I am ashamed to say I have only recently discovered the invisible pink unicorn - rival to the flying spaghetti monster. And possibly a more sophisticated deity, as, like the Judeo-Christian God, it involves profound mysteries - such as the mystery of how it can be both pink and invisible. In the words of an early follower:
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
The invisible pink unicorn "raptures" socks - which explains why they go missing.
For more see:
wiki entry
The Revelation of St. Bryce the Longwinded.
Virtual temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Comments
Or perhaps they are both the same deity. This is known as the Binity.
Hey Stephen, I was just in England. I forget the name of the place I flew into, but it was the large place in the midlands (not Bristol. Binghamton?). Anyway, I was there for work, and I noticed something that maybe you could confirm. England's food is terribly bland. Bland to the nth degree! Is that about right? :) I'm used to my food having a lot more spices and flavor.
Why can't it be an invisible pink; kangaroo, giraffe, panda or other beast not from European Mythology?
Heresy! Every good Christian knows that missing socks disprove evolution.
Two reasons:
a) kangaroo, giraffe, panda (which probably are myths according to European perspective) come in a variety of non-pink colours. There is a huge body of evidence for their lack of pinkness. Hence the possibility of an invisible kangaroo being pink is vanishingly small.
b) She's REAL!
I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.
Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.