What type of atheist are you?

[leroy]

So who is the man in the red suit on the steam train I've booked to see in early December?

A man with a costume.

Who eats the mince pies and why is the carrot gone every Xmas morning?

Your parents, or some other adult who lives in your house…

The point is that there are good reasons to reject the existence of Santaclause (we both agree)……….do you have good reasons to reject the existence of God?

I don't know is the only answer for the origin of the universe.
Do you have an explanation for the origin of god? (btw I do)

Well , we know (with high degree of certainty) that Santa Clause is not the cause of gifts in the Christmas tree… parents are……

So unless you can provide an explanation for the origin of the universe and show that this explanation is better than God…….. you shouldn’t compare God with Santa Clause.

Yes

why?

But you can't give me any of the weak points ??

well reed the complete article
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia

 

[ADigitalArtist]

5. Lack of interest.

I don't believe in patterning your behavior off anyone telling you it's 'the right thing to do,' I believe that's something you should decide yourself, based on all available data. So whether there is or is not god(s) is inconsequential to how I live my life. Since I live as if no gods exist, atheism seems the most appropriate designation.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Santa Claus" for any specifically defined god that I've heard of to date, "Aliens" for the general concept of some form of deity.

 

[Laika]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

There are a lot of "reasons" I could not believe in God, but I think when it comes down it, I am far more irrational and emotional than any of those reasons really do justice to. I'm not smart enough to tell you god is impossible, even if I wish I could. It would make my life easier knowing it was certain because they you can build things on that. Who doesn't secretly want to go; "ok, there is no hell- let's party and commit lots of sins!"

I think maybe believing in God is a lot like love or having a relationship. If you love someone and they keep promising you the world and they simply don't show up, you stop believing in them and what they say. And they have a lot of explaining to do in order to fix it. So far, no explanation has been forthcoming.

You ask questions, like- where is God? Why didn't he/she show up? Was it something I did? did I do something wrong? and in the end you realise- no, it wasn't me. The simplest explanation is God didn't show up because either he didn't want me to know him, or God didn't exist in the first place, so there was no-one to introduce themselves to me. And that is really the end of that. You are an atheist to all intents and purposes.

For all the things I have heard, God has never shown up. He wasn't there when I needed a friend, or someone to give me the guidance I needed to make a hard decision. He was never party of the family, sitting at the table joining in, having a slice of cake on my birthday or eating turkey at Christmas. God has never made themselves known to me and never pointed out where they intervened in my life. Some might say "there are miracles" and "well, he created you" but it would be so much easier if he said that himself and in person. God is consistently unreliable and absent, so that isn't the kind of person you can trust, put your faith in and devote yourself to and have a relationship with.

The one critical point here, is that if god really as a powerful as is claimed, I shouldn't have to read scripture to get to know this person. I should not be dependent on a millennia old sacred text when god is supposed to be the here and now.

If God wants me to believe in him, believe in his word and have a relationship with him, it would be helpful if we actually spent some time together in person. That seems like a fairly solid foundation for any healthy relationship with a person- or a supernatural entity- to be built on. There is no other relationship where you are asked to devote yourself, trust, believe in and love a person who doesn't show up. It seems very strange that someone is so "special" that you never see a picture of them, hear their voice, meet them in person, receive a phone call, text message, e-mail and letter in the post, and you are asked so much for them. That's kind of an odd way to approach having a relationship with someone or having a relationship with me I think.

As powerful and influential a cultural, religious, and perhaps "historical" figure as God is- he just never shows up and there is no explanation "why". Naturally, you fill the void with an argument and- as primitive as it is- "he doesn't exist" is much, much simpler than something as self-contradictory as "he's all powerful, he's everywhere, and all-loving, but he's busy so please come back later."

Edit; Truth be told I have more evidence for Santa Claus ("PRESENTS!") or the Tooth Fairy ("MONEY!") than I have for god. And that is setting the bar really, really low.

 

[leroy]

Edit; Truth be told I have more evidence for Santa Claus ("PRESENTS!") or the Tooth Fairy ("MONEY!") than I have for god. And that is setting the bar really, really low.

The point of the OP is that you obviously have good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa, you can show empirically and with a high level of certainty that Parents are a better explanation for “Presents” than Santa Clause.

So if you say that the evidence for God is comparable to the evidence for Santa Clause, it follows that you most have good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, and that you can show empirically and with certainty that there are better explanations for say the origin of the universe than God.

In other words, if you say “God = Santa Clause” you have a burden proof. You most present good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, as there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause

 

[viole]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

God is like Santa Klaus. But I do not reject Him/Her for the reasons you mentioned.

I simply think that both Santa Klaus, Jesus, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, as well as Superman, Mickey Mouse, Mother Goose, and a not numerable infinity of possible beings, possibly mutually contradicting themselves, have the same evidence to exist. Namely, zero.

Therefore there is no rational reason to believe one, and not the other, since they all enjoy the same ontological state.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

The point of the OP is that you obviously have good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa, you can show empirically and with a high level of certainty that Parents are a better explanation for “Presents” than Santa Clause.

So if you say that the evidence for God is comparable to the evidence for Santa Clause, it follows that you most have good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, and that you can show empirically and with certainty that there are better explanations for say the origin of the universe than God.

In other words, if you say “God = Santa Clause” you have a burden proof. You most present good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, as there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause

But nobody is saying that, so it does not arise.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

God is a word, an annoying one at that, which has caused so many problems apparently. You can make a word or combination of letters or sounds or a sound to refer to anything at all or nothing at all even. When the word God is used to refer to things that aren't real, then I don't believe in God, when the word God is used to refer to things which are either logically undeniable or clearly apparent, then there is no doubt about God. God is just a word, an annoying one at that.

 

[leroy]

God is like Santa Klaus. But I do not reject Him/Her for the reasons you mentioned.

I simply think that both Santa Klaus, Jesus, Zeus, Allah, Shiva, as well as Superman, Mickey Mouse, Mother Goose, and a not numerable infinity of possible beings, possibly mutually contradicting themselves, have the same evidence to exist. Namely, zero.

Therefore there is no rational reason to believe one, and not the other, since they all enjoy the same ontological state.

Ciao

- viole

My point is that there are good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause………So if you compare God with Santa Clause, you most also have good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject God….. (in other words you have a burden proof)...... So do you have evidence against God?

If you what to avoid the burden proof (like most internet atheist) then you most compare good with aliens,…. (there is not conclusive evidence ether way)

 

[exchemist]

My point is that there are good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause………So if you compare God with Santa Clause, you most also have good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject God….. (in other words you have a burden proof)...... So do you have evidence against God?

If you what to avoid the burden proof (like most internet atheist) then you most compare good with aliens,…. (there is not conclusive evidence ether way)

Have you heard of Ockham's Razor?

 

[viole]

My point is that there are good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause………So if you compare God with Santa Clause, you most also have good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject God….. (in other words you have a burden proof)...... So do you have evidence against God?

If you what to avoid the burden proof (like most internet atheist) then you most compare good with aliens,…. (there is not conclusive evidence ether way)

And what empirical evidence you have to reject Santa?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

So if you say that the evidence for God is comparable to the evidence for Santa Clause, it follows that you most have good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, and that you can show empirically and with certainty that there are better explanations for say the origin of the universe than God.

The fact of no evidence is sufficient to withhold belief. The fact that there are well-evidenced alternative explanations for the phenomena traditionally attributed to God is just icing on the cake.

In other words, if you say “God = Santa Clause” you have a burden proof. You most present good positive reasons to reject the existence of God, as there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause

Santa clause may reasonably be "rejected" on lack of evidence alone. The fact that an alternative explanation for the toys exists -- again, just icing.
Withholding belief based on lack of evidence entails no burden.

 

[Clara Tea]

It's not about "good evidence" it's about "evidence of good."

Why follow Satan? Is it because Satan is powerful? Is it because you think that Satan is on your side and will do good things for you?

Is the God you follow Satanic? The bible says that Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden and God gave Satan dominion over earth. If so, God is on Satan's side. Isn't cooperating with Satan the same thing as being Satanic?

Mustn't call God Satan (blasphemy), and mustn't question. Isn't that Satan's tactic (to deceive and not allow questions)?

Would a good God allow suffering, death, poop, smells, viruses? Would a good God torture his creation? Would a good God create sex parts in men and women then insist that they don't use them?

Perhaps, in addition to those who don't believe in God, there are some who believe that the God that you worship is Satan?

Look at all of the wars that have been fought on behalf of God. Even the recent war in Iraq was fought without cause (W. Bush said that we'd find proof of terrorism once we topple their nation....we never did find proof and killed a million in the process). Was W. Bush fightin' evil, as he had claimed, or was W. Bush doing evil?

Even the bible (Revelation) says that two demons from the smokey depths of the bottomless pit of hell will take over the most powerful nation in the world (Revelation 17:18), war against Iraq, then corrupt Iraq (earning the name Whore of Babylon for the United States that corrupted it).

Surely there is plenty of evidence that current Christians are unwittingly serving Satan.

 

[Nakosis]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

A knowable creator of the universe does not exist. However, the subconscious mind is capable of creating a fictional God if you really need one.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Have you heard of Ockham's Razor?

How about Occam's Razor burn?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Depends. Sometimes god is like Santa clause, sometimes he's like aliens. Depends on the god proposed.

I do lean more towards #2 on average, though.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

I'm the type of atheist that says Existence doesn't God.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Have you heard of Ockham's Razor?

How about Occam's Razor burn?

Ockham's Panasonic Electric Shaver and Bikini trimmer

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

And what empirical evidence you have to reject Santa?

Ciao

- viole

The month of December proves that Santa exists, just go to a shopping mall

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

God is a word, an annoying one at that, which has caused so many problems apparently. You can make a word or combination of letters or sounds or a sound to refer to anything at all or nothing at all even. When the word God is used to refer to things that aren't real, then I don't believe in God, when the word God is used to refer to things which are either logically undeniable or clearly apparent, then there is no doubt about God. God is just a word, an annoying one at that.

Good point, I agree with that.