Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New blank image?

I see the Invisible Pink Unicorn image, a blank area, was replaced by a different image, also completely blank. I don't see any difference. What did I miss? --Jonathunder 19:40, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I don't know what the last comment was about, but I just created a PNG with a pink unicorn, but with pink set as the transparency color, thus best approximating an invisible pink unicorn. I've added it to the page. --ToastyKen 2005 Jul 14

Is there any real purpose for that? I mean its a second blank image. It's like writing on a white chalk board with white chalk, it's still the same. --TKGB

That's the whole point, TKGB! The IPU is also invisible, so one might say there's no point to IT either... BUT if you open that image in an image editor, you can see that it really is pink. What the analogous situation is for seeing the real pinkness of the IPU is left as an exercise for the reader. :) --ToastyKen

I don't think this is going to work right, unfortunately. The proper effect is only seen when the image is on a white background, which isn't guaranteed. For example, under the Classic skin (the only one I use, I don't know what it looks like under Monobook) when you go to that image's page Image:Ipu.png the page background color is light yellow so the image presents a light yellow unicorn on a white background. --Bryan 02:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, I've updated the image to use an alpha channel that makes the entire image transparent, not just the unicorn, so it should show up properly on colored backgrounds now. :) You can verify the original pinkness with Fireworks MX, but not Photoshop, since it doesn't have very good PNG support. --ToastyKen

Has anyone pointed out that the image is a horse and not a unicorn? I see no horn on this image (at any zoom size)

Clever.

Weird that I could never have heard of this. I always preferred "super hero from outer space", myself. --grendel|khan 16:02, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Assumptions?

The IPU idea addresses an outdated notion of deity. Attributes such as "supernatural," "outside human perception," "great spiritual power" (taken from the article) and even "omnipotence" don't necessarily apply to deity or God. To claim that they do is a textbook example of the Straw Person fallacy. Consider thinking about the limitations of this idea of the IPU. As it is now, it looks awfully POV. Aloha, --Aliman

I disagree about it being POV. The IPU was not invented by the writer of this article. Whether you accept it as a valid religion or not, the IPU faith existed long before Wikipedia, and this article simply documents it. Bmearns 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't necessarily apply to your idea of a god, but they do apply to others. In any case, the IPU isn't supposed to be take seriously. --brian0918™ 22:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"isn't supposed to be take seriously." - That's POV. Bmearns 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, indeed. There are different conceptions of divinity, and it should be pointed out in the article, in order to be more balanced, that the idea of IPU doesn't apply as directly to, e.g., the process notion of divinity. First, divinity in process is experienced--the notion of perception has to be broadened. Second, the Subject-Object relation in process philosophy/theology is developed in terms of a metaphysical system that jibes with science (Newtonian/Einsteinian/quantum), while the idea of the IPU assumes a traditional (underdeveloped) Cartesian Subject-Object relationship and thus falls short on many accounts--the notion of divinity being only one such account. Again, in order for the article to be balanced, these things should be taken into consideration.

As to your second point, if the IPU isn't supposed to be taken seriously, then there shouldn't be an article devoted to it on Wikipedia. There are millions (literally) of notions of satirical irony, all of which are subsumed under the general Wikipedia articles on Satire/Irony/Humor, etc. The claim is that the IPU is used as a reductio in a theological/philosophical argument. This is serious. If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then all the material in the article that points to a serious use should be deleted. But, I rather think that those who advocate for this article would NOT want to see that happen. They would rather maintain that while it is primarily satirical, that there is also a serious aspect to it. --Aliman 23:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The IPU is used as a reductio ad absurdum in some theological/philosophical arguments, but it isn't used in all such arguments. I don't really see the problem but if you think the article is insufficiently qualified regarding which concepts of god the IPU satirizes then go ahead and try adding specifics. Be careful not to introduce POV of your own, though; calling particular concepts of god "outdated" might not go over well with adherents of them. --Bryan 04:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aliman, if you think the article shouldn't exist, put it up for VfD. I'm not sure how I would vote myself, even though I've put a fair amount of work into making this article somewhat encyclopedic, like many of the others who have it on their watchlists, such as Bryan. At present, IPU is a satire that has developed beyond alt.atheism, where she was popularized. Whether this satire has entered the culture sufficiently to warrant a Wikipedia article is precisely the sort of discussion that one should have on VFD. One argument against deleting the article is that if deleted, probably it would get recreated, and then we would have to go through the process of NPOV-ing and encyclopedia-fying it all over again. --BM 23:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't help agreeing with Aliman that this is terribly POV; it's fairly clear that this article is written with the assumption that those who use the IPU to ridicule faith are "right" and those they ridicule are "wrong". Perhaps point out some criticisms of this sort of reductio (e.g., reformed epistemology and properly basic belief)? Ubernostrum 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It would help your argument if the article on this so-called "reformed epistemology" actually gave the reasons why such authors believe that belief in deities is rational. Simply hiding behind vaguely scientific sounding terminology like "properly basic belief", (which following the Wikipedia is simply a fancy name for the empty assertion that people don't need a reason for belief) doesn't help the issue at all. --User:jhbadger

The reason why reformed epistemologists take belief in God to be properly basic grows, as the article states, largely out of "parity"-style arguments; for example, in God and Other Minds, Plantinga's line of reasoning is predicated on showing that the same criticisms and errors of reasoning which invalidate arguments for God's existence also invalidate arguments for believing in the existence of other conscious minds (and, debatably, for believing in the existence of an external world at all); thus if it is rational to accept the existence of other minds in the face of being unable to prove their existence (and our inability to prove the existence of any objects or entities outside our own consciousness is, arguably, the central problem of modern philosophy), it must be at least as rational to accept the existence of God in the face of being unable to prove God's existence. Ubernostrum 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that this is not the place to discuss the existence or non-existence of a deity. The entry does not (and should not) make any claims regarding the validity of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or a deity; it is merely a Wikipedia entry documenting the idea of the IPU. Wyatt Riot 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I just wanted to answer the question posed in the comment I was replying to... Ubernostrum 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. It's just that this is one of the entries where people start to debate whether or not the IPU makes a valid point rather than sticking to documentation based on reliable sources. Rereading my comment, I sounded harsh, so once again, sorry about that. Wyatt Riot 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Objections by Aliman et al. do not seem to make sense. Invocation of "Newton," "Einstein," and "quantum" appear to be pseudoscience. A random string of buzzwords might be sufficient to get an article published in a theological journal, but it doesn't make an argument persuasive to an audience outside one's own sect. 24.22.58.51 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement:

These professions of faith also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.

is based on a false premise. Most theistic beliefs are not based on "phenomena outside human perception", but rather on phenomena of human perception which cannot be mechanistically measured. People clearly DO "feel" faith, and undergo "conversion experiences" - both items of human perception.

Whether what they are perceiving is what they think it is, that's another question entirely.

Perhaps some rewording of this statement to something like:

These professions of faith also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in unmeasurable phenomena.

69.7.197.98 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Regarding the quote that was removed then replaced — "We know that she is pink by faith, but we know that she is invisible by evidence: because we cannot see her" — if it's to stay, it should have a reference, so BM, if you know where it came from, could you give us a citation please. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

When I was reading about IPU a few months ago to work on this article, I encountered this exact quote on a couple of websites, as I recall, although I don't recall now which ones. It was in the WP article already at this point, too- that is, I didn't put it in the article. I have the idea that it is a quote from the alt.atheism FAQ, but I don't where I got that idea, and I could very easily be wrong. Not very satisfactory, I admit. --BM 03:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A search under Google and Google groups is returning no entries for the precise phrase: "We know that she is pink by faith, but we know that she is invisible by evidence." Perhaps we've got it slightly wrong. I'll remove it until we can track down a source. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the quote doesn't belong to the head of the article, where we usually put disambiguation notes. We don't do "mottos" for articles. --dab (ᛏ) 10:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The quote is essentially repeated further down the article. The top quote was added here, but doesn't add anything to the article, and in my opinion isn't very encyclopedic. I have removed it. --Iain 10:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Iain. I only put it back with a citation because BM reverted Porcher's removal of it. You're right that it seemed a bit odd to have it there. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The quote is mine. (No, I'm not kidding. Do a search on "Eley Pink Unicorn" and you'll find several citations with attribution.) I will edit the page accordingly, and also add some history. --SFEley 03:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oxymoron

If the unicorn is invisible, it cannot be pink. Color relies on what visible parts of the spectrum are reflected from an object. Does this view make me a heretic destined to torture from the Equine Inquisition? --Dainamo 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One must have faith that she is pink. Repent your heresy or be trampled beneath Her holy hooves! --Bryan 00:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, yes Dainamo. You'll definitely be first up against the wall- or fence, or pasture, as it may be. --maru 03:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that if you get a unicorn and make its skin invisible, it's gonna be pink/blood red because of the muscles and pumping blood. Mind you if the invisibility gives off a white aura then it would appear to be pink. --Anon.

Bah! Unbeliever- if the wondrous IPU was "pink/blood red", then it would not be Invisible, now would it? Thus, we can logically deduce that the invisibleness is a property of all of the IPU, not just the skin. --maru 03:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course she can be transparent and pink. The RGBA color code for that is rgba(239,104,242,0). --193.69.113.22 13:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

/me boggles --maru 14:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She can be both pink and invisible if the following statements are true: If She were to reveal herself, She would be pink and She will never reveal herself. Good contradictions are rare. Nice choice for a goddess though. Very Freudian. --MWAK 2 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)

On this subject, I've put in a link to Colorless green ideas sleep furiously in the See Also section, since it discusses this seriously and perhaps represents prior art. --Andrew (not yet registered) 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the oxymoron is a parody of the notion of the three Christian gods that are somehow counted as one; being three and one is exactly like being invisible and pink. --User:jhbadger

Firstly jhbadger, there are not three Christian Gods, there is only one God in the Christian religion. Secondly with regard to the IPU being both pink and invisible, this is known as Divine Dichotomy, where two contradictory statements can be true, with neither making the other untrue.--NeilEvans 23:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, NeilEvans, this is known as special pleading. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true, not even if you close your eyes really tight and talk to yourself. As to the "Trinity", if they are all the same identical character, then why do you insist on calling it by three different names? And if "the Father" and "the Holy Spirit" are not the same character, then they are separate, and that makes two gods. And baby makes three. — coelacan talk — 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Trinity is the same entity which manifested in three different forms, they are The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. They have different names just the same as us humans, one person can be a mother, a daughter, a sister. These are all different title but it's still the same person.--NeilEvans 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But one person cannot be her own mother and her own daughter. The Shield of the Trinity says that "the Father" and "the Son" are not the same character. Do you disagree with that diagram? — coelacan talk — 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, this is not a forum to discuss theological topics. This is a talk page for the entry on IPU. Wyatt Riot 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image placement

As the pink-unicorn image has been moved to the top of the page (where it looks much better than the blank image), I've moved it to the left of the page: there's a convention in publishing that, when an image is looking to the right, you place it on the left, and vice versa. This is because the reader's eye is believed to be drawn in the direction the image is facing, and you want the eye to be drawn in the direction of the text. However, if you don't like it, feel free to revert. --SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree with that, I don't like images on the left at the top of the page because I start to read from the top left of the article, and get somewhat annoyed when there's an image there. If it was further down, yes. --Dunc|☺ 11:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second that. Conventions in publishing notwithstanding, there are stronger conventions on Wikipedia: the intro image always goes to the right, to facilitate left-to-right reading. In a quick check, I couldn't find any featured articles that violated this rule and obeyed SlimVirgin's, even if the images faced right: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bernard Williams, Chuck Palahniuk (only slightly right-facing, though), Max Weber, Wladyslaw Sikorski, James K. Polk, Roy Orbison, George Fox. I've restricted myself to portraits mainly because these are easiest to check for left-rightness; other FAs are likely to have orientation-neutral pictures.
I'd sooner advocate flipping the image (which is not a photograph, after all) than placing it on "the wrong side". If the publishing convention mentioned should be adopted on Wikipedia, there should probably be a global effort to adopt it, not something unique to this article. --JRM 11:39, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

On flipping the image though, I think that might be more heraldically correct. (it's a unicorn rampant, and that would make it stand on its left leg and face dexter [1] from [2]. Not sure pink is a heraldic color though.) --Dunc|☺ 11:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it's an invisible pink unicorn rampant proper. — mendel ☎ 20:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention what should be done with "invisible"... --JRM 13:19, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Which way is the unicorn facing in the blank image? ;-) --Jonathunder 17:10, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

She always faces the viewer, with Her hind to the East and Her Horn to the South Bmearns 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shocking!

I removed the following:

"The color pink is associated with femininity and the unicorn is a herbivore so is unthreatening. Despite this, she is said to crush believers beneath her hooves. This may be alogised with the mixed message of the Christian God between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New Testament."

On grounds of Wikipedia:No original research. Sorry, Duncharris. It's a nice observation, but I don't think it's ever been stated elsewhere.

No, really! Stop laughing! I mean it! --JRM 16:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Vandalism on article page

I've noticed the same user, a guest, vandalized this page twice. I don't know if that user has any other good edits or not, but if he or she is simply a vandal, how does one go about moving to ban him/her? --ZPG0705 19:51, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. His vandalism is easy to spot and not frequent enough, so I don't think it merits inclusion on the "in progress" page. That IP was used to make at least one edit (at Midwest Airlines) that wasn't vandalism. -- — Jeandré, 2005-05-14t06:22z

Good deal, thanks for filling me in. --ZPG0705 00:15, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Disputatiousness

Holy cr**, that's a word? --Tzarius 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, OED and everything: Disputatiousness: the quality of being disputatious. --maru 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It's in Heritage too, found via dictionary.com [3]: "Inclined to dispute. See Synonyms at argumentative." Seems to be a perfectly cromulent word. --Bryan 05:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

("Cromulent"=Made-up words in The Simpsons#Cromulent; don't bother looking in your handy-dandy compact OED.) --maru 13:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's in Webster's. The joke's on the Simpsons, their made-up word has become common enough that now it's real. :) [4] --Bryan 15:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Learn what reductio ad absurdum means

This is not an R.A.A., it's a straw-man argument. Reductio Ad Absurdum would mean disproof by contradiction, which this is not an example of. This needs to be changed.

It certainly has more in common with RAA than it does with straw-man: the notion is that a skeptic takes a theist's actual words and simply replaces "God" with "IPU." It's not really a straw-man argument if you're using the actual words; and it's sort of like a RAA insofar as you're saying, "OK, let's assume that what you're saying is true. Then mutatis mutandis it's just as true of the IPU too..." etc. Not exactly RAA, but similar. (Also similar to slippery slope.) At any rate, I've removed the offending phrase. --Doops | talk 02:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I would rather argue that it isn't a straw man because the skeptic in no way implies that the religionist believes in invisible pink unicorns. --Yath 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any way in common with an RAA. To disprove by contradiction you have to assume the axioms of what you're trying to disprove. An RAA works by assuming at least two things that, in this case, Christians maintain to define Christianity, and showing how these logically contradict each other. IPU does no such thing, at least not explicitly, and implicitly it is a stretch. The notion of being invisible and pink are contradictory, but it's not as if any real theists maintain these things. Whether or not you would consider it a straw man is another thing, but this is definitely not an RAA.

The reason I think it would be considered a straw man is that they're not just trying to criticize Christianity, but theism in general. To me it seems to be the perfect example of a straw man, they're setting up an argument for the sake of making it seem easy to defeat, and trying to connect it to something in else in order to criticize it indirectly. And well, whether or not you agree with that, please don't leave the reductio ad absurdum in, it's better not to use a term like that unless you're absolutely sure it applies. I know more than one person who disagreed with its usage here. --24.214.14.35 15:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I took it out of the article almost a month ago when you first brought the issue up. That sentence doesn't invoke any formal principle of logic anymore; so it's all academic now. When I said it wasn't a straw man before, my point was that the IPU-proponents weren't parodying a parody of theism, they were parodying the real thing. (Or at least that's the case whenever somebody uses the IPU in direct response to a theist's arguments.) But it occurs to me that perhaps you're suggesting that the "straw man" in this case is the actual IPU dogma itself; if so, I think that that's (like the article's previous use of RAA) something of a loose use of the term. By this criterion, every parody would qualify as a straw-man argument. Furthermore, the IPU-user doesn't claim that the IPU argument is (to borrow your phrasing) "easy to defeat" — quite the reverse, in fact: the whole point of the IPU is that it can't be refuted by logical means. Its point is to remind us that just because a theist's arguments can't be refuted doesn't make them true or even plausible. --Doops | talk 19:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article has been removed from the Good Articles list because it fails to cite its references. Several of the images used by this article also fail to cite their source or have potential copyright problems. --Allen3 ^talk 17:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a very cliquey article with little or no intellectual or cultural merit outside of Usenet. However, it is quite amusing.

New Animated Gif

I'm new to wikipedia editing so it took me more tries than it should have, but I finally got the animated gif I made up and removed one of two repetetive invisible images. --Drunk Monkey 03 December 2005

I don't understand why it was removed in favor of a blank image. --DrunkMonkey 2005-12-05t00:43:40z

Please see the 5 pillars and what Wikipedia is not (specifically Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). This article needs more work, so please don't feel discouraged if lots of big changes happen here. — Jeandré, 2005-12-05t16:40z

I still don't get it. Its no more new thought than any of the other images are. --Drunk Monkey 06 December 2005

I personally feel the fading image should not be in the article — it's not the fading pink unicorn. I think it was posted on IPU sites before this article was written, so it's not original research tho, and can't be removed for that reason.

There is a valid argument for including the blank white image, see Talk:Invisible_Pink_Unicorn/Archive_1#Removed_Picture (please don't edit the archived page, comment here).

The alpha channel image should probably be removed as it was most likely made specifically for this article, and the argument for the white background image doesn't hold for it. It is used for an userbox tho, so it shouldn't be deleted from the server.

The logo is in the same camp as the fading image. — Jeandré, 2005-12-06t11:42z

New Serious Comment

This page could be excellent.

The phrase "Invisible Pink Unicorn", and phrases like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" are very interesting to syntax and semantics specialists alike .. I'd love to edit this page and properly sort it out - no more pictures of invisible green unicorns .. just an entry about the phrase "invisible green unicorns" and a proper discussion of what it means ... from every point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackershandbook (talk • contribs) .

This is not an article about the phrase, as such, it is an article about the (fictional) entity the phrase refers to. There are articles about semantics and syntax and you are welcome to add to them. You might start with Colorless green ideas sleep furiously which is an article about that phrase and which links to lots of interesting things. Jonathunder 22:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve Eley

Damn you Steve Eley! Kyaa the Catlord 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Do we need 2 blank images? The one with the alpha channel seems clever enough, can't we combine the comments for the two to have just one blank picture? Kuroune 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They aren't blank images, they're images of the IPU Bmearns 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

"several of the sillier articles of faith"

Isn't that a little judgemental? It'd never fly to have a phrase like that on a page about Christianity or Islam, et cetera, et cetera. I suggest the author keep his/her editorials to himself, I happen to take my religions very seriously, and I'm sorry if you can't understand that, you Unicornless heathen. Bmearns 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What's needed in this case is some NPOV term to describe articles of faith that require particularly strong efforts to believe in them. I suggest "belief-intensive" or "faith-intensive". Johnny Pez 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you may be missing the point of the IPU. Nysin 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be that Johnny Pez simply needs to have his sarcasm detector recalibrated (with regard to reading Bmearns complaint). Or it may be that he's having all of us on as well.

Following her blessed hoofsteps,

Atlant 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Higglytown Heroes

I once saw an episode of Higglytown Heroes, where there was some thump noise. And twinbkle suggested it was an invisible pink unicorn who got trapped. That's stupid and referential. Whatever. Homfrog 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can get a more precise reference to the episode it would make sense to include it as a reference. JoshuaZ 15:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

The article seems rather one sided, and doesn't mention anything about theists respond to statements made using the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's clearly not perfect, I can see a flaw in the arguement just by reading this article.DevinOfGreatness 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you find citations for said criticisms? If so, put them in. JoshuaZ 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides "waaah, that's not funny"? Probably not. 66.229.182.113 08:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the IPU was originally concieved as a way of illustrating percieved flaws in (one of) the Christian view(s) of God it seems to me that the entire concept is in itself a demonstration of the critisisms. Any critism of the IPU theory would also be a critism of other concepts of deity, and since highlighting these 'flaws' is the entire purpose of the IPU to begin with it would be a little redundant. In other words the majority of the article is already a critisism section, all be it a rather round about one. Danikat 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Original Poster means that theres nothing regarding theists (e.g. Chrisitans et al) and their criticisms against the IPU. Jacobshaven3 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti, Russel's teapot and all the other invisible, scentless, colourless deities only make sense in a positivist framework, so I think it should have a criticism section. You don't have to be a theist to criticise positivism, right? --193.203.157.188 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still hard to formulate. IPU's official argumentation is completely anti-positivist. You're right that this is only to shed light on the absurdity of the anti-positivism of other religions, but since it would be theoretically possible to really believe in IPU, any anti-positivist criticism would be a critique of IPU's followers, but absolutely not of IPU "theology" itself. Malc82 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think other religions are anti-empirical. As far as I know, the Catholic Church are firm believers in natural theology. They just don't value it higher than their sacred texts or dogma or whatever. --Onias 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the Catholic church has made a kind of "peace" with science for practical reasons, but they still hold positivist beliefs like the Lourdes miracles or canonization. Besides, natural theology could at best be an argument for any god, extending it to believe that this god must be the god of the bible is positivist in nature. Malc82 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence vs. Omnipresence

I'm wondering about this part: "This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God, i.e. that because God is omnipotent, inability to detect him does not reduce his believability." I think that "omnipresent" (as it was before the most recent edit) is more accurate, but I didn't want to revert without discussion. Ideas? Wyatt Riot 14:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to Omnipresent. You are right. What the sentence says is that the reason for not beeing able to detect god is his omnipresence NOT his omnipotence. pinikas 17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

god omnipotence can allow god to be detected, but unless you feelled him(or her or it) Sie is in hir omnipresence status... so omnipresence or omnipotence ? ask the IPU. maro

External Links

I cleaned up the external links. One was broken (*Alt.Atheism FAQ) I think its because that site went down after Katrina. We can put it back up when the site returns. Another link was removed because it was just a listing with all the same external links. Silknscarlet 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First/second sentence of Dogma

I just want to congradulate whoever evolved my rather poorly-worded sentence about how the IPU is just as credible as God, in the first and second sentences of the Dogma section, into just what I was trying to make it. My first attempt at describing this was:

It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist, thereby making the point that simply by claiming that something cannot be sensed in any way, shape or form, such as God in Theistic beleifs, someone could claim that any divine object or entity existed and argue that no one can prove this theory right, but no one could prove it wrong, either, and saying that this is reason to beleive in said divine object/entity - which is the main point of the satire, namely pointing out that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has all the credibility of God from Theistic beleifs, and that it is no different to beleive in the IPU than to beleive in God.

Now, I was trying my darndest to convey my point, but I kind of tangled it up a bit and made it one huge run-on sentence. I improved it as much as I could, but when I couldn't make it any better I simply posted it. Then I come back and find that someone or several people have evolved it into something wonderfully better that carries my point perfectly:

It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist. This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God, i.e. that because God is omnipresent, inability to detect him does not reduce his believability. The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilising a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God.

This is a perfect example of the improvement system in Wikipedia. Someone adds something poor, other people improve it, detangle it, punctuate it, fix it, and integrate it until the valid point is given a clearer, easier to understand voice. I just wanted to say thank you, and extend my congrats for making my point so much clearer. -Jetman123 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did some digging in the edit history and found that it was Irrevenant who actually improved my badly-worded sentence. Great work! -Jetman123 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Spelling (a.k.a. UK vs. US)

So which is it to be? Per the Manual of Style, it should be based on ties to the article itself or the first non-stub entry. Now the original entry ([[5]]) used "colour" but that's a quote from the alt.atheism FAQ, so I don't know whether or not it should set a precedent. The next non-quote precedent I could find ([[6]]) is "satirize", decidedly US English. So it has to be one or the other. I don't really care either way, but it needs to be consistent. Ideas? Wyatt Riot 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No opinions yet? If there's no response by later this week, I'll edit the thing myself and make the spelling consistent. Will I choose UK English? Will I choose US English? You'll have to wait and see! :) Wyatt Riot 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went with US English, because: 1. It's a precedent set by the first non-quote edit, and 2. There are already more instances of US English than non-US English.

Seems reasonable — all that really matters is that the decision isn't made by people who care which spelling is used! Feezo (Talk) 11:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

~ize is not "decidedly US English" in fact it is the form prefered in Canada and prefered by the Oxford dictionary. Jɪmp 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

True Believers

There are true believers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) that now walk this earth. They are offended not only by other religions but by people who write wiki pages such as this spreading the false doctrine that the IPU is only a satirical artifice. True believers wait for the day of atonement when the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) shows her true pinkness and her vengeance is laid upon the heads of all who do not believe but also make fun of her holiness.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse are going to look like Care Bears compared to the justice that the sharpened point of pink will bestow on you heathens. There is still time to repent. Bow down to the invisible goddess so you may be saved eternal damnation without hooves of any kind.

What I think is missing from the IPU page is a sidebar showing an example of IPU dogma and how it might be used. I know that the above is 100 % POV because that is what it is an example of. The point of view of a true believer of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs). An obvious citation would be a web site that never steps out of the dogma. http://ipu.secularlife.org/. But there really is no cite as I made it up. The reading of the wiki IPU page does not give the real flavor of what the IPU is all about and how she can be used. Could an entry like this be placed in a side-bar? Encylopedias show examples.

The Klingon Connection?

The IPU logo shown in the "Iconography" section bears a striking resemblance to the emblem for the Klingon empire, as any casual observer familiar with Star Trek's iconography can quickly ascertain. Coincidence or not, I feel this is worth mentioning. I've twice tried to place mention of this fact in the "Iconography" section of the article, but each time my mention was quickly edited back out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermw (talk • contribs)

It's probably only worth mentioning if it's something that has been commented on in some significant way in external sources. I don't see your edits in the history anywhere (I recommend using the edit summary field in future), so I can't tell if you included any references. Bryan 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of criticism = POV

The POV tag should stay on this page until a section on criticism, and or general criticism is added to the article. Let's not make Wikipedia full of cliques please! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

The POV template states: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." However, there hasn't been a dispute (recently) with respect to this article. I would suggest if you feel the criticism is out there, but is missing from the article, that you should go ahead and add it. The POV template is not necessary for this; you just go ahead and fix the article. But since you might want to invite others to help, I've put Template:POV-check on the article for you. Mind you, I'm not aware of any notable cricism of the IPU and don't have any current plans to participate. Also, if there's no activity in this regard in the next few days, I'll remove the template again. --Yath 11:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please understand: I only removed the template because there was not a single mention of any dispute here on the Talk page. If you see there's a problem, you need to either correct it or bring it to attention on the Talk page, as how else can we know what needs to be fixed? Specifically, what do you feel needs to be added? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The following section contains Sigurd's complaints, as mentioned on his talk page:

---

"invisible" and "pink" satirize the apparent contradictions in properties attributed to a theistic God (for example, God is often described as both totally just and totally merciful). - how is this necessarily a contradiction even an apparent one as just means fair, and some would consider merciful pretty fair! You see whether this is a contradiction is based on opinion, for instance if you believe in Retributive Justice I agree it could be seen as a contradiction, but if you do not believe in Retributive Justice then there is no contradiction. I think in this case it should say "that some perceive as a contradiction" rather than "apparent".

The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilizing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God. - Does it really? I think this does need changing as it does imply that Theist beliefs are absurd rather than that they are absurd according to a few who use the IPU to attack someone’s personal religious beliefs...In conclusion I think this needs a minor re-write, in other words it needs rephrasing!

From the awful first part of the Dogma section:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a useful teaching tool. Is it though? Many would disagree...I for one would not like to teach someone to mock a belief if they didn't agree with it, so thus if I was teaching (not that I am training to be a teacher of Theology, RE...ect... I'm going to train for teaching English Language, but that is beside the point)a lesson about Atheism and/or Theism it wouldn't be useful to me. Others who do wish to attack Theism (for whatever reason) may also disagree with it’s use and/or find it absurd...we do not know that it IS a useful teaching tool. We only know that some consider it one. So the sentence should probably be The Invisible Pink Unicorn is considered by some to be a useful teaching tool. You see?

Also the worst part of the article is the fact that IT DOES NOT even have a section for criticism at all. You cannot tell me no one criticises this! All good Wikipedia articles on Religion, Comedy…etc.. have sections for criticism and/or controversies. Until the writing of the article is improved and the section for criticism is added then it cannot be a 'Neutral' article and thus is not consistent with Wikipedia's rules on article writing.

---

I invite editors to help with these points. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to reduce some of the POV content. As for a criticism section, I agree that it may be warranted, but I spent about 20 minutes searching for criticism and found little to none. Because of this, it's my opinion that a criticism section would probably involve a great deal of original research, which, of course, is not what Wikipedia is about. But that's just my opinion. :)

It should also be mentioned that most of the information about IPU, as stated, is technically correct. The entry documents the belief system without commenting on the merits of those beliefs, just like the entry on Hylozoism does. (I mention Hylozoism only because it's a relatively insignificant belief system which does not have a criticism section.) If there's sufficient criticism of the IPU, by all means add it, but it just doesn't seem to be out there. Wyatt Riot 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing at all wrong with this page. Sigurd is completely wrong that "All good Wikipedia articles on Religion, Comedy…etc.. have sections for criticism". This is blatantly untrue - the religion page does not have a criticism section. I will therefore flag that as POV! Poujeaux 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My only criticism is that in my opinion, phrases such as BBHHH are not directed as Islam - they are equally appropriate for christian phrases such as "Blessed be the name of the lord" and "Blessed art thou among women". Perhaps this section could be rephrased?

I'm only aware of abbreviations being used commonly in Islam and Judaism. Also, I don't have a citation at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that aspect was in fact intended to reference Islamic practice. JoshuaZ 14:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigurd isn't participating, and I hate it when wikicruft uglifies articles, so off with the POV-check template. --Yath 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems mentioned above have not been dealt with, so I am re-tagging the article, and then some. I'm not even certain the article's subject is notable enough for an article in the first place. wikipediatrix 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, belay that. After doing some research, I've decided to send the article to AfD. wikipediatrix 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, please clarify what your objections are. Many of the 'problems mentioned above' have been dealt with. It no longer says the IPU is a useful teaching tool. Feel free to add some criticism of the IPU concept in the article - but take care! One of the aims of the IPU is to encourage the religious to criticise it and try to prove that it does not exist - see the christian website cited, which falls quite spectacularly into the trap! Poujeaux 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in such games. Why do you assume I am critical of the IPU concept? I'm criticizing the article, not the subject, of which I really couldn't care less about one way or the other. Also, I'm really not inclined to interact with you after your personal attacks on the AfD page. wikipediatrix 13:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the question: what is your objection to this article? Then we can improve it.Poujeaux 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the AfD debate (which will be clearly settled in the Afd page, and which currently looks like a 100% keep), if Sigurd could provide a source of criticism against the IPU, that would help a great deal, as it would allow us to cite the criticism section. If no such source can be provided by anyone, then it seems obvious that such a section would be OR, and therefore unnecessary. Does anyone disagree? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The statement:

These professions of faith also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.

is based on a false premise. Most theistic beliefs are not based on "phenomena outside human perception", but rather on phenomena of human perception which cannot be mechanistically measured. People clearly DO "feel" faith, and undergo "conversion experiences" - both items of human perception.

Whether what they are perceiving is what they think it is, that's another question entirely.

Perhaps some rewording of this statement to something like:

These professions of faith also serve to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in unmeasurable phenomena.

69.7.197.98 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that those feelings of faith are in fact human perception of their own belief, and not human perception of an actual diety. --TexasDex 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)