Disclosing atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To genuinely engage with Christian’s is to accept that faith is a reliable source of truth to them without resorting to insults

Seems like Christians who really believed in their faith would not be insulted by accurate comparisons to Santa and the Easter bunny. All three are believed by children, correct? Only adults are encouraged to believe in God, correct?

Clearly God, does much more than the other two, and there are whole, and numerous, belief structures built around God, but they are all supernatural and it requires faith to believe in them.

I can see how some people would be swayed by the similarities among these beings, but if your faith is strong, no problem. You can reject what you no longer believe in and continue believing in what you want to.

DP
The universe began from nothingness, something came from nothing or any explanation you have is as much faith as my belief in a Creator.

First that is not what Atheists believe. Atheists have a stand on a single proposition: whether or not to believe in a god. There is no atheist position on the creation of the universe.

As for your cosmological inquiry, the answer is we don't know what happened before the big bang, or even if there was a before the big bang (there is no evidence of it). It's possible time began with the big bang, like the first frame of a piece of film, with nothing before it. But we don't know, which is a position that does not require ANY faith.

And your definition of "from nothing" makes "nothing" logically impossible as it defines "nothing" making it something. Hard to wrap your mind around, but that is what you are doing.

And on top of that, any demands you put on the creation of the universe also need to apply to any creator, and there is infinite regress... it's also a presuppositional fallacy...

...so you see why cosmological arguments for god are highly flawed.

NP. I disagree with the bolded and find the cosmological arguments convincing, but this is why the "Santa Claus" claims are wrong. There's no serious philosophical defense of the existence of Santa. There is for God, even if you don't find the arguments convincing.

Sounds like you are saying God is more believable than Santa because serious philosophers have defended the reality of God. Is that right?

Would you also agree that both God and Santa are beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?

I'm saying it because of the seriousness of the arguments, not the seriousness of the philosophers, but maybe that's splitting hairs. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on evidence in that they are inferences drawn from observations about the universe: the fact that the universe exists in the first place, the fact things have causes, etc. Meanwhile there's neither evidence nor philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. You may find that the cosmological arguments don't persuade you, but people who accept them do so on the basis of applying logic to observations about that universe. Santa belief isn't like that.

I understand that there are differences between Santa and God belief but it is accurate to say that they are both supernatural,. and thus both, according to atheists, are not believable. I also understand that believers don't like their God compared to a children's belief like Santa and while there are certainly differences, they have supernaturalism in common and that's why atheists believe in neither and confidently compare them to each other.

DP. I don't understand the God/Santa comparison. I appreciate you trying to explain the reasoning behind it, but they're just not comparable. Santa would be better compared to Jack Frost. They are entirely fictional characters. I suppose you could more aptly compare belief in God to belief in ghosts or something. The comparisons to Santa are ridiculous, because Santa definitively and admittedly does not exist (even for those who "believe" in him, with the exception of children who haven't been told yet), whereas the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven.

Neither Santa nor God have been proven. You just don’t believe in Santa, and probably do believe in God. That doesn’t make him real.

I didn't say that either had been proven. I said God hasn't been proven or disproven. As in, God is not provable or disprovable. God may or may not be "real." Santa, on the other hand, is definitely and admittedly fictional. So the comparison just doesn't work.

How about unicorns?

Or fairies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To genuinely engage with Christian’s is to accept that faith is a reliable source of truth to them without resorting to insults

Seems like Christians who really believed in their faith would not be insulted by accurate comparisons to Santa and the Easter bunny. All three are believed by children, correct? Only adults are encouraged to believe in God, correct?

Clearly God, does much more than the other two, and there are whole, and numerous, belief structures built around God, but they are all supernatural and it requires faith to believe in them.

I can see how some people would be swayed by the similarities among these beings, but if your faith is strong, no problem. You can reject what you no longer believe in and continue believing in what you want to.

DP
The universe began from nothingness, something came from nothing or any explanation you have is as much faith as my belief in a Creator.

First that is not what Atheists believe. Atheists have a stand on a single proposition: whether or not to believe in a god. There is no atheist position on the creation of the universe.

As for your cosmological inquiry, the answer is we don't know what happened before the big bang, or even if there was a before the big bang (there is no evidence of it). It's possible time began with the big bang, like the first frame of a piece of film, with nothing before it. But we don't know, which is a position that does not require ANY faith.

And your definition of "from nothing" makes "nothing" logically impossible as it defines "nothing" making it something. Hard to wrap your mind around, but that is what you are doing.

And on top of that, any demands you put on the creation of the universe also need to apply to any creator, and there is infinite regress... it's also a presuppositional fallacy...

...so you see why cosmological arguments for god are highly flawed.

NP. I disagree with the bolded and find the cosmological arguments convincing, but this is why the "Santa Claus" claims are wrong. There's no serious philosophical defense of the existence of Santa. There is for God, even if you don't find the arguments convincing.

Sounds like you are saying God is more believable than Santa because serious philosophers have defended the reality of God. Is that right?

Would you also agree that both God and Santa are beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?

I'm saying it because of the seriousness of the arguments, not the seriousness of the philosophers, but maybe that's splitting hairs. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on evidence in that they are inferences drawn from observations about the universe: the fact that the universe exists in the first place, the fact things have causes, etc. Meanwhile there's neither evidence nor philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. You may find that the cosmological arguments don't persuade you, but people who accept them do so on the basis of applying logic to observations about that universe. Santa belief isn't like that.

I understand that there are differences between Santa and God belief but it is accurate to say that they are both supernatural,. and thus both, according to atheists, are not believable. I also understand that believers don't like their God compared to a children's belief like Santa and while there are certainly differences, they have supernaturalism in common and that's why atheists believe in neither and confidently compare them to each other.

DP. I don't understand the God/Santa comparison. I appreciate you trying to explain the reasoning behind it, but they're just not comparable. Santa would be better compared to Jack Frost. They are entirely fictional characters. I suppose you could more aptly compare belief in God to belief in ghosts or something. The comparisons to Santa are ridiculous, because Santa definitively and admittedly does not exist (even for those who "believe" in him, with the exception of children who haven't been told yet), whereas the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven.

Neither Santa nor God have been proven. You just don’t believe in Santa, and probably do believe in God. That doesn’t make him real.

I didn't say that either had been proven. I said God hasn't been proven or disproven. As in, God is not provable or disprovable. God may or may not be "real." Santa, on the other hand, is definitely and admittedly fictional. So the comparison just doesn't work.

How about unicorns?

What point are you trying to make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To genuinely engage with Christian’s is to accept that faith is a reliable source of truth to them without resorting to insults

Seems like Christians who really believed in their faith would not be insulted by accurate comparisons to Santa and the Easter bunny. All three are believed by children, correct? Only adults are encouraged to believe in God, correct?

Clearly God, does much more than the other two, and there are whole, and numerous, belief structures built around God, but they are all supernatural and it requires faith to believe in them.

I can see how some people would be swayed by the similarities among these beings, but if your faith is strong, no problem. You can reject what you no longer believe in and continue believing in what you want to.

DP
The universe began from nothingness, something came from nothing or any explanation you have is as much faith as my belief in a Creator.

First that is not what Atheists believe. Atheists have a stand on a single proposition: whether or not to believe in a god. There is no atheist position on the creation of the universe.

As for your cosmological inquiry, the answer is we don't know what happened before the big bang, or even if there was a before the big bang (there is no evidence of it). It's possible time began with the big bang, like the first frame of a piece of film, with nothing before it. But we don't know, which is a position that does not require ANY faith.

And your definition of "from nothing" makes "nothing" logically impossible as it defines "nothing" making it something. Hard to wrap your mind around, but that is what you are doing.

And on top of that, any demands you put on the creation of the universe also need to apply to any creator, and there is infinite regress... it's also a presuppositional fallacy...

...so you see why cosmological arguments for god are highly flawed.

NP. I disagree with the bolded and find the cosmological arguments convincing, but this is why the "Santa Claus" claims are wrong. There's no serious philosophical defense of the existence of Santa. There is for God, even if you don't find the arguments convincing.

Sounds like you are saying God is more believable than Santa because serious philosophers have defended the reality of God. Is that right?

Would you also agree that both God and Santa are beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?

I'm saying it because of the seriousness of the arguments, not the seriousness of the philosophers, but maybe that's splitting hairs. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on evidence in that they are inferences drawn from observations about the universe: the fact that the universe exists in the first place, the fact things have causes, etc. Meanwhile there's neither evidence nor philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. You may find that the cosmological arguments don't persuade you, but people who accept them do so on the basis of applying logic to observations about that universe. Santa belief isn't like that.

I understand that there are differences between Santa and God belief but it is accurate to say that they are both supernatural,. and thus both, according to atheists, are not believable. I also understand that believers don't like their God compared to a children's belief like Santa and while there are certainly differences, they have supernaturalism in common and that's why atheists believe in neither and confidently compare them to each other.

DP. I don't understand the God/Santa comparison. I appreciate you trying to explain the reasoning behind it, but they're just not comparable. Santa would be better compared to Jack Frost. They are entirely fictional characters. I suppose you could more aptly compare belief in God to belief in ghosts or something. The comparisons to Santa are ridiculous, because Santa definitively and admittedly does not exist (even for those who "believe" in him, with the exception of children who haven't been told yet), whereas the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven.

Neither Santa nor God have been proven. You just don’t believe in Santa, and probably do believe in God. That doesn’t make him real.

I didn't say that either had been proven. I said God hasn't been proven or disproven. As in, God is not provable or disprovable. God may or may not be "real." Santa, on the other hand, is definitely and admittedly fictional. So the comparison just doesn't work.

How about unicorns?

What point are you trying to make?

Is that a better comparison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

yeah -- turning it around doesn't work yet, because it's still normal to go to church on Sundays, even though fewer and fewer people are doing it.

Are you saying it's NOT normal not to go to church?

It is very NORMAL to not attend religious services. In fact, the majority of people in the US don't.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To genuinely engage with Christian’s is to accept that faith is a reliable source of truth to them without resorting to insults

Seems like Christians who really believed in their faith would not be insulted by accurate comparisons to Santa and the Easter bunny. All three are believed by children, correct? Only adults are encouraged to believe in God, correct?

Clearly God, does much more than the other two, and there are whole, and numerous, belief structures built around God, but they are all supernatural and it requires faith to believe in them.

I can see how some people would be swayed by the similarities among these beings, but if your faith is strong, no problem. You can reject what you no longer believe in and continue believing in what you want to.

DP
The universe began from nothingness, something came from nothing or any explanation you have is as much faith as my belief in a Creator.

First that is not what Atheists believe. Atheists have a stand on a single proposition: whether or not to believe in a god. There is no atheist position on the creation of the universe.

As for your cosmological inquiry, the answer is we don't know what happened before the big bang, or even if there was a before the big bang (there is no evidence of it). It's possible time began with the big bang, like the first frame of a piece of film, with nothing before it. But we don't know, which is a position that does not require ANY faith.

And your definition of "from nothing" makes "nothing" logically impossible as it defines "nothing" making it something. Hard to wrap your mind around, but that is what you are doing.

And on top of that, any demands you put on the creation of the universe also need to apply to any creator, and there is infinite regress... it's also a presuppositional fallacy...

...so you see why cosmological arguments for god are highly flawed.

NP. I disagree with the bolded and find the cosmological arguments convincing, but this is why the "Santa Claus" claims are wrong. There's no serious philosophical defense of the existence of Santa. There is for God, even if you don't find the arguments convincing.

Sounds like you are saying God is more believable than Santa because serious philosophers have defended the reality of God. Is that right?

Would you also agree that both God and Santa are beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?

I'm saying it because of the seriousness of the arguments, not the seriousness of the philosophers, but maybe that's splitting hairs. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on evidence in that they are inferences drawn from observations about the universe: the fact that the universe exists in the first place, the fact things have causes, etc. Meanwhile there's neither evidence nor philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. You may find that the cosmological arguments don't persuade you, but people who accept them do so on the basis of applying logic to observations about that universe. Santa belief isn't like that.

I understand that there are differences between Santa and God belief but it is accurate to say that they are both supernatural,. and thus both, according to atheists, are not believable. I also understand that believers don't like their God compared to a children's belief like Santa and while there are certainly differences, they have supernaturalism in common and that's why atheists believe in neither and confidently compare them to each other.

DP. I don't understand the God/Santa comparison. I appreciate you trying to explain the reasoning behind it, but they're just not comparable. Santa would be better compared to Jack Frost. They are entirely fictional characters. I suppose you could more aptly compare belief in God to belief in ghosts or something. The comparisons to Santa are ridiculous, because Santa definitively and admittedly does not exist (even for those who "believe" in him, with the exception of children who haven't been told yet), whereas the existence of God hasn't been proven or disproven.

People who don't believe in God would say he's entirely fictional, just like Jack Frost or Santa Claus, but I get what you're saying, I think. People regularly stop believing in Santa, but a lot of people keep on believing in God long after childhood.

I think you're right, that god is more like ghosts, than Santa, in that some adults still believe in ghosts. Maybe fairies would work too, because people don't think much about fairies --- they just grow out of belief in them. Not tooth fairies, though - they learn that those were Mom or Dad.

Another difference, is that when you stop believing in Santa, the gifts keep coming, but when people stop believing in God -they go to hell after they die (according only to people who still believe) and lose out on an eternity in Heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

Isn’t belief in Santa based on faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

The pp (me) is saying they don't believe in God any more than they believe in Santa. Religion is not based on Santa -- but religions are almost always based on supernatural beings, and Santa is one. Little children have faith that Santa will bring them toys just as some adults have faith in God and believe that if they are good, they will go to heaven and live forever after they die.

I like the thinking of the pp who suggested using ghosts as an example of a supernatural belief instead of Santa, because plenty of adults believe in both God and ghosts, whereas no adults believe in Santa any more, but many still believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

Isn’t belief in Santa based on faith?

Absolutely, but people outgrow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

Isn’t belief in Santa based on faith?

You could call it faith, but it's not like mature religious faith. Kids will generally believe anything adults tell them. They outgrow that trait after a while.

Religious faith is different. While some people change their religious beliefs, it's not a matter of outgrowing them, it's more a matter of rethinking them and deciding that other beliefs are more suitable to them as adults.

[Anonymous]

Only a religious person would be offended by this. It's like asking why their hair isn't blonde. Because it's brown. Moving along... you did fine OP and don't owe anyone a long explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

Isn’t belief in Santa based on faith?

You could call it faith, but it's not like mature religious faith. Kids will generally believe anything adults tell them. They outgrow that trait after a while.

Religious faith is different. While some people change their religious beliefs, it's not a matter of outgrowing them, it's more a matter of rethinking them and deciding that other beliefs are more suitable to them as adults.

And that’s how so many people realize that the god story was just like Santa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

Isn’t belief in Santa based on faith?

This prompts a question that is rarely answered:

What could not be believed on faith?

If the answer is “close to nothing” then how is faith a path to truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

PP, I learned not to argue with these haters/trolls and my days are better for it. Of course you're right. But for some reason their whole lives revolve around trolling/hating on religion, there are two of them, and you'll be going in circles forever. Just drop it and let them think they've "won" (although from the perspective of having a fulfilled life they certainly haven't won).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Santa/god comparison is a proxy for the religious/atheist comparison.

In what way?

The pp who keeps saying that there is no god just as there is no Santa is actually saying religion is based on Santa. It misses the point of the debate where belief is based on faith. It’s almost gaslighting. You can’t skip that step without losing credibility.

PP, I learned not to argue with these haters/trolls and my days are better for it. Of course you're right. But for some reason their whole lives revolve around trolling/hating on religion, there are two of them, and you'll be going in circles forever. Just drop it and let them think they've "won" (although from the perspective of having a fulfilled life they certainly haven't won).

While I agree with you that the best response to a position you don't like is no response, the fact is that the position that santa and your god are equally fake is no less deserving of respect than your position that they are not.