NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/27085

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!caen!malgudi.oar.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bmerh85!bmers30!dgraham
From: [e-mail] (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Ontological argument...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:30:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 93

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Darin Wilkins) writes:
>> "Invisible Pink Unicorns are conceived as being perfect; non-existence
>> would be an imperfection; thus Invisible Pink Unicorns must exist"
>>
>> A convincing argument, wouldn't you say?
>
>A winner.
>
>> (BTW, this idea is not original with me.  Someone on the net - I don't
>> recall who - suggested this a couple of years ago.  Does anyone recall
>> who it was?)
>
>If you mean the kind of reductio ad absurdum substitution (God <- IPU) which
>shows up a special pleading fallacy such as this or Pascal's, I wouldn't know.

I suspect that this is what he meant.  I can't help out here either.
I quite agree that this is a useful device, and I often wonder how
it is that this society sees fit to pay people calling themselves
philosophers to spend years concocting "proofs" for the existence of
gods which any 3 year old could see through in a minute by substituting
IPUs (or 19 dimensional blue bananas) for God.

>The author of the fabulous Invisible Pink Unicorns [Prancing In Maah Walls]
>per se, however, is the equally fabulous Doug Graham.

I'm afraid that I can't take credit for this.  I include an article
from May 1990, back in the days when I was still a lurker and an atheist
piker, which speaks of invisible purple men living in walls.  At most,
all I did was to substitute pink unicorns for purple men, but I doubt
that you can even credit me with this much originality.  Other than this
minor nit, the rest of your statement is quite accurate, and is not
exaggerated in any way.

--
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Mark Swiss)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Pascal's Wager again. (was Re: Role of Civil Government)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 May 90 23:30:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET Posting)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Thomas Mark Swiss)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 45

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>>     No. The athiest is one who is not a thiest, who denys the statement "God
>>exists WITHOUT necessarily making the statement "God does not exist." A
>>subtle but important difference. The agnostic point of view is "I don't know
>>whether to affirm or deny 'God exists.'"
>
>NO!  You've missed the mark entirely!
>
>You say an atheist "denies the statement 'God exists'".  That is, by
>definition, logically equivalent to "assert God does not exist."

     I don't think so. There is a differnce between having in you bag of axioms
"God exists," "God does not exist," or none of the above.

>The agnostic point of view ASSERTS that "we CAN *NOT* know either way."
>The theist asserts knowledge.  The atheist asserts contradictory knowledge.

     Very few athiests claim to have absolute knowledge that "God does not
exist."
     If you claim that invisible purple men are living in your walls, there
is a subtle but important difference between saying "There are not invisible
purple men living in you wall," and saying "While I cannot disprove the
existence of those invisible purple men (as they are, if they exist,
invisible),there is no evidence to indicate their existence. Therefore I do
not accept you claim."

>The agnostice asserts *that the knowledge is unknowable*.

     Most athiests (in any group of people, there are those who will not be
included in a generalization) agree that given our current knowledge base,
it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of god(s). It is also
not possible to prove that you are not a figment of my imagination; however,
I don't know may people who take an agnostic-equivalent position on this. We
all except that you are real, because that is the simplest explaination.
     WHY do most of those who call themselves agnostics not take the same
attitude towards god(s)?
     Of course, it all comes down to words. I used to call myself agnostic,
now I call myself athiest. My beliefs and thoughts haven't changed, just my
thoughts on the words.

==============================================================================
Tom Swiss                      | "The time will come when men such as I will
[e-mail]             |look on the murder of animals as they now look
The truth will set you free.   |on the murder of men." - Leonardo da Vinci
But first it will piss you off.| "Heisenberg wasn't certain; how can you be??"
--
Doug Graham         [e-mail]         My opinions are my own.