PDA

View Full Version : The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH)



Pages : [1] 2

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 12:12 AM
An invisible pink unicorn.
It would be invisible

Desmond
29-11-2008, 11:17 AM
It would be invisibleMaybe, but a photo of an invisible object is not the same as a blank photo. Might give you a good view of what is standing behind the unicorn.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2008, 11:32 AM
It would be invisible
Or pink, but not both. But being logically challenged never stopped them before.

Rincewind
29-11-2008, 11:55 AM
Or pink, but not both. But being logically challenged never stopped them before.

If by "them" you mean christians, I'd have to agree. In fact, I'd say it is an advantage.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2008, 12:16 PM
If by "them" you mean christians, I'd have to agree. In fact, I'd say it is an advantage.
No, Christians follow Christ, the logos (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/); I meant atheopaths.

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 12:20 PM
Or pink, but not both. But being logically challenged never stopped them before.
maybe it can turn invisible when it wants to and when its not, its pink!

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2008, 01:15 PM
An invisible pink unicorn.

Done.

I found this image of the IPU online. I wish to make it clear that this is only what the IPU looks like to those who have seen it, whoever they are; to anyone else it is invisible.

When I found this IPU image a strange thing happened. The original was on a white background but in a file format unsuitable to be uploaded. When I copied the file and opened it in Photo Editor the background went black! Surely such an inexplicable miracle is proof that the IPU exists!

I wish to also make it clear that the pinkness of the IPU is an indication that the IPU supports gay marriage and will impale all supporters of Proposition 8 painfully on its invisible pink horn in the afterlife.

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 01:41 PM
Done.

I found this image of the IPU online. I wish to make it clear that this is only what the IPU looks like to those who have seen it, whoever they are; to anyone else it is invisible.

When I found this IPU image a strange thing happened. The original was on a white background but in a file format unsuitable to be uploaded. When I copied the file and opened it in Photo Editor the background went black! Surely such an inexplicable miracle is proof that the IPU exists!

I wish to also make it clear that the pinkness of the IPU is an indication that the IPU supports gay marriage and will impale all supporters of Proposition 8 painfully on its invisible pink horn in the afterlife.
wats an IPU??

Ian Murray
29-11-2008, 01:43 PM
wats an IPU??
:rolleyes: See Post 42

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2008, 01:46 PM
Done.
I can see it, ergo it's visible :P

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2008, 01:53 PM
I can see it, ergo it's visible :P

But that's not actually the unicorn itself; it's just an image of what it looks like. So all that is visible to you is the avatar. Unless you have seen the (pink) light and converted to the faith of the IPU.

Tony: IPU = Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 03:58 PM
:rolleyes: See Post 42
Isn't that my post? I don't get it...

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2008, 04:58 PM
But that's not actually the unicorn itself; it's just an image of what it looks like.
If it's invisible, then it doesn't look like anything.

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 05:01 PM
If it's invisible, then it doesn't look like anything.
Maybe it looks like something but you can;t see it

Miranda
29-11-2008, 07:44 PM
The whole point of the IPU is that you can't prove it exists or doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist.

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2008, 08:04 PM
If it's invisible, then it doesn't look like anything.

But it's only invisible to you and to others who refuse to exercise their free choice to believe in it. They'll be sorry.

Miranda
29-11-2008, 08:17 PM
Jono, this is what you and other non-believers see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/5f/20070213235511!Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.png
The Unicorn herself (bbhhh)

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 08:33 PM
Jono, this is what you and other non-believers see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/5f/20070213235511!Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.png
The Unicorn herself (bbhhh)
Thats not funny...

Miranda
29-11-2008, 10:25 PM
Thats not funny...
It's not supposed to be. It's the truth.

Space_Dude
29-11-2008, 11:48 PM
It's not supposed to be. It's the truth.
Exactly, truth is never funny.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 12:09 AM
The whole point of the IPU is that you can't prove it exists or doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist.
The whole problem is that invisible and pink are mutually incompatible, while none of the attributes of God are. So it's a moronic analogy.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 12:11 AM
But it's only invisible to you and to others who refuse to exercise their free choice to believe in it.
So provide evidence for this postmodernist concept that's strong enough to convince you that such a thing exists.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 12:12 AM
The Unicorn herself (bbhhh)
It's not pink.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 12:56 AM
So provide evidence for this postmodernist concept that's strong enough to convince you that such a thing exists.

If the IPU is postmodernist then so is Christianity[1]. Oh, and I presented a proof on the DGE thread that was clumsily expressed and riddled with holes but still better than most ontological arguments. :lol:

[1] Actually there is more to this than might appear. One of the common arguments of non-theist non-postmodernists against postmodernism is that the embrace of irrationality and rejection of the projects of modernity found in much of postmodernism has an easy ally in religious fundamentalism.

Rincewind
30-11-2008, 12:58 AM
So it's a moronic analogy.

Since it is an analogy of Christianity, I'd be surprised if it wasn't moronic.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 01:01 AM
Have moved all IPU posts here except those in DGE.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 01:03 AM
The whole problem is that invisible and pink are mutually incompatible, while none of the attributes of God are.

Plenty are, but your scriptural axiom prevents you from acknowledging it.

Miranda
30-11-2008, 09:40 AM
It's not pink.
Jono, when you look at that, you see nothing.

When I look at that, I see the Unicorn. :)

MichaelBaron
30-11-2008, 09:50 AM
Many Russians have been seeing pink unicorns lately. Once you drink a large bottle of vodka, the unicorns become visible and very friendly :) :owned:

Ian Murray
30-11-2008, 03:39 PM
Some time before the dawn of time ....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7TagemN7kkw

Zwischenzug
30-11-2008, 05:23 PM
How do you know if it is even a unicorn if it's invisible??

Desmond
30-11-2008, 05:41 PM
How do you know if it is even a unicorn if it's invisible??
Are you calling it a liar?

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Since it is an analogy of Christianity, I'd be surprised if it wasn't moronic.
It's a moronic invention of atheopaths with far too much time on their hands, which would be better used to study the genuine teachings of Christianity rather than their ignorant straw men.

Zwischenzug
30-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Are you calling it a liar?

If you one day heard a voice come out of nowhere saying "I'm a a unicorn. I'm invisible and I'm pink", would you believe it?

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 05:45 PM
When I look at that, I see the Unicorn. :)
That explains a few things :P These rose-coloured glasses have a lot to answer for.

Desmond
30-11-2008, 05:47 PM
If you one day heard a voice come out of nowhere saying "I'm a a unicorn. I'm invisible and I'm pink", would you believe it?The voice didn't come from nowhere, it came from an IPU.

Zwischenzug
30-11-2008, 05:49 PM
The voice didn't come from nowhere, it came from an IPU.

Whether it is a IPU depends if you believe it. There is no evidence that it is a IPU beyond it's word.

Desmond
30-11-2008, 05:51 PM
Whether it is a IPU depends if you believe it. There is no evidence that it is a IPU beyond it's word.
What if someone else heard it and wrote a book about it a long time ago?

Space_Dude
30-11-2008, 06:05 PM
How do you know if it is even a unicorn if it's invisible??
Maybe you can see it using a thermal camera or infred night vision goggles.

Zwischenzug
30-11-2008, 06:06 PM
What if someone else heard it and wrote a book about it a long time ago?

Well, the idea of a IPU would sound highly unlikely (albeit not impossible) and there is no doubt that many initially would denounce the author of that book as a loon. However, it is quite impressive how a seemingly impossible story can grow to having more than a billion believers. Not only more than a billion believers, entire societies built around the existence of the IPU and it's laws. I wonder, what is more important, the IPU's laws or the existence of the IPU itself?

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 06:16 PM
It's a moronic invention of atheopaths with far too much time on their hands, which would be better used to study the genuine teachings of Christianity rather than their ignorant straw men.

Well here goes Jono straw-manning the atheism of the popularisers of the IPU as pathological when it almost certainly isn't (junk psychiatry to go with his junk fascist references in other debates) while at the same time preaching against straw-manning of the "genuine" (ie those he agrees with and considers to be scripturally supported) teachings of Christianity.

Utterly inconsistent, but really nothing much new there. :rolleyes:

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 06:27 PM
Oh, and I presented a proof on the DGE thread that was clumsily expressed and riddled with holes but still better than most ontological arguments.
Ah yes, an admission of poor argumentation, and assertions that others are worse is no excuse.


Plenty are, but your scriptural axiom prevents you from acknowledging it.
Nothing in the attributes of God is self-contradictory, but pink and invisible can't both be true of the same thing at the same time and manner.


Well here goes Jono straw-manning the atheism of the popularisers of the IPU as pathological
Oh stop your pathetic whinging—we're not in England. I didn't see you whinge when Dawko and Rincy called the Christian faith a disease of the mind, although Rincy's neologism was far less elegant than mine. And if you want to support childish village atheist games like the IPU, don't blame Christians for pointing out its crassness.


when it almost certainly isn't (junk psychiatry to go with his junk fascist references in other debates)
More likely, you're trying to avoid the implications of Gay-stapo radicals bullying and intimidating those they can't persuade to accept their re-definition of marriage, and vandalism of churches. It should be obvious: just think of the Leftmedia uproar if Mormons or Christians were vandalizing gay bars and bullying their customers.


while at the same time preaching against straw-manning of the "genuine" (ie those he agrees with and considers to be scripturally supported) teachings of Christianity.
And which I can support by the grammatical/historical analysis of Scripture, unlike the postmodernist crap by my opponents.


Utterly inconsistent, but really nothing much new there. :rolleyes:
What really is inconsistent is professing to be a Christian yet not following or believing what Christ said, or playing postmodernist and pretending that we can't know.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2008, 07:08 PM
Maybe you can see it using a thermal camera or infred night vision goggles.
Infrared is not pink; it's too long a wavelength for our eyes to pick up.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 07:36 PM
Ah yes, an admission of poor argumentation, and assertions that others are worse is no excuse.

Gee, with lines like this one could be mistaken for thinking that you actually seriously think we reckon the arguments for the IPU are sound.

Of course my IPU proof was nonsense and in my lead-in to it I dropped extremely unsubtle hints that I knew it was such. But the thing is that I am quite open about this (although my version did have one more hole than I immediately realised) whereas those silly enough to take the traditional ontological arguments seriously (or employ them) are not.


Nothing in the attributes of God is self-contradictory,

Ipse dixit


but pink and invisible can't both be true of the same thing at the same time and manner.

Ah, but who said they were? Where does the term "invisible pink unicorn" explicitly require that the IPU is pink and invisible at the same time and same manner?


Oh stop your pathetic whinging—we're not in England.

Well we're not in America either, although one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise given the source of so much of your cut and pasted propaganda.

The point is consistency and your abject lack of it. You don't like it when a view is called Christian that does not accord with your own interpretations but you are quite happy spouting all manner of misleading or unproven gibberish about atheism and particular atheists.

You are also all too happy to call others mimophants on often dubious pretences, but your own behaviour (woefully stereotyping the views and nature of others and attacking objections to this as "whinging", but getting prickly if you think your faith is being misrepresented) is about as mimophantic as anything I have ever seen on the 'net excluding certified trolls.


I didn't see you whinge when Dawko and Rincy called the Christian faith a disease of the mind, although Rincy's neologism was far less elegant than mine.

I'm not sure any neologism could be less elegant than "misotheist". So far as I am aware Richard Dawkins is not a member of this forum so I should hardly be blamed if you dragged some poor idea of his here to dispose of it and I declined to waste time and bandwidth on a me-too. I have criticised Dawkins many times in the past including on his trendy "memes" rubbish. As for Rincewind I am not even aware which particular flamewar you're referring to now so please provide me a link to the objectionable exchange or term and I'll be glad to check it out.


And if you want to support childish village atheist games like the IPU, don't blame Christians for pointing out its crassness.

Crassness is your dumb terms like "Gay-stapo", "homonazi", "atheopath" and other such cheap gibberish unfit for intelligent political debate. Crassness is the concept of Hell and the idea that an all-good God might send people there for failing to "choose" to believe in It* (even though "choosing to believe" is an absurdity.) Crassness is the crude uninformative creationist aping of taxonomy that you continue to endorse.

So if the IPU is crass then it has probably hit its mark.

(* Not saying this is your view but it is certainly part of the spectrum of views that the IPU satirises.)

But even if it's crass and you think pointing out its crassness could be anything but an own goal, then stick to pointing out its crassness. Instead you are again using your dumb word "atheopath" that implies that there is something pathologically hateful about finding your ridiculous dogma (and that of other monotheists) a bit of a joke.


More likely, you're trying to avoid the implications of Gay-stapo[sic] radicals bullying and intimidating those they can't persuade to accept their re-definition of marriage, and vandalism of churches.

More complete rubbish. Violent behaviour occurs in almost any political movement under certain circumstances and it is possible to condemn it without resorting to melodramatic comparisons that undermine your criticism by rendering aspects of it suspect.


And which I can support by the grammatical/historical analysis of Scripture, unlike the postmodernist crap by my opponents.

Whether you can do that or not is not the issue. What's the issue is your inconsistency in objecting so vigorously to claimed misrepresentations of Christianity while being so willing to use cheap slurs to misrepresent many atheists.


What really is inconsistent is professing to be a Christian yet not following or believing what Christ said, or playing postmodernist and pretending that we can't know.

That may or may be inconsistent as well but that is a separate issue.
I suggest you fix up your own woefully inconsistent act first before attempting to pursue it.

Furthermore, stereotyping the view that we cannot know what Christ said as "postmodernist" does no wonders for your credibility when questioning of whether Christ actually said particular things attributed to Christ is hardly confined to postmodernists. Indeed, postmodernists are more likely to argue that it is hard or impossible to know what particular comments mean than to be at all concerned about the authenticity of the text.

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 12:20 AM
It is self-evident that the IPU is invisible, otherwise we would be able to see her

Her pinkness is a leap of faith, accepted by believers in bona fides

CameronD
03-12-2008, 12:43 AM
Now I haven't being following this dribble at all, but maybe...

Just because something is invisible doesn't mean you cant touch it.
So maybe you pluck a feather.
After a day, the invisibility wears off and you see that the feather is pink.

And you know its a unicorn by touching it or carefully doing a cast of it!!

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 07:36 AM
Now I haven't being following this dribble at all, but maybe...

Just because something is invisible doesn't mean you cant touch it.
So maybe you pluck a feather.
After a day, the invisibility wears off and you see that the feather is pink.

And you know its a unicorn by touching it or carefully doing a cast of it!!
Theoretically sound, except of course unicorns don't have feathers

Rincewind
03-12-2008, 08:04 AM
Theoretically sound, except of course unicorns don't have feathers

Come on Ian, haven't you heard of horse feathers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023027/)?

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 08:12 AM
Come on Ian, haven't you heard of horse feathers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023027/)?

The fact that horses have feathers is unchallenged. However only an agent of the Purple Oyster (of Doom) would attempt to equate the Galloping Goddess with something as mundane, as plodding as a horse.

Rincewind
03-12-2008, 08:36 AM
The fact that horses have feathers is unchallenged. However only an agent of the Purple Oyster (of Doom) would attempt to equate the Galloping Goddess with something as mundane, as plodding as a horse.

It was a stretch I admit but ni my defense I have to admit to liking the work of the Marx Brothers.

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 08:57 AM
It was a stretch I admit but ni my defense I have to admit to liking the work of the Marx Brothers.
The stuff of night-mares. See also A Day at the Races:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ZpJkK-ZbM

Desmond
03-12-2008, 09:00 AM
It was a stretch I admit but ni my defense I have to admit to liking the work of the Marx Brothers.
In your defence? I though that was the charge.

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 04:07 PM
In relation to invisble and pink being mutually inconsistent, I don't think this is sound.

Put a red M&M on a table, now turn of all the lights so that you can no longer see the M&M (i.e. M&M is invisible). What colour is the M&M? Blue of course!

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 05:21 PM
In relation to invisble and pink being mutually inconsistent, I don't think this is sound.

Put a red M&M on a table, now turn of all the lights so that you can no longer see the M&M (i.e. M&M is invisible). What colour is the M&M? Blue of course!

But only because everything turns blue when the lights are turned off, as any moviegoer can attest.

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 05:58 PM
But only because everything turns blue when the lights are turned off, as any moviegoer can attest.
Nice!

Sinister
03-12-2008, 06:50 PM
this is a pointless and stupid thread

Space_Dude
03-12-2008, 07:00 PM
this is a pointless and stupid thread
Actually its not! this helps to find the answer for the existance of our lord saviour God!

Sinister
03-12-2008, 07:36 PM
Actually its not! this helps to find the answer for the existance of our lord saviour God!
whatever keeps you entertained:rolleyes:

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 08:33 PM
this is a pointless and stupid thread

Such an attitude by non-believers is all too common. You should be thankful that the Galloping Goddess is not vindictive

How do you explain her divine intervention from time to time in laundries across the world? The magical transcolouration of socks to pink is a sure sign of her presence.

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2008, 09:01 PM
Another sign of the IPU's gifts to humanity is the way loose pink chesspieces still show up in otherwise normal chess sets even in clubs where transfer is banned (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=6949&postcount=20).

Ian Murray
03-12-2008, 10:40 PM
Another sign of the IPU's gifts to humanity is the way loose pink chesspieces still show up in otherwise normal chess sets even in clubs where transfer is banned. (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=6949&postcount=20)

So true, so true. Like the blessed pink socks, those ubiquitous pink pieces should be held in awe and treated as holy relics. It saddens me to see pink kings sans cranial crosses and pink rooks with eroded embrasures.

morebeer
04-12-2008, 08:20 AM
And one of the IPU's acolytes makes a cameo appearance in the directors cut of Bladerunner.

Rincewind
04-12-2008, 08:51 AM
And one of the IPU's acolytes makes a cameo appearance in the directors cut of Bladerunner.

Nice.

Ian Murray
04-12-2008, 09:17 AM
And one of the IPU's acolytes makes a cameo appearance in the directors cut of Bladerunner.
Not having seen the director's cut, that was a bit deep for me. However a bit of googling brought me up to speed on Deckard's unicorn dream. I'll have to get the DVD now

Nice!

Rincewind
04-12-2008, 09:43 AM
Not having seen the director's cut, that was a bit deep for me. However a bit of googling brought me up to speed on Deckard's unicorn dream. I'll have to get the DVD now

Also look out for the origami unicorn.

Ian Murray
04-12-2008, 10:19 AM
Also look out for the origami unicorn.
Roger. Pink paper I trust?

Miranda
04-12-2008, 10:19 AM
Roger. Pink paper I trust?
Or invisible paper?

Ian Murray
04-12-2008, 10:34 AM
Or invisible paper?
Only the IPU herself (blessed be her holy hooves) is invisible (as well as intangible and inaudible). Icons, graven images and similar objects in her likeness are visible, albeit at times only to the faithful.

Ian Murray
04-12-2008, 10:42 AM
The attached image is a simple test of faith

Ian Murray
04-12-2008, 06:53 PM
Not having seen the director's cut, that was a bit deep for me. However a bit of googling brought me up to speed on Deckard's unicorn dream. I'll have to get the DVD now

Can't allow any grass to grow underfoot:

DVDOWN UNDER PTY LTD
Your Order includes the following items:
=====================================
ITEM: Blade Runner: Director's Cut - Special Edition
Units: 1
Price: $13.90 each
Line Total: $13.90
Stock Status: [Available: ships approx. 1-3 days]

morebeer
05-12-2008, 08:13 AM
Can't allow any grass to grow underfoot:

DVDOWN UNDER PTY LTD
Your Order includes the following items:
=====================================
ITEM: Blade Runner: Director's Cut - Special Edition
Units: 1
Price: $13.90 each
Line Total: $13.90
Stock Status: [Available: ships approx. 1-3 days]

This is the version to own...Scott fixed a lot of little details that really annoyed me like the scene where Roy dies and utters his final words:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die".

...in the original version the background looks like some semi-industrial area in Moorabbin, (sorry for the Melbocentric reference for non Victorians)...In the definitive cut, the background has a suitable techno-gothic feel.

Now back to invisible pink unicorns.

Ian Murray
05-12-2008, 10:18 AM
This is the version to own...
I trust your judgement implicitly :D

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 06:08 PM
In relation to invisble and pink being mutually inconsistent, I don't think this is sound.
It's obvious.


Put a red M&M on a table, now turn of all the lights so that you can no longer see the M&M (i.e. M&M is invisible).
No one doubts this. But it can't be both red and invisible at the same time, in the same part, and in the same sense.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 06:11 PM
this is a pointless and stupid thread
Of course. It's just something by pretentious village atheists with too much time on their hands and pretending that it's a real argument.

Of course, the likes of Miranda are deluded that Christianity = fideism, which Ian Murray evidently knows all about, but of course this is not true. See for example my article Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/).

Kaitlin
09-12-2008, 07:29 PM
Where can you buy them :)

Rincewind
09-12-2008, 07:55 PM
See for example my article Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/).

this is a pointless and stupid article. :)

ElevatorEscapee
09-12-2008, 07:58 PM
^^^ Nice to see that Axiom gets a mention! ;) :lol:

Edit, I loved the "Yes Minister" reference, but it doesn't seem to quite work in supporting the argument. :)

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2008, 08:29 PM
this is a pointless and stupid article. :)
What assessment can you expect from someone who loves postmodern interpretation and oxymoronic invisible and pink things to real logic?

ElevatorEscapee
09-12-2008, 09:07 PM
What assessment can you expect from someone who loves postmodern interpretation and oxymoronic invisible and pink things to real logic?

Umm, maybe a religious assessment? ;)

Ian Murray
09-12-2008, 09:12 PM
Umm, maybe a religious assessment? ;)

This is the wrong thread for religious prosyletisation - try DGE maybe

For information releveant to IPU see
www.infidels.org
www.geocities.com/ipu_temple

Adamski
09-12-2008, 11:20 PM
this is a pointless and stupid article. :)That's IMO a pointless and stupid one-liner dismissal of a well-thought out article.

Rincewind
09-12-2008, 11:20 PM
What assessment can you expect from someone who loves postmodern interpretation and oxymoronic invisible and pink things to real logic?

Not really it is not particularly well written nor convincingly argued.

The open paragraph basically poisons the well by saying that there is good reason and bad reason. Bad reason is when you look at the bible and see the inconsistencies. This is flawed because we know the scriptures are perfect, right? Then there is good reason. That's when you accept what is in the scripture and derive the sort of things we should via "good and necessary consequence from Scripture".

Of course there is no good reason or bad reason, there is just reason. If you hold logical reason to be a valid form of argument then you should accept that from true premises and valid arguments then you get true conclusions. If you are confident that an argument is valid and that the conclusion is false then then problem must be with your axioms (i.e. scripture). But Jono awake to this possibility, labels such form of argument as magisterial use of reason and is strictly verboten.

So the magisterial/ministerial definition is nothing more than a 2 cent parlor trick looking to protect the axioms from question while at the same time enabling the use of logic. However it falls flat because either you must allow the possibility of a valid arguments producing a constradictory conclusions. If you were not scared of this possibility, then there would be no need to try to introduce the magisterial/ministerial divide.

Then the article goes on to make some very selective quoting from the good book which might seem convincing to those already sharing your view but hardly any sort of argument at all for anyone else. In fact this just highlights the greatest shortcoming of your whole article, which are

(1) How do you decide which scripture to accept or reject. You have a 66 book bible, catholics have another set, eastern orthodox another again. This is just christians, you also have all the other religions with their scripture which is all as perfectly acceptable as axioms as your very restrictive bible. You can't just arbitrarily accept 1,000 pages as "axioms" for no reason and expect others to come along for the ride.

(2) Then you have you distinct methodology which you call something like a "historical/grammatical" methodology. You attempt rather unsuccessfully to claim the moral high ground for your methodology with you appeal to Luther, but as you point out, this is not the only, or even the mainstream methodology for interpretation of christian scripture. It is again a completely arbitrary choice you have made and it asks those looking to interpret scripture to ignore everything except what they read in the bible. The mainstream position is that the bible must be interpreted in the light of human understanding of the natural world because god created both and therefore they cannot be inconsistent.

I don't accept either view as I don't buy into the 66 books of axioms that must be accepted on blind faith, but the mainstream methodology certainly has something going for it, it doesn't require you to check in all of your brain at the door of the church.

Rincewind
09-12-2008, 11:30 PM
That's IMO a pointless and stupid one-liner dismissal of a well-thought out article.

I guess you have a smiley blind spot. I was actually parodying Nexus post from earlier this thread. For a more complete demolition of Jono's article see above.

As stated the article relies heavily on quoting from scripture as a method of argument. This might make like minded christians (that is a minority of christians since as I pointed out Jono's methodology of scriptural interpretation is fringe) it will have no impact or turn off anyone not already convinced of Jono's position in the first place.

A summary of the main problems for Jono is that

(1) The magisterial/ministerial divide is a artifice which kills the use of logic and therefore removes the cornerstone of the article's intent.

(2) The choice of axioms is completely arbitrary and cannot be justified. Anyone can just as easily believe in the holy scripture of the IPU.

(3) As already stated earlier, Jono method of interpretation is fringe and his choice in using it compared to anything else is just as arbitrary as his choice of axioms.

None of this is new. Jono and I were arguing this very point in the DGE thread until he stopped replying to my last post on the topic (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=220229&postcount=3197).

Desmond
09-12-2008, 11:34 PM
RW mentioning minority of Christians reminds me of something I had been meaning to ask.

I read somewhere that there are about 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1b of which are Catholic. However Jono seems to be a lot more selective and does not consider many (most?) of those people to be Christian.

Jono, how many Christians would you say there are in the world?

Rincewind
09-12-2008, 11:40 PM
Jono, how many Christians would you say there are in the world?

I tried to ask Jono a very similar question in the middle of this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=220841&postcount=191).


So which major denomination commonly regarded as christian are non-christian by your narrow definition?

I'm still waiting for a response.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 12:19 AM
Not really it is not particularly well written nor convincingly argued.
Perhaps Rincy thinks that affirming the consequent isn't a fallacy for example.


The open paragraph basically poisons the well by saying that there is good reason and bad reason. Bad reason is when you look at the bible and see the inconsistencies. This is flawed because we know the scriptures are perfect, right? Then there is good reason. That's when you accept what is in the scripture and derive the sort of things we should via "good and necessary consequence from Scripture".
Of course; Christians should follow Christ who said "Scripture cannot be broken".


Of course there is no good reason or bad reason, there is just reason.
Not at all. Valid reasoning from a false premise can't guarantee a true conclusion.


If you hold logical reason to be a valid form of argument then you should accept that from true premises and valid arguments then you get true conclusions.
Which my article says!


If you are confident that an argument is valid and that the conclusion is false then then problem must be with your axioms (i.e. scripture).
Not that Rincy provides any example.


But Jono awake to this possibility, labels such form of argument as magisterial use of reason and is strictly verboten.
Makes sense: why should the ever changing theories of man overturn the revealed word of God?


So the magisterial/ministerial definition is nothing more than a 2 cent parlor trick looking to protect the axioms from question while at the same time enabling the use of logic.
Rather, it accepts that God knows every true premise, so what He has revealed in Scripture is a sensible axiom. Man doesn't know everything, and indeed many things once thought to be true are now known not to be, so it's presumptuous to think that God's Word can be overturned by fallible man's claims of knowledge.


However it falls flat because either you must allow the possibility of a valid arguments producing a constradictory conclusions.
As my article says, in the reductio ad absurdum section.


Then the article goes on to make some very selective quoting from the good book which might seem convincing to those already sharing your view but hardly any sort of argument at all for anyone else.
Rincy just doesn't like Christians who reject the convenient fideistic straw man, which it seems is what people like Miranda picked up at her churchian schools. Conversely, at least one lady came to real faith in Christ saying (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158/#lita):


Dr Sarfati’s article, Loving God with All Your Mind: Logic and Creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860), helped me realize that true faith and intelligence aren’t mutually exclusive.


(1) How do you decide which scripture to accept or reject. You have a 66 book bible, catholics have another set, eastern orthodox another again.
They are wrong, as I show in The authority of Scripture (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2888/).


This is just christians, you also have all the other religions with their scripture which is all as perfectly acceptable as axioms as your very restrictive bible.
They are wrong. The Christian religion was founded by a Resurrected Saviour; (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3013#resurrection) the founders of other religions rotted in their tombs.


You can't just arbitrarily accept 1,000 pages as "axioms" for no reason and expect others to come along for the ride.
Who said they were accepted for no reason? They are self-consistent and make sense of the world, and can be accepted on the grounds that Christ did so, and proved His credentials by rising from the dead.


(2) Then you have you distinct methodology
That would be "method"; KB corrects people on this.

which you call something like a "historical/grammatical" methodology. [/QUOTE]
Which is hardly my invention. It's probably what you would use to interpret most books, and how you would like me to interpret what you write. But the Rincy style of interpretation would allow us to interpret the above as "Rincy likes mud wrestling with carrots sticking up his nose."


You attempt rather unsuccessfully to claim the moral high ground for your methodology with you appeal to Luther, but as you point out, this is not the only, or even the mainstream methodology for interpretation of christian scripture.
Yes it is, when the entirety of Christian history is considered. Not that Rincy cares.


It is again a completely arbitrary choice you have made and it asks those looking to interpret scripture to ignore everything except what they read in the bible. The mainstream position is that the bible must be interpreted in the light of human understanding of the natural world because god created both and therefore they cannot be inconsistent.
You mean, the modern liberal position that huffs and puffs to catch up to the latest bandwagon just as the wheels are falling off.


I don't accept either view as I don't buy into the 66 books of axioms that must be accepted on blind faith, but the mainstream methodology certainly has something going for it, it doesn't require you to check in all of your brain at the door of the church.
Yet Rincy has no time for this either; he regards such compromising appeasers (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6105/)the same way Lenin regarded "useful idiots" in the west.

Rincewind
10-12-2008, 12:52 AM
Perhaps Rincy thinks that affirming the consequent isn't a fallacy for example.

Perhaps Jono thinks replying to someone in the third person somehow makes a point. Rincy doesn't think so.


Of course; Christians should follow Christ who said "Scripture cannot be broken".

But which scriptures and which christians? The point is there are many and many are using a different set of scriptures.

Also if the reader is already a christian by your narrow definition then what is the point. You're preaching to the converted like Adamski.


Not at all. Valid reasoning from a false premise can't guarantee a true conclusion.

Well der.


Which my article says!

Yes, the fact that you contradict yourself is not very surprising.


Not that Rincy provides any example.

There is no example you would accept as you have discounted magisterial use of reason as a bad thing.


Makes sense: why should the ever changing theories of man overturn the revealed word of God?

We are talking about the use of logic for the christian. You are saying it helps but how can it help if you require it to be restricted in its application.

I'm not talking about the changing theories of man. I'm talking about valid reasoning from your set of axioms.


Rather, it accepts that God knows every true premise, so what He has revealed in Scripture is a sensible axiom. Man doesn't know everything, and indeed many things once thought to be true are now known not to be, so it's presumptuous to think that God's Word can be overturned by fallible man's claims of knowledge.

As pointed out it kills logic by preventing reductio ad absurdum from being applied to scripture. Given that restriction your only option is to believe mutually inconsistent conclusions.


As my article says, in the reductio ad absurdum section.

So why do you seek to protect scripture from reductio ad absurdum?


Rincy just doesn't like Christians who reject the convenient fideistic straw man, which it seems is what people like Miranda picked up at her churchian schools. Conversely, at least one lady came to real faith in Christ saying (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158/#lita):


Dr Sarfati’s article, Loving God with All Your Mind: Logic and Creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860), helped me realize that true faith and intelligence aren’t mutually exclusive.

:lol: Thanks Jono that is the best laugh I've had all day.


They are wrong, as I show in The authority of Scripture (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2888/).

Of course they are. Everyone else is wrong and you're right and you can prove it using your arbitrary methodology.


They are wrong. The Christian religion was founded by a Resurrected Saviour; (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3013#resurrection) the founders of other religions rotted in their tombs.

Yep, they're wrong, your right. If the lack of a body is a guarantee of divinity then Donald Mackay must have been the second coming.


Who said they were accepted for no reason? They are self-consistent and make sense of the world, and can be accepted on the grounds that Christ did so, and proved His credentials by rising from the dead.

Yep, and every other set of scripture in existence has a similar meaning to their followers.


That would be "method"; KB corrects people on this.

Perhaps you'd best leave that to KB then. ;) Still sticking to writing on things you know something about is not your strong suit.


Which is hardly my invention. It's probably what you would use to interpret most books, and how you would like me to interpret what you write. But the Rincy style of interpretation would allow us to interpret the above as "Rincy likes mud wrestling with carrots sticking up his nose."

More nonsense statements on interpretation. You avoid the problem that your methodology is definitely fringe and arbitrary.


Yes it is, when the entirety of Christian history is considered. Not that Rincy cares.

Ipse dixit (on both counts).


You mean, the modern liberal position that huffs and puffs to catch up to the latest bandwagon just as the wheels are falling off.

Yep such radical postmodernists like all the catholics and all the anglicians.


Yet Rincy has no time for this either; he regards such compromising appeasers (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6105/)the same way Lenin regarded "useful idiots" in the west.

I don't find them that useful and certainly less idiotic than your position of denial.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 01:18 AM
That would be "method"; KB corrects people on this.

Actually Rincewind had this one right.

The so-called historical/grammatical approach is a body of theory about how to go about inquiry in a particular area. As such it is indeed a "methodology", as opposed to "method" which refers to the way in which a given approach is implemented in a given case.

Aaron Guthrie
10-12-2008, 01:18 AM
Some comments on what seems to me to be a major problem with the article, namely the way it deals with axioms.
All philosophical systems rely on logical deductions from starting assumptions—axioms—which, by definition, cannot be proven from prior assumption.Foundationalism is not uncontentious. Also why limit oneself to deductions?
For our axioms, it is rational to accept the propositions revealed by the infallible God in the 66 books of the Bible.And this is a very strange foundation. It doesn't seem to be a self evident truth that the Bible is true. Further this sentence indicates that the Bible is not the bottom of the series of justification, for it appeals to rationality (for belief in the Bible). That is to say, rationality comes, in the chain of justification, before the Bible.
Arguments can be either deductive or inductive. Deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the particular. Inductive arguments reason from a finite set of examples to a general rule. Deductive arguments are the most important, so I will concentrate on them below.It is dubious that one can deduce ones way to very many/any contigent propositions. Unless one starts by assuming their truth. In this context non-deductive reasoning is very important. Otherwise, as Rincewind points out, one could just as well have any old set of axioms (perhaps with a consistency requirement).

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 09:19 AM
Also why limit oneself to deductions?
Why not? Induction is a logical fallacy.


And this is a very strange foundation. It doesn't seem to be a self evident truth that the Bible is true.
It's not self-evident in modal logic that p → □◊p, the distinctive axiom of the Brouwer system, or that □p → □□P in S4, or ◊p → □◊p for S5.


Further this sentence indicates that the Bible is not the bottom of the series of justification, for it appeals to rationality (for belief in the Bible). That is to say, rationality comes, in the chain of justification, before the Bible.
Rationality is not an axiom, since axioms are propositions while rationality or logic concerns with valid deductions from them.


Otherwise, as Rincewind points out, one could just as well have any old set of axioms (perhaps with a consistency requirement).
Yes, that's the thing. Consistency is vital.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 09:24 AM
Actually Rincewind had this one right.
I think not, as below.


The so-called historical/grammatical
What would you prefer for a method that takes the grammatical and historical context of a passage?


approach is a body of theory about how to go about inquiry in a particular area. As such it is indeed a "methodology", as opposed to "method" which refers to the way in which a given approach is implemented in a given case.
Really? Grammatical-historical is normally called a "method" of interpretation, not a study of method. The field of hermeneutics would be methodology, since it includes the grammatical historical interpretation as well as other methods.

Rincewind
10-12-2008, 11:03 AM
Jono, how many Christians would you say there are in the world?

As Jono continues to avoid this question perhaps we could speculate. This might even be worth its own thread.

Anyway, as for my speculation I'd like to lock in "1" thanks Eddie. :D

Ian Murray
10-12-2008, 11:17 AM
As Jono continues to avoid this question perhaps we could speculate. This might even be worth its own thread.

Anyway, as for my speculation I'd like to lock in "1" thanks Eddie. :D
There is still a handful of brave souls holding the line, prepared to die for their beliefs (although preferring to see others doing the dying).

See www.kelticklankirk.com/militias_christian_identity.htm

Aaron Guthrie
10-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Why not? Induction is a logical fallacy.A deductive fallacy. And because deduction by itself doesn't get you anything you already didn't have. (Which won't be a lot, unless you assume a lot.)
It's not self-evident in modal logic that p → □◊p, the distinctive axiom of the Brouwer system, or that □p → □□P in S4, or ◊p → □◊p for S5.I'm not sure most S5ers would agree with you there. Regardless, all the more reason to not be a foundationalist about the Bible if one can even argue about logic!
Rationality is not an axiom, since axioms are propositions while rationality or logic concerns with valid deductions from them.I will take this as an explanation of the way you are using "rationality" and "axiom". Given that usage, why is it rational to believe the Bible? Because the Bible is your axiom?

eclectic
10-12-2008, 03:54 PM
are you able to see invisible pink unicorns through rose coloured glasses? :eek:

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 04:28 PM
No one doubts this. But it can't be both red and invisible at the same time, in the same part, and in the same sense.

Yes it can. Assume a Pink Unicorn is standing in front of me and you, I close my eyes therefore to me the unicorn is now invisible. However to you the unicorn is still pink. Hence the unicorn is both invisible and pink at the same time.

Even without using a second frame of reference (relativity). I know that after closing my eyes ceteris paribus the unicorn is still pink (without needing to view it again). Therefore from my frame of reference with eyes closed the unicorn is both invisible and pink.

Desmond
10-12-2008, 04:41 PM
Yes it can. Assume a Pink Unicorn is standing in front of me and you, I close my eyes therefore to me the unicorn is now invisible. However to you the unicorn is still pink. Hence the unicorn is both invisible and pink at the same time.

Even without using a second frame of reference (relativity). I know that after closing my eyes ceteris paribus the unicorn is still pink (without needing to view it again). Therefore from my frame of reference with eyes closed the unicorn is both invisible and pink.Just because something is out of your field of vision it does not make it invisible. Invisibility means it cannot be seen (by anyone). My car in the garage does not become invisible if I stop looking at it. :rolleyes:

Desmond
10-12-2008, 04:57 PM
Or perhaps she could be pink, in the sense of undercooked. :hmm:

eclectic
10-12-2008, 05:08 PM
Or perhaps she could be pink, in the sense of undercooked. :hmm:

of course!

invisible unicorns seem to be quite "rare" :owned:

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 05:46 PM
Just because something is out of your field of vision it does not make it invisible. Invisibility means it cannot be seen (by anyone).


Oxford Dictionary:


Inivisble: not visible to the eye, either charateristically or because hidden


It does not stipulate a point of reference that is your own intpretation.

Aaron Guthrie
10-12-2008, 06:11 PM
Oxford Dictionary:


Inivisble: not visible to the eye, either charateristically or because hidden


It does not stipulate a point of reference that is your own intpretation.Number one meaning of OED web (i.e. full) edition, "That cannot be seen; that by its nature is not an object of sight." So while one can use "invisible" as you suggest, one can also use it as Boris suggests.

Rincewind
10-12-2008, 06:19 PM
Number one meaning of OED web (i.e. full) edition, "That cannot be seen; that by its nature is not an object of sight." So while one can use "invisible" as you suggest, one can also use it as Boris suggests.

You are blaspheming to try and apply logic to the incontrovertible truths of the almighty unicorn's invisibility and pinkness. This whole line of inquiry is nothing more than magisterial use of reason and in the name of Martin Luther, I will not allow it!

Desmond
10-12-2008, 06:40 PM
Oxford Dictionary:


Inivisble: not visible to the eye, either charateristically or because hidden


It does not stipulate a point of reference that is your own intpretation.Can you see my car? Is it visible or invisible?

Define invisible: (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+invisible&meta=)
impossible or nearly impossible to see; imperceptible by the eye;
inconspicuous: not prominent or readily noticeable
Invisibility is the state of an object which cannot be seen.
Not able to be seen; not visible

Ian Murray
10-12-2008, 07:06 PM
Can you see my car? Is it visible or invisible?

The visibility or otherwise of your car may be of interest to some readers, but is not germane to that of the IPU (may her hooves never be shod). As RW rightly expounds, it is blasphemous to semantically question her physical state - a less benign goddess would smite you with righteous and furious anger.

By process of logical deduction -
1. an object which cannot be seen is invisible
2. the IPU cannot be seen
3. ergo she is invisible

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 08:08 PM
What would you prefer for a method that takes the grammatical and historical context of a passage?

What it is called doesn't really concern me, but the label "historical-grammatical" is a bit dubious given that it gives a misleading impression of what is unique about the method. Considering the grammatical and historical context of a passage is not unique to this method; what is most distinctive about it is the focus on a single text in the search for understanding of those aspects.


Really? Grammatical-historical is normally called a "method" of interpretation, not a study of method.

If it is so-called then it is so-called in colloquiality or error, just as those who call a specific experimental design "methodology" are wrong. The term "methodology" does not solely mean the study of method but is also applied to a general philosophical approach to the application of method. For instance, an assumption that the Bible has a special status and needs to be considered above other texts of a similar vintage is exactly the kind of assumption that is a hallmark of a distinctive methodology rather than merely somebody's one-off idea of experimental design.

Different practitioners of the grammatical-historical methodology would share certain general assumptions that would guide their approach to devising a method to interpret a passage, but they might employ slightly different methods to attempting to do so that were each consistent with that approach.

I was intrigued to learn that at least some practitioners of the grammatical-historical approach argue that personal application is a crucial part of the approach to interpretation. That sort of thing is actually something extremely distinctive in a methodology or research paradigm. I am reminded of the manner in which critical social theory (in my view to its immense detriment) attempts to smuggle in a normative dimension in its research assumptions.


The field of hermeneutics would be methodology, since it includes the grammatical historical interpretation as well as other methods.

That depends on how you define "hermeneutics" but even in the narrowest (religious-text only) sense I still suspect that calling it a single methodology is a bit broad, since it contains a range of possible sets of philosophical assumptions some of which clash with each other. It is more like a cluster of related methodologies.

EGOR
10-12-2008, 08:56 PM
The IPU visits me ev ery night and tells me there is a God.:pray: :angel:

eclectic
10-12-2008, 08:57 PM
The IPU visits me ev ery night and tells me there is a God.:pray: :angel:

intensive psychiatic unit

Ian Murray
10-12-2008, 08:59 PM
The IPU visits me ev ery night and tells me there is a God.:pray: :angel:

Welcome back Egor!

Of course there is a god - she manifests herself as a pink unicorn, albeit invisible

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 09:31 PM
Can you see my car? Is it visible or invisible?

At this point in time your car is totally invisible to me.

I have also heard your car is pink and has a single horn ;)

Rincewind
10-12-2008, 09:32 PM
I have also heard your car is pink and has a single horn ;)

At the car dealership they call that colour champagne. It's a celebration of life! :D

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Number one meaning of OED web (i.e. full) edition, "That cannot be seen; that by its nature is not an object of sight." So while one can use "invisible" as you suggest, one can also use it as Boris suggests.

I didn't mean to doubt Boris' usage (not visible to anyone) only his interpretation that it was the exclusive usuage (i.e. my interpretation was wrong).

Any interpration of words by a mere men means nothing in the presence of the great, wonderful and omnipotent IPU.

Ian Murray
10-12-2008, 09:57 PM
Any interpration of words by a mere men means nothing in the presence of the great, wonderful and omnipotent IPU.

Quite so. The tenets of the Faith are axiomatic, as per www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/articles.htm

Adamski
10-12-2008, 10:58 PM
Quote from IPU Articles of Faith from that web site. "A significant number to followers of the IPU is 42. It is the answer the question, "What is the meaning of life the universe and everything". Importantly, if you add the digits of the year in which she was revealed togther, (1+9+9+4) you get 23. If you add 4 (for Her hooves), add 2 (Her ears) add 2 (Her eyes) add 1 (Her Horn), add 1 (Her tail) then add 9 the result is also 42. This proves the significance of Two Score and Two."

But why don't her other body parts count too, like her legs, destroying the neat addition to 42?

TheJoker
10-12-2008, 11:02 PM
Quote from IPU Articles of Faith from that web site. "A significant number to followers of the IPU is 42. It is the answer the question, "What is the meaning of life the universe and everything". Importantly, if you add the digits of the year in which she was revealed togther, (1+9+9+4) you get 23. If you add 4 (for Her hooves), add 2 (Her ears) add 2 (Her eyes) add 1 (Her Horn), add 1 (Her tail) then add 9 the result is also 42. This proves the significance of Two Score and Two."

But why don't her other body parts count too, like her legs, destroying the neat addition to 42?
Don't be so ridiculous man!

Rincewind
10-12-2008, 11:06 PM
Quote from IPU Articles of Faith from that web site. "A significant number to followers of the IPU is 42. It is the answer the question, "What is the meaning of life the universe and everything". Importantly, if you add the digits of the year in which she was revealed togther, (1+9+9+4) you get 23. If you add 4 (for Her hooves), add 2 (Her ears) add 2 (Her eyes) add 1 (Her Horn), add 1 (Her tail) then add 9 the result is also 42. This proves the significance of Two Score and Two."

But why don't her other body parts count too, like her legs, destroying the neat addition to 42?

See post #102. What you fail to realise is that you cannot use flawed human reason to question the tenets of our faith:

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

Adamski
10-12-2008, 11:12 PM
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.I agree with that (in relation to the Bible). But out of curiosity, to what "Scripture" do you refer in an IPU context? The Unicorn Times newspaper?

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 11:23 PM
Our Lady Unicorn is Pink and Invisible.

She prefers Pineapple and Ham Pizza to Pepperoni and Mushroom. The latter said to be eaten only by followers of the despicable Purple Oyster (of Doom).

Maybe I should get myself excommunicated for heresy given the IPU's sadly misled pizza preferences. That said, I am not concerned with whether or not the IPU should be followed religiously, but with the merits of the arguments for its existence.

I regret to inform the House that during my undergraduate days I occupied a high position in a similar joke cult to the IPU. Our particular deity, the November Frog (Hooray!) was either two or six miles high (accounts varied) and was revealed to us by a Prophet (later excommunicated) in the stolen diary of another member (also later excommunicated). Many counter-cults opposed to the November Frog emerged, including Batrachian Jihad, the Anti-Batrachian League and worst of all the Happy Aardvark (who even took out advertising in the classifieds section of The Mercury to declare his intention to squash our amphibian deity).

Some of the persecution directed at the NF and its followers had something to do with the cult unwisely employing a logo that looked a heck of a lot like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/programmes/bnp_special/roots/nflogo300.jpg

We were unaware until it was much too late that this logo was also employed by the racist British National Front.

Desmond
11-12-2008, 07:35 AM
At this point in time your car is totally invisible to me.The inclusion of 'to me' allows your definition to make sense. Without such a qualification, your definition does not make sense in this context. Consider, is there a single object in all of the universe that is visible from every perspective at every point in time? If no, what descriptive value does the word 'invisible' in the context 'invisible pink unicorn' serve? I would suggest none. If we read it as your interpretation, everything is invisible all the time, and bothering to name one of those things as such is tautology.


I have also heard your car is pink and has a single horn ;)That is a bumper sticker waiting to happen: My other car is an invisible pink unicorn. :lol:

Rincewind
11-12-2008, 07:41 AM
But out of curiosity, to what "Scripture" do you refer in an IPU context? The Unicorn Times newspaper?

The holy texts of her Pink Majesty mostly revealed by her through her prophets in the alt.atheist Usenet group. Of course central to that is axiomatic facts that she is both invisible and pink. Anyone who does not accept these as revealed truths simply is not a follower of the IPU. Her invisibility and pinkness is supported both by (ministerial) logic and faith.

I sympathise with Kevin's position on the ham and pineapple pizza however no one said it would be easy to follow the one true deity. Don't be tempted away from the true path by the false promise of pepperoni and mushroom pizza as that is nothing more than the work of the Purple Oyster (of Doom).

Another central tenet is that

The Purple Oyster (of Doom) is the personal spiritual adversary of both IPU and man.

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 09:03 AM
...Her invisibility and pinkness is supported both by (ministerial) logic and faith....

And Scripture

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2008, 09:16 AM
Of course central to that is axiomatic facts that she is both invisible and pink. Anyone who does not accept these as revealed truths simply is not a follower of the IPU. Her invisibility and pinkness is supported both by (ministerial) logic and faith.
The axioms of Scripture are consistent, unlike these.

Magisterial v ministerial use of reason concerns the axioms from which one reasons, not whether the laws of logic apply. Evidently the likes of Rincy are happy to dispense with logic.

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 09:23 AM
...Don't be tempted away from the true path by the false promise of pepperoni and mushroom pizza as that is nothing more than the work of the Purple Oyster (of Doom)...

Nor by false gods and false prophets such as the Church of the FSM (www.venganza.org/about)

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 09:27 AM
what descriptive value does the word 'invisible' in the context 'invisible pink unicorn' serve?

It means the inivisble pink unicorn is invisible at this point in time (possibily to the majority of people), however at the points in time when she is visible, or she choses to make herself visible to a particular individual she appears pink.

Whilst her inivisibility in the main characteristic experienced from a majority of frames of referencehence an important descriptor, pink is also a characteristic experienced from other often more enlightened frames of reference.

Only when the IPU reveals herself to you will you truly be able to understand the meaning of such things

Desmond
11-12-2008, 09:55 AM
It means the inivisble pink unicorn is invisible at this point in time (possibily to the majority of people), According to your definition of invisible, this is true of any object. We might as well talk about Boris' invisible monitor. It's invisible to majority of people.


however at the points in time when she is visible, or she choses to make herself visible to a particular individual she appears pink.I can see the invisible monitor at the moment.


Whilst her inivisibility in the main characteristic experienced from a majority of frames of referencehenceWouldn't that be frames of un-reference?


an important descriptor, pink is also a characteristic experienced from other often more enlightened frames of reference.So basically the unicorn is pink and visible to those at a certain vantage point (line of sight) and not visible to those who are not.


Only when the IPU reveals herself to you will you truly be able to understand the meaning of such thingsYes I think it probably would take such an event to make that make sense. :hmm:

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 11:54 AM
According to your definition of invisible, this is true of any object. We might as well talk about Boris' invisible monitor. It's invisible to majority of people.

Yes Boris' monitor is invisible to those people outside of its immediate vicinity. For those people it is an inivisble monitor. Assuming you tell nme the colour of the monitor. The monitor will be to me Boris' inivisble "insert colour here" monitor.


I can see the invisible monitor at the moment.

You cannot call something inivisible that you can currently see. Don't be daft. Something cannot be invisible and visible from the same frame of reference. The point is that an inivisible object does not lose its colour just because it becomes invisible


Wouldn't that be frames of un-reference?.

Not really I can sense things in many other ways outside of vision.


So basically the unicorn is pink and visible to those at a certain vantage point (line of sight) and not visible to those who are not..

The vantage point depends not on line of sight but on whether the IPU wishes to reveal herself to a particular individual. The idea is that we know the unicorn is pink when visible because it has been written in the scripture that the unicorn is pink. Currently from my point of reference and that everybody in the world for that matter the unicorn is invisible (despite being able to be percived in other ways such as voices in peoples heads) hence the term inivisible pink unicorn is not an oxymoron.

Prior to microscopes, certain microscopic creatures were inivisible. Do you therefore contend that such creatures were also colourless?

Desmond
11-12-2008, 12:54 PM
Yes Boris' monitor is invisible to those people outside of its immediate vicinity. For those people it is an inivisble monitor. Assuming you tell nme the colour of the monitor. The monitor will be to me Boris' inivisble "insert colour here" monitor. Perhaps you would like to explain why we do not refer to all items as invisible if they are not in our field of vision at that moment?


You cannot call something inivisible that you can currently see. Don't be daft. Something cannot be invisible and visible from the same frame of reference. The point is that an inivisible object does not lose its colour just because it becomes invisibleBut it never becomes invisible, it is in that state 24/7 according to your definition.


The vantage point depends not on line of sight but on whether the IPU wishes to reveal herself to a particular individual. I'm pretty sure LoS will still be required.


The idea is that we know the unicorn is pink when visible because it has been written in the scripture that the unicorn is pink. Currently from my point of reference and that everybody in the world for that matter the unicorn is invisible (despite being able to be percived in other ways such as voices in peoples heads) hence the term inivisible pink unicorn is not an oxymoron. You speak for everyone in the world, do you?


Prior to microscopes, certain microscopic creatures were inivisible. Do you therefore contend that such creatures were also colourless?Well I wouldn't have used your silly definition of the word invisible without qualification in the first place. Invisible to the naked eye maybe. Your definition basically means not able to be looked at unless someone is looking at it.

TheJoker
11-12-2008, 01:09 PM
Perhaps you would like to explain why we do not refer to all items as invisible if they are not in our field of vision at that moment?.

Because it is not important. For exactly the same reason we don't use visible as a precusor to all objects that in our line of sight.


But it never becomes invisible, it is in that state 24/7 according to your definition.

You mean it always visible to you 24/7:eek:


I'm pretty sure LoS will still be required.

Yes but it is secondary. Something can be in my line of sight but invisible



Well I wouldn't have used your silly definition of the word invisible without qualification in the first place. Invisible to the naked eye maybe. Your definition basically means not able to be looked at unless someone is looking at it.

More like "Not visible from the current frame of reference"

Your definition is basically "Not visible from any frame of reference"

My definition encompasses your definition. Your definition incorrectly excludes my definition.

Rincewind
11-12-2008, 01:34 PM
The axioms of Scripture are consistent, unlike these.

No that is where you are wrong they are consistent. You just have to love the IPU with all your mind.


Magisterial v ministerial use of reason concerns the axioms from which one reasons, not whether the laws of logic apply. Evidently the likes of Rincy are happy to dispense with logic.

Sorry but you are wrong on this point Jono. I'm right and I can prove it using my historical/grammatical methodology. The axioms must be accepted, just as all axioms must in a deductive system and all logical conclusions flows as good and necessary consequence from them.

For example, we cannot see the IPU so we know by logic that she is invisible. We also know by faith that she is pink.

So logic and faith complement each other in an eternal golden braid of understanding the IPU and our relationship with her.

morebeer
11-12-2008, 01:47 PM
No that is where you are wrong they are consistent. You just have to love the IPU with all your mind.



Sorry but you are wrong on this point Jono. I'm right and I can prove it using my historical/grammatical methodology. The axioms must be accepted, just as all axioms must in a deductive system and all logical conclusions flows as good and necessary consequence from them.

For example, we cannot see the IPU so we know by logic that she is invisible. We also know by faith that she is pink.

So logic and faith complement each other in an eternal golden braid of understanding the IPU and our relationship with her.

Must remember this next time I encounter a non believer

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 02:43 PM
Must remember this next time I encounter a non believer
The number of non-believers is waning, but there are still many out there.

Kaitlin
11-12-2008, 02:58 PM
I like that the IPU is a "her" and cause not all gods are "he's"

Desmond
11-12-2008, 03:03 PM
Because it is not important. For exactly the same reason we don't use visible as a precusor to all objects that in our line of sight.Hence it is tautology.


You mean it always visible to you 24/7:eek:Always visible from some perspective.


More like "Not visible from the current frame of reference"

Your definition is basically "Not visible from any frame of reference"

My definition encompasses your definition. Your definition incorrectly excludes my definition.
And to not give the frame of reference you are talking about when you say, 'invisible', you make using the term meaningless.

Also I find it a bit weird that in the term 'invisible pink unicorn' you are using 'invisible' from one frame of reference, 'pink' necessarly from another. Yet you make no clarification. I see no meaning being conveyed by your usage. One cannot tell from your usage whether the unicorn is currenly pink or invisible from the perspective of the speaker.

Desmond
11-12-2008, 03:04 PM
I like that the IPU is a "her" and cause not all gods are "he's"I'm surprised no one has changed the thread title to te singular. Or indeed capitalised it. ;)

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 03:53 PM
I like that the IPU is a "her" and cause not all gods are "he's"
The Galloping Goddess' gender is revealed in the holy acronymic epithets found in scripture -
PBUH (peace be unto her)
BBHHH (blessed be her holy hooves)
MHHNBS (may her hooves never be shod)

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm surprised no one has changed the thread title to te singular. Or indeed capitalised it. ;)
NOTICE TO MODS: Please attend [done -slightly biased mod]

Ian Murray
11-12-2008, 04:43 PM
NOTICE TO MODS: Please attend [done -slightly biased mod]
Lovely - she will be pleased. An invisible pink font would probably be a bit over the top

EGOR
11-12-2008, 10:48 PM
Welcome back Egor!
I'm surprised some one remembered me.:)

Of course there is a god - she manifests herself as a pink unicorn, albeit invisible
Not true, IPU is only the herald, and is very distressed at being mistaken for a god. Although, it is an understandable mistake.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2008, 10:53 PM
Not true, IPU is only the herald, and is very distressed at being mistaken for a god.

Goddesses generally don't take too kindly to that. :D

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 12:31 AM
And to not give the frame of reference you are talking about when you say, 'invisible', you make using the term meaningless.

Not my problem inivisible (not visible) is a relative term.


Also I find it a bit weird that in the term 'invisible pink unicorn' you are using 'invisible' from one frame of reference, 'pink' necessarly from another. Yet you make no clarification. I see no meaning being conveyed by your usage. One cannot tell from your usage whether the unicorn is currenly pink or invisible from the perspective of the speaker.

The Pink attribute applies regardless of visibility (I dont consider it a relative term). Therefore when using the term IPU the unicorn is obviously inivisible from the frame of reference. Invisible Pink Unicorn, is the same as saying the pink unicorn that is inivisible.

Desmond
12-12-2008, 08:17 AM
Not my problem inivisible (not visible) is a relative term.



The Pink attribute applies regardless of visibility (I dont consider it a relative term). Therefore when using the term IPU the unicorn is obviously inivisible from the frame of reference. Invisible Pink Unicorn, is the same as saying the pink unicorn that is inivisible.How can visible not be relative, if you are using consistent definition between invisible and visible. One definition of visible is 'able to be seen'. One definition of invisible is 'not able to be seen'. These are consistent as the two terms are opposites in this regard. What is your definition of visible that is consistent with your definition of invisible, and allows one to be relative and the other not relative?

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 08:59 AM
How can visible not be relative, if you are using consisitent definition between invisible and visible. One definition of visible is 'able to be seen'. One definition of invisible is 'not able to be seen'. These are consitent as the two terms are opposites in this regard. What is your definition of visible that is consistent with your definition of invisible, and alows one to be relative and the other not relative?
This is right. The terms are mutually exclusive: they can't be true of the same object in the same spot to the same person at the same time and used in the normal manner.

Rincewind
12-12-2008, 09:14 AM
This is right. The terms are mutually exclusive: they can't be true of the same object in the same spot to the same person at the same time and used in the normal manner.

As I pointed out ages ago, the conversation Boris an The Joker is having makes the error of magisterial use of reason. Therefore, I reiterate...

You are wrong on this point Jono. I'm right and I can prove it using my historical/grammatical methodology. The axioms must be accepted, just as all axioms must in a deductive system and all logical conclusions flows as good and necessary consequence from them.

For example, we cannot see the IPU so we know by logic that she is invisible. We also know by faith that she is pink.

So logic and faith complement each other in an eternal golden braid of understanding the IPU and our relationship with her.

TheJoker
12-12-2008, 10:00 AM
How can visible not be relative, if you are using consistent definition between invisible and visible. One definition of visible is 'able to be seen'. One definition of invisible is 'not able to be seen'. These are consistent as the two terms are opposites in this regard. What is your definition of visible that is consistent with your definition of invisible, and allows one to be relative and the other not relative?


Maybe my wording wasn't very clear I didn't consider the colour attribute pink a relative term. Visible is certainly relative.

Like I said turn off the lights in a room and a blue M&M might become invisible, but it is still a blue M&M regardless.

There is AFAIK no inconsistency in my definitions.

Ian Murray
12-12-2008, 08:02 PM
IPU is only the herald, and is very distressed at being mistaken for a god. Although, it is an understandable mistake.
As Her Pinkness is the Supreme Being, then of course any assumption of another supreme being of higher status is patently false.

EGOR
13-12-2008, 07:25 AM
Goddesses generally don't take too kindly to that. :D
:lol: :lol: I stand correct.:uhoh:

EGOR
13-12-2008, 07:28 AM
As Her Pinkness is the Supreme Being, then of course any assumption of another supreme being of higher status is patently false.
But Her Pinkness Herself told me that She is just the herald of one who has yet to come, but has always been!

Rincewind
13-12-2008, 08:50 AM
But Her Pinkness Herself told me that She is just the herald of one who has yet to come, but has always been!

By Her holy hooves, how do you know this was not a trick of the Purple Oyster (of Doom)?

As an aside. You know how the fish is a symbol of a major world religion? Well Our Lady Unicorn has made inroads on that front too. See below.

http://www.seapics.co.uk/maldives/images/unicorn_fish.jpg

Coincidence? I think not.

Wake up and smell the roses, sheeple!!!

Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 12:53 PM
By Her holy hooves, how do you know this was not a trick of the Purple Oyster (of Doom)?...

Rincewind speaks with great authority; bear ye in mind his closeness to Her Pinkness:

Rincewind the Wizard is a character appearing in the Discworld novels of Terry Pratchett, several of which feature him as the central character. He is a failed student at the Unseen University for wizards in Ankh-Morpork, often described by scholars as "the magical equivalent to the number zero", and spends just about all of his time running away from various bands of people who want to kill him for various reasons. The fact that he's still alive and running is explained in that although he was born with a wizard's spirit, he has the body of a long-distance sprinter. Rincewind is also reputed as being able to solve minor problems by turning them into major disasters. His unique "skill" is implied to be due to being the chosen one of "The Lady"

EGOR
14-12-2008, 10:34 PM
By Her holy hooves, how do you know this was not a trick of the Purple Oyster (of Doom)?
Not possible, Her Invisible Pinkness was as plain as the noise on my face!

Adamski
15-12-2008, 10:41 AM
At my work the urinals are supplied by a company called "Calmic" - very calming, no doubt. I noticed today that the symbol for this company, visible on the urinal, is a unicorn. Sadly for IPU devotees, it is white.

Desmond
15-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Maybe my wording wasn't very clear I didn't consider the colour attribute pink a relative term. Visible is certainly relative.

Like I said turn off the lights in a room and a blue M&M might become invisible, but it is still a blue M&M regardless.

There is AFAIK no inconsistency in my definitions.How do you know it is still blue?

What is your definition of 'visible'?

Ian Murray
15-12-2008, 11:41 AM
At my work the urinals are supplied by a company called "Calmic" - very calming, no doubt. I noticed today that the symbol for this company, visible on the urinal, is a unicorn. Sadly for IPU devotees, it is white.
Her Horniness is closely associated with laundries but not urinals. The one you mention seems to be a pale imposter.

Adamski
15-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Her Horniness is closely associated with laundries but not urinals. The one you mention seems to be a pale imposter.I can't help but wonder why that company uses the unicorn as their symbol. And maybe it is meant to be pink? If so, the one at my work has badly faded!

See the "pink hygiene" reference at the foot of this page: http://www.initialhealthcare.com.au/Products_Solutions/msds.htm

Desmond
15-12-2008, 12:29 PM
I can't help but wonder why that company uses the unicorn as their symbol. And maybe it is meant to be pink? If so, the one at my work has badly faded![

See the "pink hygiene" reference at the foot of this page: http://www.initialhealthcare.com.au/Products_Solutions/msds.htmPerhaps she is white in her visible form, but pink in her invisible form. :hmm: :lol:

MichaelBaron
15-12-2008, 12:49 PM
Yes it can. Assume a Pink Unicorn is standing in front of me and you, I close my eyes therefore to me the unicorn is now invisible. However to you the unicorn is still pink. Hence the unicorn is both invisible and pink at the same time.

.

This sounds like meditation to me :)

TheJoker
15-12-2008, 01:52 PM
How do you know it is still blue?

What is your definition of 'visible'?

I don't "know" that it is still blue, however without any specific reason to believe it is not blue that is the most probable outcome. How do we know anything for certain?

Visible: able to be seen. It is a relative term and requires a frame of reference.

Desmond
15-12-2008, 02:25 PM
I don't "know" that it is still blue, however without any specific reason to believe it is not blue that is the most probable outcome. How do we know anything for certain?Point is, if I am looking at an invisible M&M, I am unlikely to say it is blue, since I would not know that.


Visible: able to be seen. It is a relative term and requires a frame of reference.If it requires a frame of reference, why don't you use one then? EG PUWICITM (pink unicorn which is currently invisible to me)

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 06:24 PM
If the pinkness is intrinsic to the unicorn, it would not be invisible. BTW, is the pinkness due to a reflectance or emission spectrum?

Rincewind
15-12-2008, 07:24 PM
If the pinkness is intrinsic to the unicorn, it would not be invisible. BTW, is the pinkness due to a reflectance or emission spectrum?

By Her holy hooves, She is pink and She is invisible. Get over it already. The fact that she can accomplish these two things simultaneously and your god cannot is just proof of Her greater glory.

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 07:43 PM
By Her holy hooves, She is pink and She is invisible. Get over it already. The fact that she can accomplish these two things simultaneously and your god cannot is just proof of Her greater glory.
Those who value logic (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/), which doesn't include IPU bloviators, don't claim that God's omnipotence includes the logically impossible, for reasons I explain at If God can do anything, then can He make a being more powerful than Himself? What does God’s omnipotence really mean? (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5566)

Rincewind
15-12-2008, 09:16 PM
Those who value logic (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/)

Magisterial use of logic. Sorry that is just not allowed.

The scriptures clearly state that the She is both invisible and pink. Since they are the axioms of my system you cannot question them.

ElevatorEscapee
15-12-2008, 09:31 PM
I seen one!

Time for a MonsterQuest Documentary! :D

Capablanca-Fan
15-12-2008, 11:03 PM
Magisterial use of logic. Sorry that is just not allowed.
Logic is logic. There is no such thing as magisterial and ministerial logic. Magisterial and ministerial reason, yes, since this is logic applied to premises.


The scriptures clearly state that the She is both invisible and pink. Since they are the axioms of my system you cannot question them.
Mine are self-consistent.

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2008, 11:32 PM
Mine are self-consistent.

Seems to me that your axiom compels you to say that irrespective of how the evidence stacks up on whether your foundational beliefs are self-consistent or not.

After all:


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Logic is a field so it would appear that if any logical argument demonstrates an inconsistency within the scriptural record, your response must be to maintain belief in the scriptural record (inconsistencies and all) and discard whatever logical argument has had the temerity to point out the error.

Therefore your assertion that your foundational beliefs are self-consistent appears uninformative, since your foundational beliefs do not seem to allow for any circumstances under which you would not make that assertion.

WhiteElephant
16-12-2008, 12:02 AM
The Unicorn Urinal

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 07:31 AM
The Unicorn Urinal

Be careful lest you offend Her Holy Hooves.

I wonder if I posted an image of the work of art titled "Piss Christ" would I offend anyone... :hmm:

morebeer
16-12-2008, 08:39 AM
It may offend some sensibilities in Melbourne...that artwork has a bad track record in this town.

p.s. In my opinion Serrano is a touchstone of tackiness - very minor talent

Desmond
16-12-2008, 08:42 AM
What does BBHHH stand for? (I got 'by her holy hooves', but am missing a 'b')

Adamski
16-12-2008, 08:58 AM
It's for "blessed be her holy hooves" - no way I can capitalise that!

Ian Murray
16-12-2008, 09:17 AM
What does BBHHH stand for? (I got 'by her holy hooves', but am missing a 'b')

Post 134:

The Galloping Goddess' gender is revealed in the holy acronymic epithets found in scripture -
PBUH (peace be unto her)
BBHHH (blessed be her holy hooves)
MHHNBS (may her hooves never be shod)

Desmond
16-12-2008, 09:19 AM
It's for "blessed be her holy hooves" - no way I can capitalise that!Thanks. Isn't 'blessed be' a Wiccan saying though? I s'pose it wouldn't be the first religion to borrow ideas from another.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 10:40 AM
Seems to me that your axiom compels you to say that irrespective of how the evidence stacks up on whether your foundational beliefs are self-consistent or not.
I said in my article Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/):


... Isaiah 55:8–9


8 ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.
9 ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’

Note that this does not say ‘My logic is higher than your logic’. If so, then if we believed 2+2=4, God could believe 2+2=5. What it does mean is that God knows every true proposition, while we know only a part.

Rincy has invented a ministerial and magisterial distinction about logic, which the above explicitly rejects.


Logic is a field so it would appear that if any logical argument demonstrates an inconsistency within the scriptural record, your response must be to maintain belief in the scriptural record (inconsistencies and all) and discard whatever logical argument has had the temerity to point out the error.
Logic is not a field in the sense of history and chronology, since it concerns the relationship between propositions, while the other fields provide propositions to which logic can apply. Logic is presupposed by our Statement of Faith (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/43).

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 10:49 AM
p.s. In my opinion Serrano is a touchstone of tackiness - very minor talent

I agree in spirit but IMHO society needs tackiness as well.

It is not an image I have, but George's post brought a memory of it from the dark recesses of my mind. I doubt I would post it here as I don't usually seek to offend THAT many people. :)

morebeer
16-12-2008, 11:55 AM
I can do tacky no problems, but the only artist who uses bodily secretions that I would pass would be Piero Manzoni's witty "Merda d'artista".

Adamski
16-12-2008, 12:47 PM
Thanks. Isn't 'blessed be' a Wiccan saying though? I s'pose it wouldn't be the first religion to borrow ideas from another.I am pretty sure the phrase originated in the Bible.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 12:51 PM
I am pretty sure the phrase originated in the Bible.
Right you are. It is an ancient Jewish doxology right from the time of Abraham the first Jew (Genesis 14:12), and even predates the Jewish nation, dating from the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9:26):


And he [Noah] said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem …” [וימר ברוך יהוה אלהי שם wayyomer bārûk YHWH ‘Elohi Shem]

Desmond
16-12-2008, 12:58 PM
I am pretty sure the phrase originated in the Bible.
You might be right but I can't recall hearing any Christians say it to each other. Wiccans do all the time.

morebeer
16-12-2008, 01:09 PM
I spoke too soon...Marc Quinn's self portraits in blood are ok, but I think one of them melted when the refrigeration unit went down...doh!

Adamski
16-12-2008, 01:30 PM
You might be right but I can't recall hearing any Christians say it to each other. Wiccans do all the time.We do say things like BBHWCITNOTL - see newbies guide thread for meaning! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 01:35 PM
You might be right but I can't recall hearing any Christians say it to each other.
Probably because the Christian church has become largely Gentile, unfortunately. But Rabbi Sha'ul (the Apostle Paul) uses the phrase in his Epistles.

The phrase appears as a special blessing by Christ Himself in the following well-known passage (Matthew 16:17), showing its Jewish context:

‘And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. …”’

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 01:55 PM
Probably because the Christian church has become largely Gentile, unfortunately.

Unlike the Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn where all true believers are welcome, Jew or Gentile. But repent your sinful worship of false idols lest you spend an eternity in the paddock of short grass and high manure (and when you go there the manure is only going to get higher).

Desmond
16-12-2008, 02:16 PM
We do say things like BBHWCITNOTL - see newbies guide thread for meaning! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!Fair enough, but I was talking about 'blessed be' as a standalone comment. Often used as a farewell, eg at the end of a letter, 'blessed be, Boris'.

TheJoker
16-12-2008, 03:21 PM
Point is, if I am looking at an invisible M&M, I am unlikely to say it is blue, since I would not know that.

If I told you it was blue and you had no reason to doubt that, then wouldn't you have faith that it was blue?


If it requires a frame of reference, why don't you use one then? EG PUWICITM (pink unicorn which is currently invisible to me)

Because the Pink Unicorn is invisible to to majoirty of frames of reference therefore it is more apt not apply the frames of reference, but to generalise that the Pink Unicorn is invisible (from most vantage points, to most people, most of the time).

Desmond
16-12-2008, 03:47 PM
If I told you it was blue and you had no reason to doubt that, then wouldn't you have faith that it was blue?Of course I would have reason to doubt it. If you were telling me all about an invisible blue M&M on the table in front of me, the only reason I can think of why I would refer to it as such woud be to humour you while I reached for my phone, nice and easy.



Because the Pink Unicorn is invisible to to majoirty of frames of reference therefore it is more apt not apply the frames of reference, but to generalise that the Pink Unicorn is invisible (from most vantage points, to most people, most of the time).Yet if something is visible from most normal frames of reference, you do not call it 'visible something'.

TheJoker
16-12-2008, 04:49 PM
Of course I would have reason to doubt it. If you were telling me all about an invisible blue M&M on the table in front of me, the only reason I can think of why I would refer to it as such woud be to humour you while I reached for my phone, nice and easy.

Let's say the M&M is invisible because it is under the table cloth. You saw the M&M before the table cloth was placed over it and it was blue. Therefore unless somebody removes the table cloth the blue M&M will reamin invisible, therefore it is an "Invisible Blue M&M"


Yet if something is visible from most normal frames of reference, you do not call it 'visible something'.

That's because it is implied.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2008, 07:06 PM
I said in my article Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation:[..]

Rincy has invented a ministerial and magisterial distinction about logic, which the above explicitly rejects.

I don't see how this is relevant to my comment it was quoted in reply to.


Logic is not a field in the sense of history and chronology, since it concerns the relationship between propositions, while the other fields provide propositions to which logic can apply.

I agree that logic is not the same sort of field that history, "chronology" and science (all terms for which you use "field") are but it is a field of study, research and knowledge nonetheless.

Therefore if you wish to exclude it from your axiom, your axiom needs to be reworded.


Logic is presupposed by our Statement of Faith (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/43).

Nothing in that Statement of Faith indicates to me that that is the case.

Aaron Guthrie
16-12-2008, 07:43 PM
I agree that logic is not the same sort of field that history, "chronology" and science (all terms for which you use "field") are but it is a field of study, research and knowledge nonetheless.
You note that it is a field of study. This is very important, since one must differentiate between logic itself, that is what actually follows, and proposed attempts to capture logic, e.g. logics such as S4, S5, which take different positions on what the one true logic is.

Things do get very tricky when one tries to argue about which is the true logic, especially when it comes to trying to do so without question begging. But it also seems clear that different people can take different logics to be correct, and on that basis deduce different things. So at least there are different logics to choose from.

(But I think the easiest way to try and dodge any aparent contradictions is to argue over meaning. For example, if something is both visible and not visible, it is visible to some, and not visible to others, or it is visible in imagination, invisible to the eyes. Or if something is both pink and invisible, claim that something is pink if it has certain reflective properties, but that the thing in question has no light ever touch it (force field e.g.), or that no light can ever escape it (at least not such that a human can get close enough). Thus it has an invisible glow.)

Nothing in that Statement of Faith indicates to me that that is the case.Well duh, it is presupposed! ;)

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2008, 09:01 PM
The only God that really matters is the one with -el on the end. I was going to have a bash at a Godelian argument that if a claimed version of God knows every true proposition then it cannot be proved that that specific God exists. But I got tangled up in the question of whether God's belief system includes axioms or whether an all-knowing God wouldn't need any, and got distracted.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2008, 09:12 PM
You note that it is a field of study. This is very important, since one must differentiate between logic itself, that is what actually follows, and proposed attempts to capture logic, e.g. logics such as S4, S5, which take different positions on what the one true logic is.

That would be relevant to this case if there was an inconsistency in scripture that would be flagged as inconsistent using one set of axioms but not using another. In that case, Jono's axiom would appear to rule out whichever conception of logic allowed the inconsistency to be noted.


Well duh, it is presupposed! ;)

The shiny new dictionary that upholds my usage of sic against the whinging of two putatively distinct Toolboxers also gives two distinct meanings of presuppose:

1. depend on something in order to exist or be true
2. assume something to be the case

I am actually not clear on whether Jono meant sense 1 or sense 2 but I take a by-their-fruits approach to his claim in either case. :D

Aaron Guthrie
16-12-2008, 09:48 PM
The only God that really matters is the one with -el on the end. I was going to have a bash at a Godelian argument that if a claimed version of God knows every true proposition then it cannot be proved that that specific God exists. But I got tangled up in the question of whether God's belief system includes axioms or whether an all-knowing God wouldn't need any, and got distracted.Godel's incompleteness theorems don't apply to any old set of axioms. (For example the axioms that are just all the truths of mathematics!) Also it makes a difference what the domain is, e.g. one can finitely axiomatize all the truths of addition. (Here I mean to exclude any truths about multiplication.)

When you say "it cannot be proved that that specific God exists", the facts about God's axioms are going to affect what God can prove about God. So I guess that you are aiming for a proof of the non-existence of an omnipotent God. (Because such a God would know which God it was.)

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2008, 10:15 PM
Godel's incompleteness theorems don't apply to any old set of axioms. (For example the axioms that are just all the truths of mathematics!) Also it makes a difference what the domain is, e.g. one can finitely axiomatize all the truths of addition. (Here I mean to exclude any truths about multiplication.)

I'm well aware of that but I'd expect that if an all-powerful God has axioms they would need to be sufficiently mathematically powerful to be covered. :D
And I recall Jono has been quite clear that multiplication is covered within scripture!


When you say "it cannot be proved that that specific God exists", the facts about God's axioms are going to affect what God can prove about God. So I guess that you are aiming for a proof of the non-existence of an omnipotent God. (Because such a God would know which God it was.)

I wanted to eliminate proof of an all-knowing God more generally on the following suitably facetious grounds:

Suppose that it can be proven that an all-knowing God exists. In that case, if it is known that God considers a specific statement true, then that alone is sufficient to prove that that statement is indeed true. God, being all-knowing, would know which statements God considers true. Therefore whatever statements are true following God's set of axioms are all not only true but also proven within that system (even if only God knows this).

Depending on God's set of axioms, Godel may well have knocked that possibility on the head, leaving a choice between an unprovably all-knowing God and a God that isn't all-knowing (or, of course, no God at all). :P

Aaron Guthrie
16-12-2008, 11:06 PM
I wanted to eliminate proof of an all-knowing God more generally on the following suitably facetious grounds:

Suppose that it can be proven that an all-knowing God exists. In that case, if it is known that God considers a specific statement true, then that alone is sufficient to prove that that statement is indeed true. God, being all-knowing, would know which statements God considers true. Therefore whatever statements are true following God's set of axioms are all not only true but also proven within that system (even if only God knows this).The knowability thing is tricky. It isn't clear that it is possible to have a consistent unrestricted knowledge predicate. (See e.g. Shapiro 2002.)

Depending on God's set of axioms, Godel may well have knocked that possibility on the head, leaving a choice between an unprovably all-knowing God and a God that isn't all-knowing (or, of course, no God at all). :PDo you mean here that God cannot prove that God is all knowing?

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2008, 11:47 PM
The knowability thing is tricky. It isn't clear that it is possible to have a consistent unrestricted knowledge predicate.

I'm not surprised.


(See e.g. Shapiro 2002.)

Thanks for the reference; I may do so sometime.


Do you mean here that God cannot prove that God is all knowing?

Actually that angle didn't occur to me but that should also follow; an unprovably all-knowing God would not only be unable to prove that it was all knowing but also would be unaware of its all-knowing nature (since knowing it was all-knowing would immediately prove to it that it was). But Jono claims that God knows every true proposition, not just the knowably true ones.

Aaron Guthrie
17-12-2008, 01:35 AM
The point about not knowing oneself has been explored in the literature. See Chalmers 1995 (http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-09-chalmers.html) (specifically section 3) for a good run down of the argument Penrose made to this effect. (Though I note that this point has been made by others before Penrose.) The argument there just needs that the knower is of a certain sort (i.e. of the right sort of axiomatization), and that the knower knows that they are sound (i.e. only proves true sentences).

There is a quicker proof that God cannot know all if he is of the right axiomatization, namely just Godel's first.

I'm not sure if the knowledge predicate will allow your argument (or one similar to it) to go through regardless of axiomatization.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 10:41 AM
And I recall Jono has been quite clear that multiplication is covered within scripture!
Definitely! And logic is presupposed. Gödel earned his doctorate for proving that first-order predicate calculus is complete.


Depending on God's set of axioms, Godel may well have knocked that possibility on the head, leaving a choice between an unprovably all-knowing God and a God that isn't all-knowing (or, of course, no God at all). :P
Gödel himself was a theist, describing himself as a baptized Lutheran, who developed a variant of the ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof), read the Bible, and argued for an afterlife.

Rincewind
17-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Gödel himself was a theist, describing himself as a baptized Lutheran, who developed a variant of the ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof), read the Bible, and argued for an afterlife.

Weird when you also argue that the German Lutheran tradition of the time was entirely unbiblical. Technically Godel was an Austrian who became Czechoslovakian after the break up of the empire and was not officially German until the annexation in 1938. He was however of German ethnicity, spoke German and seemed to consider himself an Austrian rather than a Czech.

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 06:30 PM
Weird when you also argue that the German Lutheran tradition of the time was entirely unbiblical.
It was largely, and Gödel had a non-Christian upbringing. It's a matter of historical fact that theological liberalism, which rejected biblical authority, started in Germany.


Technically Godel was an Austrian who became Czechoslovakian after the break up of the empire and was not officially German until the annexation in 1938. He was however of German ethnicity, spoke German and seemed to consider himself an Austrian rather than a Czech.
Like a lot of people in that area. Woodrow Wilson's "self-determination" rhetoric enabled the rise of Germanophobia among Czech nationalists against Germans who had lived there peacefully for generations.

Similarly, chess greats Anderssen and Tarrasch were considered "German" since they came from "Breslau", but this is now called Wrocław and part of Poland.

Kaitlin
17-12-2008, 06:51 PM
dont forget to hang the golden horseshoes for for the festive season

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2008, 10:09 PM
The point about not knowing oneself has been explored in the literature. See Chalmers 1995 (specifically section 3) for a good run down of the argument Penrose made to this effect. (Though I note that this point has been made by others before Penrose.) The argument there just needs that the knower is of a certain sort (i.e. of the right sort of axiomatization), and that the knower knows that they are sound (i.e. only proves true sentences).

Thanks for that. I see that in 3.13 Chalmers concludes (and I have no issue with that conclusion) "It is the assumption about knowledge of soundness that should be withdrawn". He also writes "Perhaps we are sound, but we cannot know unassailably that we are sound". This is not very surprising to me as this was what I've often come across as one of the more palatable scenarios in response to Godel's discoveries.

The good news is that we puny humans have the luxuries of being able to withdraw the assumption of knowledge of soundness, and to hope that our systems may in fact be sound even if we cannot know this. The even better news is that Jono's hypothetical all-knowing God has no such luxuries. :lol:


Definitely! And logic is presupposed.

I am still not sure which meaning of "presupposed" you are using here, or what your evidence that logic is "presupposed" is.


Gödel himself was a theist, describing himself as a baptized Lutheran, who developed a variant of the ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof), read the Bible, and argued for an afterlife.

So? Plenty of celebrated mathematicians and logicians have produced philosophical arguments that were ludicrous, Pascal's so-called Wager being the paradigm case. That Godel himself was a theist although his logical views are potentially lethal to certain simplistic forms of theism is interesting but is no reflection on the merits of his theistic views.

Rincewind
17-12-2008, 10:42 PM
So? Plenty of celebrated mathematicians and logicians have produced philosophical arguments that were ludicrous, Pascal's so-called Wager being the paradigm case. That Godel himself was a theist although his logical views are potentially lethal to certain simplistic forms of theism is interesting but is no reflection on the merits of his theistic views.

It is true that brilliant minds are not inoculated against quite bizarre beliefs. Newton is another case of a brilliant mind with some very strange ideas. Godel himself was not immune...


Kurt Gödel, the Austrian/American mathematician, died of starvation when his wife was hospitalized. Gödel suffered from extreme paranoia and refused to eat food prepared by anyone else. He was 65 pounds when he died. His death certificate reported that he died of "malnutrition and inanition caused by personality disturbance" in Princeton Hospital on 14 January 1978.

From Wikipedia but I have read it reported elsewhere.

Aaron Guthrie
18-12-2008, 12:25 AM
Thanks for that. I see that in 3.13 Chalmers concludes (and I have no issue with that conclusion) "It is the assumption about knowledge of soundness that should be withdrawn". He also writes "Perhaps we are sound, but we cannot know unassailably that we are sound". This is not very surprising to me as this was what I've often come across as one of the more palatable scenarios in response to Godel's discoveries.Godel's second incompleteness theorem shows that (given the relevant assumptions) it is impossible for any consistent system to prove its own consistency. Soundness implies consistency. So it might better to describe it as one of his discoveries, rather than a response to it.

The reason Penrose gets away with talking about the possibility of our knowing (or as he might put it, seeing) our own soundness is because he is challenging that the relevant assumptions hold of us to begin with.

Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 04:18 PM
The question is... Does it really exist??

Miranda
20-12-2008, 10:39 AM
The question is... Does it really exist??
Prove that it doesn't.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 12:48 PM
Prove that it doesn't.
Prove that it does! exist Mir then I'll believe it.

Ian Murray
20-12-2008, 05:52 PM
Prove that it does! exist Mir then I'll believe it.
You're begging the question DM. The satire is based on the fact that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved any more than the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 12:21 PM
The satire is based on the fact that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved any more than the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.
It's moronic, since invisible and pink are mutually contrary attributes. The satire is also attacking Gnostic views (i.e. secret knowledge of initiates) rather than genuine Christian ones.

Rincewind
21-12-2008, 01:36 PM
It's moronic, since invisible and pink are mutually contrary attributes.

Sorry but you are wrong on this point Jono. I'm right and I can prove it using my historical/grammatical methodology. The axioms must be accepted, just as all axioms must in a deductive system and all logical conclusions flows as good and necessary consequence from them.

For example, we cannot see the IPU so we know by logic that she is invisible. We also know by faith that she is pink.

So logic and faith complement each other in an eternal golden braid of understanding the IPU and our relationship with her.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 01:45 PM
Sorry but you are wrong on this point Jono. I'm right and I can prove it using my historical/grammatical methodology.
Which you don't understand a bit.


The axioms must be accepted, just as all axioms must in a deductive system and all logical conclusions flows as good and necessary consequence from them.
The axioms of the Bible are not self-contradictory, whereas for something to be pink it must be visible.


For example, we cannot see the IPU so we know by logic that she is invisible. We also know by faith that she is pink.
This is not faith in the biblical sense which is related to evidence, as I show in Logic and Creation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/). This article also destroys Rincy's straw man about a ministerial v magisterial view of logic, when there is no such distinction.


So logic and faith complement each other in an eternal golden braid of understanding the IPU and our relationship with her.

Ian Murray
21-12-2008, 01:59 PM
It's moronic, since invisible and pink are mutually contrary attributes. The satire is also attacking Gnostic views (i.e. secret knowledge of initiates) rather than genuine Christian ones.
It's very funny. If you can't see the humour, stay out of the thread

Rincewind
21-12-2008, 02:41 PM
It's very funny. If you can't see the humour, stay out of the thread

I find Jono contributions to be among the funniest here. Keep it up Jono. You contributions are most welcome here. Though you will pay for them in the next life.

Rincewind
21-12-2008, 02:46 PM
Which you don't understand a bit.

That's a good one Jono. You should have stuck to something you know something about. Like mixing chemicals.


The axioms of the Bible are not self-contradictory, whereas for something to be pink it must be visible.

Of course they aren't. That's why all the denominations have such similar views on key points such as the divinity of Christ, the validity of divorce, etc, etc, etc. It's what one would expect from mutually consistent axioms. :)


This is not faith in the biblical sense which is related to evidence, as I show in Logic and Creation.

It is exactly faith in the biblical sense. Arbitrary axioms, arbitrary methodology and then a never ending history of mental gymnastics to try to not look silly.


This article also destroys Rincy's straw man about a ministerial v magisterial view of logic, when there is no such distinction.

It is a distinction that your hero (and antisemitic geocentrist) Martin Luther made (and "correctly" according to you).

Kaitlin
12-03-2009, 09:25 PM
as it is told in the writtings .. 1:15:2

...the IPU said unto the people "behold unto me and my displeasure @ all this red tape.. from this day forth all red tape shall be pink", and the people were in awe @ how quick the IPU of enlightenment had dispensed with red tape... and there was much rejoiceing... but the POoD upon seeing the people were much rejoiceing the IPUoE and bubbleing at the moving of red tape another shade away from purple vented hes wrath upon the face of the earth and released E-coli upon the masses...

..and so red tape gave the people the shits..

antichrist
13-03-2009, 02:13 PM
as it is told in the writtings .. 1:15:2

...the IPU said unto the people "behold unto me and my displeasure @ all this red tape.. from this day forth all red tape shall be pink", and the people were in awe @ how quick the IPU of enlightenment had dispensed with red tape... and there was much rejoiceing... but the POoD upon seeing the people were much rejoiceing the IPUoE and bubbleing at the moving of red tape another shade away from purple vented hes wrath upon the face of the earth and released E-coli upon the masses...

..and so red tape gave the people the shits..

Well Kaitlin it is more sensible than Jono has been pushing the past few years.

Space_Dude
14-03-2009, 06:19 PM
Wow... Is IPU a religion now??

Miranda
14-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Wow... Is IPU a religion now??
Of course! It is as much a religion as the celestial teapot is a belief...

Space_Dude
14-03-2009, 07:03 PM
Of course! It is as much a religion as the celestial teapot is a belief...
pfffttt!! well, I never!!

Kaitlin
17-03-2009, 07:27 PM
rofl.. you trad in that one DeMann :D:

but of cause from this we learn the lesson...

"He who pffftttist @ the IPUoE..... misses the white on white text and shows themself to be unenlightened"


..and thus the IPU again guides us towards enlightenment :angel:

Ian Murray
18-03-2009, 05:54 PM
Of course! It is as much a religion as the celestial teapot is a belief..
The celestial teapot is not a simple belief - it is an indisputable fact whose existence has never been disproven

antichrist
18-03-2009, 05:56 PM
The celestial teapot is not a simple belief - it is an indisputable fact whose existence has never been disproven

Should not you have also attributed your celestial teapot to Mr Russell. (I hope I am right on this one- but I know that Bill will not correct me coz he is not the intellectual type)

Ian Murray
18-03-2009, 06:02 PM
Should not you have also attributed your celestial teapot to Mr Russell. (I hope I am right on this one- but I know that Bill will not correct me coz he is not the intellectual type)

It's OK - Bert and I have an understanding

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2011, 03:26 PM
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) exists, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) loves you, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) wants to enter into a relationship with you. Read this website (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html) to learn more, or write to PO Box *** for a free restraining order against all supposed supernatural stalkers.

Oepty
30-06-2011, 03:35 PM
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) exists, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) loves you, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) wants to enter into a relationship with you. Read this website (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html) to learn more, or write to PO Box *** for a free restraining order against all supposed supernatural stalkers.

I am flattered. Thank you Kevin.

Rincewind
30-06-2011, 03:52 PM
I am flattered. Thank you Kevin.

Don't thank Kevin. He is merely an instrument of Her will. All praise goes to the IPU(BBHHH).

Oepty
30-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Don't thank Kevin. He is merely an instrument of Her will. All praise goes to the IPU(BBHHH).

Kevin is a slave to nobody, he is his own man and makes his own mind up.

george
30-06-2011, 04:34 PM
Hi all adherants of Invisible Pink Unicorn,

Sounds like a one page tome I wrote many years ago in the student newspaper taking the ???? out of the Marxist Lenninists at Flinders University called "Neo Anarcho Maoist Brotherhood" . The headkickers at the time didnt take kindly to my joke and wanted to sit me in the corner looking at a picture of Malcolm Fraser for a few hours but the Sisterhood came to my rescue and sanity prevailed.

Anyway long live the servants or whatever of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2011, 05:24 PM
No worries Scott. Other perhaps less kind possibilities for satire of your sigfile included comparison to the email spam from Russia advertising improbable wannabe brides (some of them equally fictitious), or suggestions that if God wants to enter into loving relationships with other males then he really needs to ensure his followers legalise gay marriage. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2011, 05:26 PM
Sounds like a one page tome I wrote many years ago in the student newspaper taking the ???? out of the Marxist Lenninsts at Flinders University called "Neo Anarcho Maoist Brotherhood" . The headkickers at the time didnt take kindly to my joke and wanted to sit me in the corner looking at a picture of Malcolm Fraser for a few hours but the Sisterhood came to my rescue and sanity prevailed.

As a former student mag writer/ed myself I reckon this would be a great read. Taking the mickey out of the ultra-left should be one of the core missions of the student press.

Oepty
30-06-2011, 07:00 PM
No worries Scott. Other perhaps less kind possibilities for satire of your sigfile included comparison to the email spam from Russia advertising improbable wannabe brides (some of them equally fictitious), or suggestions that if God wants to enter into loving relationships with other males then he really needs to ensure his followers legalise gay marriage. :lol:

Kevin, keep this up and perhaps I will not be so kind.

More seriously though we have discussed this kind of stuff so much we know what each other believes. It is nothing that I did not expect. If I was not willing to cop some flak I would not have put it there.
Scott

george
30-06-2011, 09:28 PM
Hi Kevin,

I was finishing my major in Philosophy at the time so my arguments in a weird rambling way made sense logically but the boys didnt like the implications about juvenile games/playing at being politico's in a safe environment etc.

But in the end the radical lesbian clique saved my precious self by threatening to rearrange some precious parts of the tough politico's anatomy - also something about get a sense of humour.

I must admit though that was the only time I ever bought those sydney based women a drink - they came over with a senior lecturer from Sydney in 1974/5 to start the Women's Studies course at Flinders which was actually a very progressive and beneficial thing for the Philosophy faculty to have done.

Anyway old old stuff from a previous life - regards to Invisible Pink Unicorn

Rincewind
20-02-2012, 11:03 PM
Biblical proof of the existence of unicorns...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV

and dragons...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=dragon&qs_version=KJV

antichrist
20-02-2012, 11:42 PM
Biblical proof of the existence of unicorns...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV

and dragons...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=dragon&qs_version=KJV

But no dinos? or platypus on Noah's ark?

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2012, 11:50 PM
Actually, platypus are pretty good sea swimmers when they have to be and I have seen pictures of one surfing waves (apparently for fun) at South Cape Bay in Tasmania's far south. Whether one would survive the period of the fictitious biblical flood in the open ocean is another matter.

antichrist
20-02-2012, 11:52 PM
Actually, platypus are pretty good sea swimmers when they have to be and I have seen pictures of one surfing waves (apparently for fun) at South Cape Bay in Tasmania's far south. Whether one would survive the period of the fictitious biblical flood in the open ocean is another matter.

but they are fresh water and need to feed in shallow water and rest often from what I seen.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2012, 11:55 PM
but they are fresh water and need to feed in shallow water and rest often from what I seen.

Naah, they are just lazy animals that like to sleep when there is no need for doing anything else! One probably would struggle to feed in the open ocean though.

antichrist
21-02-2012, 12:21 AM
Naah, they are just lazy animals that like to sleep when there is no need for doing anything else! One probably would struggle to feed in the open ocean though.

are they ac/dc - salt or fresh water or different varieties or you pulling our leg

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2012, 12:47 AM
The surfing bit is absolutely true! :hand:

Desmond
21-02-2012, 08:32 AM
Biblical proof of the existence of unicorns...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV

and dragons...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=dragon&qs_version=KJV



Job 30:29
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
Alas a stranger to reality.

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2012, 06:16 AM
Biblical proof of the existence of unicorns...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=KJV
The Hebrew רְאֵם re’ēm is probably an aurochs, often depicted in profile so that the one horn almost eclipsed the other (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Aurochs1.png), hence the Greek monoceros in the LXX. So The bible does not refer to fantasy animals (http://creation.com/the-unicorn).

Try not to argue too much like your fellow atheopath Antichrist. :P


and dragons...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=dragon&qs_version=KJV
Indeed, also just one of the 12 animals of the Chinese Zodiac (http://creation.com/crouching-tiger-hidden-dinosaur), and treated as a normal creature.

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2012, 06:26 AM
But no dinos? or platypus on Noah's ark?
Of course there were (http://creation.com/how-did-dinosaurs-grow-so-big).

antichrist
22-02-2012, 08:25 AM
Of course there were (http://creation.com/how-did-dinosaurs-grow-so-big).

Now Jono, just for arguments sake that I did go along with your anti-science (ignorance).

It makes you the greatest evolutionist of us all, because sensible people who accept science accept that evolution occurred over billions of years, whereas you are saying that great evolution occurred over just 5,000 years???

That is all these changes in just 5 generations of NOahs (living to 1,000 years a piece). If the Bible is a book of science as you make it out to be why aren't these changes noted in the Bible from 5,000 to 2,000 years ago???

As Goughfather stated you worship your own version of everything.

Rincewind
22-02-2012, 09:53 AM
The Hebrew רְאֵם re’ēm is probably an aurochs, often depicted in profile so that the one horn almost eclipsed the other (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Aurochs1.png), hence the Greek monoceros in the LXX. So The bible does not refer to fantasy animals (http://creation.com/the-unicorn).

Probably... often depicted... Not very convincing from something you hold up as the infallible scripture.

Given that aurochs were extant until 1627 it is unlikely that the greeks were so unfamiliar with basic anatomy of bovines as to think they had only one horn and the translators of the KJV were certainly not of that opinion otherwise they would have not used unicorn in the translation.


Indeed, also just one of the 12 animals of the Chinese Zodiac (http://creation.com/crouching-tiger-hidden-dinosaur), and treated as a normal creature.

The point of your article is what? Because the chinese believed ni dragons they must have been real? How about European bestiaries which contain all manner of weird and wonderful creatures. For example the Aberdeen Bestiary (written around the 12th century) contains satyr, phoenix, dragon, basilisk, and many other fantastic beasts. By the same argument would you say these all correspond to actual animals too?

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2012, 09:34 AM
Probably... often depicted... Not very convincing from something you hold up as the infallible scripture.
Perfectly convincing. There is no proof that the Bible's term was referring to a mythological creature, regardless of what later people have thought. As the article said, there is a clear cognate in the Assyrian word rimu, meaning wild ox.


Given that aurochs were extant until 1627 it is unlikely that the greeks were so unfamiliar with basic anatomy of bovines as to think they had only one horn
Not as familiar as you think. Aristotle thought that the oryx was one-horned, and the Roman Pliny the Elder thought that both the oryx and the Indian ox (maybe the gaur, even bigger than the aurochs) were one-horned. They may not have known any more than their profile picture.

Thus a "unicorn" in history was not restricted to the horse variety. The Indian rhinoceros today is classified as Rhinoceros unicornis, as opposed to black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, which has both Greek and Latin words for "two-horned".


and the translators of the KJV were certainly not of that opinion otherwise they would have not used unicorn in the translation.
The KJV translators relied rather a lot on the Vulgate, which in turn relied a lot on the LXX. So even if they didn't have the aurochs on their mind, they could have meant the huge Rhinoceros unicornis, again, hardly mythological. Your attack on the Bible is anachronistic, relying on a modern meaning for an old word, which is a translation of a translation anyway.


The point of your article is what? Because the chinese believed ni dragons they must have been real? How about European bestiaries which contain all manner of weird and wonderful creatures. For example the Aberdeen Bestiary (written around the 12th century) contains satyr, phoenix, dragon, basilisk, and many other fantastic beasts. By the same argument would you say these all correspond to actual animals too?
But these were all written about as fantastic animals. But in the Chinese zodiac, the dragon was in the company of known everyday animals.

Rincewind
27-02-2012, 10:48 AM
Perfectly convincing. There is no proof that the Bible's term was referring to a mythological creature, regardless of what later people have thought. As the article said, there is a clear cognate in the Assyrian word rimu, meaning wild ox.

Now there is a clear cognate. Well, you can't argue with that. :lol:

It is pretty clear the writers of the KJV meant unicorn with how that would have been interpreted by a 17th century English-speaking audience, which is a horse with one horn protruding from its forehead.


Not as familiar as you think. Aristotle thought that the oryx was one-horned, and the Roman Pliny the Elder thought that both the oryx and the Indian ox (maybe the gaur, even bigger than the aurochs) were one-horned. They may not have known any more than their profile picture.

Pliny spent most of his time north of the Mediterranean and so would not have seen the Indian ox first hand, and although he did travel to Africa, may not have seen the oryx either (certainly didn't get a good look at one) which is native to Africa and the Middle East.

The auroch was native to Europe and had quite a wide range in antiquity although by the time of the KJV was being translated there range was more limited. However there is no doubt the translators use unicorn to mean what you and I know this term to mean.


Thus a "unicorn" in history was not restricted to the horse variety. The Indian rhinoceros today is classified as Rhinoceros unicornis, as opposed to black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, which has both Greek and Latin words for "two-horned".

Scientific classifications does not prove anything about the 17th century translation of the bible. Unless you think in the 17th century the word unicorn may have meant rhinoceros. If that is your position you might like to present some evidence to that effect.


The KJV translators relied rather a lot on the Vulgate, which in turn relied a lot on the LXX. So even if they didn't have the aurochs on their mind, they could have meant the huge Rhinoceros unicornis, again, hardly mythological. Your attack on the Bible is anachronistic, relying on a modern meaning for an old word, which is a translation of a translation anyway.

My attack is not in the least anachronistic. I refer to the 17th century usage of the word unicorn which I maintain has not significantly changed is meaning in this context. The translators could not have meant anything other than the mythical one-horned horse variety.


But these were all written about as fantastic animals. But in the Chinese zodiac, the dragon was in the company of known everyday animals.

You're wrong here again Jono. Bestiaries often included mythical and mundane animals side-by-side. You can check this out for yourself and part of the reason I refer to a particular book, the Aberdeen Bestiary, and not the generic term which you could try to dismiss as obviously fictional literature.

The Aberdeen bestiary includes: lion, tiger, panther, elephant, ibex, hyena, goats, pelicans and various other birds, etc, etc, etc. Side by said with Satyrs, Pheonix, Dragons and Basilisks. Just like the Chinese Horoscope and so by your reasoning, satyrs must be real and co-existed in the recent past with humans. Reductio ad absurdum.

Capablanca-Fan
29-02-2012, 01:53 PM
Now there is a clear cognate. Well, you can't argue with that. :lol:
Yes, the Assyrian related word for aurochs is clear.


It is pretty clear the writers of the KJV meant unicorn with how that would have been interpreted by a 17th century English-speaking audience, which is a horse with one horn protruding from its forehead.
That's debatable, but in any case, I don't defend inerrancy of a translation.


Pliny spent most of his time north of the Mediterranean and so would not have seen the Indian ox first hand, and although he did travel to Africa, may not have seen the oryx either (certainly didn't get a good look at one) which is native to Africa and the Middle East.
That's the point! Not seeing the real creature with two horns, he might have called them unicorns (one-horns) from the profile.


Scientific classifications does not prove anything about the 17th century translation of the bible. Unless you think in the 17th century the word unicorn may have meant rhinoceros. If that is your position you might like to present some evidence to that effect.

My attack is not in the least anachronistic. I refer to the 17th century usage of the word unicorn which I maintain has not significantly changed is meaning in this context. The translators could not have meant anything other than the mythical one-horned horse variety.
Nonsense. Even in the Vulgate, the Hebrew רְאֵם re'em is translated both as unicornis and rinoceros. Even Numbers 23:22 and Deuteronomy 33:17a refer to horns (plural) of a re'em (singular), and the Latin has genitive singular rinocerotis.


The Aberdeen bestiary includes: lion, tiger, panther, elephant, ibex, hyena, goats, pelicans and various other birds, etc, etc, etc. Side by said with Satyrs, Pheonix, Dragons and Basilisks. Just like the Chinese Horoscope and so by your reasoning, satyrs must be real and co-existed in the recent past with humans. Reductio ad absurdum.
There is a big difference: the Chinese zodiac has 11 undoubtedly real animals plus the dragon.

Rincewind
29-02-2012, 02:13 PM
Yes, the Assyrian related word for aurochs is clear.

I feel much better now. If there is a word in another language of a two horned bovine which would have been familiar to the greeks it's obvious that they would think that had one horn.


That's debatable, but in any case, I don't defend inerrancy of a translation.

A widely published, read and very influential translation.


That's the point! Not seeing the real creature with two horns, he might have called them unicorns (one-horns) from the profile.

But the point is aurochs would have been well-known to practically everyone in the hellenic world as they were extant, wide-spread and even the subject of pagan worship. No one would have thought that they had only one horn.


Nonsense. Even in the Vulgate, the Hebrew רְאֵם re'em is translated both as unicornis and rinoceros. Even Numbers 23:22 and Deuteronomy 33:17a refer to horns (plural) of a re'em (singular), and the Latin has genitive singular rinocerotis.

There is nothing strange about a single word in one language translating to several words in another. In fact if this was not true then language translation would be a doddle.


There is a big difference: the Chinese zodiac has 11 undoubtedly real animals plus the dragon.

I haven't done the numbers but looking at the index I'd estimate the Aberdeen Bestiary is more than 50% real animals (although some of the stories about the real ones are fanciful).

Is there some magic percentage that needs to be crossed? 70%, 80%, 90% real? Obviously only 8.333% questionable content is sufficient for an iron-clad case.

Desmond
02-03-2012, 07:07 PM
I friend told me I was delusional. I almost fell off my unicorn.

antichrist
03-03-2012, 08:08 PM
I friend told me I was delusional. I almost fell off my unicorn.

I think it was the invisible pink unicorn that made the Blessed Virgin Mary pregnant!

Desmond
04-03-2012, 11:49 AM
I think it was the invisible pink unicorn that made the Blessed Virgin Mary pregnant!I knew you'd find a way to shoe-Horn Mary into this. ;)

Desmond
14-03-2012, 04:51 PM
The lost piece (http://www.threadless.com/submission/408761/The_Lost_Piece/) tshirt

Desmond
23-06-2013, 11:28 AM
The Turks dareth not deny a unicorn entry.

Emily Harris uses unicorn passport to get through Turkish customs (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/emily-harris-uses-unicorn-passport-to-get-through-turkish-customs/story-e6frfq80-1226662863144)


GIRL, 9, manages to pass through customs using a passport that identifies her as a unicorn.