• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invisible Pink Unicorn

Beerina said:
Calls to mind from childhood some of Green Lantern's foes, who had "invisible yellow force fields". If it's invisible, it's not yellow.
Click to expand...

I remember that from the 1970's unbelievably badly animated "Superfriends" cartoons. Green Lantern's archnemesis was a weedy little guy in blue tights, who had the best lines. "That's what you think, Superfools! Mwah hah hah." I used to quote that while debating religion in college. Muy sophisticated.

And I'm sorry to say I think the IPU might be dead. I found invisible pink bloodstains all over my garage floor. I believe the dragon there ate it.
 
We should only truly be concerned with the Great Taco In The Sky, anyway. For when you die, you will want a taco.
 
Wudang said:
I think the fact that the phrase "invisible pink unicorn" imbeds a logical inconsistency is essential. I think you miss the point. It works on so many levels.
Click to expand...

(case in point)

I was taught that it is just one of the mysteries of the IPU (pbuh) that you have to accept on faith.

OTOH, I should note that you folks seem to tempting fate by not including the "pbuh" (or pbuhhh, if you are of that sect) with Her name.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And I'm sorry to say I think the IPU might be dead. I found invisible pink bloodstains all over my garage floor. I believe the dragon there ate it.
Click to expand...

Nice try but he has risen again and a facsimile of your garage now adorns the front of all IPU temples.
 
TheERK said:
Using a theoretically impossible thing constructs a faulty analogy, and can only serve to confuse.
Click to expand...

And omnipotent God is not theoretically impossible? Omnipotent in the "can-do-absolutely-anything-with-no-limitations-at-all" sense, I mean.

Besides, it's incredibly trite. Use your imagination, folks.
Click to expand...

It is Traditional. The Invisible Pink Unicorn has been a staple part of internet argumentation at least since January, 1993 (that's the oldest reference that I found in Google newsgroup search).

[Edited to add: well, searching from better groups gives a post from March, 1992].
 
Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn

LW said:

It is Traditional. The Invisible Pink Unicorn has been a staple part of internet argumentation at least since January, 1993 (that's the oldest reference that I found in Google newsgroup search).

[Edited to add: well, searching from better groups gives a post from March, 1992].
Click to expand...

So it is written.... From ancient times.... So the IPU must be real. How could an ancient post be telling a non IPU inspired story?
I am convinced, I believe....

Wrong, I know ! Heretics burn! :j2: :roll:
 
If God can move a rock that He has make too heavy for Him to move, then the Invisible Pink Unicorn can make Himself visibly pink and still be the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn hold sway, not logic.

BJ
 
TragicMonkey
I remember that from the 1970's unbelievably badly animated "Superfriends" cartoons. Green Lantern's archnemesis was a weedy little guy in blue tights, who had the best lines. "That's what you think, Superfools! Mwah hah hah." I used to quote that while debating religion in college. Muy sophisticated.
Click to expand...
The weedy little guy in blue tights is Sinestro.

Go here for bio.

Fanboy at your service.
Ossai
 
Incidentally, it is a dragon, and not a unicorn. :)

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Source
Click to expand...

The point is not that there is an invisible fantasy animal of a certain color. The point is that woowoos will invent new excuses to a point where we cannot tell the difference between a dragon and no dragon at all:

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Click to expand...

I think it is a wonderfully effective analogy.
 
Dogwood said:
I think I know ERK's pain. I don't object to the use of the IPU, just the overuse. It's become such a kneejerk reaction to throw it out, that many believers just roll their eyes and ignore it. I just think it's lost it's effectiveness in it's ubiquity. Much in the same way that many posts are responded to in other overused and misused one-liners like:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Occam's Razor"

"Ad-hom. ho hum"

or just,

"Evidence?"

Not that these aren't legitimate responses for the most part, but they're frequently employed incorrectly in my opinion. I understand and share the frustration many of us have with trying to deal with some claimants who don't put much thought into their posts and ignore ours when we do. But I can also see why some believers have begun to look at such responses as mere cliches.
Click to expand...

What do you want to use instead?
 
TheERK said:
I don't think it's essential. Like I said, people usually use the IPU as an example of something that might exist, like a dragon in your garage, and then noting that no serious person would explicitly 'believe' in such a thing, despite its feasability.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the difference between an invisible dragon and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is one of feasability?

=====================

I like using IPU model for religion for three reasons.

A) Many (not all) Christians describe God as an omnipotent, omniscenent, eternal, all-loving Diety that can be surprised (Gen 3:8-11), tries to kill His own messenger (Ex 4:24-26), cannot defeat chariots of iron (Judges 1:19), etc. Having the IPU be pink demonstrates the contradictary nature of some fundamentalist descriptions of God

B) Some religionists get into fights with other religionists of the same denomination over things as absurd as whether God has a penis, whether the trinity is polytheism, etc. Fighting over the color of the IPU illustrates this absurdity.

C) It just makes sense to me. If you can't understand that the IPU must be pink, then I feel sorry for you and will pray for YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL. When we pass to a better place, our limited minds will be expanded to the point that we will understand the mystery of the IPU.

=====================
Piscavore
Down here in the Southwest we like our Intactile Fuzzy Jackalope
Click to expand...

I love it. Although it is heresy.
 
CFLarsen said:
What do you want to use instead?
Click to expand...

Argument.

When one has lost the patience for argument, silence.

When one cannot be silent, well crafted, original, devastating mockery.

Auto-responses are for bots, and politicians.
 
Dogwood said:
Argument.

When one has lost the patience for argument, silence.

When one cannot be silent, well crafted, original, devastating mockery.

Auto-responses are for bots, and politicians.
Click to expand...

They are not auto-responses. They are part of the argument. E.g. analogies can be very helpful explaining often very complex problems.

Just because they have been repeated a lot of times does not make them invalid or useless, especially because woowoos can't counter them.

Actually, I don't think your way is going to be very effective:

<hr>

Woo: "Blah blah blah..."

Skeptic: "Here's my argument...."

Woo: "Blah blah blah..."

Skeptic: "Ah, I don't have patience for your blah. I'll shut up now."

Woo: "Blah blah blah...See? The Skeptic has run out of arguments!"

Skeptic: "Well, you smell like old cheese!"

Woo: "Blah blah blah...See? The Skeptic has nothing to offer but insults!"

<hr>

For someone on the fence, who do you think came off more convincing?
 
Ladewig said:
C) It just makes sense to me. If you can't understand that the IPU must be pink, then I feel sorry for you and will pray for YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL. When we pass to a better place, our limited minds will be expanded to the point that we will understand the mystery of the IPU.
Click to expand...

Thank you! These poor souls just lack faith. Sometimes you just want to give up, and let them spend eternity being trampled by Her Holy Hooves.
 
Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence of this -- can this claim be tested?
 
Originally posted by CFLarsen
They are not auto-responses. They are part of the argument. E.g. analogies can be very helpful explaining often very complex problems.

Claus, the one-liners I provided are, in my opinion, examples of auto responses. Which I define as a brief reply that doesn't require much thought and has become widespread in its use to the point of predictability. None of them qualify as analogies. The IPU is a valid analogy, but it has also become somewhat annoying in its overusage in my opinion.

Of course they're part of the argument. It does not follow automatically that they are effective parts however.

Just because they have been repeated a lot of times does not make them invalid or useless, especially because woowoos can't counter them.

I did not say or imply they were invalid. I did not say or imply that they were useless. What I said in fact was,

"Not that these aren't legitimate responses for the most part, but they're frequently employed incorrectly in my opinion" "Legitimate", but adding misuse to overuse. Get it? Even if your point had any bearing on what I said, it wouldn't be relevant, because woowoos can't counter anything. That's why they're woowoos.

Actually, I don't think your way is going to be very effective:

(silly, contrived, and thoroughly misrepresentative non-example of what I was saying snipped)

For someone on the fence, who do you think came off more convincing?

That was pretty lame Claus. But to be fair, I'm not sure I even understand what your position is. So...

What exactly is your position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom