Mythical being
(Difference between revisions)
(rearrange and add sample dialog moved from Leprechaun) |
(flesh out counter-apologetics discussion a bit) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* [[Fairies]] | * [[Fairies]] | ||
| − | Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument. | + | Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] (or [[angel]]s, etc.) in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument — especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence. |
'''Example''' | '''Example''' | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 8 December 2006
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:
A mythical creature is a fictional living thing, usually an animal or animal-like organism, that exists only in mythology or folklore.
Examples of (mostly) non-religious, mythical creatures include:
Because most theists agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for God (or angels, etc.) in counter-apologetics, either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument — especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.
Example
- Atheist: "Do you believe in leprechauns?"
- Theist: "No."
- Atheist: "Why not?"
- Theist: "Because they don't exist."
- Atheist: "Prove it."
