Why atheists compare God to santa

[Reflex]

So you can't do it... and you can't even understand the reason for doing it... and you can only think to distort the point? Then your criticisms are too self-absorbed to be useful.

Are there any theists here who can provide a better way of demonstrating to theists what is being attempted by atheists, as described above, or is it just not possible? Are theists completely incapable of acknowledging that when they lack belief in something, that is not a belief for them?

Another anosognosia sufferer?

[Arising_uk]

Tell me, Arising_uk, do you understand the difference between contingent being and non-contingent being? Or do you believe contingent vs. non-contingent is a false dichotomy?

You like not answering questions don't you, this appears to be a theist trait upon this forum.

Show me a non-contingent being?

And whilst you're at it tell me how you self-consciously disbelieve in Santa? Not saying you don't mind, just wondering what it is you do.

[Reflex]

Tell me, Arising_uk, do you understand the difference between contingent being and non-contingent being? Or do you believe contingent vs. non-contingent is a false dichotomy?

Show me a non-contingent being?

LOL! If I could do that it wouldn't be non-contingent by definition. So should I assume you believe it is a false dichotomy?

[Arising_uk]

LOL! If I could do that it wouldn't be non-contingent by definition. ...

Yes it would or are you now saying non-contingent beings don't exist?

So should I assume you believe it is a false dichotomy?

Until you show me a non-contingent being I think it not a dichotomy at all, let alone a false one. Interestingly enough it looks to be a category error.

[Lacewing]

You like not answering questions don't you, this appears to be a theist trait upon this forum.

Isn't that the truth?!! It's the strangest thing... such blatant avoidance and diversion... over and over. I can't tell whether it's dishonesty or a mental wiring difference of some kind. One would think that a simple question could be answered without all of the side-games which seem to be for the sole purpose of discrediting the person who asked the question in the first place.

[Reflex]

Until you show me a non-contingent being I think it not a dichotomy at all, let alone a false one. Interestingly enough it looks to be a category error.

So, you want me to show you a circular square. Hmmm. Talking to a rock would be more productive.

[Reflex]

You like not answering questions don't you, this appears to be a theist trait upon this forum.

Isn't that the truth?!! It's the strangest thing... such blatant avoidance and diversion... over and over. I can't tell whether it's dishonesty or a mental wiring difference of some kind. One would think that a simple question could be answered without all of the side-games which seem to be for the sole purpose of discrediting the person who asked the question in the first place.

Yup. Another anosognosia sufferer.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yup. Another anosognosia sufferer.

You just failed as hard as you could today didn't you?

[Reflex]

Yup. Another anosognosia sufferer.

You just failed as hard as you could today didn't you?

Well, I successfully showed that atheists don't want to acknowledge the ontological distinction between things that have being and being itself. I also showed that, unless a circular square is a logical possibility, saying disbelief in God is like disbelief in Santa is a logical absurdity. And, lastly, I successfully showed that atheism's 'lack of belief' is like that of a rock's lack of belief: unreasoned and brutish.

Of course, atheists will never admit to their ignorance no matter how much they put it on display.

[sthitapragya]

Yup. Another anosognosia sufferer.

You just failed as hard as you could today didn't you?

Well, I successfully showed that atheists don't want to acknowledge the ontological distinction between things that have being and being itself. I also showed that, unless a circular square is a logical possibility, saying disbelief in God is like disbelief in Santa is a logical absurdity. And, lastly, I successfully showed that atheism's 'lack of belief' is like that of a rock's lack of belief -- unreasoning and brutish.

Of course, atheists will never admit to their ignorance no matter how much they put it on display.

Would you say your disbelief in Santa is like that of rock's lack of belief-- unreasoning and brutish? See? If you keep trying to tell us how we disbelieve, we have no option but to point out Santa to you. You can argue that our disbelief is wrong. That is up for debate. But why these insulting adjectives? We have nothing against God just as we have nothing against Santa. We just disbelieve in both equally. In fact, if you think rationally, disbelief cannot be in degrees. You cannot have a little disbelief. It is either complete or not. Our disbelief is complete. And the only way you can understand it is by checking your own disbelief in Santa.

I will repeat, whether our disbelief is right or wrong is open to debate. But it is not unreasoning and brutish like you so emotionally put it. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your belief in God. But you have no emotional attachment to your disbelief in Santa. You have reasoned it out and concluded that Santa does not exist. And you are done with it.

The same applies to our disbelief in God. We have reasoned it out and concluded that either the existence of God is too remote a possibility to consider it likely, or the existence or non-existence of God is simply irrelevant to reality, just as the existence or non-existence of Santa is irrelevant to reality.

You see the comparison because of your emotional attachment to belief and you are looking at it from that perspective alone. I am actually only pointing out your emotionless disbelief in Santa, to understand where an atheist comes from. Again, you can disagree with our conclusion. But don't call it names. When you do, you just point out your emotional need for God.

also your comparison to rocks is childish and petulant. A Rock lacks belief in God. A rock also lacks disbelief in God. Should I compare your belief in God to a rock's belief in God? Unreasoning and brutish?

Your identity as a theist is entirely dependent upon your belief in God. When your belief is compared to something, it offends you. Similarly my entire identity as an atheist is dependent upon my disbelief in God. When my disbelief is compared to something, it offends me. So if you are willing to dish it out, be prepared to take some in return.

[sthitapragya]

Well, I successfully showed that atheists don't want to acknowledge the ontological distinction between things that have being and being itself.

How can anyone acknowledge the distinction between things that exist and things that do not? there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as being itself.

I also showed that, unless a circular square is a logical possibility, saying disbelief in God is like disbelief in Santa is a logical absurdity.

Actually you have not. You just accused someone , completely incorrectly,of asking you to show him a circular square. You did not say anything about the logical impossibility of a circular square and how it compares to disbelief in God and disbelief in Santa.

And again, you have misconstrued our disbelief, which seems to be a pattern with you guys. We are not arguing the validity or absurdity of the fact that our disbelief in God and Santa is the same. We are stating FOR A FACT THAT FOR US IT IS THE SAME. Whether it is absurd or not is a matter of debate. The fact is, our disbelief of both is the same.

And, lastly, I successfully showed that atheism's 'lack of belief' is like that of a rock's lack of belief: unreasoned and brutish.

Not really. I successfully showed that a theists lack of disbelief in God is like that of a rock's lack of disbelief: unreasoned and brutish.

Of course, atheists will never admit to their ignorance no matter how much they put it on display.

Again we are not arguing or debating the level of an atheists ignorance. We are simply stating FOR A FACT THAT OUR DISBELIEF IN GOD IS THE SAME AS OUR DISBELIEF IN SANTA. Whether we are ignorant or you are ignorant is debatable and that is what this forum is about.

[Reflex]

Would you say your disbelief in Santa is like that of rock's lack of belief-- unreasoning and brutish? See? If you keep trying to tell us how we disbelieve, we have no option but to point out Santa to you. You can argue that our disbelief is wrong. That is up for debate. But why these insulting adjectives? We have nothing against God just as we have nothing against Santa. We just disbelieve in both equally. In fact, if you think rationally, disbelief cannot be in degrees. You cannot have a little disbelief. It is either complete or not. Our disbelief is complete. And the only way you can understand it is by checking your own disbelief in Santa.

Will you acknowledge that your disbelief entails different beliefs? If not, then your disbelief is indeed unreasoned and brutish.

The same applies to our disbelief in God. We have reasoned it out and concluded that either the existence of God is too remote a possibility to consider it likely, or the existence or non-existence of God is simply irrelevant to reality, just as the existence or non-existence of Santa is irrelevant to reality.

Like it or not, there IS an ontological distinction between contingent beings and non-contingent being -- between things that have being and being itself. How can a conclusion based on a perspective that is blind to that distinction be reliable?

You see the comparison because of your emotional attachment to belief and you are looking at it from that perspective alone. I am actually only pointing out your emotionless disbelief in Santa, to understand where an atheist comes from. Again, you can disagree with our conclusion. But don't call it names. When you do, you just point out your emotional need for God.

Calling the Santa reference a 'category error' is not not just 'calling it a name,' but to indicate that calling the reference 'valid' is the same as claiming that a circular square is logically valid.

A Rock lacks belief in God. A rock also lacks disbelief in God. [?] Should I compare your belief in God to a rock's belief in God? Unreasoning and brutish?

Rocks have the capacity to believe?

Your identity as a theist is entirely dependent upon your belief in God. When your belief is compared to something, it offends you. Similarly my entire identity as an atheist is dependent upon my disbelief in God.

I'm sure that it is comforting to believe that, but it's really nothing more than a superstition that makes you feel better about yourself. In truth, my identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief. In fact, my beliefs are a distraction from God-realization.

[sthitapragya]

Will you acknowledge that your disbelief entails different beliefs? If not, then your disbelief is indeed unreasoned and brutish.

Only if you acknowledge that your disbelief in santa entails different beliefs. If not, then your disbelief in santa is indeed unreasoned and brutish.

Like it or not, there IS an ontological distinction between contingent beings and non-contingent being -- between things that have being and being itself. How can a conclusion based on a perspective that is blind to that distinction be reliable?

What is the ontological distinction? You are basing your whole belief on the axiom that God is a non-contingent being. I disagree with that axiom. First of all, you have no way of knowing what God is. He could be non-contingent and he could be contingent. You can only assume that he is non-contingent. I am of the opinion that Existence itself is non-contingent. This universe is a product of a change of state of existence 13.8 billion or so years ago. Again it is an assumption. But it is very much possible that the universe could exist even if God failed to exist.

Calling the Santa reference a 'category error' is not not just 'calling it a name,' but to indicate that calling the reference 'valid' is the same as claiming that a circular square is logically valid.

I was referring to you name calling our disbelief. Unreasoned and brutish. I find your belief in God childish and needy but I don't tell you that, do I?

How is calling the reference valid the same as claiming that a circular square is logically valid? You have not given an reasoned non-brutish argument. You just made a declaration which I am supposed to take as true because you said so. That is not how it works.

Rocks have that capacity?

Exactly my point. They don't have the capacity to believe or disbelieve. So your whole rock argument is pointless.

I'm sure that it is comforting to believe that, but it's really nothing more than a superstition that makes you feel better about yourself. In truth, my identity as a theist in not contingent on any belief. In fact, my beliefs are a distraction from God-realization.

Then why are you getting so het up about my comparing God to Santa? Why do you feel offended? It should not matter to you in the least. But my identity as an atheist is dependent upon my disbelief in God and I do find it offensive when you make assumptions about my disbelief. So I will ask you again. Is your disbelief in Santa nothing more than a superstition that makes you feel better about yourself?


And here is the best part. If tomorrow it turns out God exists and it is proven true without a doubt, I would have no problem at all. Life for me would go on exactly as before. To me it would be the same as finding out that Santa exists. What would happen to you if it would be proven without a doubt that God does not exist? Would it be the same as finding out that Santa does not exist?

[Reflex]

The point is, an atheist who claims that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief' is either mouthing a meaningless phrase (something a rock would do if it could could make noises), or making a positive statement; i.e., they believe there is no God.

Claiming the former is a cowardly way to avoid having to make cogent arguments (which makes them look as dumb as rocks); admitting to the latter makes the whole Santa thing moot.

[Reflex]

And here is the best part. If tomorrow it turns out God exists and it is proven true without a doubt, I would have no problem at all. Life for me would go on exactly as before. To me it would be the same as finding out that Santa exists. What would happen to you if it would be proven without a doubt that God does not exist? Would it be the same as finding out that Santa does not exist?

LOL! That category error (the inability to distinguish between things that have being and being itself) sure plays havoc with the ability to reason!