Why atheists compare God to santa

[sthitapragya]

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.

And that is why we have to get back to Santa. When you claim that your Asantaism is simply a 'lack of belief' you are either mouthing a meaningless phrase ( something a rock would do if it could make noises), or making a positive statement i.e. you believe there is no Santa.

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

And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?

[sthitapragya]

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!

The problem is the belief in being itself. You have nothing except your emotions to back up the existence of being itself. And stop saying category error. First understand what it means. Or better yet first understand what being itself means.

And you didn't answer the question: what would happen to you if you found out that God does not exist? Let us leave Santa out because of the 'category error'.

Also what you call inability, I call growing up. Like Santa you have to grow out of God. Childish beliefs need to be left behind in your childhood.

I hope you now understand why we have to keep bringing Santa into the equation. You offend us all the time. Comparing God to Santa offends you. Stop offending our disbelief and we will stop comparing God to Santa. I will even stop bringing up childish belief if you stop saying brutish disbelief.

And you still have to tell me why you get so offended with the Santa comparison considering your identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief?

[uwot]

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

Well, here's a bit of my ignorance. For all the wrangling over categories, I don't think that anyone made the distinction between a scriptual god and any hypothetical metaphysical god.
The god of any scripture is in precisely the same category as Santa, because it is a work of fiction. The opening lines of genesis are a reworking of the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek creation myths. The rest of the old testament is a tribal history myth; while the new testament is a political propaganda fantasy, based on the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, about a figure for whom there is no historical evidence and whose name just happens to mean messiah, and who tells his target audience, the uppity Hebrews, to turn the other cheek and to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. It really couldn't be much more blatant.
On the other hand, the universe is an extraordinary thing, and I cannot rule out the hypothesis that there is some supernatural being responsible, but, as an atheist, I do not believe it.

[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.

And that is why we have to get back to Santa. When you claim that your Asantaism is simply a 'lack of belief' you are either mouthing a meaningless phrase ( something a rock would do if it could make noises), or making a positive statement i.e. you believe there is no Santa.

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

And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?

Are you speaking as a rock that merely lacks belief, or as a rational creature that has something to say? It appears to be the former.

[Reflex]

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

Well, here's a bit of my ignorance. For all the wrangling over categories, I don't think that anyone made the distinction between a scriptual god and any hypothetical metaphysical god.
The god of any scripture is in precisely the same category as Santa, because it is a work of fiction. The opening lines of genesis are a reworking of the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek creation myths. The rest of the old testament is a tribal history myth; while the new testament is a political propaganda fantasy, based on the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, about a figure for whom there is no historical evidence and whose name just happens to mean messiah, and who tells his target audience, the uppity Hebrews, to turn the other cheek and to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. It really couldn't be much more blatant.
On the other hand, the universe is an extraordinary thing, and I cannot rule out the hypothesis that there is some supernatural being responsible, but, as an atheist, I do not believe it.

Why is any of that relevant?

[Reflex]

And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?

A non-contingent being? LOL!

[sthitapragya]

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.

And that is why we have to get back to Santa. When you claim that your Asantaism is simply a 'lack of belief' you are either mouthing a meaningless phrase ( something a rock would do if it could make noises), or making a positive statement i.e. you believe there is no Santa.

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

And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?

Are you speaking as a rock that merely lacks belief, or as a rational creature that has something to say? It appears to be the former.

Well, if you are a piece of rock, then yes. I am quoting you so whatever you want to call yourself is good enough for me.
And where is the cogent argument. Stop acting like a child and debate if you can. Why do you think God is a non-contingent being? Why is it an axiom for you?

[sthitapragya]

And you are the one who is avoiding making cogent arguments. I have already pointed out to you that there is no reason to be convinced God is a non-contingent being. What is your cogent argument against that?

A non-contingent being? LOL!

That's not an argument. So what is God? Santa?

Are you laughing at other theists who claim God is a non-contingent being?

Really, some of you Theists are amazing. You laugh at each other's beliefs of God but cannot seem to see that each is laughing at the other and we atheists are laughing at all of you.

[Lacewing]

Will you acknowledge that your disbelief entails different beliefs?

It is difficult to acknowledge something that does not feel true.

Since you think this is how it works, can you provide an example of how your own complete lack of belief in anything at all entails different beliefs?

In truth, my identity as a theist is not contingent on any belief.

Can you explain how this is possible for you?

It seems nonsensical that you think an atheist's lack of belief entails different beliefs, while your theism is not contingent on any belief.

[Arising_uk]

So, you want me to show you a circular square. ...

So basically you admit that this non-contingent being is non-existent? Or along with Santa do you also believe in circular squares.

Let me help you, you appear to think that 'non-contingent' also means non-existent, it doesn't. As if it does you are just confirming that your 'God' does not exist.

Hmmm. Talking to a rock would be more productive.

Why are you talking to yourself?

Do you have an aversion to sentences ending with question marks as I'm still waiting an answer to mine.

How does you self-consciously disbelieve in Santa?

[attofishpi]

Why atheists compare God to santa.

I still wonder what the few Theists who responded got so angry about. I basically told them that atheists do not compare santa to God.

Make your mind up idiot.

[Arising_uk]

Will you acknowledge that your disbelief entails different beliefs? ...

What do you mean by this? Or try it this way, what different beliefs does your disbelief in Santa entail? Not saying it doesn't mind, just want to understand what you mean.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The original post talks a lot about the beliefs (maps, dwellings vehicles) of believers, but the author clearly has no insight or perception regarding that to which they refer. So, rather than behave like a rational human being and just carry on with their own private experience/vision of the world, the author chooses to muddy the 'water' in which believers swim. It's 'trolling,' pure and simple.

You don't like it that's clear enough.
He's simply doing you the curtesy of explaining the REASONING behind the comparison. If reasoning is offensive to you then that explains why you choose to accept god and reject Santa. Maybe philosophy is not for you if you can't deal with reason?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why the emotional attachment to a mere "disbelief"?

Empiricism provides knowledge; belief is for whimps

The verifiability criterion undermines itself. The requirement that a meaningful statement must be either empirically verifiable or else a matter of definition is itself neither one of these, and so the verifiability criterion doesn’t meet its own requirements.

The verifiability of the verifiability statement works time and again. Empirical verification has completely transformed our world with understanding in the last 200+ years, and the rise of science has been so meteoric that ethical systems find themselves too far behind and hampered with religious superstition to cope with its new finding and technological change.
You really need to get a grip on yourself

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why the emotional attachment to a mere "disbelief"?

Empiricism provides knowledge; belief is for whimps

By 'empiricism,' do you mean logical positivism? That died decades ago (even if some people didn't got the message). 'Hume's fork' doesn’t rise to its own standard.

NO, When I say empiricism I always mean "empiricism" ... Shall I spell it out for you?
It's that test that god and Santa fail miserably.