Disclosing atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

You need to take a class in rhetoric. Or you need to find a better atheist rag than the one that pointed you to this particular argument. I tend to think you're stretching the original argument way beyond what you read, though. Because by your logic, if proof positive (historical evidence of the creation of Santa) isn't good enough, then *nothing* is unfalsifiable including the table I'm writing on or my understanding that you're going to read this email. Heck, we can even turn this on its head and say atheism (as the belief there is no God) is also unfalsifiable.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a different poster but was also raised as an atheist. My family relocated from a larger city to a small town in the Midwest when I was 10. Basically everyone went to church. Kids went to youth group, sometimes multiple times a week. There were camps and slumber parties at churches and holiday things. I didn't participate in any of those things because my parents were not religious.

I experienced a lot of intrusive personal questions from adults (parents of friends, coworkers of my dad's, teachers) about my family's religion. Lots of attempts by parents, other kids, and several teachers to convert me to Christianity. Repeatedly being invited to church and then told that I didn't need to tell my parents about it. Friends who would say, "You should sleep over on Saturday and then we can go to church in the morning" without asking if that was something I was interested in or comfortable with.

From my side, as a weird kid who had always been interested in religion in general, I would probably have really enjoyed going to a lot of that stuff, particularly the social stuff that it felt like EVERYONE ELSE was doing. But there was no way in that town to just go to one lock-in - I tried that and spent weeks trying to get the girl I attended the lock-in with to stop proselytizing to me. There was a ton of social pressure to conform and people who didn't definitely heard about it.

As an adult, I can see the proselytizing as part of the mission of Christianity. I also don't and didn't think these people were bad people, nor do I think that most of them intended to be exclusionary and apply pressure in ways that felt bad. I understand that the intention was to be welcoming and enthusiastic. But the way I experienced those things, as a child, was not positive. It did not feel supportive and welcoming. It felt like in order to have community support, I had to become a Christian. I just did not believe, and I did not feel like it was okay to pretend that I believed when I did not.

I do not identify as an atheist at this time in my life, but I also do not believe in a god in the way that Christians do. I don't talk about this often because it makes Christians very uncomfortable to even call their god "their god" or "a god."

Yes, we have heard the story of how you were tricked into attending youth group at a church and they had a band to lure the kids in. Just awful. And don’t get you started on the free doughnuts and coffee churches use to lure in unwary families…it’s extremely deceptive. One minute you are eating a doughnut- the next, you are being baptized against your will and your kids are singing “Jesus Loves the Little Children” in a Sunday School classroom and being forced to collect pennies for hungry children in Africa. When will it end?

I'm the one who shared my experience (on a different thread many months ago) about my friend's weird evangelical rock band service. I'm not PP here who shared their story above. I wasn't even raised atheist. I belonged to a Christian church, but I guess I just wasn't devout enough for my evangelical friend, who felt the need to try to convert me to her particular brand of Christianity.

As PP outlined beautifully, the proselytizing, even when it is meant with love and caring and welcome, can be alienating, especially for children who do not fully understand the ins and outs of the evangelical mission. It can feel like you are being attacked for your different beliefs (or lack thereof).

Understanding the mission doesn’t excuse the behavior.

Agreed. But at least an understand of it can lessen the sting. Knowing it's not really about you.

It is about you. It's just not only about you. It's supposedly saving people like you, who are sinners in their eyes in need of being saved.

It's rude and inappropriate. People should keep their religion to themselves and stop trying to force it on everyone else. That also goes for SCOTUS justices.

Does that go for non-religious people too? There are people here who complain about atheists posting on a religion forum.

If you don’t want atheists telling you that you’re a moron for believing in the supernatural then don’t tell them they are going to hell for not “accepting Jesus”.

Sound like a reasonable trade. I haven't heard an atheist here literally call someone a moron for believing in the supernatural, have you?

But I have seen believers get insulted when their God is compared to other supernatural beings that they haven't believed in since they were kids.

I can see how believers would be insulted. They do not think of their god as just another, invisible, unproven, supernatural being. Non-believers see it, but believers don't. To them,"God" is special and unique. Unless that changes, atheists should be advised not to compare God to any other being, visible or invisible. Just leave it alone.

There are plenty of believers who are willing to admit that there isn't proof of God. It's a belief, not a fact. There are believers who treat their belief as fact, too, of course. But to compare a child's belief in Santa, who is definitively and provably not real with a God who can't be proven or disproven to exist, is just not the same thing and it's insulting to pretend that it is.

Prove Santa is not real.

It's been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that, while children believe Santa is real, by the time they grow up, they realize that he's not real -- that in fact it's just grown-ups pretending to be Santa for the children. They themselves then take over the role of Santa Claus.

God is not like that at all. People never find out for certain that he's not real, so some grown ups still believe in him.

The claim was that "Santa, who is definitively and provably not real".

What you offer is not proof. Please support that claim by proving that Santa is not real.

NP. Books have been written about the genesis of the Santa story--it's traceable through time. Or you could just google it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

It's idiocy like "prove Santa is not real, huh, huh!" that keeps me away from this forum. DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Someone made the claim that Santa was proveably (sic) not real.

I asked to see that proof.

And I’m the idiot?

Yes. You were given a Wikipedia link on the historical origins of Santa and you either didn’t read it or you didn’t understand you were looking at what we all know, that Santa was cobbled together over time. You’re the idiot.

That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist. DP.

Here’s a link explaining how man created the gods.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-jul-18-la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718-story.html

Oh look, a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science doesn't believe God exists. And provides his own niche theory. Who woulda thunk it?

It’s a link. According to the PP, that is very meaningful.

It's pretty falsifiable, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

You need to take a class in rhetoric. Or you need to find a better atheist rag than the one that pointed you to this particular argument. I tend to think you're stretching the original argument way beyond what you read, though. Because by your logic, if proof positive (historical evidence of the creation of Santa) isn't good enough, then *nothing* is unfalsifiable including the table I'm writing on or my understanding that you're going to read this email. Heck, we can even turn this on its head and say atheism (as the belief there is no God) is also unfalsifiable.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Some atheists claim there is no god, and when they do you should ask them for proof of their claim. They won't be able to, because it is unfalsifiable.

The fact that we know men wrote and created some of the Santa legend does NOT prove he does not exist. As I mentioned earlier, and that you seem to ignore, it is unfalsifiable, you can't prove he does not exist. If you have such a bee in your bonnet about Santa just replace him with Zeus, he's just as useful for the point, and just as unfalsifiable.

Pointing out that your link claims that a man existed (St. Nicholas) and that legend of miracles was applied to him by men writing after his death. Sound familiar?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a different poster but was also raised as an atheist. My family relocated from a larger city to a small town in the Midwest when I was 10. Basically everyone went to church. Kids went to youth group, sometimes multiple times a week. There were camps and slumber parties at churches and holiday things. I didn't participate in any of those things because my parents were not religious.

I experienced a lot of intrusive personal questions from adults (parents of friends, coworkers of my dad's, teachers) about my family's religion. Lots of attempts by parents, other kids, and several teachers to convert me to Christianity. Repeatedly being invited to church and then told that I didn't need to tell my parents about it. Friends who would say, "You should sleep over on Saturday and then we can go to church in the morning" without asking if that was something I was interested in or comfortable with.

From my side, as a weird kid who had always been interested in religion in general, I would probably have really enjoyed going to a lot of that stuff, particularly the social stuff that it felt like EVERYONE ELSE was doing. But there was no way in that town to just go to one lock-in - I tried that and spent weeks trying to get the girl I attended the lock-in with to stop proselytizing to me. There was a ton of social pressure to conform and people who didn't definitely heard about it.

As an adult, I can see the proselytizing as part of the mission of Christianity. I also don't and didn't think these people were bad people, nor do I think that most of them intended to be exclusionary and apply pressure in ways that felt bad. I understand that the intention was to be welcoming and enthusiastic. But the way I experienced those things, as a child, was not positive. It did not feel supportive and welcoming. It felt like in order to have community support, I had to become a Christian. I just did not believe, and I did not feel like it was okay to pretend that I believed when I did not.

I do not identify as an atheist at this time in my life, but I also do not believe in a god in the way that Christians do. I don't talk about this often because it makes Christians very uncomfortable to even call their god "their god" or "a god."

Yes, we have heard the story of how you were tricked into attending youth group at a church and they had a band to lure the kids in. Just awful. And don’t get you started on the free doughnuts and coffee churches use to lure in unwary families…it’s extremely deceptive. One minute you are eating a doughnut- the next, you are being baptized against your will and your kids are singing “Jesus Loves the Little Children” in a Sunday School classroom and being forced to collect pennies for hungry children in Africa. When will it end?

I'm the one who shared my experience (on a different thread many months ago) about my friend's weird evangelical rock band service. I'm not PP here who shared their story above. I wasn't even raised atheist. I belonged to a Christian church, but I guess I just wasn't devout enough for my evangelical friend, who felt the need to try to convert me to her particular brand of Christianity.

As PP outlined beautifully, the proselytizing, even when it is meant with love and caring and welcome, can be alienating, especially for children who do not fully understand the ins and outs of the evangelical mission. It can feel like you are being attacked for your different beliefs (or lack thereof).

Understanding the mission doesn’t excuse the behavior.

Agreed. But at least an understand of it can lessen the sting. Knowing it's not really about you.

It is about you. It's just not only about you. It's supposedly saving people like you, who are sinners in their eyes in need of being saved.

It's rude and inappropriate. People should keep their religion to themselves and stop trying to force it on everyone else. That also goes for SCOTUS justices.

Does that go for non-religious people too? There are people here who complain about atheists posting on a religion forum.

If you don’t want atheists telling you that you’re a moron for believing in the supernatural then don’t tell them they are going to hell for not “accepting Jesus”.

Sound like a reasonable trade. I haven't heard an atheist here literally call someone a moron for believing in the supernatural, have you?

But I have seen believers get insulted when their God is compared to other supernatural beings that they haven't believed in since they were kids.

I can see how believers would be insulted. They do not think of their god as just another, invisible, unproven, supernatural being. Non-believers see it, but believers don't. To them,"God" is special and unique. Unless that changes, atheists should be advised not to compare God to any other being, visible or invisible. Just leave it alone.

There are plenty of believers who are willing to admit that there isn't proof of God. It's a belief, not a fact. There are believers who treat their belief as fact, too, of course. But to compare a child's belief in Santa, who is definitively and provably not real with a God who can't be proven or disproven to exist, is just not the same thing and it's insulting to pretend that it is.

Prove Santa is not real.

It's been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that, while children believe Santa is real, by the time they grow up, they realize that he's not real -- that in fact it's just grown-ups pretending to be Santa for the children. They themselves then take over the role of Santa Claus.

God is not like that at all. People never find out for certain that he's not real, so some grown ups still believe in him.

The claim was that "Santa, who is definitively and provably not real".

What you offer is not proof. Please support that claim by proving that Santa is not real.

NP. Books have been written about the genesis of the Santa story--it's traceable through time. Or you could just google it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

It's idiocy like "prove Santa is not real, huh, huh!" that keeps me away from this forum. DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Someone made the claim that Santa was proveably (sic) not real.

I asked to see that proof.

And I’m the idiot?

Yes. You were given a Wikipedia link on the historical origins of Santa and you either didn’t read it or you didn’t understand you were looking at what we all know, that Santa was cobbled together over time. You’re the idiot.

That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist. DP.

Here’s a link explaining how man created the gods.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-jul-18-la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718-story.html

Oh look, a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science doesn't believe God exists. And provides his own niche theory. Who woulda thunk it?

It’s a link. According to the PP, that is very meaningful.

It's pretty falsifiable, though.

Less falsifiable than Bible stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle with my coffee. You have a nice day also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle with my coffee. You have a nice day also.

It’s good that you can laugh at yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family invited another family over for dinner who had just moved into the house next door and invited a few other families from the friends the neighborhood to welcome them and introduce them to folks. At one point, a member of the new family was talking with me about how much they are going to miss their old church and I was empathizing how hard it can be to leave a community and make a new one in your new home when they asked me about my faith, where I go to church etc. I breezily said, oh, I'm an atheist, and tried to keep the conversation moving but they seemed taken aback - as if I had said something really impolite. What say you, DCUM? Is it impolite, "too much", "aggressive", or what have you to identify as an atheist if pressed? My spouse thinks I should have said that I'm "not particularly religious" to avoid offending our new neighbors.

I'm not reading the whole thread, but, I am an atheist but rarely tell people. Less than 10% of americans are atheists. It is just not typical here. Better to say I am not religious or don't attend church unless you want to get into a conversation (I don't).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle with my coffee. You have a nice day also.

It’s good that you can laugh at yourself.

Well now you are getting mean and personal, which I do not wish to do. I guess I hit a nerve. I'll back out but if you want to answer the points I made without ad hominems and pejoratives I'll be happy to re-engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle with my coffee. You have a nice day also.

It’s good that you can laugh at yourself.

Well now you are getting mean and personal, which I do not wish to do. I guess I hit a nerve. I'll back out but if you want to answer the points I made without ad hominems and pejoratives I'll be happy to re-engage.

Gaslighting. You were already removing yourself from the discussion because you couldn’t answer the points based on facts and citations. That’s why if you were “chuckling”, it was over your own behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.

Exactly.

Ha! Thanks for the chuckle with my coffee. You have a nice day also.

It’s good that you can laugh at yourself.

Well now you are getting mean and personal, which I do not wish to do. I guess I hit a nerve. I'll back out but if you want to answer the points I made without ad hominems and pejoratives I'll be happy to re-engage.

Gaslighting. You were already removing yourself from the discussion because you couldn’t answer the points based on facts and citations. That’s why if you were “chuckling”, it was over your own behavior.

What point didn't I answer? As noted there is no way to empirically prove Santa does not exist. If you have a problem with Santa use Zeus.

And I genuinely thought you were making a good-natured joke. My bad.

[Anonymous]

This thread is crazy.

So, they believe in an imaginary man in the sky - but OP is the weirdo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll make this easier on you. The well-documented history of how humans invented Santa provides the falsification you keep bleating about.

No, it doesn't. "no empirical test can establish that it is false". What empirical test can prove there is no Santa?

I agree it is ridiculous to believe he is real, by the way, because there is no evidence he is. But the claim was he is provably false. That has not been shown, here or anywhere, by any empirical test.

You can't see it because you've gone down a narrow semantic road that apparently rules out seeing anything in the way of documented historical proof.

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how you come to believe everything else you believe except for your god.

Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.

Pp's argument is not ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it. Lots of intelligent people believe in God and continue to believe, even when presented with evidence. Religious belief is based on faith, not empirical evidence, as is well established, even in religions in whose leaders and adherents are highly educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is crazy.

So, they believe in an imaginary man in the sky - but OP is the weirdo?

To believers, God is much more than an "imaginary man in the sky".

There are whole religions and schools of thought built around the various iterations of god that people believe in. Very different from Santa Claus, whom adults think of as an imaginary man who lives at the North Pole, whose only task is to bring toys to Christian children on Christmas.

God is much busier, running the whole world on a daily basis, answering prayers, etc.