Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Santa Claus argument

EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.
Thanksfornotraping
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

If Santa had a pope, most people would be praising the Holy Sleigh Ride...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

Catching mom or dad in the act usually does it, too. Or them telling you. Or, logically, as an adult, when the toothfairy doesn't come to your kid whom lost a tooth and put it under their pillow, or Santa doesn't bring your kids anything, assuming you held onto the belief.

Secondly, 'a Creator' is a hecka broad term. 'a Creator' doesn't mean God, God of the Bible, or Torah, or Quran, etc. A mindless supernatural bacteria that excretes atoms could account for matter in this existence, and could be defined as 'a Creator' for purposes of its definition. What becomes implausible is that such a Creator has such acute interest in humanity, such to the fact that apparently there is an eternal afterlife that judges people based on a glimmer of time that such a Creator equivocates to less than a blink of an eye in human terms.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

You live within a society - family, friends, class-mates, co-workers and acquaintances. You all live within a culture in which only children believe in Santa Claus, and as they get older, their parents are less motivated to continue the charade. But their parents believe in God, and only accentuate this belief as the children age. It's not a valid comparison to note that only children believe in Santa unless you also take note of the reasons why. There is nothing more valid about belief in God than belief in Santa. You simply run with a herd which disbelieves in Santa, but believes in God, and you adopt the mentality of the herd.

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

You live within a society - family, friends, class-mates, co-workers and acquaintances. You all live within a culture in which only children believe in Santa Claus, and as they get older, their parents are less motivated to continue the charade. But their parents believe in God, and only accentuate this belief as the children age. It's not a valid comparison to note that only children believe in Santa unless you also take note of the reasons why. There is nothing more valid about belief in God than belief in Santa. You simply run with a herd which disbelieves in Santa, but believes in God, and you adopt the mentality of the herd.

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Believing in folklore is a cultural expression that, for the most part, is benign and harmless. No one has been burned at the stake or had their heads cut off for not believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. The dismissal of these ideas does not carry the same consequences and should not be compared to the beliefs in a religious doctrine to which one guides ones life. The pivotal point here is that when it comes to religion, beliefs matter and expressions of said beliefs have consequences.

The comparison of believing in god to Santa Clause may speak to the reliability of the claims by way of evidence but says nothing of the potential consequences that such beliefs may contribute.

It may be a sarcastic and irreverent comparison (santa to god) by atheists and for this I apologize but what cannot be overlooked is the understanding that beliefs in doctrine matter especially with religious beliefs. And these religious beliefs are responsible for such horrific atrocities that it would be intellectually dishonest and immoral to not evaluate these beliefs with the same scrutiny ones uses when evaluating the efficacy of a medical or financial claim.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

Obviously they are not able to shake off all myths very easily since many still believe in invisible supernatural beings like our superstitious ancestors did.
Calling a fantasy a reality does not make it real.
If people grew up worshipping Santa as the creator and built churches and created religions in his honor, it would be no different to having a belief in God.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

When is goofy is a belief that any creator is supernatural and invisible and yet created very visible people with no supernatural powers at all in his own image.
If humans are created in the image of any creator then that creator must be as visible and weak and imperfect as any human.
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Santa teaches that millions can all believe in the same thing and all of them are wrong.
All supernatural beings exist where they were created, in the imagination.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:59:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It could be that Santa Claus has been proven to be a myth. We know for a fact that he doesn't slide down a chimney and deliver presents to kids. We know for a fact he doesn't have an army of elfs at the North Pole, etc.

The existence of God has yet to be disproved, and likely never will be. Thus, most of the world population feels comfortable subscribing to some form of belief regarding him.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

I am not Beastt but will offer an opinion - the word ' creation" implies a creator. All that exists in the universe has come about by some undiscoverable and some discoverable physical and chemical laws. You simply cannot say "the universe created itself" without evidence to support such a hypothesis. We have observable and testable processes to which we apply to our understanding of the universe. We imply nothing and therefore do not believe our universe was "created".
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:04:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:59:26 PM, HPWKA wrote:
It could be that Santa Claus has been proven to be a myth. We know for a fact that he doesn't slide down a chimney and deliver presents to kids. We know for a fact he doesn't have an army of elfs at the North Pole, etc.

The existence of God has yet to be disproved, and likely never will be. Thus, most of the world population feels comfortable subscribing to some form of belief regarding him.

Ironically the bible has a parable which teaches that most are on the wide road to destruction. That "most" would be the religious if you think "most" of the world population is religious. Following the rest of the crowd like sheep being led to the slaughter is easy. It takes courage to go a different direction to "most".
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:36:25 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

You live within a society - family, friends, class-mates, co-workers and acquaintances. You all live within a culture in which only children believe in Santa Claus, and as they get older, their parents are less motivated to continue the charade. But their parents believe in God, and only accentuate this belief as the children age. It's not a valid comparison to note that only children believe in Santa unless you also take note of the reasons why. There is nothing more valid about belief in God than belief in Santa. You simply run with a herd which disbelieves in Santa, but believes in God, and you adopt the mentality of the herd.

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Believing in folklore is a cultural expression that, for the most part, is benign and harmless. No one has been burned at the stake or had their heads cut off for not believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. The dismissal of these ideas does not carry the same consequences and should not be compared to the beliefs in a religious doctrine to which one guides ones life. The pivotal point here is that when it comes to religion, beliefs matter and expressions of said beliefs have consequences.

The comparison of believing in god to Santa Clause may speak to the reliability of the claims by way of evidence but says nothing of the potential consequences that such beliefs may contribute.

It may be a sarcastic and irreverent comparison (santa to god) by atheists and for this I apologize but what cannot be overlooked is the understanding that beliefs in doctrine matter especially with religious beliefs. And these religious beliefs are responsible for such horrific atrocities that it would be intellectually dishonest and immoral to not evaluate these beliefs with the same scrutiny ones uses when evaluating the efficacy of a medical or financial claim.

The reason the consequences are different, is that the level of belief is different. Apply the same self-absorbed, ego-maniacal level of belief to Santa, and you'd have the same level of atrocities committed in his name.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

I am not Beastt but will offer an opinion - the word ' creation" implies a creator. All that exists in the universe has come about by some undiscoverable and some discoverable physical and chemical laws. You simply cannot say "the universe created itself" without evidence to support such a hypothesis. We have observable and testable processes to which we apply to our understanding of the universe. We imply nothing and therefore do not believe our universe was "created".

What word would you like to substitute for "creation" ?

To have any chemical laws or reactions you need to have chemicals in the first place. Where did all the chemicals come from ?
To have any physical laws you need physical things. Where did they all come from ? They did not just appear from thin air.
You cannot get something from nothing.

What evidence do you need to see something "creating" itself? All you need to do is observe an egg in a womb and watch it divide and multiply and change itself into a fetus which then changes itself into a baby which eventually changes into an adult. If you did not create yourself who or what created you ? Mother Nature? Some automatic inbuilt process? Some brainwashing from the society in which you live?
If it was a process, what created the process? You cannot have an effect without a cause.

No laws are undiscoverable. Anything that exists is not undiscoverable. It might be difficult for humans to comprehend but hopefully human comprehension will improve and increase over time.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

I am not Beastt but will offer an opinion - the word ' creation" implies a creator. All that exists in the universe has come about by some undiscoverable and some discoverable physical and chemical laws. You simply cannot say "the universe created itself" without evidence to support such a hypothesis. We have observable and testable processes to which we apply to our understanding of the universe. We imply nothing and therefore do not believe our universe was "created".

What word would you like to substitute for "creation" ?

To have any chemical laws or reactions you need to have chemicals in the first place. Where did all the chemicals come from ?
To have any physical laws you need physical things. Where did they all come from ? They did not just appear from thin air.
You cannot get something from nothing.

What evidence do you need to see something "creating" itself? All you need to do is observe an egg in a womb and watch it divide and multiply and change itself into a fetus which then changes itself into a baby which eventually changes into an adult. If you did not create yourself who or what created you ? Mother Nature? Some automatic inbuilt process? Some brainwashing from the society in which you live?
If it was a process, what created the process? You cannot have an effect without a cause.

No laws are undiscoverable. Anything that exists is not undiscoverable. It might be difficult for humans to comprehend but hopefully human comprehension will improve and increase over time.

"you cannot get something from nothing".

Really? How do you know? I encourage you to read the book or watch the youtube video by Lawrence Krauss " A Universe From Nothing." I will repeat - you cannot get a creation without a creator. Perhaps we, with our small pre-frontal lobes, cannot yet comprehend having something from nothing.

"All you need to do is observe an egg in a womb and watch it divide and multiply and change itself into a fetus..."
What you are referring to is biogenesis. What you are not considering is abiogenesis which is one of the working hypothesis about how life formed.

"No laws are undiscoverable. Anything that exists is not undiscoverable"
Really?? You know this, how? Please, do not make claims based on anecdotal experience. The scientific method is the best we have in discovering truths to our universe but is not perfect in that it does rely on the human experience and our expressions of design.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It could be that Santa Claus has been proven to be a myth. We know for a fact that he doesn't slide down a chimney and deliver presents to kids. We know for a fact he doesn't have an army of elfs at the North Pole, etc.

The existence of God has yet to be disproved, and likely never will be. Thus, most of the world population feels comfortable subscribing to some form of belief regarding him.

Ironically the bible has a parable which teaches that most are on the wide road to destruction. That "most" would be the religious if you think "most" of the world population is religious. Following the rest of the crowd like sheep being led to the slaughter is easy. It takes courage to go a different direction to "most".

Firstly, I don't "think" most of the world is religious. Studies indicate that only 2% of the world are atheists.

Secondly, you ignored my actual point. Namely, that there is no evidence that God does not exist, which is opposite the case of Santa Claus.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

I am not Beastt but will offer an opinion - the word ' creation" implies a creator. All that exists in the universe has come about by some undiscoverable and some discoverable physical and chemical laws. You simply cannot say "the universe created itself" without evidence to support such a hypothesis. We have observable and testable processes to which we apply to our understanding of the universe. We imply nothing and therefore do not believe our universe was "created".

What word would you like to substitute for "creation" ?

To have any chemical laws or reactions you need to have chemicals in the first place. Where did all the chemicals come from ?
To have any physical laws you need physical things. Where did they all come from ? They did not just appear from thin air.
You cannot get something from nothing.

What evidence do you need to see something "creating" itself? All you need to do is observe an egg in a womb and watch it divide and multiply and change itself into a fetus which then changes itself into a baby which eventually changes into an adult. If you did not create yourself who or what created you ? Mother Nature? Some automatic inbuilt process? Some brainwashing from the society in which you live?
If it was a process, what created the process? You cannot have an effect without a cause.

No laws are undiscoverable. Anything that exists is not undiscoverable. It might be difficult for humans to comprehend but hopefully human comprehension will improve and increase over time.

"you cannot get something from nothing".

Really? How do you know? I encourage you to read the book or watch the youtube video by Lawrence Krauss " A Universe From Nothing." I will repeat - you cannot get a creation without a creator. Perhaps we, with our small pre-frontal lobes, cannot yet comprehend having something from nothing.

"All you need to do is observe an egg in a womb and watch it divide and multiply and change itself into a fetus..."
What you are referring to is biogenesis. What you are not considering is abiogenesis which is one of the working hypothesis about how life formed.

Feel free to live in your own hypothetical reality filled with presumptions which cannot be observed in action.
I prefer reality. You can observe it in action and see that life creates life after its own kind. You can see how life is formed within life itself.

"No laws are undiscoverable. Anything that exists is not undiscoverable"
Really?? You know this, how? Please, do not make claims based on anecdotal experience. The scientific method is the best we have in discovering truths to our universe but is not perfect in that it does rely on the human experience and our expressions of design.

Thank you for admitting that the scientific method relies on human experience and expressions. Now all you need to do is admit they are all subjective.
It seems obvious to me that if something exists in reality it would not be undiscoverable due to having a real existence.

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 9:58:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:42:06 PM, HPWKA wrote:Secondly, you ignored my actual point. Namely, that there is no evidence that God does not exist,

You are correct because this is an 'appeal to ignorance' which is a logical fallacy. One cannot disprove a negative. If I tell you that my family has had a purple, invisible dragon living in my garage - you would not be able to prove me wrong.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:42:06 PM, HPWKA wrote:
It could be that Santa Claus has been proven to be a myth. We know for a fact that he doesn't slide down a chimney and deliver presents to kids. We know for a fact he doesn't have an army of elfs at the North Pole, etc.

The existence of God has yet to be disproved, and likely never will be. Thus, most of the world population feels comfortable subscribing to some form of belief regarding him.

Ironically the bible has a parable which teaches that most are on the wide road to destruction. That "most" would be the religious if you think "most" of the world population is religious. Following the rest of the crowd like sheep being led to the slaughter is easy. It takes courage to go a different direction to "most".

Firstly, I don't "think" most of the world is religious. Studies indicate that only 2% of the world are atheists.

That's most interesting when you take that parable of the wide and narrow road into consideration. VERY FEW are on the road which leads to life and enlightenment. MANY are on the road to self destruction.

Secondly, you ignored my actual point. Namely, that there is no evidence that God does not exist, which is opposite the case of Santa Claus.

There is no evidence that any God does exist in reality either.
No evidence for or against Zeus in reality either.

The only evidence that any fantasy exists is in the fictions which record the fantasies.
Those fictions are evidence that the human mind is very creative and imaginative.

Fictional characters only exist in fantasy land. Call it Heaven or Hell or any other name you like but all those locations are in the same place where you find Never Land and all the lost boys.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:12:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa?

Simple really. You said it yourself, you gave up believing in Santa, if not for indoctrination you would have given up believing in God, too. That is why you don't consider the argument between Santa and God agreeable.

Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy?

Again, quite simple. Children don't grow up getting indoctrinated with believing in the Tooth Fairy.

Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

Of course, to the indoctrinated, that most certainly would be goofy idea. Yes, indeed.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:13:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

All of the things I see around me exist. I have no evidence suggesting that they ever didn't exist. So I have evidence that they exist, but no evidence that they were created. They simply exist. They are. Being is not evidence of creation.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:13:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:39:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Atheists....how many adults do you know who believe in Santa?

If I had to take a guess I would say it was probably around the age of 5 or so when I realized Santa was just for fun and no my parents never had to distinguish that fact for me, so I will respectfully have to disagree with the argument that believing in God is the same as believing in old saint Nick.

If indoctrination were simply the case for all belief then why don't adults cling to the belief in Santa? Why don't adults retain the belief in the Tooth Fairy? Simply because they are able to shake off what is "fairy tale" and what is plausible, what is logic, what is reasonable and what is truth.

I know that Theistic beliefs are like little silly fables to Atheists but the idea that there is no Creator to believers is just as goofy an idea.

You might be the most intelligent theist I've met in this forum so far. There is hope.

The answer is psychology.

Santa is obviously fake once you find out mom and dad have been sneaking around on Christmas eve leaving presents from the jolly spirit of Christmas. It doesn't take a smart child to connect the dots. Plus friends and siblings let you in on the secret and you feel silly for believing it. Ah peer pressure sucks. They make you feel so dumb.

With the God belief it's different. It is such a part of society. Megachurches, money, the church and state, money. Sadly, adults don't stop believing in God for the very same reason they stopped believing in Santa when they were small. Peer pressure. You feel like a social pariah if you don't do what the rest of them are doing.

If you stopped believing in God because the claims seem absurd to you and told your family and friends, what would they say? You would instantly be labeled lost, ignorant, sinful, a social pariah. But you would still be you. You would still love and you would still give. It's sad.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.

Really?? Is that what you would tell those who are looking through the Hubble telescope??
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:28:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:13:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

All of the things I see around me exist. I have no evidence suggesting that they ever didn't exist. So I have evidence that they exist, but no evidence that they were created. They simply exist. They are. Being is not evidence of creation.

How about you? You obviously exist. Is there any evidence that you once did not exist? Should we all believe there is no evidence that you were ever created or formed in a womb of a female or can we safely presume you must have been created or formed or whatever word you wish to use to describe your own formation? Did you form yourself or did your mother form you ?
Who or what formed you and what made you self aware?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:31:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.

Unlike God, there is massive evidence to support big bang. We have the current expansion of the universe, which if played backward for 13.7 billion years, results with the universe existing at a single point. We have the CMBR which is detected anywhere you direct the instruments. And when a satellite map was created showing the relative intensities of that CMBR, it matched the map drawn on the basis of the theory alone, almost exactly. We have the WMAP Cold Spot, which was predicted by the theory, but unknown at the time the theory was founded. It has since been founded by a research team who was not looking for it, and didn't understand what they had found. We also have the convergence and unification of the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force, at a calculated variance of gravity, temperature etc., winding back the clock to... (you guessed it)... 13.7 billion years.

Not a shred of evidence for God... nothing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:31:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.

Unlike God, there is massive evidence to support big bang. We have the current expansion of the universe, which if played backward for 13.7 billion years, results with the universe existing at a single point. We have the CMBR which is detected anywhere you direct the instruments. And when a satellite map was created showing the relative intensities of that CMBR, it matched the map drawn on the basis of the theory alone, almost exactly. We have the WMAP Cold Spot, which was predicted by the theory, but unknown at the time the theory was founded. It has since been founded by a research team who was not looking for it, and didn't understand what they had found. We also have the convergence and unification of the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force, at a calculated variance of gravity, temperature etc., winding back the clock to... (you guessed it)... 13.7 billion years.

Not a shred of evidence for God... nothing.

+1 - Nice post!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:35:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:28:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:13:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Not only is there no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of creation. And until you have evidence of creation, a creator is just job application looking for an applicant.

Please clarify what you mean by the above statement.
No evidence of a creation? What do you call all the things you see in the universe if they are not a creation which is created by the universe itself?
Most people are referring to all they can see and observe when using the word creation. They are referring to the universe itself. Surely you must be aware of that fact?

All of the things I see around me exist. I have no evidence suggesting that they ever didn't exist. So I have evidence that they exist, but no evidence that they were created. They simply exist. They are. Being is not evidence of creation.

How about you? You obviously exist. Is there any evidence that you once did not exist?
Not a shred.

Should we all believe there is no evidence that you were ever created or formed in a womb of a female or can we safely presume you must have been created or formed or whatever word you wish to use to describe your own formation?
The correct word is "transformed". Ever hear the phrase "eating for two" applied to a pregnant person? It's true that some of the calories ingested are utilized to build the fetus into a baby. It's not "created" out of nothing. It's transformed out of what already exists.

Did you form yourself or did your mother form you ?
Neither. I was formed by natural processes.

Who or what formed you and what made you self aware?
Natural processes formed me and I'm self-aware because I have multiple processing centers in my brain, each of which can monitor the processes of the others. This is how we are aware of our own thought processes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:25:20 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.

Really?? Is that what you would tell those who are looking through the Hubble telescope??

None of them have ever seen the universe come into existence. They just observe the existing universe in action.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:47:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:37:36 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:25:20 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:21:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:10:19 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:51:35 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:41:05 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:23:21 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 9:02:43 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/14/2014 8:50:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:57:03 PM, Beastt wrote:

Can you suggest any reason that something in existence would not be able to be discovered or observed?

Yes, I can. We cannot observe the second before the red light shift or the "Big Bang" because we do not yet have the scientific principles needed to describe this process. Does that mean they do not exist - most-likely not but this question has no relevance because only time and experimentation will uncover this answer to which Iron and Bronze age dogma certainly will make no contributions.

Any Big Bang is not in existence. It is a scientifically accepted myth, theory or fairy tale. It has never been observed any more than God has been observed yet people obviously like to believe what they can imagine.

Really?? Is that what you would tell those who are looking through the Hubble telescope??

None of them have ever seen the universe come into existence. They just observe the existing universe in action.

But you just stated that "any big bang is not in existence". What then would you call the red light shift as observed and regarded as preceding the "big bang"? Is this telescopic phenomenon which has been observed by many just a "myth" or "fairy tale"?