INVISIBLE DRAGON FREE ZONE
~*~
It basically goes like this. A dragon believer says that there is the possibility that there is an invisible dragon living in his garage. Because the dragon believer has faith that the invisible dragon exists in the garage and because no one can prove that it doesn't, he/she takes this as EVIDENCE that the invisible dragon EXISTS. They then go on to demand that everyone believe that they have an invisible dragon living in their garage and that the invisible dragon has special messages for them which it wants followed to the letter.
~*~
The person who walks into their garage every day and never thinks about an invisible dragon using the garage as a hideout, sees no point in imagining that an invisible dragon lives there.The person who doesn't believe in invisible dragons knows that they can't prove the non-existence of invisible dragons which are claimed to live in everyone's garage, but they also know that this ISN'T evidence that the invisible dragon exists.
~*~
In fact, though they might agree that there is a POSSIBILITY that invisible dragons exist in everyone's garage, this is simply because they cannot definitively prove their non-existence. They consider the PROBABILITY of the existence of invisible dragons to be so low that they see no point in believing in their existence, worshipping them, obeying them or pretending to speak to the invisible dragon with their thoughts.And they see no reason to demand that others worship and obey the invisible dragon either.
~*~
Dragon believers then get in a bit of a huff and go on to claim that you wouldn't be able to build garages and dream about invisible dragons if it wasn't for the invisible dragon allowing you to do this and that garages are, therefore, evidence of the existence of invisible dragons. The person who doesn't believe in the existence of invisible dragons in the garage then asks, " How do you know that invisible dragons exist?" The dragon believer, without missing an illogical beat, replies - "Well, garages exist, don't they? That is evidence that invisible dragons exist."At which point, the person who doesn't believe in the existence of invisible dragons, puts "Invisible Dragon Free Zone" in large letters above their garage.
~*~
Puff The Magic Dragon
dragon , puff the magic dragon , garage , carl sagan , The Dragon In My Garage , atheist , evidence , satire , theist , belief , religion
posted by beepbeepitsme | 9:57 am
36 Comments:
Haven't heard the original for quite some time Beep. Thanks...:)
I lived in Singapore in '69 and '70 and because Lee Kuan Yew thought that "Puff" was a direct reference to dope smoking, the song was banned. Of course, Chinese call opium smoking "chasing the dragon" so he probably couldn't help it because he was brought up to think that the "dragon" lived in the smoke.
beepbeep,
Well that's about as intellectually honest as this:
http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html
Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn residing in the same garage, or did the Dragon eat it?
Don't be silly matt. We need to be able to agree that people exist, or there is no point to you posting anything or me replying to it.
RE ted:
I read that "Peter Paul and Mary" weren't too happy about "Puff the Magic Dragon" being considered a reference to drug smoking (as it has been suggested many times).
Nonetheless, "chasing the dragon" is a well-known phrase in drug culture.
They consider it to indicate the growth to adulthood, when the child no longer believes in the magical stories of youth.
RE: arthur
I am not too sure, but I heard a rumour that the FSM has boycotted garages and only lives in carports from now on.
Well, sure, most invisible dragons don't exist. But mine certainly does. And if you say differently you're a bigot and ruining society.
I love that explanation. It's all about what one believes, facts sold seperately.
Just checked my garage, if only the clutter were invisable.
My invisible dragon told me to kill everybody who doesn't have an invisible dragon, or has a different one, or anyone without a garage, or anyone who draws a picture of my invisible dragon.
Invisible dragons abound! ; )
Matt: "I don't like your explanation and what it might mean so here's a totally unrelated false analogy to distract"
Psst!
Tag, you're it!
Hehehehe.
Beep,
I was just reading the letters to the editor in New Scientist 3 Feb 2007, pg 21...
"If Athiesm is a faith, then not playing chess is a hobby".
Benedict
Hey what if you dont have a garage or a car port? Damn military housing! I bet the military has all our dragons in some top secret place running top secret experiments on them. I hope they didn't take my dragon to area 59, theres no telling what they are doing to him!
If you really think that is what Christanity is, then I understand why you cannot logicaly accept it.
RE coffee
Too many invisible dragons to count mate.
RE rev:
I renounce your invisible dragon and replace it with my invisible dragon ;)
RE benedict:
Or - not collecting stamps is a hobby.
RE under:
The invisible dragon is an analogy for the concept of a supernatural world and or supernatural beings. Last time I checked, your god was supposed to be a supernatural being.
It may be an analogy of some supernatural belifs, but if you think it describes Chrisianity, you truly do not understand it in the least. Do you really believe that great minds such as Augustine, Calvin, Lewis, Williams, etc. would believe such?
under:
Do you really believe that great minds such as Augustine, Calvin, Lewis, Williams, etc. would believe such?
Sure.
It's been observed, that the human mind is capable of holding 2 exclusive (& contradictory) viewpoints.
Calvin & Lewis, BTW, weren't so great in my book.
Supernatural is as supernatural does, I suppose.
RE under:
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what they imagined.
Ka said:Calvin & Lewis, BTW, weren't so great in my book.
Supernatural is as supernatural does, I suppose.
------
Here, here! And niether was Augustine.
Man, I wish christians would do more research into their heros. A lot of the so called "great" men they talk about were evil sexist and down right cruel men.
SNTC:
I thought Augustine was a bit of all right, for a peach-stealer.
I've no idea which Williams UTM was referencing. Tennesee? Billy Dee? Remo? Who?
Augustine also preached a lot of sexist BS like the rest of them. If they preached the subjugation of women, they are no good in my opinion. As you know I believe the subjugation of women has been the down fall of humanity. When you oppress women, you oppress humanity. What society does to women they do to children, theres just no getting around that.
1. If they weren't great then how do you know who they are?
2. "It's been observed, that the human mind is capable of holding 2 exclusive (& contradictory) viewpoints."
Very true, if you want to learn more read schaeffer on the point of tension.
3. I am not you "dear"
4. Exactly the problem, you "dont give a damn". Maybe if you actually studied christianity you would understand it.
RE under
I see that irony and sarcasm is lost on you. Firstly you claim that I wouldn't care if the world went to shit as the possible result of global climate change - based on what? That I don't believe in your god?
Have you considered that as I don't believe in your version of god, and heaven or hell, that this planet is the only life experience that I think that humans and other living beings will experience?
Because I don't believe in an "afterlife" where we can all shoot off to when we fuck this planet up enough, I probably have more reason to be concerned about what impact human beings may have on the planet than you do.
Afterall, if we manage to fuck up the earth's atmosphere, and its environment, you will only consider this to be part of your god's will, so what reason do you have to actually change any environmentally destructive habits you might have?
NONE. You are just going to burble off to heaven or hell (according to your beliefs), and the destruction of the planet would just fulfill and validate your belief in armageddon.
The belief in the supernatural depreciates the natural world. You treat the natural world like a halfway house, like a guest in a hotel who thinks it is ok to trash the room because tomorrow you will book into another one.
UTM:
So who is Williams, exactly?
Very true, if you want to learn more read schaeffer on the point of tension.
If you're talking about Schaeffer as quoted in McDowell's 'Evidence that demands a refund', no thanks. That guy was a total jackanape.
& presuppositionalism is utter sophistry. ;P
On the contrary, I was just pointing out that you simply do not understand Chrisianity, and that one of the reasons is because you refuse to read the great christian minds. It is best to take a look at an idea before rejecting it.
The point about the earth going to "hell" is simply if there is no God then it makes no difference what happens to the earth after you are dead.
UTM:
On the contrary, I was just pointing out that you simply do not understand Chrisianity, and that one of the reasons is because you refuse to read the great christian minds. It is best to take a look at an idea before rejecting it.
I beg your pardon, but I have INDEED read many of the 'great minds' in xtianity. I'm familiar w/Aquinas, Augustine, Lewis, Chesterton, etc., thanks much.
& who is Williams, exactly? Still waiting...
RE under:
"simply if there is no God then it makes no difference what happens to the earth after you are dead."
Pardon? Did I hear this correctly?
From my point of view, what happens to the earth is important regardless of whether there is a god or whether there isn't a god.
What happens to the earth is important to me for the sake of other humans and other living things. This remains true whether I was a believer or a non-believer.
Hey "Under_the_Mercy:,
Can I have your car when the Rapture comes?
Also just 'cos I'm an Athiest doesn't mean I don't care, I find that assumption rather presumptuous of you!
Benedict
RE: Krystalline Apostate
Sorry if my statement came across wrong, I was reffering to beep exclusively. Concerning Schaeffer I am talking about his works i.e. "the God who is there", not something someone wrote about him. The williams I was referring to was Charles Williams (many dimentions).
RE: beep:
IF you do not believe in a afterlife, then concern over the future after you are dead is pointless and illogical.
RE: benedict 16th
Yes you may.
Concerning caring, I was reffering (again) to beep exclusively (I will try to be more clear in the future), but the principle stand the same. If there is no afterlife, to use a primitive word, then nothing matters once you are dead.
UTM:
Sorry if my statement came across wrong, I was reffering to beep exclusively.
Oops, my bad.
Concerning Schaeffer I am talking about his works i.e. "the God who is there", not something someone wrote about him.
Well, McDowell tells a 2nd hand anecdote attributed to him, that was both illogical & ridiculous.
If there is no afterlife, to use a primitive word, then nothing matters once you are dead.
What's a less 'primitive' word, then?
If there's no afterlife, best make do w/the life you have then.
Best to make it the best.
RE under:
"IF you do not believe in a afterlife, then concern over the future after you are dead is pointless and illogical."
What a load of bollocks. People concern themselves over the future of their children and their descendants all the time. They set up trusts etc to try and better ensure the survival of their descendants.
People concern themselves about whether the environement they leave the following generations will be too polluted to sustain the diversity of life that it has in the past etc etc.
How selfish of you to only concern yourself with what the earth can offer YOU while YOU are alive, without once thinking about the possible legacy you may be leaving either your children or other people's children.
You selfish, self obsessed prat.
Also, you need to remember, that when I was a theist, I did not believe in either the rapture or armagedden. Those little tidbits seem reserved primarily for evangelical or fundamental protestants. (Most of whom seem to be americans.)
beep, i understand if you cannot accept logic (john 12:40).
KA: I would suggest reading schaeffer himself, as to life after death, you are exactly right, from the point of the athiest, that is. beep yet as to realize it.
RE under,
The reason I don't accept John 12:40 is because I accept logic.
John 12:40 if accepted as true, just means that god is cruel.
A cruel being, either natural or supernatural, will never get any smooches from me.
Post a Comment
<< Home