Disclosing atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says the biggest hater of them all.

[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.

What’s the SF article?

The LA Times op-ed?

[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.

Some would say Santa is both supernatural and fictional - like God. Whereas some characters are fictional, like Scrooge, but definitely not supernatural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought that was Thor. I think I saw him duing the last thunder storm.

[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.

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought that was Thor. I think I saw him duing the last thunder storm.

Also, Zeus and Jupiter. So many gods. It’s hard to keep track.

[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.

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Yes, that makes sense. Personally, I've always seen the many different natures of God as a reflection of human nature, since we're made in God's image. We all contain contradictions within ourselves. We are all sometimes quick to anger or jealous. We are all sometimes able to tap into an extra well of patience or find it in ourselves to forgive others. If I can accept the intricacies and contradictions of human nature as a fact of life that I will never fully understand, then I can accept God's existence and nature in the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers it doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Aaaannnnd pp thought she could come on here and join in the Christianity-bashing (magical genie, resurrection doesn’t make sense) and be treated better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers or doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Aaaannnnd pp thought she could come on here and join in the Christianity-bashing (magical genie, resurrection doesn’t make sense) and be treated better.

I apologize if my comments appeared to bash Christianity. And my use of "magic genie" was glib. I mean that I disagree with the view of God as someone we can pray to in a wish-granting kind of way. For that matter, many Christians also disagree with that view of God, which I didn't specify in my initial comment.

The resurrection doesn't make sense to me. It's something that Christians take on faith, the same way I take parts of my religion on faith that Christians may not find much sense in.

As for being "treated better," I answered a question about my understanding of God and was met with genuine interest and engagement on the topic. I don't see anything offensive in the exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers or doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Aaaannnnd pp thought she could come on here and join in the Christianity-bashing (magical genie, resurrection doesn’t make sense) and be treated better.

I apologize if my comments appeared to bash Christianity. And my use of "magic genie" was glib. I mean that I disagree with the view of God as someone we can pray to in a wish-granting kind of way. For that matter, many Christians also disagree with that view of God, which I didn't specify in my initial comment.

The resurrection doesn't make sense to me. It's something that Christians take on faith, the same way I take parts of my religion on faith that Christians may not find much sense in.

As for being "treated better," I answered a question about my understanding of God and was met with genuine interest and engagement on the topic. I don't see anything offensive in the exchange.

I am the poster who originally engaged you in conversation and I appreciate your response. Interesting that you see God as reflecting humans, rather than as an entity above us pulling strings (more the Christian perception). I was not offended by any of your comments and feel there was no need to apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers or doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Aaaannnnd pp thought she could come on here and join in the Christianity-bashing (magical genie, resurrection doesn’t make sense) and be treated better.

I apologize if my comments appeared to bash Christianity. And my use of "magic genie" was glib. I mean that I disagree with the view of God as someone we can pray to in a wish-granting kind of way. For that matter, many Christians also disagree with that view of God, which I didn't specify in my initial comment.

The resurrection doesn't make sense to me. It's something that Christians take on faith, the same way I take parts of my religion on faith that Christians may not find much sense in.

As for being "treated better," I answered a question about my understanding of God and was met with genuine interest and engagement on the topic. I don't see anything offensive in the exchange.

I am the poster who originally engaged you in conversation and I appreciate your response. Interesting that you see God as reflecting humans, rather than as an entity above us pulling strings (more the Christian perception). I was not offended by any of your comments and feel there was no need to apologize.

Thank you! If we're made in God's image, then it only makes sense (to me) to view the God-human relationship as one that reflects each other. It's more accurate to say that humans reflect God, rather than God reflecting humans, but either way, we can see some of our emotions and behavior in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not Christian and don't believe in God as someone who answers prayers or doesn't answer prayers. God is not like a magical genie granting wishes, at least not in my conception of God. As for Jesus, since I'm not Christian, I'm with you on the whole rising from the dead thing not making any sense.

Interesting -- what does make sense to you in your conception of God?

I'm Jewish and I don't really feel the need to define an exact nature of God. There are lots of examples throughout the texts of the different ways that God acts or doesn't act in our lives. Sometimes God is very active (Creation, the Exodus, Jonah) and sometimes God is conspicuously absent (Esther). Sometimes God answers prayers (Hannah) and sometimes not (the first 400 years in Egypt). Sometimes there seems to be a divine plan behind personal suffering (Joseph) and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason (Job). It's enough for me to believe that God exists in all these different ways of being.

Interesting. Reading through this makes me understand why there seem to be so many non-believing Jews. To me, the erratic nature of God strongly suggests his complete absence.

Aaaannnnd pp thought she could come on here and join in the Christianity-bashing (magical genie, resurrection doesn’t make sense) and be treated better.

I apologize if my comments appeared to bash Christianity. And my use of "magic genie" was glib. I mean that I disagree with the view of God as someone we can pray to in a wish-granting kind of way. For that matter, many Christians also disagree with that view of God, which I didn't specify in my initial comment.

The resurrection doesn't make sense to me. It's something that Christians take on faith, the same way I take parts of my religion on faith that Christians may not find much sense in.

As for being "treated better," I answered a question about my understanding of God and was met with genuine interest and engagement on the topic. I don't see anything offensive in the exchange.

I am the poster who originally engaged you in conversation and I appreciate your response. Interesting that you see God as reflecting humans, rather than as an entity above us pulling strings (more the Christian perception). I was not offended by any of your comments and feel there was no need to apologize.

Thank you! If we're made in God's image, then it only makes sense (to me) to view the God-human relationship as one that reflects each other. It's more accurate to say that humans reflect God, rather than God reflecting humans, but either way, we can see some of our emotions and behavior in God.

You're welcome. Being made in God's image is a Christian concept too, that I recall hearing during my church-going days. I'm now an atheist. But I thought of it more as humans and God looking like each other, not being like each other. God, and his son, Jesus, always seemed perfect and humans clearly were not.

That could have been more my own deduction than anything I learned in Sunday school, which was focused on rules - what to do to get into heaven and how to avoid going to hell.