By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.
Fairies, Santa Claus and god all share the exact same property.
There is no evidence for their existence outside of the human imagination. They are all fictional characters.
It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.
By all means, declare that you think belief in God is non-rational, and literally in-credible, but don't be an ass and equate a philosophical/theological proposition with 'fairies or santa claus'.
in no particular order
god, fairies and santa are all man made
god, fairies and santa don't require evidence (see point 4)
god, fairies and santa don't exist
god, fairies and santa are lies told to children
explain how I can't equate a deity to fairies and santa?
and yet they struggle to explain why that is the case in any sort of meaningful way
Meaningful to you....
explain how I can't equate a deity to fairies and santa?
Well, we have concrete evidence that the gifts from Santa are actually from parents. So we can discount that one, so it's probably not a great example. Fairies on the other hand - I cannot refute that analogy, I am not religious.
However, [b]I am prepared to listen to someone who can[/b].
I am talking about belief in a benign higher power.
(Bites) 'Benign?' 😐
YOU can, if you so choose, but it's not very nice to extrapolate what you see as a comical lack of evidence to support that belief across to belittle people for whom faith is a fundamental pillar of their lives. But YMMV.
Also, the idea that "Theology" endows a belief in a god with any more weight than a belief in fairies or whatever is an empty argument, as "Theology" itself is as meaningful only as a discussion about, for instance, the motivations of Noddy and Big Ears in the stories featuring those imaginary characters.
I don't have any Theology myself, but I also don't have any Leprechaunology either. I'm quite happy to maintain that Leprechauns have no basis in reality, however...
The question I would be asking is this:
'What does faith give to those who have it?'
Well, we have concrete evidence that the gifts from Santa...
...show the power that parents have to indoctrinate their children with a concept with no evidence.
If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations; maybe longer, but they would.
I'm quite happy to maintain that Leprechauns have no basis in reality, however...
Now hang on a minute... 😀
Rereading the EU thread (don't ask) I couldn't help but notice that out of all the childish bile being spouted, there was one voice that always seemed reasonable, measured and polite, and it was the voice of molgrips.
Then he starts this thread.
What a ****.
It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.
Agreed, and...
I think it was Gypsy Rose Lee who said: If people dont like being laughed at then they shouldn't have such funny ideas (sic)
The question I would be asking is this:'What does faith give to those who have it?'
Why?
If people dont like being laughed at then they shouldn't have such funny ideas (sic)
Funny is a matter of opinion.
Then he starts this thread.What a ****.
Sorry? I am not trolling. I think this is genuinely interesting. I do not like having arguments, but I do like having discussions. If you look past the crappiness you will see that many posters have made positive contributions.
Was that the accusation sbob? That I am trolling?
The question I would be asking is this:'What does faith give to those who have it?'
Just because you can ask it doesn't make it a valid question
You don't think it's a valid question then? Why?
If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations; maybe longer, but they would.
I'm not so sure it's just a child thing - as I hinted at earlier, I think many are drawn due to a fear of death, entropy and eventual decay and meaningless existence. I think religion can genuinely add some sort of meaning for some folk - purpose through good deeds etc. - but the fear of death is a good selling point and snares many an adult.
I watched some programme on the beeb about how Christianity didn't really get a hold in this country until the plague started wiping out the masses. Nothing was working to solve the death toll - all the herbal shit, snake oil and guff from the clever folk at the time failed to produce results and save people - except prayer. I can't remember the exact reason but folk came to believe in the Christian god because it was the only thing that 'saved' them. Paraphrasing the enitre thing, obviously, but I would imagine that data can be found quite readily with strong Google Fu if anyone's interested.
I don't have a lot of time to engage today, unfortunately, but in terms of equating the proposition of an eternal God with santa or fairies, philosopher David Bentley Hart offers some comment on the fallacy of their comparability:
To speak of “God” properly—in a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bahá’í, much of antique paganism, and so forth—is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.
The possibility of gods or spirits or angels or demons, and so on, is all very interesting to contemplate, but remains a question not of metaphysics but only of the taxonomy of nature (terrestrial, celestial, and chthonic).
And yet any speaker at one of those atheist revivalist meetings need only trot out either of two reliable witticisms—“I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”—to elicit warmly rippling palpitations of self-congratulatory laughter from the congregation. Admittedly, one ought not judge a movement by its jokes, but neither should one be overly patient with those who delight in their own ignorance of elementary conceptual categories.
Beliefs regarding fairies concern a certain kind of object that may or may not exist within the world, and such beliefs have much the same sort of intentional and rational shape as beliefs regarding the neighbors over the hill or whether there are such things as black swans. Beliefs regarding God concern the source and end of all reality, the unity and existence of every particular thing and of the totality of all things, the ground of the possibility of anything at all. Fairies and gods, if they exist, occupy something of the same conceptual space as organic cells, photons, and the force of gravity, and so the sciences might perhaps have something to say about them, if a proper medium for investigating them could be found.
God, by contrast, is the infinite actuality that makes it possible for photons and (possibly) fairies to exist, and so can be “investigated” only, on the one hand, by acts of logical deduction and conjecture or, on the other, by contemplative or spiritual experiences.
All the above quotes are taken from David Bentley Hart's essay in First Things. entitled [url= https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies ]God, Gods, and Fairies[/url].
Meanwhile, here is [url= https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not ] Hart's critique of the New Atheists[/url] (NB: NOT all atheists! Only the recent public phenomenon called 'New Atheism' or 'Radical Atheism').
An interesting direction, considering God not as the beardy chap talking to people from the sky but as a basis for reality. The origin of the big bang if you like.
As if reality is a conscious entity.
Was that the accusation sbob? That I am trolling?
Not at all, just that there is always an element of inevitability, and as a bloke I can't pay you a compliment without also calling you a **** at the same time, which this thread gave me the opportunity to do. 🙂
If all religions said, "right, we'll wait till they're (reasonably educated) adults and then give them the option," they'd die out in a few generations;
Maybe.
Not my experience though.
I never set foot in a Church until I was in my mid twenties and had a Degree, other than for the occasional school service, Church hall disco or for Boys Brigade as a kid.
My parents have never knowingly attended a regular Church service as far as I am aware.
I was not converted, indoctrinated, Born Again or pressured by anyone, ever.
I was not lonely or vulnerable. No one has taken advantage of me in any way. I have not been encouraged to oppress or harm anyone.
I walked through the door, entirely of my own volition, sat down, listened and was listened to, was made welcome, liked it and stayed.
I found my life enriched by the experience.
A bit like this forum in many respects.
considering God not as the beardy chap
Please tell me you didn't get to this point in [s]your life[/s] the thread believing that folk believed God was some sort of ghostly bloke with a beard...
So rather than seeing God as a supernatural being (I.e. one that exists outside of the laws of nature) we should see her/him/them as a superdupernatural being who created the unreality in which the supernatural beings exist? That logic seems overly tortuous and the tone of his writing comes across as dismissive and Condescending.
philosopher David Bentley Hart offers some comment on the fallacy of their comparability:
I don't see anything he's written which negates the comparison. The 'fairies and santa' trope is just a way of simplifying the concept that the same tenet of unevidenced faith which underlies all of these. Just because the role of whichever god we're talking about has been gloried up a bit, by quite a few centuries of scholarly imagination and fine words, and this might explain why more adults have faith in its existence, the essential principle is the same.
If you're chucking it around as an insult then perhaps a more respectful approach is needed. Many of us, those with religious faith and those without, have a self-image, or a view of the world, which is based partly on reality, and partly imagination or delusion.
But that's a lot of words, some attempting to be big, that basically bake down to:
1. God ([i]as the author defines it[/i]) is inherent to the universe.
2. You define gods by their place in nature (taxonomy).
3. A side kick at non-believers in the same vein that believers complain about getting from non-believers.
4. If gods exist then we haven't yet found a way so we can only investigate by logic or experiences.
This is classic strawman. Define your object in (1), knock down the options you don't like in (3) and (4) leaving you with what you want.
0/10 do better next time Mr Hart.
He also didn't consider Buddhism or the multi-god religions. If we're talking about religion you can't just cherry pick *which* god you're talking about, there's loads of others too that must be explained or dismissed.
is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.
Very poetic.
Not sure how this refutes the idea that "transcendence" can't be equally applied to Bilbo Baggins as well as ( whichever) god...
I was not converted, indoctrinated, Born Again or pressured by anyone, ever.
Nor was I saying that everyone who "believes" is.
I would say that 100% of the "Catholics" I was brought up with were though.
But that's just my anecdote.
EDIT: Not born again or converted obviously.
Fairies, Santa Claus and god all share the exact same property.There is no evidence for their existence outside of the human imagination. They are all fictional characters.
It's perfectly reasonable to equate them all with each other.
So they all share one property, that does not make it reasonable to equate them.
You share many properties with a strawberry, it does not mean you are the same.
There is one relevant difference between God and Santa. That is that all actions which are attributed to Santa have a solid, first hand, complete and comprehensive, easily understood explanation. God, not so much.
Because gravity or because evolution are incomplete answers
as a bloke I can't pay you a compliment without also calling you a **** at the same time, which this thread gave me the opportunity to do
Fair enough 🙂 but you have a point. I should have realised we'd end up mired in negativity as usual.
But I like the metaphysical part of this morning. If God is another name for reality then it clearly does exist.
A side kick at non-believers in the same vein that believers complain about getting from non-believers.
Agree that the tone of those quotes is unnecessarily caustic and snide.
Mr Woppit - Member
MolgripsThe question I would be asking is this:
'What does faith give to those who have it?'
Why?
Yes, but that would redefine God a bit. Unless you can argue that reality has a purpose or will or agency
The question I would be asking is this:
'Who gives faith to those who have it?'
And not to those who don't?
Why?
Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.
No, the question is "what", not why. 🙂
Edit - Crikey, gotta be quick in here today! 🙂
Unless you can argue that reality has a purpose or will or agency
You can no more argue that it doesn't that that is does.
Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.
Agreed, even from a behaviourist perspective faith may be seen to have some very positive effects
There seems to be a thrust on this thread to suggest that the lack of evidence is irrelevant compared to the rudeness of those who would suggest that there is a lack of evidence.
Its like the special pleading olympics.
In my own experience (of the claims of religious people) God can:
a) interfere in everyday traffic flow to provide parking spaces for the faithful [who ask for his help],
b) fail to stop infants dying of painful diseases, [who ask for his help].
If you can bring those ideas together in your head and think "seems about the right way for a pan dimensional superbeing with infinite power to behave" then it almost looks like you're proposing and defending a massively wooly proposition that seems intelligently designed to change shape and form (and effect) to counter any argument.
Personally I subscribe to the view that you (generally) can't reason someone out of a view that they didn't reason themselves into (can't remember who said it).
If only religion was benign, and didn't have such a negative effect on society (and the lives of both its proponents and its detractors) I'd prefer to ignore the whole philosophically and morally bankrupt business.
Please tell me you didn't get to this point in your life the thread believing that folk believed God was some sort of ghostly bloke with a beard...
I said that because it appears that many athiests think that's what Christians believe. As per the original topic here.
Because this might lead you to understand what people are getting from their faith, and lead your own questioning in a better direction.
I understand that the Vatican employ the services of a "Chief Excorcist". This is a person who claims that humans can be inhabited and directed by "demons" to cause harm.
Another example of medieval ignorance and a belief in fictional beings.
Progress in modern medicine has, of course, identified these problems as being caused by various types of mental illness and can offer medicinal relief.
Speaking as someone who once had a close working relationship with a very creative and intelligent person who was diagnosed as having a "schizo-affective disorder" and claimed in all seriousness that the voice in his head was "from hell, baby" but refused his medication and eventually threw himself under a train, if I ever met this "Chief Excorcist" I'd feel strongly impelled to punch the ****er straight in the face.
In my own experience (of the claims of religious people)
SOME religious people. Not all religious people are very bright. I don't think those ideas are endorsed by all believers.
you (generally) can't reason someone out of a view that they didn't reason themselves into
That quote may uncover more truth than you might've intended. Can faith be subject to reason? Should it be? If so, why? Why does everything in life have to be to do with reason, unless you are a Vulcan? Are you a Vulcan? Would you like to be like one?
Because gravity or because evolution are incomplete answers
well gravity has some unanswered questions but evolution does not.
So they all share one property, that does not make it reasonable to equate them.
well the do like I pointed out above. they are all invented by man and they don't actually exist. so they can be equated. we can equate the strawberry plant to humans by the fact they are both eukaryotes
There is one relevant difference between God and Santa. That is that all actions which are attributed to Santa have a solid, first hand, complete and comprehensive, easily understood explanation. God, not so much
santa and god have never done anything, they don't exist
evolution does not.
Oh, good, I have a few questions for you
[s]Was[/s] Is there a point to this thread? (To the room, not OP specifically) - It began with [s]a detailed poll[/s] an article [s]referencing[/s] mentioning an as yet unseen poll, the findings of which allegedly show that the majority of Britons (over 2/3rds) believe that the majority of Christians believe that the Biblical account of Genesis is literal. The article had a little pop at the atheist quotient as nearly 3/4 of those atheists polled believed the same thing and yada yada Dawkins. I think that was it. Oh, and the article seemed to infer that latterday atheists have somehow dragged down the level of discourse, (presumably on par with the levels of discourse on [b]everything[/b] since Youtube comment-feeds appeared.)
13 pages in, have we discussed the poll, the intentions/past work of the poll's author/s, the breadth and diversity of the sample 'groups'? etc etc?
Are you a Vulcan? Would you like to be like one?
How about 1/3 a Vulcan? Some days rising to 2/3.
Now, back to removing spocks from one's eyes...
[img] 
[/img]
santa and god have never done anything, they don't exist
But I know who did all the Santa stuff. The God stuff, some of it is just unexplained
13 pages in, have we discussed the poll, the intentions/past work of the poll's author/s, the breadth and diversity of the sample 'groups'? etc etc?
it may not be what the followers believe but its what is pumped out by the religious leaders that matters. If the old testament or genesis is not relevant then why is it still in the bible.
The God stuff, some of it is just unexplained
like?
