Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[PureX]

Not everybody, clearly. And you do have to refute (falsify) the claims if you want to be certain. Looks like you're the direct equivalent of an agnostic atheist with respect to Bigfoot et al.

Only a fool is certain, or presumes they should be.

 

[PureX]

I must say, I seriously doubt that anyone is surprised that you flat out refuse to support your claim.

Why should I bother when you already believe it, yourself?

 

[McBell]

Why should I bother when you already believe it, yourself?

Ah, so now you are going to dictate to me what I believe..?
Sure why not.
It is much easier than supporting your claim...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You cannot, in fact, prove the non-existence of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie and so on.

Of course we can.

We can't prove anything absolutely.

I wonder if you can see the inconsistency?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And for many of us, we make the same argument for gods:

Thank you for proving my point.

You cannot claim that I "proved" your point by adding your own words into my quote -- which is what you did. You turned my quote, above, into "

And for many of us, we make the same (false equivalent) argument for gods:

Which is, of course, not what I said at all. That's most disingenuous.

 

[Koldo]

I don't have to because you and everyone else already believes they don't really exist. That's the whole point of trying to pass them off as an equivalent to God.

But why don't you believe in leprechauns and fairies?

 

[McBell]

But why don't you believe in leprechauns and fairies?

What makes you think they don't?

 

[PureX]

You cannot claim that I "proved" your point by adding your own words into my quote -- which is what you did. You turned my quote, above, into "

Which is, of course, not what I said at all. That's most disingenuous.

You did exactly what I accused atheists of doing. Thus, exemplifying and validating the observation I made. So, ... thanks.

 

[PureX]

You "critical thinkers" sure don't handle criticism well! These are the most childish and absurd responses I've seen since the last time I criticized ya'll. LOL

 

[McBell]

You "critical thinkers" sure don't handle criticism well! These are the most childish and absurd responses I've seen since the last time I criticized ya'll. LOL

Does this mean you are done making a fool of yourself and are going to fly home claiming victory?

 

[ratiocinator]

Only a fool is certain, or presumes they should be.

But your whole 'false equivalence' BS was based on proof (certainty):

The whole point of making these kinds of false equivalents is that they are false. If I can't prove that your God doesn't exist I'll equate it falsely to something that I can prove doesn't exist.

Hence, unless you can actually prove that Bigfoot, fairies and the like don't exist, your assertion can be dismissed.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does this mean you are done making a fool of yourself and are going to fly home claiming victory?

He can't. I already proclaimed myself winner of the thread...

 

[vijeno]

it is assumed already that they don't exist. Which is exactly why they are being used as a false equivalent.

I would say that the point of the comparison is (most often) that bigfoot (etc) is unfalsifiable.

The implicit argument is this: Bigfoot is unfalsifiable. You should not believe in things that are unfalsifiable. God is also unfalsifiable. Therefore, you should not believe in god.

Whether this is true of either bigfoot or god - or not - is beyond the scope of this thread.

But of course, comparisons have this pesky implicit part, so people can and have used the comparison in different ways. This is just the one I remember, and the way I might use it.

 

[Kenny]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

Personally, I believe it is a matter of the heart since it “could” be an honest attempt to understand but by and large, it isn’t.

I remember when I said, “Everyone interprets the Bible differently”. It was my “standby and catchall” because I hadn’t really digested the Bible.
I remember when I said, “There are so many different Christian sects” as a “standby and catchall” phrase because I didn’t understand the root causes of why there were differences.

And I wasn’t searching.

Of course there is the catchall phrase of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns and Spaghetti Monster because they really don’t care and don’t really want to delve deeper. Perhaps because they won’t like what they would see in themselves if they looked? Perhaps because they love darkness more than having their lives in the light? Perhaps because of horrible things that have happened in their lives and they blame God by denying HIs existence?

As a wise man said, “

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?​

 

[PureX]

But your whole 'false equivalence' BS was based on proof (certainty):


Hence, unless you can actually prove that Bigfoot, fairies and the like don't exist, your assertion can be dismissed.

Proof doesn't equal certainty except to fools that think their own convictions define the truth. Another popular false equivalence around here.

 

[ratiocinator]

You did exactly what I accused atheists of doing.

This is clearly factually untrue. The evidence is right here in the thread. Only you are going on about proving things don't exist, or even claiming that they don't, and you can't provide a proof for the things you claimed we're being used in that way.

Your whole approach here is to try to pretend that agnostic atheists are claiming that god doesn't exist and are using a "false equivalence" to make the point. What you've actually ended up doing is finding yourself in an exactly equivalent position with regard to Bigfoot etc. as atheists are in with respect to god(s); not believing but unable to disprove them.

You've neatly illustrated the point of making the comparison. You really couldn't make it up.

 

[PureX]

I would say that the point of the comparison is (most often) that bigfoot (etc) is unfalsifiable.

The implicit argument is this: Bigfoot is unfalsifiable. You should not believe in things that are unfalsifiable. God is also unfalsifiable. Therefore, you should not believe in god.

Whether this is true of either bigfoot or god - or not - is beyond the scope of this thread.

But of course, comparisons have this pesky implicit part, so people can and have used the comparison in different ways. This is just the one I remember, and the way I might use it.

Bigfoot is not unfalsifiable. We have defined it sufficiently to identify it if we observed it, and we know where and have access to where to look for it. So all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant. Same goes for any similar proposed entities.

But we cannot sufficiently define God, nor do we know where or how to look for it. So our not finding it is inevitable. And therefor proof of nothing except that we're unable to falsify the claim of God's existence.

You people are all smart enough to to understand all of this. So why are you fighting so hard to pretend ignorance? Are you all really that panic-stricken by the possibility of being found in the wrong?

 

[McBell]

Bigfoot is not unfalsifiable. We have defined it sufficiently to identify it if we observed it, and we know where and have access to where to look for it. So all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant. Same goes for any similar proposed entities.

But we cannot sufficiently define God, nor do we know where or how to look for it. So our not finding it is inevitable. And therefor proof of nothing except that we're unable to falsify the claim of God's existence.

You people are all smart enough to to understall all of this. So why are you fighting so hard to pretend ignorance?

Except that several people, many on this very forum, have defined god.
Some of them even go so far as to say their definition is the only definition for everyone.

 

[ratiocinator]

Bigfoot is not unfalsifiable. We have defined it sufficiently to identify it if we observed it, and we know where and have access to where to look for it. So all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant.

You can't look everywhere at once - and of course, fairies and leprechauns are magical. You're quibbling rather than facing up to the fact that you don't believe them but cannot disprove them. Hence you have no belief in these things but you cannot know that they don't exist.

Sound familiar?

And therefor proof of nothing except that we're unable to falsify the claim of God's existence.

Just as you are unable to falsify the existence of fairies. And who has claimed that we can falsify the existence of god? Hint: not most atheists.

You've perfectly illustrated agnostic atheism and the validity of the comparison. Thanks!

 

[PureX]

Except that several people, many on this very forum, have defined god.
Some of them even go so far as to say their definition is the only definition for everyone.

You also need to know where and how to look. Did they define that for you, too? Or did you just presume your own bias without ever actually investigating it.