Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[Tiberius]

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?

I wouldn't make such an argument because God does not rely on the existence of leprechauns.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't make such an argument in the first place, because I can understand the existence of God is not dependant on the existence of leprechauns, and vice versa.

The argument "Thing A doesn't exist because Thing B doesn't exist," only makes sense if Thing A requires Thing B. Since God does not depend on leprechauns, the argument is invalid.

To many people it is valid and they make it to theists as a valid argument that god doesn't exist because the claim is so ridiculous as saying leprechauns do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wouldn't make such an argument because God does not rely on the existence of leprechauns.

Many people do. If god does not, what does he depend on when it comes to his existence?

 

[Tiberius]

Apologies, I got an error message the first time I tried to reply, so I replied to the same post again, not realising that the first reply had posted.

To many people it is valid and they make it to theists as a valid argument that god doesn't exist because the claim is so ridiculous as saying leprechauns do.

Such arguments are, in my experience, only meant as "The existence of one particular entity for which there is no real-world evidence is unlikely, just as the existence of this other particular entity for which there is also no real world evidence."

Many people do. If god does not, what does he depend on when it comes to his existence?

Evidence.

 

[night912]

To many people it is valid and they make it to theists as a valid argument that god doesn't exist because the claim is so ridiculous as saying leprechauns do.

Wrong.

Did you start this thread with the intention of showing that the analogy is a fallacy that argues that God doesn't exist because monsters don't exist? Or is it for another reason? From reading your comments, it appears ti me that it's not. Correct me if I'm wrong and be honest to yourself. Did you start this thread because you are upset that about God is being compared to a ridiculous thing like the spaghetti monster? It's understandable that you are upset because something that you hold dear and is important to your life, is being place at the standard of something ridiculous. The thing is, it's not like, it is you who have mistook it for that.

RF is not a place where formal debates are held like the ones you see on YouTube. Although a lot of times it may be similar to that, but you have to remember that this is only a public forum, so not every comment that is in opposition to your be are trying to disprove god's existence. These debates/discussions are a way for people to exchange ideas resulting in one to further gain more knowledge and better understanding of other ideas or beliefs. Some comments are there to help you.

All my time in RF, I've seen that and similar analogies being used, but never was it ever used in the way that you are suggesting. People are telling you that you are misunderstanding the analogy and even gave explanations to helpi
you understand it better but you're not accepting their explanations. How I see it, you have two options.

1. Accept the explanation and try to understand it. This way, in the future if you see it or similar ones being used, you will know how to approach it in a rational way.

Or

2. Remain being upset and getting angry every time you encounter it in the future.


t appears to me

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How do you know it's wrong? It's based on opinion and observation and I didn't say all.

Did you start this thread with the intention of showing that the analogy is a fallacy that argues that God doesn't exist because monsters don't exist? Or is it for another reason? From reading your comments, it appears ti me that it's not. Correct me if I'm wrong and be honest to yourself. Did you start this thread because you are upset that about God is being compared to a ridiculous thing like the spaghetti monster? It's understandable that you are upset because something that you hold dear and is important to your life, is being place at the standard of something ridiculous. The thing is, it's not like, it is you who have mistook it for that.

No. I started the thread to show the argument that because monsters don't exist, god doesn't exist ridiculous and a fallacy.

Upset, no. It does seem that way with people on RF when they ask questions, but most of the time we're probably multitasking and thinking of what we need to do for the day.

RF is not a place where formal debates are held like the ones you see on YouTube. Although a lot of times it may be similar to that, but you have to remember that this is only a public forum, so not every comment that is in opposition to your be are trying to disprove god's existence. These debates/discussions are a way for people to exchange ideas resulting in one to further gain more knowledge and better understanding of other ideas or beliefs. Some comments are there to help you.

I actually haven't watched debates like this on YouTube (and Facebook, I so heard) to tell you honestly. Only RF. I used to go to other forums years ago, but I don't anymore. I don't even know if half of them I used to go to still exist.

I understand how people feel god exist and the mechanics behind it. I just don't think the argument to prove he does not exist very smart when comparing it to monsters and leprechauns.

All my time in RF, I've seen that and similar analogies being used, but never was it ever used in the way that you are suggesting. People are telling you that you are misunderstanding the analogy and even gave explanations to helpi
you understand it better but you're not accepting their explanations. How I see it, you have two options.

I have to. I'm playing devil's advocate on the theists side since atheist tend to think they have the right away all the time but no one ever questions them about the fallacies of their defense.

They are assuming it means one thing when I clarify that it means something else. For example, you thought I meant I was disproving god's existence and upset about it and I'm clarifying that I'm disproving the fallacy atheist use that god exist and have no emotional issues about it.

Most people so far didn't have a real issue with me when it comes to clarification and discussion. RF is pretty famous for questioning people's OP "more than" actually answering it themselves. Some people actually put in their OP if you don't understand it or if it does not apply "this is not for you." Another is "if you don't like analogies, don't answer the OP."

It's not a me-thing. Surprisingly, others have gone through it too but I guess it's an RF thing. They have to have something to say even if it doesn't apply to them.

1. Accept the explanation and try to understand it. This way, in the future if you see it or similar ones being used, you will know how to approach it in a rational way.

I don't know how to take that. By whose criteria for rational? I don't write OPs with the intention of being irrational-that's just some people's point of view not shared by all.

2. Remain being upset and getting angry every time you encounter it in the future.

How do you know if I'm upset just by talking about god's existence online??

Sounds like you're concerned over presumed emotions and intentions that do not exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its a generalization but only really offends the person who takes it as so.

I'm an atheist myself and don't have these arguments but many RFians do. So, if it doesn't apply to the atheist reading, then it doesn't. They can answer objectively and give their opinion without incorporating what they don't believe. I see it a lot with belief here too. Someone says something about god and someone else have to post "but my religion X doesn't teach that, so..." without answering the question or reading on.

So, all of it is pretty much being picky and bringing up issues that have already been addressed in the OP (and future ones).[/QUOTE]
Looks like you're 0 for 2 trying to understand other people's arguments.

It's not that *I personally* don't make the argument in the OP (though I don't); I'm saying that I've never seen an atheist make that argument... and I'd be willing to bet good money that you haven't either.

And you haven't actually addressed any of the issues I've raised. You've just misrepresented what I said and moved on without ever responding to my real points.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I started the thread to show the argument that because monsters don't exist, god doesn't exist ridiculous and a fallacy.

Well, since you seem to be the only person who's ever used that argument, it's pretty easy for you to stop it being used: just don't use it yourself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, since you seem to be the only person who's ever used that argument, it's pretty easy for you to stop it being used: just don't use it yourself.

No. I've seen it a lot on RF but I noticed only theists tend to react to it when brought up god's existence, rather than an atheist bringing up the argument out of the blue. Couple other popular ones-pixies is another example used in this thread. I don't consider myself 'that' observant, but I guess I am.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I've seen it a lot on RF but I noticed only theists tend to react to it rather than an atheist bringing up the argument out of the blue. Couple other popular ones. I don't consider myself 'that' observant, but I guess I am.

Here's the thing: I'm willing to accept that you think this is what you're seeing, but I'm fairly certain that you're misunderstanding the arguments being made.

If you gave some quotes as examples to look at, we could find out for sure.

 

[night912]

New How do you know it's wrong? It's based on opinion and observation and I didn't say all.

Since it does not appear that you want to understand why the analogy is being used. So I'll just explain why I know that you are wrong and leave it at that.

You're wrong in the OP, that the analogy is a fallacy and I know that that you're wrong because you don't understand the analogy and its usage. You showed that by giving your explanation that is no where near it proper usage.

because yo

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's the thing: I'm willing to accept that you think this is what you're seeing, but I'm fairly certain that you're misunderstanding the arguments being made.

If you gave some quotes as examples to look at, we could find out for sure.

No. I've been on here for years. It's not a bad argument in itself just illogical. It's not a generalization and doesn't mean to offend. Just what I've observed. I've seen it on Quora too. Sometimes I think its recycled defenses. Theist have it too. No one brings it up with atheists though. No ones the victim. Just something I brought up.

(Atheists who apply to this observation)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're wrong in the OP, that the analogy is a fallacy and I know that that you're wrong because you don't understand the analogy and its usage. You showed that by giving your explanation that is no where near it proper usage.

The last part I don't remember implying. I concluded my argument in the OP as a fallacy in that it is used to attempt to approve God does not exist because monsters don't. A negative with a negative I guess one can say.

As for other peoples explanations, it makes sense. I don't need to say "I understand" etc to get what they're saying.

Also, you would be right if I told them they were wrong. I did not. So, maybe you're going off assumptions. I don't know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I've been on here for years.

So have I. That's why I don't believe you.

It's not a bad argument in itself just illogical.

But is it your understanding of the argument that's illogical or the argument itself? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

You've misunderstood my arguments several times in this thread alone, so it seems to me that you misunderstanding some other argument is certainly plausible.

It's not a generalization and doesn't mean to offend. Just what I've observed. I've seen it on Quora too. Sometimes I think its recycled defenses. Theist have it too. No one brings it up with atheists though. No ones the victim. Just something I brought up.

(Atheists who apply to this observation)

I don't doubt your sincerity. I do doubt your accuracy.

... and I'll continue to doubt it until you provide some examples of people actually doing what you claim.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So have I. That's why I don't believe you.


But is it your understanding of the argument that's illogical or the argument itself? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

You've misunderstood my arguments several times in this thread alone, so it seems to me that you misunderstanding some other argument is certainly plausible.


I don't doubt your sincerity. I do doubt your accuracy.

... and I'll continue to doubt it until you provide some examples of people actually doing what you claim.

Was it you that mentioned the argument was used to show the rediculous of the two assumptions God and monsters rather than one supporting the other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Was it you that mentioned the argument was used to show the rediculous of the two assumptions God and monsters rather than one supporting the other?

Since I can't even parse what you're saying, I'll say "no."

Edit: but I can't rule out that this is your understanding of something I said.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So have I. That's why I don't believe you.


But is it your understanding of the argument that's illogical or the argument itself? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

You've misunderstood my arguments several times in this thread alone, so it seems to me that you misunderstanding some other argument is certainly plausible.


I don't doubt your sincerity. I do doubt your accuracy.

... and I'll continue to doubt it until you provide some examples of people actually doing what you claim.

7 pages and what I observed on other forums. Not showing examples doesn't mean I'm wrong. Can you imagine every RFian trying to pull example for every comment they read and reply to? Noneless weed out the discussions to get the right example in its given context?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since I can't even parse what you're saying, I'll say "no."

Edit: but I can't rule out that this is your understanding of something I said.

I think it's on the first or second page somewhere. I don't know who from. Most seem to be focused on what I did wrong rather than the logic of the argument. It's hard to weed out if they understood the intention. Some people think (after awhile telling them otherwise) I'm theist so they argue as such.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Some of is have learning issues, some not English native, and so forth. So, if you're going off this please don't reply. It's an insult to my intelligence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

My argument is why use one to disprove the other when they are both under the same boat.

Not saying you are wrong, just got a different intention that I didn't make.