The Invisible Pink Unicorn

J

Jaiket

Token Atheist
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tropics of Scotland
My apologies to anyone who has heard the preaching of a convert to the cause of the great IPU before.

My point; instead of trying to prove that God exists, why not try to disprove the existence of her magnificence (and favourite atheist word-toy;)) the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
 
Indeed, trying to prove or disprove something with no qualitative or quantitative aspects is a refutation of logic.

However, if anyone has anyone has any personal experiences with the IPU then they are more than welcome to post it here. :)

In the meanwhile, I think I'll move this thread to philosophy. :)
 
Perhaps, Jaiket, if you give us a little bit more information on the qualities and attributes of her magnificence, we could discuss her in more detail?
 
I wonder if the IPU is the source of all that animal residue that the pet owners of the neighborhood insist can't be from their pets because they clean up after them? Sure beats the "creation from nothing" hypothesis.
 
Great link Vajradhara, and amusingly relevant. [size=-1]

Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Click to expand...

[/size]Sounds strikingly familiar...

You've got to love Carl Sagan. I especially enjoyed his Baloney Detection Kit (can be found at http://www.carlsagan.com/ ;)).

Here's a link to an IPU (may peace be upon her) (may her hooves never be shod :D) website.

A little teaser...

We believe in One Unicorn, The Pink, The Invisible. Creator of Uncertainty, revealed to us in the alt.atheist usenet forum - She that Raptures Socks. She will smite those that mock Her brethren. Others believe baloney, we too will join the feast. We shall eat our fill, yea every belly shall be full of ham and pineapple pizza. Her revelations show us the folly of all Religions. Spread Her Word.
 
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Click to expand...
True. Yet, there is a marked difference between "so many" and "effectively all."
 
And many are the Saganites
Who bow their bright mindsouls in full submission
To priests of science and Saint Carl
Those holy priests who have a bit, and only that, of every Discipline
While labouring as the simpleminded monk in robes of white
In hallowed and ascetic rooms
Slow-inking sacred scripts in obscure languages
Or chanting prayerful notes aloud
With painstaking effort of his clear and holy mind.
And follows his Orthodoxy step by slow and studied step
And flogs himself religiously should one small sin of error or omission
Desecrate the work of any day.
And many of the faithful stand in awe
And sing aloud of Revelations of the
Sacred and Eternal Truths
of Space and Time and Cosmos
With scarce comprehension
Singing the Latin of the Priests
Rather than their own and native tongue.
Their prophets are renowned for clear and startling utterance
In writings that they must put forth or die
And well they know that they are watched for any errant word
required by holy seat to keep the right to seek the Truth
in hallowed and Saintly halls of knowledge.
For any word that might be doom for any false-prophet in an ancient day.
And all these great and holy men alone among themselves
can say to one another that theories are theories and postulates are postulates and not the word of the Omnipotent Cosmos
And chuckle with their brothers over poor misguided fools
Not erudite enough to comprehend but left to
Blindest faith.

- Karen Roscoe, known here as phi
 
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta3/article_dragon.htm
 
Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
Vajradhara said:
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Click to expand...
Indeed! Of course, I also understand it to be a not so clandestine poke at "God." So, in the most respectful manner I can muster, how is this any different from accepting "rebirth" or "Buddha mind" without evidence of footprints, heat or shadow? ;)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Indeed! Of course, I also understand it to be a not so clandestine poke at "God." So, in the most respectful manner I can muster, how is this any different from accepting "rebirth" or "Buddha mind" without evidence of footprints, heat or shadow? ;)
Click to expand...

it may be a poke at 'god' or not, depending on how one defines said entity.

the main, but not only difference, is that your God is not intrisincly part of my being, thus, it requires and external frame of reference. rebirth and buddhanature are intrinsicly part of a sentient being, thus, it requires an internal frame of reference.

the two are vastly different.

we are not required to hold to any teaching of which we are doubtful. precisely the reason that the Buddha Shakyamuni taught the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. these are all "testable" claims which you can verify or reject predicated on your own testing.

metta,

~v
 
I'll like to meet people out there who seriously believe in IPU. Your views will be most appreciated.
 
"Our Lady Unicorn is Pink and Invisible."

This is a direct quote from the website, written in pink.

I do not understand how anyone could deny it to be so when you have proof that proves itself. Tell me please, who's logic is better?

namaste,
 
Prove to me that everything external to myself exists, and then I'll consider seriously your Pink Unicorn.
 
Ah, but what is truly external is not necessarily what your senses perceive. Consider if you will colourblindness, hallucinations, and the weakness of the senses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top