Skip to main content

The invisible pink unicorn

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


Joe Otten said…
The IPU has been around longer than the FSM, and is therefore true.

Or perhaps they are both the same deity. This is known as the Binity.
Jac said…
I dressed as the IPU for Halloween last year. My husband went as Jesus. Now we want to make an IPU/Jesus makeout film.
Kyle Szklenski said…
Yeah, it was really funny. Jackie and I went out to play pool that night, and we got quite a few looks. . .from other people dressed up like freaks and imaginary characters. But I think that was mostly because she looked so damn good.

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.
Nigel said…
Sorry guys but this is so Eurocentric!

Why can't it be an invisible pink; kangaroo, giraffe, panda or other beast not from European Mythology?
Kyle Szklenski said…
Birmingham, that's it. Duh.
Andrew Louis said…
Wasn't it The Great Green Arkleseizure that sneezed the universe out of it's nose? And the fear that the Great White Handkerchief will one day wipe us all away?
Anonymous said…
The invisible pink unicorn "raptures" socks - which explains why they go missing.

Heresy! Every good Christian knows that missing socks disprove evolution.
Anonymous said…
"Why can't it be an invisible pink; kangaroo, giraffe, panda or other beast not from European Mythology?"

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!
Stephen Law said…
Hi Kyle P. Yeh UK food can be bland. But then it can be pretty spicy, especially in parts of Birmingham, funnily enough, which is known for it's curries and baltis. UK food has certainly improved a lot over last 20 years or so. I am guessing you were just unlucky.... Chain food - like you get in big central town chains like TFI Friday, or Frankie and Bennies, etc is, well, shit.
Anonymous said…
Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
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.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.