Flying spagetti, teapots, pink unicorns and fairies??

JimiTime

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

toiletduck

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Something which is initially defined as being unprovable, I imagine.

Dades

They're usually brought up when people use the argument that because you cannot prove that God does not exist, that either:

(1) This is evidence that God (or anything) does exist, or
(2) "Faith" is required to believe God (or anything) doesn't exist.

Both non-arguments which becomes clear when you simply replace "God" with something else you cannot prove does not exist.

Origins of analogy here.

Rev Hellfire

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Its to provide an example through the use of ridicule.
Oddly enough calling people morons in a around about way really does little to educate them and bring them onboard.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Yes, and pointing out the silliness of accepting that things do exist until it is proven otherwise, something we don't do with the vast majority of things (including invisible pink unicorns), but which it is some how arrogant for atheists not to do with God.

It is basically in response to the theist assertion that atheists can't prove God isn't real, and the implications that this some how means something significant or is support for believing that he does, or that atheists are arrogant/faith-based when believing he doesn't.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

It's also an argument against agnosticism i.e. you can't really proove something doesn't exist but you certainly believe other things without evidence don't exist.

The only good counter argument to it I can think of is that the objects used in the examples, human have constructed from constructs they have some evidence for.

1. Flying teapot - evidence of flying, evidence of teapot.
2. Pink Unicorn - evidence of Pink, no evidence of unicorn but a clear understanding what it is.

So the examples are to some extent within the grasp of human intelligence and human understanding and so humans can be confident making assertions of their non existence.

Whereas if God is not fully within the grasp of human intelligence it's different. We might say it's highly improbably a flying teapot exists because we fully know what a flying teapot would be so we can make arguments and reasonable assertions why it wouldn't exist.

It's more difficult to say God does not exist because we perhaps do not have the intelligence to know what / who God is.

The problem with this counter argument, it also argues against a religious viewpoint that claims to know exactly who / what God is.

DapperGent

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its to provide an example through the use of ridicule.
Oddly enough calling people morons in a around about way really does little to educate them and bring them onboard.

Actually it's an extremely important point. In it's various forms it may be used to ridicule from time to time but really that doesn't take away from the central idea that believing in a deity is logically indistinguishable from believing in some shít somebody just made it.

5uspect

Jimi, can you provide any reason that the idea of a God is different to, say, a pink teapot made from spaghetti?

robindch

5uspect wrote: »

a pink teapot made from spaghetti?

Three-way splittist!

Rev Hellfire

DapperGent wrote: »

Actually it's an extremely important point. In it's various forms it may be used to ridicule from time to time but really that doesn't take away from the central idea that believing in a deity is logically indistinguishable from believing in some shít somebody just made it.

No don't get me wrong I totally agree, its just I think as a device it's of limited value.
If someone believes in gods, fairies etc. the use of such examples rarely does anything other than get their backs up.

ChocolateSauce

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Wouldn't need the advice anyway

I think Dades and Tim got everything that needed to be said.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

No don't get me wrong I totally agree, its just I think as a device it's of limited value.
If someone believes in gods, fairies etc. the use of such examples rarely does anything other than get their backs up.

I think the ridiculous terms get some peoples backs up, not surprising if you are telling a deeply religious person that their deity is on par with a good child's story or some kind of pasta beast - but I agree it is a useful tool for puting theists in atheists shoes in terms of finding something completely illogical & unfathomable to most peoples reality, regardless of their faith.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Mostly these arguments are used to refute the common argument made by the religious that "you can't prove to me that God doesn't exist". The claim is true, but does not justify belief in God. There are an infinite number of possible assertions that cannot be verified with evidence, amongst which are the examples you've mentioned. When Bertrand Russell first wrote about the Teapot, he was illustrating that such an assertion will tend to be met with scepticism and that the burden of evidence will be placed on the person making the assertion. However if such an assertion is made in a "scared text" and has mass approval, irrespective of the available evidence (which is equal to the Teapot assertion) then suddenly the burden of evidence is on the sceptic. This is as true for God as it is for Allah, Shiva and (back in the day) Zeus and Thor.

What this means is that the burden of evidence is upon the religious and that the atheistic position is an appropriate initial stance.

5uspect

robindch wrote: »

Three-way splittist!

I was hoping to avoid talk about the trinity!

The absurdity of the idea is, for me, one of the most important aspects of it.
I remember once mentioning the idea to a friend, in no way much of a believer but a believer none the less, who thought it was the worst idea he ever heard. He wouldn't explain why the idea of god was anyway superior to my flying teapot. In fact he flatly refused to continue the conversation, perhaps afraid to actually think about it.

I experienced a similar experience only yesterday where I remarked, jokingly, to a work colleague that something we came across in work looked like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesan be upon him). Now many of my work colleagues would often crack such jokes themselves, being of a sceptical scientific disposition.

Instead I was told, several times, I was a "****ing idiot" and when I asked why I was told to "just **** the **** up!".
It really seemed that he wanted to run away from the conversation which is odd for him as he is quite voracious when any other topic is being discussed.

I had a good laugh and told him that he was discriminating against my lack of beliefs.

I'll bring it up again sometime and see how he responds...

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

They're usually brought up when people use the argument that because you cannot prove that God does not exist, that either:

(1) This is evidence that God (or anything) does exist, or
(2) "Faith" is required to believe God (or anything) doesn't exist.

Both non-arguments which becomes clear when you simply replace "God" with something else you cannot prove does not exist.

Origins of analogy here.

Thanks for the replies. I've come across it used so much more cack handedly by some folk, and I just wanted to make sure I knew the context of where it is supposed to be used. Its indeed a good retort for someone who believes that because you cannot prove something does not exist, it is evidence of its existance. I see it used more and more however, as an attacking rather than defensive analogy, i.e. "Why shouldn't I just believe in Spagetti monster, there's as much evidence as there is for God." Not saying you guys do, maybe some do, I don't know. I just wanted to make sure I knew that these people were missing the point of the analogy quite astoundingly.

Thanks again.
J.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

I see it used more and more however, as an attacking rather than defensive analogy, i.e. "Why shouldn't I just believe in Spagetti monster, there's as much evidence as there is for God." Not saying you guys do, maybe some do, I don't know. I just wanted to make sure I knew that these people were missing the point of the analogy quite astoundingly.

A better argument against that one is "Why shouldn't I believe in some other well-established god?". It's not likely to work mind you, since a religious person will generally have no problem spotting the logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for someone else's god. There's an element of doublethink.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A better argument against that one is "Why shouldn't I believe in some other well-established god?".

A good question of course, which can be an interesting conversation. If someone starts by mis-using the FSM analogy though, its probably best not to get into the conversation unless they immediately see how they're mis-used it when explained. As I said though, nothing wrong with your question above.

5uspect

Isn't one of the aims of the FSM to get recognised as an official religion?
Unlike Russell's teapot the sublte difference with the FSM as an officially recognised church is that you can't deny it recognition when you teach intelligent design in school as it is equally as valid as ID. And therefore by not teaching it with ID you show your own agenda.

Rev Hellfire

5uspect wrote: »

Isn't one of the aims of the FSM to get recognised as an official religion?
Unlike Russell's teapot the subtle difference with the FSM as an officially recognised church is that you can't deny it recognition when you teach intelligent design in school as it is equally as valid as ID. And therefore by not teaching it with ID you show your own agenda.

I'm not sure that holds water to be honest.

The problem with arguments like fsm and orbiting teapots is neither party believes in them. Whereas with religious believers they truly believe in their respective deity/supernatural agent.
And while they'll acknowledge they might not have hard evidence to show you, they typically believe they have seen manifestations of it confirming it to themselves. Its rarely as blind as its made out, true the proof may be natural phenomenons misinterpreted or some other such fallacy, but the key is they believe they have observed proof.

Handsome Bob

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint, but this is not about where to get the best acid:) Its about the following:
More and more i see this point being made about Pink unicorns under my bed, invisible teapots orbitting jupiter or whatever. What exactly is the point in these analogies again? Is it that you can't proove something doesn't exist?

Ridicule IMHO. In everyday contexts I find these analogies being used to take the piss rather than to make a "reasoned" statement. I mean if theists take even the most basic of facts of their faith, such as Jesus was a real person in history, then they should be able to run with that and give a decent answer.

Flying spaghetti monster seems to be the most regular one. Who came up with that one? Dawkins was it?

AtomicHorror

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Ridicule IMHO. In everyday contexts I find these analogies being used to take the piss rather than to make a "reasoned" statement.

We just explained what these arguments are for, did you read the thread? I'm sure some people aren't above using ridicule, or even hijacking these analogies for that purpose, but there's a perfectly valid and logical point to them.

Handsome Bob

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We just explained what these arguments are for, did you read the thread? I'm sure some people aren't above using ridicule, or even hijacking these analogies for that purpose, but there's a perfectly valid and logical point to them.

Oh I read the thread, I was just giving my personal perspective of how these analogies are used in every day contexts. It'd be nice to think that most people use these analogies simply to highlight that one cannot prove that God does not exist without an agenda to directly insult the person but that's honestly not how I've seen it mostly. Again, that's my personal perspective drawn from my own personal observations, maybe you run in more sophisticated circles than I do.

AtomicHorror

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Oh I read the thread, I was just giving my personal perspective of how these analogies are used in every day contexts. It'd be nice to think that most people use these analogies simply to highlight that one cannot prove that God does not exist without an agenda to directly insult the person but that's honestly not how I've seen it mostly. Again, that's my personal perspective drawn from my own personal observations, maybe you run in more sophisticated circles than I do.

Well no, to be honest I've only heard the analogies used a couple of times and only appropriately. Maybe I just don't know enough atheists.

JimiTime

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Oh I read the thread, I was just giving my personal perspective of how these analogies are used in every day contexts. It'd be nice to think that most people use these analogies simply to highlight that one cannot prove that God does not exist without an agenda to directly insult the person but that's honestly not how I've seen it mostly. Again, that's my personal perspective drawn from my own personal observations, maybe you run in more sophisticated circles than I do.

Yeah, I know what you meant. Its part of why I asked the question here. Its bandied about like its the ultimate in logical deconstruction. Its being (mis)used in this cack handed fashion more and more by atheists I come across. Good to see that some of yee are a bit brighter than that though:)

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well no, to be honest I've only heard the analogies used a couple of times and only appropriately. Maybe I just don't know enough atheists.

Again, I started the thread because of my experience in dealing with it being used stupidly.

Handsome Bob

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well no, to be honest I've only heard the analogies used a couple of times and only appropriately. Maybe I just don't know enough atheists.

I'm in University right now and have many acquaintances in Arts. Usually Arts=outspoken atheist/agnostic.:pac:

Rev Hellfire

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Usually Arts=Future Hamburger Technician. :pac:

I fixed it for you :P

AtomicHorror

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm in University right now and have many acquaintances in Arts. Usually Arts=outspoken atheist/agnostic.:pac:

I'm doing a postgraduate degree in sciences, so you can imagine how many Believers I encounter day to day. Maybe that's the reason I never hear the argument used. I never meet anyone who needs convincing...

5uspect

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure that holds water to be honest.

The problem with arguments like fsm and orbiting teapots is neither party believes in them. Whereas with religious believers they truly believe in their respective deity/supernatural agent.

I agree, however "real" belief is often feigned by Pastafarians, this is one of their defining traits. In a sense they try to turn the argument around by claiming they are indeed true believers and let real believers dig their own hole. Their hate mail section alone is a classic example:

venganza.org wrote:

this is the dumbissst thing i have ever heard……..you think this is ganna make fun of christians then you are a fool! cause the god we worship is real…. and we dont eat him… by the way well pray for you your ganna need it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-brittany

The posters know their beliefs are true but can quite clearly see that the FSM is false. The dissonance is striking. More intelligent commentators also point out the silliness of the FSM yet fail to apply the same logic to faiths other than their own say Islam, Hinduism etc, perhaps with the exception of Scientology.

The only requirement for tolerance of a particular faith it seems is history.

So who's to say their "beliefs" aren't real. Sure its obvious, but then again was George Bush really a born again Christian or just an ingenious opportunistic politician? Many Christians are Christian because its the majority or historical religion.

And while they'll acknowledge they might not have hard evidence to show you, they typically believe they have seen manifestations of it confirming it to themselves. Its rarely as blind as its made out, true the proof may be natural phenomenons misinterpreted or some other such fallacy, but the key is they believe they have observed proof.

I'd guess very few claim to have experienced anything that provides some form of personal proof. I'd go so far as to say most are simply enamoured with the idea of a heaven more than any other facet of their religion. They'll stick to the idea that God is all forgiving or that they're a good Christian, or death bed repentance and pop on up to heaven.

I wouldn't even call this Pascal's wager. Is simply not even a question of "if God exists" its simply a matter of "I want to go to the nice place after I die".

I think this explains the almost fearful behaviour of my two friends when the topic of the teapot popped up. They want to run away from any idea that reminds them of their morality. That the certainty of life after death is not certain at all no matter how good you are.

That Santa simply won't come.

studiorat

Originally Posted by venganza.org
this is the dumbissst thing i have ever heard……..you think this is ganna make fun of christians then you are a fool! cause the god we worship is real…. and we dont eat him… by the way well pray for you your ganna need it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-brittany

Of course for Catholics that's not entirely true.

While the Tea-pot etc. is obviously disbelieved. Many Religious believe that events in their life are actual proof of the an interventionist God existing.

"Well pray for you your ganna need it" - brittany.

Brittany???

darjeeling

5uspect wrote: »

The posters know their beliefs are true but can quite clearly see that the FSM is false. The dissonance is striking. More intelligent commentators also point out the silliness of the FSM yet fail to apply the same logic to faiths other than their own say Islam, Hinduism etc, perhaps with the exception of Scientology.

Ah, naughty, upstart little scientology - the conjurer who won't stop showing everyone how the trick is done. :pac: