Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Basically indifferent. It only pops up on RF. Outside of that, I'm a loner and really don't have need to think about it in that way much. So, I understand. I guess another thing to ask is if there are other ways one can conclude L/S/G doesn't exist outside of evidence. Are there other options?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Basically indifferent. It only pops up on RF. Outside of that, I'm a loner and really don't have need to think about it in that way much. So, I understand. I guess another thing to ask is if there are other ways one can conclude L/S/G doesn't exist outside of evidence. Are there other options?

That's the subject of epistemology, really. How do we know what we know? How can be sure what we know is actually true? It's a deep and complex topic -- most of us neophyte "philosophers" just stop at JTB (Justified True Belief) and hope that's enough. Philosophers being what they are, of course, they'll find ways to show that no, it's not enough.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's the subject of epistemology, really. How do we know what we know? How can be sure what we know is actually true? It's a deep and complex topic -- most of us neophyte "philosophers" just stop at JTB (Justified True Belief) and hope that's enough. Philosophers being what they are, of course, they'll find ways to show that no, it's not enough.

I think I'll (try) to look into that. Thanks.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I'll (try) to look into that. Thanks.

Here's a good place to start --- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

 

[bobhikes]

Yes. So, how does one's argument that because, say, Greek god don't exist support the similar claim that god does not exist?

Never said it did but it does show that leprechauns had the same basis as God

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Never said it did but it does show that leprechauns had the same basis as God

True. It does make me wonder why some atheist use that argument. It's, how can I say, counterproductive? (Circular?)

 

[Milton Platt]

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

It is a comparison of items which have been claimed by some to exist at one point or another, The basis for comparison is the evidence (or lack thereof). I don't see a fallacy. If there is a fallacy, please list the particular fallacy, as you have not done so. You can find lists of both formal and informal fallacies readily on the internet.

 

[blü 2]

Do you know leprechauns and spaghetti monsters do not exist?

Effectively, I do ─ I have no reason to think they're real. Should new evidence arise, the question can be reviewed, of course.

As for proving or disproving things absolutely, no, that can only happen in imaginary situations. How does God know [he]'s really omniscient? That there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't 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)?

Same answer: effectively no, can review if new evidence requires, there are still no absolutes.

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.

What objective test can distinguish the manner in which God exists from the manner in which Green Lantern exists?

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.

That's certainly a fallacy, but there are many accurate criticisms of the assertion that God is real. (We can look at them if you wish.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Well, if something isn't there, it isn't there.

Pretty straightforward I would think.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

By studying two fields in my teens: photosynthesis, and also the properties of water... that got me started.

 

[Tiberius]

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

I lack belief in leprechauns and spaghetti monsters, yet I am open to changing my mind about them if I am presented with evidence to warrant such a re-evaluation.

The exact same claim can be made of my lack of belief in God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is a comparison of items which have been claimed by some to exist at one point or another, The basis for comparison is the evidence (or lack thereof). I don't see a fallacy. If there is a fallacy, please list the particular fallacy, as you have not done so. You can find lists of both formal and informal fallacies readily on the internet.

There's a fallacy list link is already in the OP.

It's appeal to ridicule. I tell you god does not exist because monsters don't exist. The two are in the same category, so one cannot support the other. It's an empty defense.

Here are some other fallacies you may be interested in. This describes it as rid
Rhetological Fallacies – A list of Logical Fallacies & Rhetorical Devices with examples — Information is Beautiful

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's certainly a fallacy, but there are many accurate criticisms of the assertion that God is real. (We can look at them if you wish.)

There are. I was wondering if others got that fallacy since most of the time it's aimed at believers but atheists (generalizing on purpose) have their own fallacies too.

I'm assuming, like believers, they have their own fallacies. Which makes the argument between both parties go nowhere.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, if something isn't there, it isn't there.

Pretty straightforward I would think.

Then why would atheist use that claim if one thing isn't there therefore another thing isn't there. If both things don't exist to be "there", they can't be used to support each other in an argument that someone else brings up saying there is something there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By studying two fields in my teens: photosynthesis, and also the properties of water... that got me started.

How does that lead to god (a creator)?

(Was talking about fallacies in another thread. If X exist, Y must exist without actually determine "how" they are related rather than claiming that they both are).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I lack belief in leprechauns and spaghetti monsters, yet I am open to changing my mind about them if I am presented with evidence to warrant such a re-evaluation.

The exact same claim can be made of my lack of belief in God.

If you made an argument that god does not exist because leprechauns don't exist, would that make sense that one supports the other's argument or claim when they both (believed by the person who says it) don't exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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....

Long enough to know that nobody makes that argument.

You are most welcome to prove me wrong and link me to a post that shows otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's not an appeal to ridicule either.

As I explained already, the point of the leprechaun analogy is NOT to compare leprechauns with gods.


What the analogy is about, is the absence of evidence for both leprechauns and gods.
The comparison is about the supposed evidence in support of such entities. Not the entities themselves. Not even their existence. Merely and only the lack of evidence in support of their existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. Does comparing the two in an argument logical?

Yes, as what is being compared is the common denominator: the lack of evidence in support of existence of either entity.

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

Strawman. Not the argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really?

It's very simple argument.

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

He has just explained to you how that is not the argument that is actually being made....
He then proceeded to clarify what IS the argument.

Why do you ignore it?