Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Appeal to ridicule depends on the thing (belief in gods, in this case) being misrepresented. Where's the misrepresentation?

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm. Does comparing the two in an argument logical?

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

I wouldn't say pixies don't exist. I don't know of their non-existence. I don't know if you are running into that kind of argument, but to me, it'd be illogical before you even get to the word God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm. Does comparing the two in an argument logical?

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

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Pixies, like gods, are just the features of some other religion. Same with leprechauns.

... it's just that the religions that believe in pixies and leprechauns have fallen out of popularity, while the religions that believe in gods and angels haven't.

“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

Stating that a monster does not exist is not a claim?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Appeal to ridicule depends on the thing (belief in gods, in this case) being misrepresented. Where's the misrepresentation?

There isn't. It's just saying that comparing X to prove Y is not true when both X and Y are under the same position does not make sense.

Monsters don't exist so god doesn't exist does not support the person's claim that monsters don't. Ridicule is using the monster as an example. I never heard of god being like that to compare it to a monster.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't say pixies don't exist. I don't know of their non-existence. I don't know if you are running into that kind of argument, but to me, it'd be illogical before you even get to the word God.

I personally would say pixies don't exist. I also don't believe god exists. So, if I supported my claim: god does not exist by saying pixies don't exist, it doesn't do anything.

But to those who don't know pixies exist "and" the probability is still there, to compare it to god, this logic would be applied to god to. Though the argument is focused on knowledge not belief.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Pixies, like gods, are just the features of some other religion. Same with leprechauns.

... it's just that the religions that believe in pixies and leprechauns have fallen out of popularity, while the religions that believe in gods and angels haven't.

“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can you use that phrase to prove god doesn't exist, though?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Stating that a monster does not exist is not a claim?

That isn't the claim either.

Here's the claim:

The evidentiary standard met by your god is also met by things you reject as false, so your acceptance of your god is hypocritical.

... or:

If your evidentary standard is so low that, if it were consistently applied, you would accept things as true that you consider ridiculous, then this is a sign that your standard is probably too low.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That isn't the claim either.

Here's the claim:

The evidentiary standard met by your god is also met by things you reject as false, so your acceptance of your god is hypocritical.

... or:

If your evidentary standard is so low that, if it were consistently applied, you would accept things as true that you consider ridiculous, then this is a sign that your standard is probably too low.

Really?

It's very simple argument.

God does not exist because monsters don't exist. How does one support the other in this argument?

 

[MNoBody]

Hmm. Is knowledge only confined to physics and things detectable to our five senses?

Do we, say, know another person loves us or we believe that he or she does?

an infinite universe would imply infinite knowledge far eclipsing what we have found to date, so no it wouldn't be confined to any definable categories.
knowledge OF....it is just a means of grasping things, to know things, handle touch taste and people have 6 senses [perhaps more...some say]
but that is occulted [in darkness-obscured] unknown knowledge...to be pursued and known, if one may.
intuitive knowing is a hunch that isn't the same kind of knowing, it tastes/smells different, a different order of knowing
some people just have a knack for having uncanny accurate hunches, which isn't always explainable by their deductive reasoning skills.
Our own innate sense of balance teaches a lot about this idea.
as to how we know it and trust it implicitly [and even more with practice] yet couldn't really explain it or teach it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you use that phrase to prove god doesn't exist, though?

You don't need to prove that God doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really?

It's very simple argument.

God does not exist because monsters don't exist. How does one support the other in this argument?

Remember at the beginning of the thread when you were complaining about people misrepresenting others' claims?

Maybe take your own advice to heart.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't need to prove that God doesn't exist.

I know. That's not the point of the OP.

It just says: God does not exist because monsters do not exist.

One cannot support the other, so the argument goes no where.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Remember at the beginning of the thread when you were complaining about people misrepresenting others' claims?

Maybe take your own advice to heart.

I don't think I used the word misrepresenting. I said that atheists (generalizing on purpose as in the OP) use "god does not exist because pixies don't exist."

I'm saying these atheists use a fallacy as a counter-claim to their opponents claim.

Anything else sounds like recycled defenses and that's really not what the above is about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think I used the word misrepresenting.

You didn't use it; it was in the article you linked to on "appeal to ridicule."

I said that atheists (generalizing on purpose as in the OP) use "god does not exist because pixies don't exist."

I'm saying these atheists use a fallacy as a counter-claim to their opponents claim.

And I'm saying that it only seems like a fallacy because you don't understand their arguments.

 

[Neuropteron]

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

What you say is correct.
It is a sad fact that the majority have build their belief structure on fallacies. This can be said both of theist and atheist. History and the Bible shows that there is an innate and strong need to believe in something or somebody. To support this premise is the fact that no one exits without faith of some kind. Ironically even believing in nothing is a type of belief.

Since believing in some type of fallacie is easier than doing the research required to test our belief many accept fallacies to get on with their lives and occupy themselves with things they are interested in or in fulfilling necessary obligations.

Another factor is that the belief that the majority is right is strongly ingrained in some, as well as the need to fit in.

I propose that Knowing the bible can help us to view religious fallacies from a spiritual perspective.
For instance: only a few survived the flood, showing us the majority certainly can be wrong.
Jesus told us that knowledge leads to evidence based faith. Gullibility and faith are not synonyms but antonyms.
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for although we don't yet see them accomplished.
The fact that gaining assurance and knowledge can leads to eternal life, should be an incentive for us to acquire it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I do not "know" that neither exists. I've seen a movie with a leprechaun ("Darby O'Gill and the Little People), but then again, I've seen a movie with a blind angel (Pygar in "Barbarella"), and a giant moth ("Mothra") or T-Rex-ish thing with all sorts of unlikely powers (600 Japanese movies), but I don't think they were evidence enough to convince me. I've read a list of not-quite-commandments by a Spaghetti Monster, but I saw some slight evidence that this may, just possibly, have been written by humans, so once again, I wasn't quite convinced.

But I have never -- not ever -- in my life personally seen any evidence, or even read of any credible evidence, that either leprechauns or spaghetti monsters exist. And so while not "knowing" that they don't, I conclude that they don't, and proceed with my life accordingly.

Now, if either one decided to interrupt my proceeding with my life, out of pique at not being believed, I would certainly have to reconsider.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not "know" that neither exists. I've seen a movie with a leprechaun ("Darby O'Gill and the Little People), but then again, I've seen a movie with a blind angel (Pygar in "Barbarella"), and a giant moth ("Mothra") or T-Rex-ish thing with all sorts of unlikely powers (600 Japanese movies), but I don't think they were evidence enough to convince me. I've read a list of not-quite-commandments by a Spaghetti Monster, but I saw some slight evidence that this may, just possibly, have been written by humans, so once again, I wasn't quite convinced.

But I have never -- not ever -- in my life personally seen any evidence, or even read of any credible evidence, that either leprechauns or spaghetti monsters exist. And so while not "knowing" that they don't, I conclude that they don't, and proceed with my life accordingly.

Now, if either one decided to interrupt my proceeding with my life, out of pique at not being believed, I would certainly have to reconsider.

If not based on knowledge, what is the foundations of your conclusions in addition to (or just?) lack of evidence?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

It is a sad fact that the majority have build their belief structure on fallacies. This can be said both of theist and atheist. History and the Bible shows that there is an innate and strong need to believe in something or somebody. To support this premise is the fact that no one exits without faith of some kind. Ironically even believing in nothing is a type of belief.

Isn't this a fallacy in itself?

Because the majority believe in someone or something, therefore it's universal or inherent that all people believe in someone or something? Appealing to the majority (don't know the technical terms)

Since believing in some type of fallacie is easier than doing the research required to test our belief many accept fallacies to get on with their lives and occupy themselves with things they are interested in or in fulfilling necessary obligations.

I guess there is nothing wrong with fallacies in and of themselves. Though, some feel defensive by the contradictory logic fallacies play with each other.

Another factor is that the belief that the majority is right is strongly ingrained in some, as well as the need to fit in.

True. What about the silent minority?

The atheist who does not believe in anything since I don't know when has no reason to believe in something or someone in a spiritual sense. So, he and his peers become the silent minority. Does that mean we need to put his peers with the majority to make things "feel right" or do we accept we are living a fallacy of majority rules?

I propose that Knowing the bible can help us to view religious fallacies from a spiritual perspective.
For instance: only a few survived the flood, showing us the majority certainly can be wrong.
Jesus told us that knowledge leads to evidence based faith. Gullibility and faith are not synonyms but antonyms.
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for although we don't yet see them accomplished.
The fact that gaining assurance and knowledge can leads to eternal life, should be an incentive for us to acquire it.

I think that's why many people have sacred scriptures and/or traditions. It helps "make sense" of what one experiences. If these things were non-existent (hypothetical), we'd be stuck on fallacies with half the population trying to find justifications for their experiences and the ability to trust in them and thus in themselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If not based on knowledge, what is the foundations of your conclusions in addition to (or just?) lack of evidence?

This, to me, is a very basic question. I can be told, by any number of people, an almost infinite number of things that they might want me to believe. So the question becomes, "on what basis should I believe them?"

We are being told (it's in the news a lot just now) that there's a "QAnon" group that is part of government, involved in trafficking children for sex. Okay, on what basis would I believe that?

If I am told that Donald Trump is the hero fighting this horrific group, and Donald Trump himself has said "I don't know who they are," on what basis would I believe that?

If I am told that the last Empress of China (Tsu Shih) had her imperial gown shipped to Mars for preservation, on what basis should I believe that?

Or how about Yeti, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Loch Ness Monster, pixies, elves, orcs, ents and Djinn? On what basis do I believe any of them?

Well, so far, there has been no evidence whatever for any of those things mentioned (and a million boatloads of other things that some people have believed), but I cannot prove them not to be true. But by the same token, nobody seems to be able to prove that a single one of them IS true.

Therefore, it seems to me, my best option is to simply ignore the topic altogether, and assume -- in the complete absence of evidence -- that they are not true, and to carry on accordingly. If I am wrong, of course, that could well come back to bite me, and I might become a victim of my own ignorance.

So far, that hasn't happened. I can't answer why not -- I can only tell you what I think.