Thread: The Invisable Pink Unicorn

Eh... "PU", "FSM", "YT"? Could you elaborate?

Oh! Sorry

PU = (Invisable) Pink Unicorn
FSM = Flying Spageti Monster (sp?)
YT = Yellow Teapot (that orbits the Earth)

Hmmm... I really can't figure out if this belongs in sensless banter or not.

I'm out - this one's up to the deep thinkers...

The Greeks were just talking bullshit, discreet units instead of a continuous medium is a completely acceptable suggestion. They were illogical back then and believed in platonic solids, etcetera. Simple as.

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Hmmm... I really can't figure out if this belongs in sensless banter or not.

I'm out - this one's up to the deep thinkers...

*grin*

It's in the right place... for the moment.

Yes they have won the argument. Not because they assume that it's unlikely, but because it is not possible to know or they don't know at the moment. When someone mentions that, he's not saying that a unicorn doesn't exist, but that it's impossible to know. Also I think that the teapot is orbiting Mars not Earth.

I don't see why you make dozens of topics of you not understanding everything. Why not open a book instead? Atoms fit perfectly, because they explain perfectly, how chemical reactions and such work.

Actually, they also can measure how heavy atoms are, if I am not mistaken. What I am certain of, is that they can even use an ultra-thin needle (itself a few atoms) to feel the 'bumps' atoms appear as on such a level.

Read a book about physics, would be a good advice, seen your question.

The atom is as real as your mom. "OH MY GAWD, MAYBE MY MOM ISN'T REAL!11!2121@?!?!?!". I rather see you ask that question, that would at least have been fun.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I don't see why you make dozens of topics of you not understanding everything. Why not open a book instead? Atoms fit perfectly, because they explain perfectly, how chemical reactions and such work.

I don't know why you keep replying to my topics when you don't read them.

The Ancient Greeks didn't know Jack about chemical equations. They knew if you put this and that together you get an explosion and that was about it.

What I said was (and I'll do it in Bold so you won't miss it) The Greeks of Old thought that it was a stupid notion because they thought it was unlikely and physically impossible

Take a wild stab in the dark as to who was right.

Actually, they also can measure how heavy atoms are, if I am not mistaken. What I am certain of, is that they can even use an ultra-thin needle (itself a few atoms) to feel the 'bumps' atoms appear as on such a level.

Yes, I know about that. I take physics at school. It was covered in Grade ten. I am talking about how people rejected the notion out of hand (and some even after considering it) till they had proof.

Read a book about physics, would be a good advice, seen your question.

Way ahead of you

The atom is as real as your mom. "OH MY GAWD, MAYBE MY MOM ISN'T REAL!11!2121@?!?!?!". I rather see you ask that question, that would at least have been fun.

Oh no! Your mom might not be real?

I still like you, Neruo, but you didn't respond to what I put down.

And sorry if I was a bit rude ... things have been happening ...

Originally Posted by Keeper

I don't know why you keep replying to my topics when you don't read them.

Wow. I find it very offensive that you say that about me.

I read Half your topics.

The Ancient Greeks didn't know Jack about chemical equations. They knew if you put this and that together you get an explosion and that was about it.

What I said was (and I'll do it in Bold so you won't miss it) The Greeks of Old thought that it was a stupid notion because they thought it was unlikely and physically impossible

(Actually the atom was just named after his theory. An atom Can be divided. Also, probably mr greek had no idea what scale exactly his atom was present). Anyhow, I doubt that guy was an absolute believer. It was just a theory, and a pretty good one, if you have 20/20 hindsight. However, not like any greek back that was completely certain of it. After all, there was no way of telling.

I do not in the slightest see why the Greeks would have thought of it as physically impossible. Please explain in what way they thought that, before you claim it.

Basically, the Greeks didn't have the smallest of reasons to believe there was an un-dividable building block to the universe. At least, not more reason than to think everything was made up from earth, water, fire and air. Such theories were impossible to properly research with the stuff we have know.

What is your point? Really? Does it surprise you the Greeks didn't have the same understand of matter on a level we can only see electron microscopes? Does the fact that they didn't know the human body was made from cells, makes it a worse 'theory' that we today think (know) that the human body is made up from cells?

Are you aiming at some lame reason to prove how god can still exist? Well I am sorry tiger, I doubt we will in the future will invent a microscope or device to detect, and thus prove, god. We have with atoms, and cells, but I don't see why god would only be seen by microscopes.

The Greeks didn't 'believe' in the atom, because everything smaller than what they could see, was completely out of their range.

It's like saying "I think there is life in our galaxy!". Is it strange that it is not believed to be a certain fact? No. In 5000 years, we might have methods to 'scan' every planet in the galaxy. Would it be silly to 'believe' in "I think there is life in our galaxy" still, after we found it? Or if there isn't life in our galaxy, it would be the same as the old Greeks saying everything is air, earth, fire and water: Wrong.

I don't see what is complicated here, I don't even see a reason to make a topic about it.

You act as if the old greeks trampled on the atom-theory, that by the way you place totally out of context by linking it to the current-atom theory, as we trample on the god theory today. I am sorry, but that doesn't make your god any more true. : ( The Greeks also trampled just as much on theories like 'everything comes from the number' or crap like that.

things have been happening ...

Getting your first period? :0

Originally Posted by Keeper

This vexes me!

Why do people assume once they have mentioned the PU or FSM they have won an argument? How can they know it isn't real? On what do they base the assumption that it is UNLIKELY?

When Atoms where first postulated way back in the times of Ancient Greeks, they LAUGHED at the man, as they said it was UNLIKELY ...

How is the PU or FSM or YT any less plausible then the Atom?

Would the Greeks have thought the same of both the FSM and the Atom?

What of those other subatomic particals? What of things yet to be discovered. They can't be detected now, but one day perhaps ...

Think of the Atom ...

Actually, it turns out that the atom is unlikely; even proven to be false. "Atom" means indivisible, which the atom actually isn't. As far as PU or FSM or YT are concerned, I don't think Occam's razor can be applied to every question about the nature of reality but I think its fairly safe to apply it to these examples.

I think there are scales which are described as 'meaningless' though, so in that sense there is such a thing as an indivisible unit.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Why do people assume once they have mentioned the PU or FSM they have won an argument? How can they know it isn't real? On what do they base the assumption that it is UNLIKELY?

Because if it gets to that point - they've pretty much lost the argument and need to start talking about retarded crap to keep their length of the argument going.

Well, the pink unicorn and FSM are taken out of context and extended by geeks who think it's funny, but at its core, it's a perfectly legitimate argument. You can't disprove that it exists. But even though that's the case, the possibility of it existing doesn't really change your life. That's kind of how I view the 'god' question. Can't disprove it, can't prove it, but doesn't affect how I live my life.

Originally Posted by Keeper

This vexes me!

Why do people assume once they have mentioned the PU or FSM they have won an argument? How can they know it isn't real? On what do they base the assumption that it is UNLIKELY?

When Atoms where first postulated way back in the times of Ancient Greeks, they LAUGHED at the man, as they said it was UNLIKELY ...

How is the PU or FSM or YT any less plausible then the Atom?

Would the Greeks have thought the same of both the FSM and the Atom?

What of those other subatomic particals? What of things yet to be discovered. They can't be detected now, but one day perhaps ...

Think of the Atom ...

It's a matter of probability. The probability that a monster made of wheat flour in noodle form that has consciousness and flies around making strange demands is much smaller than merely microscopic, and the idea is not based on anything measurable or the slightest bit provable. That is why it works as a great analogy to any specific god. However, the invisible unicorn is not pink. It is maroon. Saying that it is pink could start a large scale war in the Middle East.

Sigh....The PU and FSM are used by people who have watched Al's Atheist videos on youtube (at least, this is my understanding of the origin - he may have taken them from somewhere, I don't know.

They don't prove anything. Being a rational, scientific human being, you have to be agnostic about them - but only to an infinitesimally small degree. The mere fact that you can't prove that they don't exist means they could.

My advice to you when they're next brought up in an argument is respond with one of the following:

i- "Grow up"
ii- "Come on"
ii- "Shut up"

...or anything similar. If the person insists, merely respond with:

"No, seriously dude, [whatever you said before]." ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Keeper

This vexes me!

Why do people assume once they have mentioned the PU or FSM they have won an argument? How can they know it isn't real? On what do they base the assumption that it is UNLIKELY?

At school, during philosophy class, we call this a "Red Hat Arguement". When somebody tells you there are 23 invisible gnomes standing in the room, we would laugh and point at him and say all kinds of nasty stuff, because it is just plain idiotic to think such a thing. We however, would ONLY, and ONLY believe the stuff and stand in shock, when the day thereafter, we'd see 23 red hats hanging from a drying post.
The point of the story is to make clear that proof, clues, or leads are needed to base theories on, and you cannot just say something 'might be true', because invisible garden gnomes would therefore be just as credible.

Example: If you say 'Yes, well it MIGHT be true that gorillas can think exactly like us humans', it still isn't a correct reasoning to base philosophical theories on, because of the red hat arguement: We do not have any proof that gorillas think exactly like humans. So if that MIGHT be true, then for all you know, there MIGHT also be 23 invisible garden gnomes standing about in the room.

Unless you have some kind of proof, you cannot base theories on assumptions alone. "Might be" simply isn't good enough. Concrete facts, leads and clues are needed first.

This is why the flying spaghetti monster IS a correct (counter-)arguement. "If your God is/might be true, then our FSM might be so too." And since there is no proof, nor clues or leads to our beloved FSM, we shouldn't assume it is true, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that it is true... just as unlikely as the gnomes, and (to us Atheists) every other God (which is exactly why the FSM was created in the first place, to be a satirical version of every other religion, in an attempt to make clear just how unlikely their Gods really are).

We do not have any proof of God existing except for us being here and a book, written by man... We atheists find this extremely flimsy clues, just compare them to believing in the FSM, and using 'Alice in Wonderland' as proof...


So: Lesson of today:

"Might be true" is a big no-no... Unless you have any (solid, scientific) proof of something, then "might be true" shouldn't be used as an arguement...


There, now go forth, and bring me some cookies!

Peace, peeps!

~CD


P.S. Agnosticism says 'Well, we don't know whether God does or doesn't exist', and therefore says 'He might or might not exist,' right? Because then, you've also automatically said that the invisible garden gnomes might also be real. Now, I'm sorry if I offend you with this, but I do not think that's rational at all, Fonti...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, it turns out that the atom is unlikely; even proven to be false. "Atom" means indivisible, which the atom actually isn't. As far as PU or FSM or YT are concerned, I don't think Occam's razor can be applied to every question about the nature of reality but I think its fairly safe to apply it to these examples.

Are you somewhat retarded? Really? Are you somewhat delusional of some sort? Why the hell do you compare the ancient greek word 'atom', indeed meaning un-dividable, with something that happens to share the same name?

OH MY GOD, THE ATOM CAN BE DIVIDED, THAT THEORY IS BAD.

It isn't unlikely the atom isn't un-dividable, like you said, it is a freaking fact the atom isn't un-dividable. For like the last 50 years or whatever.

I honestly can't see why you even made that post. You do know the ancient greek guy that proposed calling something he didn't even properly defined "the atom", and the discovery of the atom as we know it know (simply because it was the smallest thing ever found was it called 'atom'), are completely different things, right?

God I hope you do, but to be honest, on general I don't really have high hopes for you.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Are you somewhat retarded? Really? Are you somewhat delusional of some sort? Why the hell do you compare the ancient greek word 'atom', indeed meaning un-dividable, with something that happens to share the same name?

OH MY GOD, THE ATOM CAN BE DIVIDED, THAT THEORY IS BAD.

It isn't unlikely the atom isn't un-dividable, like you said, it is a freaking fact the atom isn't un-dividable. For like the last 50 years or whatever.

I honestly can't see why you even made that post. You do know the ancient greek guy that proposed calling something he didn't even properly defined "the atom", and the discovery of the atom as we know it know (simply because it was the smallest thing ever found was it called 'atom'), are completely different things, right?

God I hope you do, but to be honest, on general I don't really have high hopes for you.

The atom is divisible, it can be broken down in to electrons, protons, and nuetrons. These things are also divisible, and can be broken down into quarks and leptons, and as far as we know these may be broken down further. The hypothesis was that such a point particle exists that cannot be broken down in to smaller parts. It was believed that the atom was such a particle, thus it was given the name. It has been proven that it is not such a particle. Now, this does not mean that such a particle does not exist, but we as humans have yet to find it. It is believed in super-string theory that the string is an indivisible particle but as of now this is simply an idea, as no string has ever been observed or otherwise detected.

Is this thread seriously about whether or not the atom exists?

Atom 1: I think I lost an electron.
Atom 2: Are you sure?
Atom 1: I'm positive.

Scatterbrain wins.


Neruo, and everyone elses post I didn't read who argued the same point as Neruo,

Way back when, it was impossible for the earth to be round. There was no evidence suggesting that the earth was round, therefore they deemed it an impossibility, and even a ridiculous and absurd thought. Can you not see how this is related?

Obviously the idea of an invisible pink unicorn is completely stupid to most of us. At the same time, you don't know for sure if there will not be conclusive evidence 2000 years in the future that proves that one or many do exist.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Atom 1: I think I lost an electron.
Atom 2: Are you sure?
Atom 1: I'm positive.

My chemistry teacher told me that joke in highschool and its still on my top ten.

Originally Posted by fonti

Sigh....The PU and FSM are used by people who have watched Al's Atheist videos on youtube (at least, this is my understanding of the origin - he may have taken them from somewhere, I don't know.

They don't prove anything. Being a rational, scientific human being, you have to be agnostic about them - but only to an infinitesimally small degree. The mere fact that you can't prove that they don't exist means they could.

My advice to you when they're next brought up in an argument is respond with one of the following:

i- "Grow up"
ii- "Come on"
ii- "Shut up"

...or anything similar. If the person insists, merely respond with:

"No, seriously dude, [whatever you said before]." ad infinitum.

Grow up. Okay, I win now that I have made that comment.

But I still want to mention that the Flying Spaghetti Monster "could" be in your underwear. I guess that means it only makes sense to be undecided on the issue. It's a toss up.

Originally Posted by Keeper

This vexes me!

Why do people assume once they have mentioned the PU or FSM they have won an argument? How can they know it isn't real? On what do they base the assumption that it is UNLIKELY?

When Atoms where first postulated way back in the times of Ancient Greeks, they LAUGHED at the man, as they said it was UNLIKELY ...

How is the PU or FSM or YT any less plausible then the Atom?

Would the Greeks have thought the same of both the FSM and the Atom?

What of those other subatomic particals? What of things yet to be discovered. They can't be detected now, but one day perhaps ...

Think of the Atom ...

Because nature must be elegant.

FSM is unbearably ugly idea.
PU is too gay.
YT couldn't exist because an elegant tea-pot must be metallic, not yellow.