[People use this argument a lot, proly 'cause it's easy, but you also can't disprove leprechauns, unicorns, sasquatch, Cthulhu, the flying spaghetti monster, and space creatures living in Atlantis. Does this mean that they all have to exist? Of course not, that's ridiculous.]
Just because you find the existence of said creatures to be ridiculous does not mean they do not exist. Ignorance is not proof.
25 comments
He's actually correct on one thing - argument from personal incredulity is not good argument.
Probably. But I don´t see many people dying in the name of Leperchaun or Unicorns or, better, denying the most basic rights to some people or feeling persecuted because nobody apart from them believes in them. Of course, ignorance is not proof, but they haven´t shown any proof of their existence, because they don´t bother.
He's not arguing from personal incredulity - he's arguing, rightly, that to believe even one unprovable, unobserved thing exists without believing all others is inconsistent at best, and most likely based on personal incredulity on the part of the selective believer.
Just because you find the existence of said creatures to be ridiculous does not mean they do not exist. Ignorance is not proof."
Okay, he's not completely hopeless where logic is concerned. Now we just need to get him to take that one little step of turning this around -- and, of course, get him to recognize that belief in his own sky deity is just as much a case of ignorance as the position he criticizes. It's that latter that's the hard part, when the fundie confuses sheer belief for factual knowledge.
So you admit that Cthulhu exists and, therefore, needs to be appeased with human sacrifice, lest he rin horrible tentacled vengeance upon thou?
Actually, I don't see why this is here. He's right. There is no proof that any of those creatures exist. But there is also no proof that they do not exist. (Well, obviously there is; satellites and whatnot tell us that there is no Atlantis, blah blah, etc.) But the point is, if there is absolutely no proof that something exists AND no proof that it does NOT exist, then you cannot rightly say that it does not exist. Granted, you cannot rightly say that it DOES exist either, but the guy has a point. He's just saying that that goes both ways.
Okay, this is a start, so you believe in my gods.
Actually, I don't see why this is here.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
