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:

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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

[Anonymous]

I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

I wonder if it's common for former/current Christians to think of being made in God's image as having a similar human-like form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

Not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

If they want to know they could ask, we do talk about many things, but I think most of us would rather not look for topics we might disagree on so we avoid those. It makes for a lot of very pleasant conversations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

If they want to know they could ask, we do talk about many things, but I think most of us would rather not look for topics we might disagree on so we avoid those. It makes for a lot of very pleasant conversations.

Sounds like a good place to live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

If they want to know they could ask, we do talk about many things, but I think most of us would rather not look for topics we might disagree on so we avoid those. It makes for a lot of very pleasant conversations.

When I was in a sorority in college, we had an unofficial rule for recruitment events: it's impolite to talk about the 3 Bs...Bank, Boys, and Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

If they want to know they could ask, we do talk about many things, but I think most of us would rather not look for topics we might disagree on so we avoid those. It makes for a lot of very pleasant conversations.

When I was in a sorority in college, we had an unofficial rule for recruitment events: it's impolite to talk about the 3 Bs...Bank, Boys, and Bible.

Money, sex and religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in a 55+ community with 150 residences and lots of social activities. I've lived here a few years and literally no one knows I am an atheist. I also don't know if any of them are atheists or Christians or whatever except for once I overheard two talking about a mass they had attended at the same church earlier that day. But that's it. Nobody talks about it, at least not in casual conversation. It's possible some people chat with others who go to their church but I don't hear it. Why does anybody else need to know?

No one needs to know, but in American culture, mentioning religious affiliation has been very common - like mentioning ethnicity, maybe. It's interesting to hear that it doesn't come up in your 55+ community.

Something to think about: maybe some of the people there would like to know that others share their lack of religious beliefs.

If they want to know they could ask, we do talk about many things, but I think most of us would rather not look for topics we might disagree on so we avoid those. It makes for a lot of very pleasant conversations.

When I was in a sorority in college, we had an unofficial rule for recruitment events: it's impolite to talk about the 3 Bs...Bank, Boys, and Bible.

Money, sex and religion?

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

Please stop speculating about Christianity because you're always wrong. No, Christians don't think of God as a big guy with a beard in the sky, except for famous Michelangelo paintings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

I find it quite interesting to hear speculations about Christianity from a non/never Christian, but likely by a person who was brought up in a majority Christian culture. Maybe that's an accurate description of your experience. It's very common in the US.

My parents quietly taught tolerance of all religions. The first negativity I heard about Jews was in college - and it struck me as odd and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

Please stop speculating about Christianity because you're always wrong. No, Christians don't think of God as a big guy with a beard in the sky, except for famous Michelangelo paintings.

No, theologically-speaking in Christianity God does not have a body, as God is omnipresent and without form. But Michaelangelo's paintings are Christian depictions of God. As are the many other artistic expressions of God mainly depicted as a bearded man, often in the sky. There are many examples documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father_in_Western_art and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_in_art. When Christians try to imagine God (or really most non-Christians in Christian-majority cultures, like the US), Michaelangelo's depiction or one of these other bearded men in the sky are the ones that come to mind. It's not an attack on Christianity to point that out in the context of a discussion about the different ways that one might interpret "being made in God's image."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the idea of being made in God's image comes from Genesis 1:26, so it's a shared belief between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism doesn't have the same imagery for God that Christianity does. We do anthropomorphize God in descriptions, like God having an outstretched arm or God's nostrils flaring to create a mighty wind. But they are understood in Judaism as symbolism, not that God really has a body. The bearded man in the clouds (I don't mean that pejoratively, just as a description of the popular depictions of God in Christian art) is not a Jewish thing. In fact, drawing pictures of God counts as making a graven image or idolatry in Judaism.

It makes sense that the physical comparison would be more of a thing in Christianity, since Jesus is God in human form in Christian theology.

Please stop speculating about Christianity because you're always wrong. No, Christians don't think of God as a big guy with a beard in the sky, except for famous Michelangelo paintings.

No, theologically-speaking in Christianity God does not have a body, as God is omnipresent and without form. But Michaelangelo's paintings are Christian depictions of God. As are the many other artistic expressions of God mainly depicted as a bearded man, often in the sky. There are many examples documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father_in_Western_art and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_in_art. When Christians try to imagine God (or really most non-Christians in Christian-majority cultures, like the US), Michaelangelo's depiction or one of these other bearded men in the sky are the ones that come to mind. It's not an attack on Christianity to point that out in the context of a discussion about the different ways that one might interpret "being made in God's image."

That's incorrect, most Christians don't think of God as an old guy sitting up there on a cloud. We can separate the lovely paintings from a more nuanced conception of God.

[Anonymous]

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

I have never had anyone ask me what my faith is, or asked me where I go to church.

I’ve never heard anyone in a workplace or at a neighborhood gathering ask someone “hey, what’s your faith?”

I’ve had people invite me to visit their church with them. I’ve taken some up on their invitation, and declined some invitations.

I know I’ve never heard anyone inquire what another person’s faith is though.