology.

Oh, well, that's slightly more interesting but still isn't going to go anywhere or have any real effect on the argument.

[Retro]

I think we're more debating the merit of using the concept to prove a point which everyone already knows and doesn't affect the argument any.

Wounded, Jack painfully spoke his final words, the inside of his mouth red with blood, the horn-shaped hole in his chest searing with distant pain. If only he had accepted FuzzyZergling's debating techniques as valid... if only...

But, uh, yeah. On a different train of thought (and I can't even tell if discussing religion and atheism is even remotely on-topic anymore, but whatever)), I ran a search for 'Hobbes' in the thread and found nothing but a single unrelated-to-religion mention, which I find kind of surprising as his theories disproved God and heaven and angels etc. quite thoroughly for the times. Everything he hypothesized was at root based on the senses: If a human cannot smell, touch, hear, see, etc. something, cannot perceive it, then it simply cannot be known or proven to exist. He never explicitly mentioned religion, but... well, you can't see God, for example.

While all religious beliefs are effectively impossible to prove, I to find it fascinating that people continue to believe in a god despite knowing fully well that his existence cannot be substantiated in any way. People just need to believe in something other than himself, I guess. To keep having hope for humanity and the future and whatnot. I hold the fairly standard point of view of "not religious in the slightest, cool with other people being religious and will fully respect their beliefs, enjoy discussion related to religion and religious history, but don't you dare try and convert me or impose your beliefs on me... or else," which I imagine most of you internet-dwelling folk share.

[Jackrabbit]

I thought he hypothesized that Calvin was a terrible sled driver.

[Shade-o]

Calvin holds the balance of power.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)