Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's the difference between Santa and God?

Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:41:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa is relatively well defined:

Man, who delivers presents to the entire world on Christmas Eve.

God is not.

Santa is defined in such a way in which he can in principle be easily falsified, God generally is defined in such a way that it rests in our field of ignorance.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

The difference is St. Nicholas was a real man that there is archaeological and textual evidence of.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:41:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa is relatively well defined:

Man, who delivers presents to the entire world on Christmas Eve.

God is not.

Santa is defined in such a way in which he can in principle be easily falsified, God generally is defined in such a way that it rests in our field of ignorance.

Makes no sense to me, but OK.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:15:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

This is where a venn diagram might come in handy.

The differences:

SANTA: Santa is different from God because we are eventually ostracized for thinking he's real.

GOD: God is different from Santa because we are eventually ostracized if we don't believe he's real.

Both are lovely concepts. Both are about giving and being good boys and girls.

That's all.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,595
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God.

Santa's the good guy.
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
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:52:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Both are concepts pushed by adults in this world to make money for the greedy in the process of selling generosity and kindness.
Give till you can give no more so the rich can be richer and the poor can be poorer.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

Disprove Santa. I dare you.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

Yes, and this is why God being unprovable, like the teapot in space, is a joke. That's how the burden of proof fallacy works. You argue for such a fantastical being that it can't be disproven (or proven) yet you act as if it's so obvious and everyone should believe you. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Let us know when you've proven God or any other god for that matter.

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

You don't know how inductive reasoning works do you? Of the 2 logics, inductive and deductive, inductive is the less definitive and has problems. So why you rely on it as evidence is beyond me. http://en.wikipedia.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

One gives you presents. The other has no presence.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:32:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:08:58 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

Disprove Santa. I dare you.


Santa claims to live on the North Pole, the entire surface of the North Pole has been mapped, the ice penetrated with infrared, and submarines have gone under all the ice. Flying reindeer do not exist.

Ergo, Santa does not exist.

A classic inductive argument.

Where does God 'live'?
We send any submarines after him?

I'm sorry you are too irrational as an adult to not explain why you stopped believing in Santa Clause.

Apparently, that was an emotionally devastating revelation for you, because logic failed you entirely.

Inductive reasoning.

You should look it up before Beastty tell you that Leprechauns are not real either ... hate for that emotional blow to land as logic continues to fail you.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:32:27 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:08:58 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

Disprove Santa. I dare you.


Santa claims to live on the North Pole, the entire surface of the North Pole has been mapped, the ice penetrated with infrared, and submarines have gone under all the ice. Flying reindeer do not exist.

Santa uses magic to avoid detection, that's why he hasn't been found. And it's a bit silly for you to think that adults, people who don't believe in Santa, could be able to find him. Flying reindeer don't exist? That sounds an awful like 'black swans don't exist'. A common fallacy when using induction.

Ergo, Santa does not exist.

You haven't disproven Santa.

A classic inductive argument.

Apparently you didn't bother learning about the problems with induction.

Where does God 'live'?
We send any submarines after him?

I'm sorry you are too irrational as an adult to not explain why you stopped believing in Santa Clause.

I believe in Santa for the same reason you believe in God and you can't prove or disprove otherwise.

Apparently, that was an emotionally devastating revelation for you, because logic failed you entirely.

Inductive reasoning.

You should look it up before Beastty tell you that Leprechauns are not real either ... hate for that emotional blow to land as logic continues to fail you.

I mean how many times do I have to tell you inductive reasoning has major flaws? Why do you think inductive reasoning proves God?

Let me give you an example of failed inductive reasoning.

I meet Bob, he's a christian. Bob is a nice guy.
I meet Jill, she's a christian. Jill is a nice girl.
I meet neutral. Now using inductive reasoning I can predict neutral is a nice person. However, you're not a nice person.

I can prove you're not a nice person deductively. I provide evidence, such as your tendency to use ad hom attacks and your avoidance of questions put forward.

See how logic works?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:22:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa doesn't send you to Hell if you don't believe in him.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:24:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa comes down your chimney. God gets right into your bed.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 8:22:24 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa doesn't send you to Hell if you don't believe in him.

Santa also does not hate homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13 'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 8:53:23 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 12/14/2014 8:22:24 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa doesn't send you to Hell if you don't believe in him.

Santa also does not hate homosexuals: ...

Hence my post #14. :-)
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:29:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ideas like Santa are much more easier to prove false.

While the idea of a God is more grounded towards understanding of how the universe came to be.

If you still don't quite understand.

Like the idea of life or intelligent life some where else in the universe, is realistically much more probable then Santa.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:39:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

God has been disproved to the degree which Christians find to be conclusive for Santa... and many times over.

The difference is that Christians don't practice irrational faith when it comes to Santa, and they do with God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 12:50:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa is the stranger who breaks into your home and gives your children presents.

God... kills them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 1:52:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:20:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

One gives you presents. The other has no presence.

This is gold dee
+1
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:19:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 1:52:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:20:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

One gives you presents. The other has no presence.

This is gold dee
+1

I'm glad someone noticed. :-)
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:32:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:44:02 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:32:27 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:08:58 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

Disprove Santa. I dare you.


Santa claims to live on the North Pole, the entire surface of the North Pole has been mapped, the ice penetrated with infrared, and submarines have gone under all the ice. Flying reindeer do not exist.

Santa uses magic to avoid detection, that's why he hasn't been found. And it's a bit silly for you to think that adults, people who don't believe in Santa, could be able to find him. Flying reindeer don't exist? That sounds an awful like 'black swans don't exist'. A common fallacy when using induction.

Ergo, Santa does not exist.

You haven't disproven Santa.

A classic inductive argument.

Apparently you didn't bother learning about the problems with induction.

Where does God 'live'?
We send any submarines after him?

I'm sorry you are too irrational as an adult to not explain why you stopped believing in Santa Clause.

I believe in Santa for the same reason you believe in God and you can't prove or disprove otherwise.

Apparently, that was an emotionally devastating revelation for you, because logic failed you entirely.

Inductive reasoning.

You should look it up before Beastty tell you that Leprechauns are not real either ... hate for that emotional blow to land as logic continues to fail you.

I mean how many times do I have to tell you inductive reasoning has major flaws? Why do you think inductive reasoning proves God?

Let me give you an example of failed inductive reasoning.

I meet Bob, he's a christian. Bob is a nice guy.
I meet Jill, she's a christian. Jill is a nice girl.
I meet neutral. Now using inductive reasoning I can predict neutral is a nice person. However, you're not a nice person.

I can prove you're not a nice person deductively. I provide evidence, such as your tendency to use ad hom attacks and your avoidance of questions put forward.

See how logic works?

Really? Let me know when you meet God and validate P1 in your proposition. We've never actually met either ... so the deuctive conlusion rests upon the truth of your premises, which in this case is entirely flawed.

The best you can do on this site is inductive reasoning, as in reasonable certainty. The fact that you think its deductive is telling - but such lapses of logical reasoning are quite common with atheists.

Again, no man can see the future, all prediction relies on inductive reasoning, including that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet that is 'certain'. The same reasoning applies with God.

Logic isn't hard if you actually take the time to understand it. When you don't ... its difficult. When you preach it but clearly don't understand it? That's bad.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 2:36:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 12:39:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

God has been disproved to the degree which Christians find to be conclusive for Santa... and many times over.

By the side that always fallaciously shifts the burden the proof? How's that happen?

Usually, what happens is that when teh proof starts to line up for our side, you guys start scream rape, genocide, and liar/murderer.

A disproof that is not.


The difference is that Christians don't practice irrational faith when it comes to Santa, and they do with God.

No you just deny everything based on faith. And can't use inductive reasoning to explain why anything is false.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:13:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:36:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:39:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

God has been disproved to the degree which Christians find to be conclusive for Santa... and many times over.

By the side that always fallaciously shifts the burden the proof? How's that happen?
The one shifting the burden of proof is YOU! There is NO obvious evidence for God... NONE! And you've been asked directly for evidence of God, and had access to numerous threads asking for evidence for God. And you offered squat! So YOU have failed to meet your burden of proof... you have no evidence FOR God... end of discussion.

It works the same way for anything you care to mention. Those promoting that which is devoid of obvious evidence, assume the burden of proof. And when they fail to satisfy that burden, they forfeit.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of fairies?
Of course not! Asking for evidence of non-existence is pure stupidity. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what evidence is, how it works, and what it means.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of unicorns?
Of course not. "Evidence of non-existence" is an oxy-moron. It's stupidity. It demonstrates that - despite your insistence that we hold the burden to provide the evidence - that you don't even understand what evidence is, or what it means.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of mermaids?
That would be pure STUPIDITY! And you seem to understand that when it comes to every unevidenced concept except God. You don't shout about the lack of evidence of non-existence for unicorns, fairies, mermaids, gremlins, Leprechauns or anything else. Only for God. And that's because you KNOW you hold the burden of proof, and you can't fulfill it. So in standard Neutral behavior, you try to shift the burden, and invert the argument.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "EVIDENCE OF NON-EXISTENCE"! It's a horse-crap excuse, to protect yourself from reality.

Usually, what happens is that when teh proof starts to line up for our side, you guys start scream rape, genocide, and liar/murderer.

A disproof that is not.
The lack of evidence - in and of itself - is a disproof for God, because of the claims you make for God. If God were to exist, but provide no objective evidence for his existence, then he would be utterly and completely inconsequential to us. Because it means he never does ANYTHING to affect the physical. If he did, it would provide physical evidence for God. And no such evidence has ever been found or presented.


The difference is that Christians don't practice irrational faith when it comes to Santa, and they do with God.

No you just deny everything based on faith. And can't use inductive reasoning to explain why anything is false.
Inductive reasoning doesn't explain anything, Neutral. How amazing would it be if you even knew what the word "inductive" meant. Inductive reasoning DOES NOT, and CAN NOT, provide a certain conclusion. Only deductive reasoning can do that. And deductive reasoning leaves you with no ability to claim that God exists... because he doesn't.

And we've proved it to at least the same degree that it has been shown that unicorns don't exist...
... to at least the same degree that fairies have been shown not to exist...
... to at least the same degree that Leprechauns have been shown not to exist...
... to at least the same degree that gremlins have been shown not to exist.

And you don't demonstrate the fallacious disingenuous and personal lack of honesty to proclaim that those exist, or that no one has sufficiently demonstrated that they don't exist.

Everything you offer is nothing but Christian lip-service, which is all Christianity has ever had to offer, save for death, destruction, war, persecution, hatred, torture, bigotry and and the most undeserved case of bloated arrogance ever to exist on the planet.

And each time this discussion comes up, we find you expelling more excrement than an elephant bowel.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:24:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 4:13:13 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:36:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:39:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

God has been disproved to the degree which Christians find to be conclusive for Santa... and many times over.

By the side that always fallaciously shifts the burden the proof? How's that happen?
The one shifting the burden of proof is YOU! There is NO obvious evidence for God... NONE! And you've been asked directly for evidence of God, and had access to numerous threads asking for evidence for God. And you offered squat! So YOU have failed to meet your burden of proof... you have no evidence FOR God... end of discussion.

You've been shown evidence time and time again, and you offer perchance the sorriest attempts at a rebuttal of anyone on here. I remember asking you six or seven times for whatever evidence you possess that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine/authentic. After all, you've boldly proclaimed that they are not authentic a dozen or more times. And that's just one out of dozens of examples.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:31:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 4:13:13 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:36:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/15/2014 12:39:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:54:19 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

Santa can be disproven, God cannot - but atheists can't figure out why and the concept of inductive reasoning eludes those who consider logic to be their grail.

There might also be a magic floating tea pot somewhere in space ... which is also a classic example of the burden of proof fallacy.

But let us know when you have falsified God. But not Thor, of Spaghetti Monsters, or Santa, or the invisible baseball bat coming for your head right now - no seriously DUCK! NOW!!!

Now why didn't you duck? Welcome to inductive reasoning 101.

God has been disproved to the degree which Christians find to be conclusive for Santa... and many times over.

By the side that always fallaciously shifts the burden the proof? How's that happen?
The one shifting the burden of proof is YOU! There is NO obvious evidence for God... NONE! And you've been asked directly for evidence of God, and had access to numerous threads asking for evidence for God. And you offered squat! So YOU have failed to meet your burden of proof... you have no evidence FOR God... end of discussion.

It works the same way for anything you care to mention. Those promoting that which is devoid of obvious evidence, assume the burden of proof. And when they fail to satisfy that burden, they forfeit.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of fairies?
Of course not! Asking for evidence of non-existence is pure stupidity. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what evidence is, how it works, and what it means.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of unicorns?
Of course not. "Evidence of non-existence" is an oxy-moron. It's stupidity. It demonstrates that - despite your insistence that we hold the burden to provide the evidence - that you don't even understand what evidence is, or what it means.

Do you insist on evidence for the non-existence of mermaids?
That would be pure STUPIDITY! And you seem to understand that when it comes to every unevidenced concept except God. You don't shout about the lack of evidence of non-existence for unicorns, fairies, mermaids, gremlins, Leprechauns or anything else. Only for God. And that's because you KNOW you hold the burden of proof, and you can't fulfill it. So in standard Neutral behavior, you try to shift the burden, and invert the argument.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "EVIDENCE OF NON-EXISTENCE"! It's a horse-crap excuse, to protect yourself from reality.

Usually, what happens is that when teh proof starts to line up for our side, you guys start scream rape, genocide, and liar/murderer.

A disproof that is not.
The lack of evidence - in and of itself - is a disproof for God, because of the claims you make for God. If God were to exist, but provide no objective evidence for his existence, then he would be utterly and completely inconsequential to us. Because it means he never does ANYTHING to affect the physical. If he did, it would provide physical evidence for God. And no such evidence has ever been found or presented.


The difference is that Christians don't practice irrational faith when it comes to Santa, and they do with God.

No you just deny everything based on faith. And can't use inductive reasoning to explain why anything is false.
Inductive reasoning doesn't explain anything, Neutral. How amazing would it be if you even knew what the word "inductive" meant. Inductive reasoning DOES NOT, and CAN NOT, provide a certain conclusion. Only deductive reasoning can do that. And deductive reasoning leaves you with no ability to claim that God exists... because he doesn't.

And we've proved it to at least the same degree that it has been shown that unicorns don't exist...
... to at least the same degree that fairies have been shown not to exist...
... to at least the same degree that Leprechauns have been shown not to exist...
... to at least the same degree that gremlins have been shown not to exist.

And you don't demonstrate the fallacious disingenuous and personal lack of honesty to proclaim that those exist, or that no one has sufficiently demonstrated that they don't exist.

Everything you offer is nothing but Christian lip-service, which is all Christianity has ever had to offer, save for death, destruction, war, persecution, hatred, torture, bigotry and and the most undeserved case of bloated arrogance ever to exist on the planet.

And each time this discussion comes up, we find you expelling more excrement than an elephant bowel.

People don't insist that people repeatedly falsify the same thing repeatedly.

As atheists have to do this even once for God, and loudly proclaim that there is no evidence? well, guess what, there is evidenec of abscence of unicorns. If someone claimed that black holes do not exist, people would demand to know why.

You simply latch onto unreasonable expectations with the guilt by comparison fallacy.

And when reversed, do people insist that:

a. We prove that the Ocean is real?
b. That we prove that stars are real?
c. That we prove that sand is real?

So if I compare God to any of those - it good? Or fallacious?

Simple standards atheists. Simle standards. Logic.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 5:06:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So to recap what's happened here:

Jody: Answer a question yes or no!

N: Answers question. All things are created of God and thus have some aspect of God in them and/or a soul. He created the entire universe, and we should thus treat them with a humane reverence - like kosher - perhaps. But we are the stewards of the Earth, and thus can among the food supply accordingly.

Subsequent clarification with several posters, all conceding the OP's point that 'Creatures' have souls.

J: Why are you not answering my question!

N: It's already been answered.

J: Why are you not answering my question!

N: It's already been answered several times, please go back and address those points already made.

J: Lifts quote out of context stating that the only reason animals exist is to serve us, and then claim that I am claiming that nothing has sole.

N: clarifies point in initial, and directly challenges of integrity of misquote and intent of fundamentally misunderstanding the genesis narrative related to the point made earlier (and simply avoided) - point out behavior is typical of the trolls of atheism.

J: I hate you!

N: Then debate must not be for you.

J: Please help fellow trolls of atheism! As you can see, I have been gravely offended! My questions were answered! My integrity challenged when I COMPLETELY messed up someone else's points again!

And the trolls of atheism respond with the same personal barbs, one violating a no contact order to do so, without a single one of them conceding that if you ask questions and get an answer, you should probably direct an accurate response on the question.

If you don't? Well, that is a lack of integrity for one doing it, not sycophancy in anyone else.

But then, that's how the trolls of atheism roll.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:30:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:15:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
I was just wondering what the difference between believing in Santa vs. believing God. I am sure that this has been answered, so don't take any offense in this. I am just trying to understand the Christian mindset.

This is where a venn diagram might come in handy.

The differences:

SANTA: Santa is different from God because we are eventually ostracized for thinking he's real.

GOD: God is different from Santa because we are eventually ostracized if we don't believe he's real.

Both are lovely concepts. Both are about giving and being good boys and girls.

That's all.

Ooh so harsh and yet so profound.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 7:33:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Santa claims to live at the North Pole and no evidence has ever been found to support that claim.

Bible god claims to live on a throne just above the solid dome covering the earth, no evidence has ever been found to support this claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin