Reply to Disclosing atheism

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Disclosing atheism"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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.

[quote]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. [/quote]

This "narrow semantic road ", as you call it, is exactly how [b]you [/b]come to believe [b]everything else you believe except for your god[/b].
[/quote]
Your argument is ridiculous. Have a nice day.[/quote]

Well, when you put it that way, with all those counterpoints, facts and citations, it is hard to argue.[/quote]
You've been provided counterpoints, facts, and citations and dismissed them. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

No. No one proved Santa does not exist.  You can't.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Exactly. [b]Either you believe supernatural forces are real. Or not[/b]. 
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics