Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[The Hammer]

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?

This is why I am of the opinion that there are more than one God. Because as it stands, there are millions of accounts of deities around the world (and they help in differing ways), in all traditions and sects, and even amongst the non-religious. Multiple descriptions, equates to multiple Gods IMO. But maybe this is off topic?

To answer your question I hope, I was mostly skeptical of the Gods existence for quite some time, until they made their presence known to me. And I think that is because the Gods are not "seen" in the traditional sense, they are Felt.

 

[Stevicus]

True. Why do we entertain god and not L/S if they both "may" exist outside of human understanding?

When I go through my day, I don't think about Spaghetti monsters nor do I think of god. If comparison makes sense, why the controversy?

All I really know about the existence of Leprechauns is what I've learned from those Lucky Charms commercials.

I know even less about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I've never seen the FSM in any spaghetti commercials. And I have it on good authority that Chef Boyardee doesn't believe in the FSM.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Off course there is...
The evidence is found in behavior. And in fact, we can even detect such feelings by putting a person under a brainscanner and then showing the person pictures and see which brain parts light up.

Each culture has their own definition of this. Brain scans don't show "love". We interpret neurons and brain signals as love but in reality, it's just a human nature response to bonding with others for survival. Love is a cultural thing not a universal thing.

Not really.

That's just blatantly false.

Surely through simple observation of a person's behavior towards another person, you can deduce if that person loves or hates that other person. Especially if you consider the extremes (for ease of making the point).

Of course not. That's where trust comes in. You trust that the other loves you. That person can cheat on you and any number of things can happen. I guess you can say both parties set their own definitions of love as a couple.

No. You determine love by observing the behavior of an actual person doing and saying actual things.
There is no such observation you can do for a "god".

Behavior doesn't mean love as a universal rule. Love isn't a universal law.

You can see the same observation with people who believe in god just as people believe in love. Just do the other accept that behavior as from god or not.

Not really.

My love could be your definition of rudeness. Same with respect and other abstract words. Our brains don't differentiate this, but our culture does.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then your OP is pointless, because nobody makes this "argument".
I'ld think that an OP that actually deals with arguments that people actually DO make, would be a bit more productive.

I don't know how long you've been on RF, but these things aren't taken out of a hat. Some people use pixie fairies in this very thread. So....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is the point. Your OP at this point just reads like a strawman.

It's a appeal to ridicule.
Appeal to Ridicule

It's usually used to present the other person wrong or their argument false by calling it ridiculous.

I'm not too knowledgeable about strawman but regardless, argument fallacies are made by both atheists and theists. No one is the victim.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How is god fanatical, though?

What are the characteristics of god that would be likened to those of leprechauns and magical pixes (maybe I should have added that one too



Hmm. I personally believe possibilities are useless in some cases. Kind of like holding on to a string of possible truth. Are people comfortable that some things, like physics, just don't have probabilities: two and two will equal four. There is no probability that it will not?

I guess another way to put it is do some people trust their conclusions to that something does not exist without the constant need of evidence to disprove it?

(Trying to figure the right words)

How is god fanatical, though?

What are the characteristics of god that would be likened to those of leprechauns and magical pixes (maybe I should have added that one too

Not fanatical, fantastical.

You can't physically measure god and you can't physically measure magical pixies. God can do things that are supernatural. Magical pixies can do things that are supernatural. God exists outside of time and space. Magical pixies exist outside of time and space. Faith is required to believe in god and faith is required to believe in magical pixies. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support belief in the existence of either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is why I am of the opinion that there are more than one God. Because as it stands, there are millions of accounts of deities around the world (and they help in differing ways), in all traditions and sects, and even amongst the non-religious. Multiple descriptions, equates to multiple Gods IMO. But maybe this is off topic?

I like polytheism better than monotheism because I like the idea different gods or deities can "explain" or taken on different ways to understand reality.

You can use the same argument with more than one god, but most Pagans, Hindus, and so forth tend to define it a bit differently to determine if their gods are "abstract" to compare them to L/S.

I don't mind the derail but sometimes I loose track of what I'm saying.

To answer your question I hope, I was mostly skeptical of the Gods existence for quite some time, until they made their presence known to me. And I think that is because the Gods are not "seen" in the traditional sense, they are Felt.

How do you define the gods you believe in?

They are felt? Hmm... do tell.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How is god fanatical, though?

What are the characteristics of god that would be likened to those of leprechauns and magical pixes (maybe I should have added that one too



Hmm. I personally believe possibilities are useless in some cases. Kind of like holding on to a string of possible truth. Are people comfortable that some things, like physics, just don't have probabilities: two and two will equal four. There is no probability that it will not?

I guess another way to put it is do some people trust their conclusions to that something does not exist without the constant need of evidence to disprove it?

(Trying to figure the right words)

Hmm. I personally believe possibilities are useless in some cases. Kind of like holding on to a string of possible truth. Are people comfortable that some things, like physics, just don't have probabilities: two and two will equal four. There is no probability that it will not?

I agree... just because something is POSSIBLE is pretty much meaningless. It all comes down to how PROBABLE a claim is. So even though I agree it's POSSIBLE that a god entity exists, the lack of any verifiable evidence makes me conclude that the probability that such a being exists in very low. Thus I have no reason to believe that any god actually does exist.

I guess another way to put it is do some people trust their conclusions to that something does not exist without the constant need of evidence to disprove it?

Not sure what that means. I don't look for evidence to 'disprove' claims. I'm looking for any evidence that supports a claim. IF no such evidence exists, it would be silly for me to believe that the claim is true.

 

[The Hammer]

How do you define the gods you believe in?

They are felt? Hmm... do tell.

When one can silence both their internal and external world's, then the Gods can be felt and interacted with. It is both physical and mental, the Gods act within us and through us.

Edit: @Unveiled Artist The deities I believe in come in 3 different classes. The Gods or Shining Ones, which are what most people think of as deities, Awe Inspiring, Powerful.
Ancestors, our powerful link to all humankind throughout history, and can include the veneration of the honorable dead.
And the Spirits, which is the innate animism of all living and non-living beings, nature-spirits, house-spirits, etc.

 

[Tambourine]

Why would there be a probability that they could?

Not a probability, just the possibility.

Our knowledge of the world is by its very nature uncertain and prone to be overturned or modified by new evidence.

 

[ecco]

How does that work, though?

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

They do not. I thought that was established knowledge.

They, gods, easter bunnies, spidermans, kryptonite, psychic snowflakes are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[Tambourine]

When one can silence both their internal and external world's, then the Gods can be felt and interacted with. It is both physical and mental, the Gods act within us and through us

Are these gods, though, or simply Absence made manifest?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They do not. I thought that was established knowledge.

They, gods, easter bunnies, spidermans, kryptonite, psychic snowflakes are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

I think you're the only one who gets it, honestly. Most people are hinging on to anything could exist if there is evidence.

What do you base your knowledge on if not lack of evidence?

 

[icehorse]

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.

There are a handful of atheists that take the absolute, hardline that you're describing.

Most of us atheists say something along the lines of: "i'm pretty sure god does not exist, but i'm open to good solid evidence to the contrary".

 

[The Hammer]

Are these gods, though, or simply Absence made manifest?

My gut instinct is: If I can feel it/interact with it, it is Real. Whether that is me interacting with "Nothingness" or not, matters not, what matters is does it provide benefit to me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

And not beauty only, but also power & wisdom...as observed in the balance of nature. - Romans 1:20

 

[Nakosis]

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 don't believe in ghosts either, but disbelief is not a claim of knowing something doesn't exist.

I don't believe in leprechauns because I have no reason to. Same reason I don't believe in God, no reason. So I don't see the comparison being wrong.

Maybe there is a feeling that a belief in God occupies a special category of belief that belief in leprechauns doesn't?

To me, the lack of belief has equal reasoning.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't believe in ghosts either, but disbelief is not a claim of knowing something doesn't exist.

I don't believe in leprechauns because I have no reason to. Same reason I don't believe in God, no reason. So I don't see the comparison being wrong.

Maybe there is a feeling that a belief in God occupies a special category of belief that belief in leprechauns doesn't?

To me, the lack of belief has equal reasoning.

Hmm. Does comparing the two in an argument logical?

Saying, for example, pixies doesn't exist therefore god does not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And not beauty only, but also power & wisdom...as observed in the balance of nature. - Romans 1:20

How did you come to that conclusion before being introduced to scripture?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's not the claim, so that's not the fallacy.