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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Correct - there are non-believers who become believers as adults, and adults who change religions. This is not disputed.
The world is a big place, and more and more people in the world are dropping God-belief.
Some people are just uncomfortable with uncertainty. They wants answers. Which is what drove man to create gods in the first place.
They want answers, so they just make them up? and create gods that support their beliefs?
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
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.
The article was published in the LA Times in 2011. The author, a psychologist who is a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, cites studies on religion done by several prominent psychologists. He ends the article like this:
“We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind’s greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.
Imagine that.”
I suggest reading the article in its entirety -- very thought-provoking.
I read it in its entirety and wasn’t convinced. It’s a small corner of a single profession, and they all have the same agenda of promoting atheism. Meh.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
PS, we could even propose a sticky for the forum top: if you want a thoughtful discussion about religion, this is not the place. If you are an atheist looking to bash religion with simplistic insults, come on in!
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
Oh please. You just want someone to argue with. Reductive and insulting well describe your last few posts and much of the thread. Also, your behavior makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, with the result that you’re not convincing anybody. The grownups have better things to do.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
Oh please. You just want someone to argue with. Reductive and insulting well describe your last few posts and much of the thread. Also, your behavior makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, with the result that you’re not convincing anybody. The grownups have better things to do.
Well if you feel that way I am sorry. I don't think the last few atheists posts have been insulting in the least. But you are free to be offended by whatever you wish.
I will point out you use ad-hominem attacks in all your posts (assuming you are the same poster, sorry if I am wrong) and I recommend you stop that.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
Oh please. You just want someone to argue with. Reductive and insulting well describe your last few posts and much of the thread. Also, your behavior makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, with the result that you’re not convincing anybody. The grownups have better things to do.
Well if you feel that way I am sorry. I don't think the last few atheists posts have been insulting in the least. But you are free to be offended by whatever you wish.
I will point out you use ad-hominem attacks in all your posts (assuming you are the same poster, sorry if I am wrong) and I recommend you stop that.
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.
The article was published in the LA Times in 2011. The author, a psychologist who is a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, cites studies on religion done by several prominent psychologists. He ends the article like this:
“We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind’s greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.
Imagine that.”
I suggest reading the article in its entirety -- very thought-provoking.
I read it in its entirety and wasn’t convinced. It’s a small corner of a single profession, and they all have the same agenda of promoting atheism. Meh.
Unlike Christian apologetics, this article in a secular newspaper wasn't meant to convince, but to inform.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
I love it when you use the names I used to call you. Must have really stuck with you.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
Oh please. You just want someone to argue with. Reductive and insulting well describe your last few posts and much of the thread. Also, your behavior makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, with the result that you’re not convincing anybody. The grownups have better things to do.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
Atheist Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are in their echo chamber today, I see.
I hadn’t come on this forum in a few weeks and it’s because of these two being on here 24/7/365, emitting the most reductive and insulting arguments they can spew with the minimum number of key strokes.
The moderator has declared this forum unusable. I propose we leave the forum to these two atheist trolls. They can high-five each other for the rest of their sad online lives.
It's well more than two.
You are free to leave as you see fit, but as one of the "trolls", (i.e. those that disagree with you) I strongly suggest you do not leave and stay and engage. A recommendation: you'll do better if you avoid ad-hominem attacks and stick to the points made and responding to them on their merits.
Oh please. You just want someone to argue with. Reductive and insulting well describe your last few posts and much of the thread. Also, your behavior makes it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, with the result that you’re not convincing anybody. The grownups have better things to do.
Well if you feel that way I am sorry. I don't think the last few atheists posts have been insulting in the least. But you are free to be offended by whatever you wish.
I will point out you use ad-hominem attacks in all your posts (assuming you are the same poster, sorry if I am wrong) and I recommend you stop that.
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.
After being indoctrinated.
Plenty of concerts to all the major religions. So we can ignore your lazy ad hominem.
From other major religions. Once you believe in one "god" it's easy to believe in another.
DP, but there are atheists, including people raised atheists, who convert to religious belief. I wouldn't expect that to convince you one way or another, anymore than I'd expect a Christian to be convinced by Christians becoming atheists, but the idea the only people who believe are the indoctrinated is wrong. There are people who believe in God based on rational argument, people who believe based on personal religious experiences, etc. The world's a big place with lots of different kinds of people in it.
Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize supernatural forces.
Not so hard if a lot of other respectable people believe it too.
"Respectable" doesn't mean they work off of facts.
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.
You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
