which is where that "common sense" that T@T mentioned comes into play.
There are serious differences between the two, however.
Santa is a story based on a person, for children. The story itself is a modern invention, and while there are slightly different versions, they are all based off the same central idea. Generally speaking, no adult believes Santa exists. Your belief in Santa as a human relies on the belief in magic, as he does things that are scientifically impossible for a human to do, or that he is an alien.
Everything Santa does is based in out sphere of reality. He lives on earth, he enters every house of all the children, he gives people gifts, he owns reindeer. Mostly everything about him is designed measurable, and yet, we know nobody lives on the North Pole, nobody has ever seen him physically enter their own home, nobody ever receives actual gifts from him, nor are reindeer capable of living in temperatures native to the North Pole. If Santa was high concept, it'd be different, but because he's measurable, you can at very least disprove the current "Western" version of him.
What can you disprove about God? Other than some stories about God aren't true? It's existence isn't based on a measurable collective experience.
Santa is a specific story, and because the story can be disproven we can believe the man not to exist. God is a general concept, of which stories are written about, making it significantly more expansive and universal than Santa. God is not based off a man, but a tangible version of the perception that something outside of us exists.
If you can disprove that, you can start to prove god doesn't exist.
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 09-10-2014 at 10:26 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
A pop-up Satan statue has been removed from a Vancouver park, shortly after the mysterious and controversial artwork was erected.
Vancouver officials say a nude statue of Satan was removed from a park near the Grandview Highway because it was not officially commissioned by the city.
The statue depicted a nine-foot-tall, anatomically-faithful figure of a red-skinned Satan, complete with horns and a visibly prominent representation of a phallus. The statue holds one hand up in a devil-horn salute.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
There are serious differences between the two, however.
Not really...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Santa is a story based on a person, for children. The story itself is a modern invention, and while there are slightly different versions, they are all based off the same central idea.
God and/or religion are a relatively modern invention based on the same central idea to control the masses and accumulate wealth and power while explaining some scary thing away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Your belief in Santa as a human relies on the belief in magic, as he does things that are scientifically impossible for a human to do, or that he is an alien.
Everything Santa does is based in out sphere of reality.
Ditto God...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
He lives on earth,
Yup, in a magical unseen place... much like, oh I don't know, heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
he enters every house of all the children, he gives people gifts,
Nope... just the ones on the "nice list"... you might say they are in heaven on Christmas morning. The ones on the "naughty list" get coal, or nothing.... like say purgatory or hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
he owns reindeer.
He doesn't "own" reindeer, they just help him like the elves do. They are his little angels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Mostly everything about him is designed measurable, and yet, we know nobody lives on the North Pole, nobody has ever seen him physically enter their own home, nobody ever receives actual gifts from him, nor are reindeer capable of living in temperatures native to the North Pole.
You can't prove nobody lives at the north pole in a magical unseen place. I agree nobody sees him physically... like, say God. Nobody has proven they've actually received a gift from him, but many thousands (millions?) of children every year surely do believe it on faith. And magic reindeer that can fly can live wherever they want to... There are no 'anti-flying-reindeer' laws at the north pole that I'm aware of. Perhaps one of our lawyers can weigh in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
If Santa was high concept, it'd be different, but because he's measurable, you can at very least disprove the current "Western" version of him.
I believe I've just shown you can't anymore than God. For every logical argument to the contrary "but magic" is a somewhat plausible answer, if you believe in magic in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
What can you disprove about God? Other than some stories about God aren't true? It's existence isn't based on a measurable collective experience.
Good thing for God too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Santa is a specific story, and because the story can be disproven we can believe the man not to exist.
Magic flying Santa can't be disproven anymore than God ... because MAGIC!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
God is a general concept, of which stories are written about, making it significantly more expansive and universal than Santa. God is not based off a man, but a tangible version of the perception that something outside of us exists.
A very apologist statement I'd say. "God is outside our understanding, therefore you can't disprove the concept". As with my previous post: burden of proof. If you are asserting that "God Exists", you have the burden of proof. If your answer is that you just can't prove it because he/she/it/"the general concept" is beyond our understanding, I can summarily dismiss the entire concept without another thought. As Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
If you can disprove that, you can start to prove god doesn't exist.
As has been stated, you can't prove something doesn't exist. If your point was that God is about as believable as Santa, then I agree. Both are stories for children.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to old-fart For This Useful Post:
OK then, saying that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, do not exist, is factually incorrect also. Got it.
No, it could indeed be factually correct that they do not exist. However, saying that science proves that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist is factually incorrect.
It is factually incorrect? in brackets, like you are just sliding it in there, unnoticed? Do you really think that is promoting understanding and useful dialogue. That right there is some of the reason why people like T@T and myself have a problem with religion.
It absolutely is factually incorrect, as outlined in multiple places throughout this thread. Science can not prove anything; that is why, when you conduct a Science experiment, you never say "Hypothesis X is confirmed". What you say is "We fail to reject Hypothesis X", more or less.
Additionally, I'd like to make clear that I'm not trying to slide anything through unnoticed. My use of parentheses was purposeful, as I figured that what I placed in them was tangential to my argument. My argument is that T@T's most recent post in this thread, along with numerous others strewn about the website, serve no constructive purpose. The intent seems to be to belittle or insult people of faith. That will not accomplish anything other than:
- further entrenching those you are speaking to
- reducing the likelihood of sensible discussion
- getting a rise out of people
And, commonly, the answer is, "Atheists have been persecuted for their views, so why can't I do it in turn", or "It's rude when people push their religion on me", or some other such rationalization for poor behaviour. So what? What does it matter?
Further to the point about why my assertion that T@T's statement is indeed factually inaccurate is that there is no universally accepted 'common sense'. As such, 'common sense' can not be used to prove anything. Just because I think it's common sense not to get a huge tattoo on your face doesn't mean everyone thinks it's common sense. It's just as valid for a theist to say, "Common sense proves the existence of God" as it is to say what T@T did. For the record, I think both are completely and totally invalid.
In the end, I think that it's important to treat those you are engaging in discussion with respect, even if you disagree with their position. Of course, we are all human and obviously fail in this manner at times, but it is important to strive for positive discourse. This is after all a discussion board, not an insult board.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Antithesis For This Useful Post:
It absolutely is factually incorrect, as outlined in multiple places throughout this thread. Science can not prove anything; that is why, when you conduct a Science experiment, you never say "Hypothesis X is confirmed". What you say is "We fail to reject Hypothesis X", more or less.
Additionally, I'd like to make clear that I'm not trying to slide anything through unnoticed. My use of parentheses was purposeful, as I figured that what I placed in them was tangential to my argument. My argument is that T@T's most recent post in this thread, along with numerous others strewn about the website, serve no constructive purpose. The intent seems to be to belittle or insult people of faith. That will not accomplish anything other than:
- further entrenching those you are speaking to
- reducing the likelihood of sensible discussion
- getting a rise out of people
And, commonly, the answer is, "Atheists have been persecuted for their views, so why can't I do it in turn", or "It's rude when people push their religion on me", or some other such rationalization for poor behaviour. So what? What does it matter?
Further to the point about why my assertion that T@T's statement is indeed factually inaccurate is that there is no universally accepted 'common sense'. As such, 'common sense' can not be used to prove anything. Just because I think it's common sense not to get a huge tattoo on your face doesn't mean everyone thinks it's common sense. It's just as valid for a theist to say, "Common sense proves the existence of God" as it is to say what T@T did. For the record, I think both are completely and totally invalid.
In the end, I think that it's important to treat those you are engaging in discussion with respect, even if you disagree with their position. Of course, we are all human and obviously fail in this manner at times, but it is important to strive for positive discourse. This is after all a discussion board, not an insult board.
As an atheist, I'd prefer to discuss these matters with a scientology member over T@T with his militant stance
No, it could indeed be factually correct that they do not exist. However, saying that science proves that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist is factually incorrect.
It absolutely is factually incorrect, as outlined in multiple places throughout this thread. Science can not prove anything; that is why, when you conduct a Science experiment, you never say "Hypothesis X is confirmed". What you say is "We fail to reject Hypothesis X", more or less.
Additionally, I'd like to make clear that I'm not trying to slide anything through unnoticed. My use of parentheses was purposeful, as I figured that what I placed in them was tangential to my argument. My argument is that T@T's most recent post in this thread, along with numerous others strewn about the website, serve no constructive purpose. The intent seems to be to belittle or insult people of faith. That will not accomplish anything other than:
- further entrenching those you are speaking to
- reducing the likelihood of sensible discussion
- getting a rise out of people
And, commonly, the answer is, "Atheists have been persecuted for their views, so why can't I do it in turn", or "It's rude when people push their religion on me", or some other such rationalization for poor behaviour. So what? What does it matter?
Further to the point about why my assertion that T@T's statement is indeed factually inaccurate is that there is no universally accepted 'common sense'. As such, 'common sense' can not be used to prove anything. Just because I think it's common sense not to get a huge tattoo on your face doesn't mean everyone thinks it's common sense. It's just as valid for a theist to say, "Common sense proves the existence of God" as it is to say what T@T did. For the record, I think both are completely and totally invalid.
In the end, I think that it's important to treat those you are engaging in discussion with respect, even if you disagree with their position. Of course, we are all human and obviously fail in this manner at times, but it is important to strive for positive discourse. This is after all a discussion board, not an insult board.
Common sense vs. faith. I know which one I go with.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
God and/or religion are a relatively modern invention based on the same central idea to control the masses and accumulate wealth and power while explaining some scary thing away.
Ditto God...
Yup, in a magical unseen place... much like, oh I don't know, heaven.
Nope... just the ones on the "nice list"... you might say they are in heaven on Christmas morning. The ones on the "naughty list" get coal, or nothing.... like say purgatory or hell.
He doesn't "own" reindeer, they just help him like the elves do. They are his little angels.
You can't prove nobody lives at the north pole in a magical unseen place. I agree nobody sees him physically... like, say God. Nobody has proven they've actually received a gift from him, but many thousands (millions?) of children every year surely do believe it on faith. And magic reindeer that can fly can live wherever they want to... There are no 'anti-flying-reindeer' laws at the north pole that I'm aware of. Perhaps one of our lawyers can weigh in.
I believe I've just shown you can't anymore than God. For every logical argument to the contrary "but magic" is a somewhat plausible answer, if you believe in magic in the first place.
Good thing for God too...
Magic flying Santa can't be disproven anymore than God ... because MAGIC!!!
A very apologist statement I'd say. "God is outside our understanding, therefore you can't disprove the concept". As with my previous post: burden of proof. If you are asserting that "God Exists", you have the burden of proof. If your answer is that you just can't prove it because he/she/it/"the general concept" is beyond our understanding, I can summarily dismiss the entire concept without another thought. As Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
As has been stated, you can't prove something doesn't exist. If your point was that God is about as believable as Santa, then I agree. Both are stories for children.
You misunderstood my point. It was to explain why something like Santa is more commonly dismissed than the concept of "God", not to show why one is more infallible than the other, and it certainly wasn't a defence of the Bible or the God created by that book (which most of your criticism seems directed towards, not the concept of "God" which I tried to make clear but might have failed).
The defence of the why people believe is not the same as the defence of God itself. It's pretty easy to see why people believe, there is a level of unknown that existed for a long time (and still does) which the label "God" is used to explain, and it gives a lot of people comfort. In that sense, there's very little wrong with believing in any God.
That said, I mostly agree with you in the sense that the Bible is as "fantastical" as the story of Santa Claus, but saying they're both stories for children is another factually incorrect statement. I think most western organised religion does a little more bad than good, but there is good to be had in some of it.
I cringe equally at both the statement of "God exists" and "There is no God."
Both require some interesting leaps of faith, and both should exist to give you comfort, not to rub in the face of someone else.
Your comparisons to Santa we're pretty amusing though. I didn't know he was an invisible deity capable of any sort of magic he wishes, and that evidence kids don't get gifts from Santa was as impossible to come by as evidence of what happens to your "soul" (or if you have one) when you die. I'll keep that version of Santa in mind :P
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Does God exist? Can science really disprove that?
Quote:
Aczel says he wrote the book to defend the integrity of science. “I've talked to so many scientists, interviewing them for all my books,” he says. “I've studied science in such depth. To me, to say there's no God and the proof [of that] is science is just not right. That's not what science is about, either.”
Science can’t disprove the existence of God, Aczel says, nor should it try. Likewise theology can’t prove the existence of God. You can believe in science and you can believe in God at the same time, he says, “unless there will come a time when somebody will give us proof that there is no God. Then I would be the first to accept it.”
Quote:
In fact, argues Aczel, the more science teaches us about the world, the more we see that there is structure in the universe that is very unlikely to occur on its own. “It seems so intricate, so complex, so well structured,” he says. “Just because we learn about it doesn’t mean that there is no God.”
Supporting that argument, Aczel points out that if any one of a multitude of parameters was even slightly different, the universe could not exist as we know it. For example, if dark energy had a different value, the universe would have exploded faster than galaxies could have formed, or it would have collapsed on itself before galaxies had a chance to form.
Aczel cites physicist Roger Penrose, who calculated that the emergence of our universe had a probability so close to zero as to be unimaginable. All of the these parameters had to be within an unbelievably small range for the universe to have taken shape as it has. “We are just on the knife-edge of existence,” says physicist Leonard Susskind of Stanford University. So how do we explain this?
Quote:
“There are are two ways,” Aczel says. “One is to say, ‘Well, [the physical properties of the universe] were made that way by God or whatever you want to call it — some power of nature created them that way. The other is to say, ‘Look, there's an infinite multiverse. We can't live in one of the many universes where the parameters are wrong. So, we live here, because the parameters for us are right.' That's why we ‘choose’ to live in this universe, so to speak.”
“Now this gets to a matter of faith,” he adds. “The multiverse is a matter of faith, because we don't know about other universes except our own. So when scientists talk about things like Boltzmann Brains out in the universe, to me it’s like angels!”
Can you provide the proof that science dispells the existence of god? Just curious?
I think the best science can do is explain the universe, our existence as best it can there by plugging more holes of the "God of the gaps" as we've seen happening the last few hundred years with the advent of modern science.
But of course the burden is not on us to disprove the existence of God, its those who make the claim that he exists.
Of course, you didn't specify which God you are referring to
Aczel is a God of the gaps guy, of course multiverse has a long way to go before we can put any serious scientific weight behind it, but more importantly it starts on much more substantial grounds with the mathematics and hints at its existence being detected.
As a mathematician you would think Aczel would see the massive difference between M theory and God.
Fine tuning argument is really quite poor, its up there for Pascal's wager considering the counter points that have often been pointed out about the crazyness of this argument:
Of course you can't talk about Multiverse without Brian Green's excellent Ted talks lecture on it. This could be one of the biggest closing of the gaps in the "God of the gaps"
I think the best science can do is explain the universe, our existence as best it can there by plugging more holes of the "God of the gaps" as we've seen happening the last few hundred years with the advent of modern science.
But of course the burden is not on us to disprove the existence of God, its those who make the claim that he exists.
Of course, you didn't specify which God you are referring to
Man, you guys sure are trying hard though.
Again you, as all atheists I have met, have defaulted to the abrahamic definition of god. God does not exist to fill holes in many non-western religions, the concept of god in many religions trancsends earth.
For example, there are plenty of religions out there that do not think Earth is the centre of the universe, or that we are the only capable life forms. As a Sikh we are taught the concept of the big bang not only as a physical phenomena that created our universe but also one that spread the soul. All things are elastic in nature (gravity), hence the Universe expanding and then contracting similarly all metaphysical life was spread and must return to singularity.
I am in no way trying to prove to you god exists, except that you need to realize there are many more gods then the western excepted god that has a beard and physical form.
Some are, most aren't, sweeping generalizations don't help. My conflict with religion is its ideas in practice, gay marriage, women's rights, etc.. That's when I speak out.
Quote:
Again you, as all atheists I have met, have defaulted to the abrahamic definition of god. God does not exist to fill holes in many non-western religions, the concept of god in many religions trancsends earth.
I did ask which God in my comments to you, but yes in North America where over 90% of people who believe in a God follow the Abrahamic one you will tend to find most people religious or not assume that is the one you are talking about, not just Atheists. Careful with the sweeping generalizations
Quote:
For example, there are plenty of religions out there that do not think Earth is the centre of the universe, or that we are the only capable life forms. As a Sikh we are taught the concept of the big bang not only as a physical phenomena that created our universe but also one that spread the soul. All things are elastic in nature (gravity), hence the Universe expanding and then contracting similarly all metaphysical life was spread and must return to singularity.
Yep there are lots of fascinating religions that have come and gone and still exist today, with lots of ideas on our existence, where we come from, etc. To someone who finds all of them interesting I view them like any good folk story or fairy tale, neat but nothing to dictate my life or direct me in my own life.
Quote:
I am in no way trying to prove to you god exists, except that you need to realize there are many more gods then the western excepted god that has a beard and physical form.
I think you'll find most atheists are the first ones to be aware of this, as its a common argument given to religious, when an Atheist will say
"You (religious person) are an atheist like me, you are an atheist to Thor, Zeus, Odin, and all the 100's of other Gods that have been worshiped throughout the ages, yet we just take it one more God further than you."
Its one of the most powerful arguments for not accepting the word of holy books as unquestionable truths, since to suggest one religion got it right and the others are wrong is just as silly as it sounds when you consider how many Gods have come and gone and how many Holy books have come and gone.
The idea, My religion, my specific sect of this religion is right, and you are all wrong is so ridiculous. But I digress
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 09-11-2014 at 08:50 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Some are, most aren't, sweeping generalizations don't help. My conflict with religion is its ideas in practice, gay marriage, women's rights, etc.. That's when I speak out.
I did ask which God in my comments to you, but yes in North America where over 90% of people who believe in a God follow the Abrahamic one you will tend to find most people religious or not assume that is the one you are talking about, not just Atheists. Careful with the sweeping generalizations
Yep there are lots of fascinating religions that have come and gone and still exist today, with lots of ideas on our existence, where we come from, etc. To someone who finds all of them interesting I view them like any good folk story or fairy tale, neat but nothing to dictate my life or direct me in my own life.
I think you'll find most atheists are the first ones to be aware of this, as its a common argument given to religious, when an Atheist will say
"You (religious person) are an atheist like me, you are an atheist to Thor, Zeus, Odin, and all the 100's of other Gods that have been worshiped throughout the ages, yet we just take it one more God further than you."
Its one of the most powerful arguments for not accepting the word of holy books as unquestionable truths, since to suggest one religion got it right and the others are wrong is just as silly as it sounds when you consider how many Gods have come and gone and how many Holy books have come and gone.
The idea, My religion, my specific sect of this religion is right, and you are all wrong is so ridiculous. But I digress
Thats quite the digression, did'nt really pickup what you were putting down.
Another thing mate , more then often religions don't claim the I'm right your wrong mentality another Abrahamic institution.
Hell, in my religion women are equal, all beings are femenine to the one bride-groom (god) so gay marriage is sound, we do not believe other religions are "wrong" nor do we claim to be superior. We believe and recognize we are not the centre of the universe, rather there are many galaxies with many planets that contain life. The best one is that for an individual to not believe in god is not herecy and you will not be killed.
My point here is widen the scope of your arguement, in my limited knowledge your arguement conveys ignorance to something you claim to be well versed on.
o-boy long 27 days ahead of us, I should leave this topic. hasta leugo.
Godless Apostate
