Amazon.com Widgets

Is believing in God like believing in Santa Claus or any other fairytale?

Asked by: SegBeg
  • Yes, same thing

    It's the same
    God: An inmortal being that lives in the sky with a bunch of angels and saints, who help him. He's watching every person in the world. If you are good you go to heaven, and if you're evil you go to hell.

    Santa Claus: A man that lives in the Antartida with a bunch of dwarves. He is also watching every person in the world. Good=gift, Evil=no gift.
    See? The same!

    The only difference is that people stop believing in Santa Claus. You grow up, you start thinking by yourself and realise it's impossible for one person to watch and take care of 9 billion people.

  • It is the same.

    The very definition of faith is the belief in god or in the doctrines of a religion based off of spiritual apprehension rather than evidence. If you ask a Christian, "Do you have any evidence of god?" and they'll most likely point you towards the bible, even though the bible is a religious doctrine and should not be taken as *liable* evidence. The main reason why people believe in religion is to comfort themselves that yes their life has meaning and there is a life after this one. Its all pretty simple. In the beginning, religion was made to explain the natural world (i.E. Rain and sun gods, etc.) but was then used to control a population (making people fear eternal torment). You can make a case that religion is a bad force in the world, but that's not what we are talking about. What I'm trying to explain is this: religion is either about explaining the supernatural or controlling people (this can be seen countless times in history, I recommend looking at the Bubonic Plague in Europe and the Holy Roman Catholic Church at that time, and the Crusades).

  • Both are fairy tales made up by people to have something to believe in.

    The only difference is that one is for children and one is for adults and has been used as an excuse to start wars and steal money. The fact of the matter is, both of them are just stories people like to believe in to have something to give them hope or make them happy, and that's why they are the same thing. The only reason people say it's not is because they are butthurt about their god being compared to Santa.

  • Yes, there is no difference

    Yes, they are exactly the same. Except, in the case of Santa Claus, there is more evidence justifying belief than there is for god. Santa Claus was a real person at one point in time and the stories behind Santa Claus are based on what St. Nicholas did during his life. God has no evidence at all. So, I would forgive a person for believing in the 'magical' Santa Claus that we've created over the years because it's slightly more rational than god.

  • Both are equally irrational.

    Both are equally irrational, so it is very likely that belief in god(s) is just like belief in any other fairy tale. They both come from the same part of the brain. There is no evidence for the existence of god(s) being real, so it's most likely that god(s) are just like any other fairy tale or tall tale. The more science has studied the origins of both god(s) and religions, the more they've learned that humans created god(s).

  • Identical, both are equally absurd.

    Belief in a specific religion is no different than belief in fairytales, myths, or other nonexistent entities such as Santa Claus.
    Deism, however, is not as ludicrous, but is still unnecessary and devoid of proof.
    Those who look more deeply into the subject and into the scientific alternatives for creation, and possess decent thinking skills as a whole, will become atheists, unless they are extremely brainwashed.

  • Believing in either happens in the same part of the brain.

    So compare the two, one is a supernatural being the is not constrained the physical laws of the universe, rewards and punishes believers for their behaviour, knows if you are sleeping, knows if your awake and wants you to be good for goodness sake, and the other is god who wants you to be good or burn forever

  • Myths are mythical by definition

    The mysticism in both beliefs are just that, mythical. In the same way that Zeus is mythical so is Santa Clause, God, Horus, Poseidon, Superman etc. these are fictional characters with no evidence other than literary scripts to prove their existence. Books and text do not prove anything, only tangible evidence must be considered not memes. Memes meaning ideas not funny pictures with funny sayings.

  • It is not the same!

    When people compare faith in God like faith in Santa Claus, they are fooling themselves. It is an illogical position to hold. Think about it, if you go up to as many grown ups as you can and ask all of them if they believe in Santa Claus I'm pretty sure they will all say no? Why is that? Because most people (unless they're mentally ill or something) come to stop believing in Santa when they're older, but people still come to believe in God when they grow up- some people lose their faith but you get what I mean. Many people think believing in God is childish but in reality, you're the childish one because you are saying something utterly ridiculous. Who comes to believe in Santa when they are an adult? Who comes to believe in God up to adulthood? Many people so unless you think these people are mentally ill, we need a lot of mental hospitals then. All atheists out there, live with it and respect those holding a different faith from yours!

  • Ha Ha Ha

    This is so funny. You claim that there is no evidence, when the evidence is all around you. You have eyes, but you don't see. Having counted yourself wise, you become a fool. How can anyone look at the wonder of Creation and think that it is the result of time and chance? I believe in the Creator. You believe in the gods of time and chance. Which means you believe in nothing.

  • Gods Not Dead

    God is real. Santa is not. If you believe in Santa then you are simply believing a lie.There is no proof at all that Santa existed and if he did he's dead. God is not dead. If you think God isn't real or that there's no proof. Just look around you. Did that happen by chance or intelligent design. God is,was, and will always be. God bless.

  • Not exactly the same...

    At least Santa has something that could convince you that he might exist (leaving presents). God, well, he has nothing. God's more like a fairy, or a mermaid. They could be believed to exist, although the proof is very lacking. So that's what I think. God isn't like Santa, as Santa has weak proof, God has no proof (unless the Bible counts. Actually, now that I think about it, the Bible is basically another version of Santa's presents.)

  • No its not

    Santa clause was never believed by adults, only by children. It was a made up story for children. God is more than that. Adults have believed in god for a long time. Believing in God doesn't make one a Christian. It simply means you believe that we aren't alone in the world and there is someone watching out for us.

  • They need to be equally unlikely for this to be true

    The difference between God(depending on which religion's god you are talking about) and fairy tales such as Santa Clause, is that the existence of God, or at the very least the plausibility of events that has happened as depicted in religious books such as the Bible or the Quran, are supported by circumstantial evidence, where as fairy tales completely lack any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

    Now, it's true that this only shows that God's existence is more likely rather than proves it. But that's a different debate for a different time, ultimately the belief of God holds some grounds, where as fairy tales hold none, therefore believing in God is not the same as believing fairy tales.

  • A False Analogy

    The two are radically different, to make this comparison would be to commit the fallacy of False Analogy.

    Throughout history and throughout cultures there has been those who through contemplating the contingency of the universe, have deduced the logical and metaphysical necessity of something that is non-contingent (not conditional, not dependent upon anything to exist or persist in existence, Eternal and Actual) which would be the source of all being, the grounding for all contingent realities. If one doesn't posit a Necessary Being and instead embraces the fashionable Naturalism, one is forced to either believe in an the logical absurdity of an endless regression of contingencies all the way down (turtles upon turtles) or the irrational and unscientific notion that the contingent just popped into being from pure nothingness, (and no the Nothingness for which Kruass proposes is not nothing). Even if the universe is eternal, everything within the universe is not necessary and would still need something that was non-contingent to exist at all. Thinkers in the East and the West have come to this by way of logic. There are a number of other reasonable arguments for God and a number of brightest minds throughout history have found them compelling, the same cannot be said for belief in Santa Clause.
    To make such a comparison proves one doesn't have even the slightest idea of the wealth of arguments for a supreme Being that intellectuals find compelling.
    Here is an analogy. Consider those Creationist who ridicule evolutionist and sincerely think evolutionist have no evidence at all for their theory. Of course, to evolutionist--the proud atheist on this side, know how stupidly ignorant these creationist are, and how they don't even the slightest inkling of the mountains of evidence for Darwinism. So yeah, thus it is for those who actually study the philosophy of religion and theology, they are in the Know and see the many atheist here prove their utter immaturity and ignorance. The Dunning Kruger effect is strong here.

  • A false Analogy

    The two are radically different, to make this comparison would be to commit the fallacy of False Analogy.

    Throughout history and throughout cultures there has been those who through contemplating the contingency of the universe, have deduced the logical and metaphysical necessity of something that is non-contingent (not conditional, not dependent upon anything to exist or persist in existence, eternal and Actual) which would be the source of all being, the grounding for all contingent realities. If one doesn't posit a Necessary Being and instead embraces the fashionable Naturalism, one is forced to either believe in an the logical absurdity of an endless regression of contingencies all the way down (turtles upon turtles) or the irrational and unscientific notion that the contingent just popped into being from pure nothingness, (and no the Nothingness for which Kruass is not nothing). Even if the universe is eternal, everything within the universe is not necessary and would still need something that was non-contingent to exist at all. Thinkers in the East and the West have come to this by way of logic. There are a number of other reasonable arguments for God and many of the smartest folks throughout history have found them compelling, the same cannot be said for Santa Clause. To make such a comparison proves one doesn't have even the slightest idea of the wealth of arguments existence of a supreme Being that intellectuals find compelling.

  • A false Analogy

    The two are radically different, to make this comparison would be to commit the fallacy of False Analogy.

    Throughout history and throughout cultures there has been those who through contemplating the contingency of the universe, have deduced the logical and metaphysical necessity of something that is non-contingent (not conditional, not dependent upon anything to exist or persist in existence, eternal and Actual) which would be the source of all being, the grounding for all contingent realities. If one doesn't posit a Necessary Being and instead embraces the fashionable Naturalism, one is forced to either believe in an the logical absurdity of an endless regression of contingencies all the way down (turtles upon turtles) or the irrational and unscientific notion that the contingent just popped into being from pure nothingness, (and no the Nothingness for which Kruass is not nothing). Even if the universe is eternal, everything within the universe is not necessary and would still need something that was non-contingent to exist at all. Thinkers in the East and the West have come to this by way of logic. There are a number of other reasonable arguments for God and many of the smartest folks throughout history have found them compelling, the same cannot be said for Santa Clause. To make such a comparison proves one doesn't have even the slightest idea of the wealth of arguments existence of a supreme Being that intellectuals find compelling.

  • A false Analogy

    The two are radically different, to make this comparison would be to commit the fallacy of False Analogy.

    Throughout history and throughout cultures there has been those who through contemplating the contingency of the universe, have deduced the logical and metaphysical necessity of something that is non-contingent (not conditional, not dependent upon anything to exist or persist in existence, eternal and Actual) which would be the source of all being, the grounding for all contingent realities. If one doesn't posit a Necessary Being and instead embraces the fashionable Naturalism, one is forced to either believe in an the logical absurdity of an endless regression of contingencies all the way down (turtles upon turtles) or the irrational and unscientific notion that the contingent just popped into being from pure nothingness, (and no the Nothingness for which Kruass is not nothing). Even if the universe is eternal, everything within the universe is not necessary and would still need something that was non-contingent to exist at all. Thinkers in the East and the West have come to this by way of logic. There are a number of other reasonable arguments for God and many of the smartest folks throughout history have found them compelling, the same cannot be said for Santa Clause. To make such a comparison proves one doesn't have even the slightest idea of the wealth of arguments existence of a supreme Being that intellectuals find compelling.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.