Religion Sub-Forum Moderation

I wish the moderators would sanction a vote and end this bile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that there should be a new law of discussion similiar to Godwin's Law where if the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Invisible Dragon in My Garage should ever be brought up then the argument is decided in the favor of the theist.

I'm seriously sick to the gills of hearing about this meme.
It was funny for a minute, but pales over time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. (Q) would be devastated if he could not evangelise about the pink unicorn (invisible) in his attack, I mean attic .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did I err in naming the unicorn? I was thinking that perhaps I did when I wrote of the next meme in the list (the original meme from which the others spawned, the Great Invisible Dragon in my Garage, created by the Late, Great Carl Sagan, pbuh. (Heh. I'm sure that he'd cringe at how so many people have gulped his words down whole. Completely contrary to his point....))

Anyway.
The Pink Unicorn is invisible, yes? But invisible is not part of its name?
Is that it?

 

Who cares what you call the analogy? Whats important is you show up the concept of religion for what it is.

 

You'd have to ask (Q). Its his unicorn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The analogy is fine. It's the endless parroting of the meme that I find annoying.

At least you introduced a new twist (even if still a pale imitation of Sagan's intent) with your sacred toilet paper, however you probably stole it from someone else, too.

It's annoying to see how easily the human mind is infected. And ironic to see the infection take hold so strongly in the group that believes it is fighting against such things.

Yes!
Follow your crowd!
It is good to follow the crowd!

 

Memes are the new religion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I didnt actually! believe it or not(I dont think most famous athiests are that harsh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), I started using oN THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT a couple of years back in an argument about the koraan . I expect someone has used it or something similar before, BUT Im not aware of them.

Yes it often is!

 

Sadly, this thread will result in nothing happening.

Which is, of course, the entire problem with the Religion forum: there's no point to having a Moderator, given that there's little moderation occurring in any case.

 

Well it does communicate the idea so effectively...

But I see what you mean. Variety would be nice.

 

I propose, "Invisible Sadist Dark Darling"

 

Old atheistic addages in new bottles

Actually it is not the pink invisible unicorn (or his counterpart the invisible hairy leprechaun), the FSM, what to speak of the newly arrived invisible fairy and toilet roll scriptures, that is the original prototype - it is Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

 

therefore its not unusual to encounter problems if one judges a genre by its extreme or worst stereotype

 

even though spurious is biased at least he is not intellectually dishonest

 

has there ever been a thread on sciforums that resulted in anything?
(apart from animosity, bewilderment etc)

 

Translation: Although SPURIOUS is biased he hasnt actually challenged my irrational nonsense.

 

I never said mine was the prototype, just that the toilet roll scriptures was a spontaneous analogy, not copied! Although its such a intuative progression that I wouldnt be surprised that many, many other people across the world have made it.

 

It obvious that bias (ie values) are unavoidable, particularly for one participating in a debate or heated discussion (not too many people seem to discuss the weather here, unless it is to assert that someone is "a dumb jackass" or "full of blathering BS")

this only becomes a problem when one cannot perceive it (in other words they assume ther stance is the platform of absolute neutrality)

The result of such a misconception is the inability to assert one's general principles ("hey there's nothing to assert, after all I am neutral") which often leads to coarse language and the like

 

LG"The result of such a misconception is the inability to assert one's general principles"

Maybe if I beat you about the head and threaten you with eternal hell you will get my general principles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!