Disclosing atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

This is such a red herring. There’s historical evidence for how Santa was created.

By this logic we could claim that atheists don’t exist (wait, didn’t someone write a book “I don’t believe in atheists”?). Sure, you guys pop up here all day every day (positive evidence exactly analogous to the historical evidence about Santa’s creation). But how does anybody know you’re actual atheists? Some have argued quite reasonably that your obsession with this forum reveals profound ambiguity in your relationship to faith. So, given we can’t prove you don’t exist, by your logic you guys are as questionable as Santa and Zeus.

By this same logic, it could be claimed that Christians don't exist. IOW, very poor logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Not according to some religious people who have posted here. They see the disproving of Santa Claus as an issue that clearly separates him from God and ghosts, which haven't been disproven.

Still, while there are many adults who believe in God, there are not as many adults who believe in ghosts and probably none who believe in Zeus.

There are still plenty who believe in Zeus. But the number is irrelevant as it is argumentum ad populum anyway. There was a link earlier in this very thread

https://knowledgenuts.com/modern-greeks-who-still-worship-zeus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism_(modern_religion)

[Anonymous]

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional.

Saint Nicholas was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in the region of Lycia in the Roman Empire, today in Turkey.

That's straight from the link you posted claiming it defined him as fictional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

OMG this is a dumb analogy. Several people have explained more kindly why it’s dumb, but you don’t want to hear it. Outta here, not wasting anymore time going in circles with you.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

What about Superman? He's an example of someone who is known to be both fictional and supernatural, right? People don't believe in him, not even little kids, and no religion was ever formed around him (that I know of) but he does superhuman things, like fly and use x-ray vision.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

OMG this is a dumb analogy. Several people have explained more kindly why it’s dumb, but you don’t want to hear it. Outta here, not wasting anymore time going in circles with you.

It’s not even an analogy.

Supernatural things don’t happen. It’s all fiction.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

What about Superman? He's an example of someone who is known to be both fictional and supernatural, right? People don't believe in him, not even little kids, and no religion was ever formed around him (that I know of) but he does superhuman things, like fly and use x-ray vision.

How about Zeus? People thought he was real. Did he actually shoot lightning bolts?

No. None of the supernatural stories are true. None. Even if people believe they are true as an adult.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

What about Superman? He's an example of someone who is known to be both fictional and supernatural, right? People don't believe in him, not even little kids, and no religion was ever formed around him (that I know of) but he does superhuman things, like fly and use x-ray vision.

Yes, more fiction.

But if you were brought up from birth in a community constantly telling you he was real and your parents affirmed that belief daily, you might believe that he and his powers were real.

Or if you were feeling lost and powerless and wanted to believe that someone could protect you, you might start to believe.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Flying reindeer + visiting millions of kids in one night = supernatural.

Changing water to wine + dead people “rising” = supernatural.

By definition, everything that is supernatural is also fiction.

OMG this is a dumb analogy. Several people have explained more kindly why it’s dumb, but you don’t want to hear it. Outta here, not wasting anymore time going in circles with you.

DP here. It is not "dumb" at all. There is no evidence that any of those things happened, ever.

Is it possible that the only difference is that you believe in one but not the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Seriously, pp, don’t waste any more of your time arguing against these haters and their bad-faith arguments (the SF article wasn’t meant to convince anybody? Haha). Two of them in particular are on here 24/7 echoing each other, and they’ll gish gallop forever if you give them even a whisper of opportunity. Just write off this forum as an unusable hate-outlet for people who can’t imagine doing anything but spending their entire days hating others. Leave it behind and go outside on this beautiful day.

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Seriously, pp, don’t waste any more of your time arguing against these haters and their bad-faith arguments (the SF article wasn’t meant to convince anybody? Haha). Two of them in particular are on here 24/7 echoing each other, and they’ll gish gallop forever if you give them even a whisper of opportunity. Just write off this forum as an unusable hate-outlet for people who can’t imagine doing anything but spending their entire days hating others. Leave it behind and go outside on this beautiful day.

Would like to point out that certain posters are:

- Demanding atheists not post
- Advising theists to not post

It's clear that at a minimum some here don't understand a discussion forum, or even simply a discussion, and would prefer it not happen. Others, however, would like the discussion to happen, and encourage positions on all sides to be shared and challenged so people can make up their own minds.

Which do you think is more admirable?

[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:

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.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

Seriously, pp, don’t waste any more of your time arguing against these haters and their bad-faith arguments (the SF article wasn’t meant to convince anybody? Haha). Two of them in particular are on here 24/7 echoing each other, and they’ll gish gallop forever if you give them even a whisper of opportunity. Just write off this forum as an unusable hate-outlet for people who can’t imagine doing anything but spending their entire days hating others. Leave it behind and go outside on this beautiful day.

Would like to point out that certain posters are:

- Demanding atheists not post
- Advising theists to not post

It's clear that at a minimum some here don't understand a discussion forum, or even simply a discussion, and would prefer it not happen. Others, however, would like the discussion to happen, and encourage positions on all sides to be shared and challenged so people can make up their own minds.

Which do you think is more admirable?

^^^ Bad faith. Nobody is telling you atheists not to post. That didn’t happen. Instead I’m recommending religious pp leave you to enjoy your little hate-filled hellscape by yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them.

Did anyone actually prove that Santa/Zeus didn't exist?

Santa, yes -- he does not exist. He is a child's supernatural being who only brings presents to Christian children at Christmas. Kids realize at about the age of 10 that there is no Santa, then later, they play Santa for their own kids.

Zeus - no proof that he did or didn't exist, but no one believes in him anymore. He's an Ancient Greek god.

No. No one proved Santa does not exist. You can't.

Not empirical proof, perhaps, but solid reasoning. Adults know that there is no Santa because they become Santa to their own children. As has been pointed out, Ghosts are a better argument for the nonexistence of supernatural beings, because some adults believe in ghosts, despite the lack of evidence.

And some of us don't see any difference between Santa, Ghosts, and Gods. Which is the point. There is an equal lack of evidence for all of them.

Exactly. Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not.

Santa is not "supernatural" - he's fictional. An adult believing in Santa wouldn't make presents appear under their tree in the night, unless they have a very dedicated parent, spouse, or friend willing to continue playing the role. Satellite imaging of the globe would also have picked up a massive workshop, reindeer stables, and elf village in the North Pole if one existed. Just because you can't see the difference between Santa and God (or ghosts; I'll give you ghosts as a better argument), doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The supernatural is something unexplained by science or outside of the laws of nature. Santa's powers would be supernatural if they were real, but they are explained by the fact that many adults play the role of Santa, so there are not actually any laws of nature being broken, except maybe some human nature when an adult who is notoriously bad at keeping secrets is able to maintain their secret Santa identity from their kids for years on end.

You make good arguments about Santa, but what about God? Sometimes he answers prayers and sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes people are fervently praying for opposite outcomes. When one side wins does that mean their prayers were answered?

There's no satellite imaging of God and we now know, thanks to space exploration, that there's no atmosphere in heaven, so people who rise bodily, like Jesus, couldn't breathe up there.