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]

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. [/quote]

Would like to point out that certain posters are:

- Demanding atheists not post
- Advising theists to not post

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

Which do you think is more admirable?[/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