Why atheists compare God to santa

[Reflex]

You don't like it that's clear enough.

I don't like that it talks about apples when the issue is about oranges.

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?

I'm sure the author means well, but his reasoning misses the target. It's the old finger-moon metaphor.

[Reflex]

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

Someone pointed out that this is a philosophy forum. There are no noncircular arguments for the reliability of sense perception, empiricism or reason. In other words, the distinction between what we observe and what we infer from these observations is crucial. Deal with it instead of just parroting logical positivism.

[Reflex]

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.

See above.

[Lacewing]

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?

Well, for starters, I didn't say I lacked beliefs.

So there is nothing that you lack belief in, and that's why you cannot provide an example of how such applies to you... correct?

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

I'm sure it does. It takes a bit of insight to grasp the 'deep.' And you've demonstrated a severe lack of that particular quality.

Are you aware that being a theist has not saved you from being a complete ass, and that you demonstrate this with every one of your interactions? That says more about you than your cocky retorts which you are clearly so proud of in your self-absorbed ignorance. You, like so many, appear to think that your view is the one, correct view, and that anyone who doesn't share it lacks insight (as you define it to be) and deserves your torrent of insults and rudeness. Clearly you are your own god, and you cast down all before you. Thanks for putting it on such vivid display for our information, so that your lack of credibility and extraordinarily limited and intoxicated awareness could be quickly determined. No need to waste any more time with you.

[Reflex]

It's Theology 101. If you are not up to it, why don't you just admit it?

Why do atheists think employing a category error is a legitimate debating tool?

"Category ERROR" what a laugh!!!

This is not "THEOLOGY" bitch. Fuck off and find a Theology Forum. This is PHILOSOPHY!

Yes, it is. And there are no noncircular arguments for the reliability of sense perception, empiricism or reason. In other words, the distinction between what we observe and what we infer from these observations is crucial. So deal with it instead of just parroting logical positivism.

[Reflex]

But Santa is also a metaphysical entity.

What isn't? For all we know, we're a brain in vat somewhere.

[Reflex]

So no real answer, huh? And why would your axiomatic belief of God being a non-contingent being make the 'who made god' question look foolish? Does it occur to you that calling god a non-contingent being in this day and age and at your age makes you look foolish too?

If you knew what 'contingent' vs. 'non-contingent' means and what it entails, you'd crawl in a closet and hide your face in shame right now.

[Reflex]

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?

Well, for starters, I didn't say I lacked beliefs.

So there is nothing that you lack belief in, and that's why you cannot provide an example of how such applies to you... correct?

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

I'm sure it does. It takes a bit of insight to grasp the 'deep.' And you've demonstrated a severe lack of that particular quality.

Are you aware that being a theist has not saved you from being a complete ass, and that you demonstrate this with every one of your interactions? That says more about you than your cocky retorts which you are clearly so proud of in your self-absorbed ignorance. You, like so many, appear to think that your view is the one, correct view, and that anyone who doesn't share it lacks insight (as you define it to be) and deserves your torrent of insults and rudeness. Clearly you are your own god, and you cast down all before you. Thanks for putting it on such vivid display for our information, so that your lack of credibility and extraordinarily limited and intoxicated awareness could be quickly determined. No need to waste any more time with you.

Wow! Such vehemence! Have any strokes, lately? Anosognosia is relatively common following a brain injury.

It's all about perspective, my friend. And some perspectives are more trustworthy than others. (But none are perfect.)

[Immanuel Can]

Answer: because men don't know God, and because prejudice is easier than knowledge, mockery is easier than reason, self-satisfaction is more pleasant than self-examination, mutual congratulation is more companionable than the lone quest for truth, and men love darkness rather than the Light. (John 3:19).

Those are the reasons.

[Reflex]

Answer: because men don't know God, and because prejudice is easier than knowledge, mockery is easier than reason, self-satisfaction is more pleasant than self-examination, mutual congratulation more companionable than the lone quest for truth, and men love darkness rather than the Light. (John 3:19).

Those are the reasons.

I like that! Kudos! ☺

[FlashDangerpants]

So. The Santa thing is mean sprited but apposite.
Thread concluded.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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

Someone pointed out that this is a philosophy forum. There are no noncircular arguments for the reliability of sense perception, empiricism or reason. In other words, the distinction between what we observe and what we infer from these observations is crucial. Deal with it instead of just parroting logical positivism.

I'll take your so-called circular arguments, over your ding-bat-looney-tunes-god-exists-because-I-say-so moronic shite eveytime.
And when you ignore the circular argument of a bullet entering your brain, you will then finally know that god was a fantasy

[Reflex]

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

Someone pointed out that this is a philosophy forum. There are no noncircular arguments for the reliability of sense perception, empiricism or reason. In other words, the distinction between what we observe and what we infer from these observations is crucial. Deal with it instead of just parroting logical positivism.

I'll take your so-called circular arguments, over your ding-bat-looney-tunes-god-exists-because-I-say-so moronic shite eveytime.
And when you ignore the circular argument of a bullet entering your brain, you will then finally know that god was a fantasy

Wow. Deep stuff. Did you need help with that?

[Dontaskme]

Answer: because men don't know God, and because prejudice is easier than knowledge, mockery is easier than reason, self-satisfaction is more pleasant than self-examination, mutual congratulation is more companionable than the lone quest for truth, and men love darkness rather than the Light. (John 3:19).

Those are the reasons.

excellent observation

in plato's cave analogy the people only see them selves as shadows, so focused on the shadow they don't see the source of the shadow, they identify with the projection and don't give a thought to the projector which is their true self


He doesn’t come to you. He cannot come to you. He never went away. You are the one who went away, so you go to Him. ~ Shri Prashant

[Reflex]

So. The Santa thing is mean sprited but apposite.

Mean-spirited and illegitimate, you mean. It's a way of avoiding having to posit a cogent argument for disbelief (assuming, of course, the person is not the intellectual equivalent of a rock).