UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 6 to Meditation 282
Pink Foolishness

by Jorge

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

It is possible I should let this rest. JT has disposed of invisible pink unicorns well enough in Meditation 299. Still... I like having the last word...

Sorry Thomas!

I regret I was too subtle for you in deciding to specifically attack "pink."

The key word in my comments was not "pink," but "strawman" in the sense "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted." (Definition from dictionary.com)

Immaterial invisible pink bunnies in space is a strawman argument. Like all strawman arguments, it avoids discussion of the real issues. Immaterial invisible pink bunnies in space contributes nothing to consideration of the existence of god or gods.

Gabriel writes:

(T)he case of the invisible, immaterial, undetectable pink bunnies makes: it is immaterial what the colour of the bunnies is"

Hey! You were the one to claim they were pink. Now you say color is immaterial. Then why make the claim?

I could have criticized your claim "bunnies", that is inconsistent with immaterial, invisible and in space; no doubt you would have said species is immaterial.

I could have criticized your claim "invisible", as that is inconsistent with pink and bunnies; no doubt you would have said visibility is immaterial.

I could have criticized your claim "immaterial", as that is inconsistent with pink, bunnies, and a specific location - in orbit about Saturn ; no doubt you would have said the location of the unlocatable is immaterial.

You are reduced to four irrelevant and mutually inconsistent claims about something supposedly in orbit about Saturn.

Eliminate the irrelevant and the inconsistent, and what is left? Something is in orbit about Saturn? Wow! I would have to agree with that.

That is not what you said. You said that something with four logically inconsistent properties is in a Saturn orbit. That means your claim can be dismissed out of hand without engaging in fruitless discussion about an exhaustive search.

Your claim contributes nothing to the consideration of the existence or non-existence of god or gods.

It is a stupid irrational strawman argument.

What can you expect from someone who seems to think incorrectly and illogically that all agnostics are equally agnostic about all gods?