Why atheists compare God to santa

[Reflex]

Why, after all that has been said, do you persist in talking about God as thought you were talking about some other object like a car, Mt. Everest, or a chair? Sure, some theists do, but others, like the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, will tell you that “by love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never.” Even one of the most prolific Christian writers in history said, “In the end, we know God as unknown.”

Yet, here you are like some dumb rock or chicken with its head cut off complaining about theists being vague and asking stupid questions. Did your mama drop you on your head or are you just old and senile?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Drawing a blank when it comes to something relevant to say?

You usually do

[Arising_uk]

Why, after all that has been said, do you persist in talking about God as thought you were talking about some other object like a car, Mt. Everest, or a chair? Sure, some theists do, but others, like the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, will tell you that “by love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never.” Even one of the most prolific Christian writers in history said, “In the end, we know God as unknown.”

Oh! I'm sorry I thought we were talking ontology or at a stretch epistemology not psychology. So sure, if you assume your 'God' 'exists'(I scare quote it because really "exists" is for things like cars, mountains and chairs) and then bask in loving 'it' and thinking 'it' loves you then I reckon you will get a feeling of 'it' 'existing' and all power to you if you need this but it's far from proving 'God' is an existing thing, which I presume is what you want?

Yet, here you are like some dumb rock or chicken with its head cut off complaining about theists being vague and asking stupid questions. Did your mama drop you on your head or are you just old and senile?

Is this this 'love' that your 'God' shows you? I don't much care for it so I'll stick with the atheist's love of their fellows thanks.

[Reflex]

Oh! I'm sorry I thought we were talking ontology or at a stretch epistemology not psychology. So sure, if you assume your 'God' 'exists'(I scare quote it because really "exists" is for things like cars, mountains and chairs) and then bask in loving 'it' and thinking 'it' loves you then I reckon you will get a feeling of 'it' 'existing' and all power to you if you need this but it's far from proving 'God' is an existing thing, which I presume is what you want?

Is this this 'love' that your 'God' shows you? I don't much care for it so I'll stick with the atheist's love of their fellows thanks.

So, did your mama drop you on your head or are you just naturally as stupid as a chicken with its head cut off? It's not about assumption or beliefs, but realization.

From Philosophy Now magazine: Chaos & An Unpredictable Tomorrow:

Finally, what are we to make of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? According to the Copenhagen interpretation, our very choice of which atomic behavior to observe determines what exists. As Pascual Jordan, one of the founders of quantum theory, succinctly puts it, “Observations not only disturb what is measured, they produce it.” On this interpretation, a clear boundary does not seem to exist between observers and the observed, between consciousness and the atomic phenomena measured. This conclusion bothered Einstein more than even the random behavior of atoms, because it calls into question the existence of a physical reality apart from the observer. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’.”

All of this raises a most interesting question: Do we need to rethink our notions not only of the future, but of who we are? To the extent that we identify with our consciousness, this seems to mean that each of us is more intimately connected with the world than we ordinarily imagine. But like other complex dynamic systems, what we are is unbounded – even if we can be distinguished from other things for many purposes, such as death, taxes, and marriage. Whether we see our connection to the universe as a whole as metaphysically spooky depends on whether (as in the tale of the blind monks) we characterize the elephant by feeling its individual parts; or instead we see that the parts have arisen in relationship to each other and to the greater environment as a whole, and so can identify the whole thing.

I couldn't have said it any better (emphasis mine).

[Arising_uk]

So, did your mama drop you on your head or are you just naturally as stupid as a chicken with its head cut off? It's not about assumption or beliefs, but realization. ...

Oh! I see, you think if you believe hard enough your 'God' will exist. So basically any 'God' or 'God's' can exist, so if Islam become the dominant religion Allah will rule, if the Hindus get it we get their pantheon, etc, etc and if atheists become the most populous there will be no 'God'?

My mother did what your's obviously did not, allowed me the freedom to choose my beliefs rather than indoctrinate them into me before I could reason. You never did say what kind of atheist you were once, an ex-theist atheist or an atheist atheist like me?

... I couldn't have said it any better (emphasis mine).

But there's still an elephant in the room and that's called the Noumenon or are you saying an elephant depends upon you believing in it? So there is no reason to suppose we can have any idea about what 'it' is or what 'its' calculating nor whether we can have any effect on 'it', as Conway's GoL shows, we could just be patterns with no 'intent' from the calculating-space to produce.

[Reflex]

...are you saying an elephant depends upon you believing in it?

Did I say that, troll?

[Arising_uk]

Did I say that, troll?

The usual big fat silence upon the other questions, how cherry-picking theistic of you.

Still, my apologies wanker, as your first paragraph made much of the idea of a 'participatory universe' so can I take it that this part was just a pointless quote and means that you don't believe the elephant is a part of us or we of it?

[Reflex]

I pity you, A_uk.

[Arising_uk]

For what?

But save it really, as I need it not.