• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the former must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

It seems that you may be trying to set up a strawman. Comparing gods to fairies is just one of many reasons to disbelieve gods.

Nevertheless, in many regards, the comparison is valid.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They ALL "exist". The question is: in what manner, and to what end. Once we grow up and learn to articulate our questions, we can begin to honestly debate with others to find some reasonable answers.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It seems that you may be trying to set up a strawman. Comparing gods to fairies is just one of many reasons to disbelieve gods.

Nevertheless, in many regards, the comparison is valid.

How does that work, though?

Do you believe fairies could exist or do you know they do they not?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Do you believe they don't exist because of absence of evidence only? In other words, is there a probability they could exist no matter how slim it may be?
Of course they could.
But I see no practical point in assuming the existence of something that is neither directly nor circumstantially in evidence.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists

My issue here is likening the Gods to something that is physically contained within the Universe, such as a leprechaun or monster; when in reality the gods exist outside of, and encompassing all of our universe.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
They ALL "exist". The question is: in what manner, and to what end. Once we grow up and learn to articulate our questions, we can begin to honestly debate with others for some reasonable answers.
Au contraire, nothing exists - fortunately, because if things existed, then they couldn't be.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists

Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?


I don't KNOW that they do not exist, I simply don't have sufficient evidence to warrant belief that they DO exist. The exact same holds true for the fantastical claim that there is a some creator god being.

There is no fallacy in comparing one fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence with another fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence. The question becomes: If you don't accept fantastical claim A because there is no verifiable evidence, why do you accept fantastical claim B, for which there is also no verifiable evidence?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists

I think my position is that we don't know what, exactly, "exists" outside of our limited realm of understanding and knowledge in our own little corner of the cosmos.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists
knowledge is considered to be as infinite as the universe it describes
man is well known to be a finite creature, [universally accepted idea]
finite in knowledge
which simply implies that no man knows everything
which extended further would suggest that regardless of how detailed the clarity one assumes they have at any given moment, it should be assumed it is incomplete and imperfectly known [which would suggest that an open-minded "stance/mind-set" in forming suppositions and ideas would be more productive/useful ]
cartographers of "reality" are merely map-makers, and serviceable maps, while excellent tools are still only working titles so to speak since they can be revised or remade due to new information coming to light [history shows us, this happens constantly]

so do such "things" exist?
Maybe, in some sense.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
My issue here is likening the Gods to something that is physically contained within the Universe, such as a leprechaun or monster; when in reality the gods exist outside of, and encompassing all of our universe.

Since god isn't defined, the only way I can define it per this OP is something that isn't detectable to the five senses. Like L/S, god in this sense all three cannot be detected. There is a lot written about them, though. Of what people think what they look like, do, how, and their position in the universe, etc. So, they have that in common.

Though, I can't see how comparing the two disproves one is much more different than the other. That fallacy doesn't seem to ad up, no?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?

Do you believe there "could" be evidence to convince you there are leprechauns and spaghetti monsters "even if" you believed it is not true (since belief doesn't influence probabilities)?

I was reading a bunch of fallacies and one of which many atheists (going by RF) quote is comparing existence of god to leprechauns and spaghetti monsters. So, instead of talking about god at all, if the same laws of evidence applies to god as L/S monsters, do you believe they do not exist? Do you know?

I know christians (well, the abrahamics, I'll say) have many fallacies (Full alphabetic list of Fallacies) that support their beliefs. I don't see atheists (don't take generalizations personally) any different.

The fallacy here is making a claim something is false (god) by comparing to something ridiculous (monster) that the latter most people assume is false, therefore the latter must be false: aka if a monster does not exist, then god does not exist.

Likewise the other way around, associating something that's, say, beauty to the existence of god: The beauty of the forest exists therefore god exists

You do realize that at one time Leprechauns were once apart of the Celtic Religion and there God structure. All the myths Greek, Roman, Norse, Asian were all practiced Religions, their Gods the only true Gods. Christianity came much later and some of the biblical stories are retellings of those ancient myths with new names.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?
If so, how do you know?


I don't KNOW that they do not exist, I simply don't have sufficient evidence to warrant belief that they DO exist. The exact same holds true for the fantastical claim that there is a some creator god being.

There is no fallacy in comparing one fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence with another fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence. The question becomes: If you don't accept fantastical claim A because there is no verifiable evidence, why do you accept fantastical claim B, for which there is also no verifiable evidence?

How do you compare the two?

One can't invalidate the other if both are in the same category. Do you think that L/S "could" exist? Is there a probability that they could? (Having no evidence doesn't prove L/S don't exist. We, humans, just don't have the ability to figure that out-right?)
 
Top