Do you guys believe in god? If yes, why? If no, why not?
When did you come out of the atheist closet?
>>267815
>If no, why not
Same reason I don't believe in Thor, I guess.
>>268120
Epic
When will this board collectively get over its faggy teenage atheist phase already sick of reading the same tryhard sophomoric tripe since fucking 2008
>le teacup meme
>le skyman maymay
Have fun getting btfo'd in Hell forever
>>268246
No but really what makes one mythological figure more legitimate than another?
Nobody believes in Thor and Odin or Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster. Those are considered ridiculous. But to somebody that doesn't believe in Christianity or Islam or any of the other "legit" religions, their deities seem just as ridiculous.
>>267815
I have experienced God directly back when I was agnostic. Nothing can shake my faith and experience.
No, what's the worst that can happen? I get thrown into some imaginary fiery pit by an imaginary spook?
If people would stone me to death in this world for not believing, I might believe.
>>267815
I guess I would be agnostic desu. Athiests assume just as much as theists assume thier is a god but make fun of theists and make themselves look like hypocrites.
>>268280
>le I go one god further maymay
Fucking robot. Been literally hearing this line of argument since 2008. Could probably search your post on google and find it almost verbatim written by a different person years ago. You're all such fucking drones
>>268330
>Le ad hominem because I can't handle a mature discussion
Fucking hell, don't call anybody else immature.
>>268330
So you don't have an argument against it?
>>268311
What is burden of proof?
Are you Santagnostic? Or Santatheist? Or do you believe in Santa? Why must a person who lacks belief in Santa, be explicitly open to the possibility of Santa existing? You make it sound like anyone who says "Santa doesn't exist" an idiot who just makes assumptions, and a Santatheist would deny Santa even if Santa came proved he existed. Thinking it is impossible to know if Santa exists is no more enlightened than thinking Santa doesn't exist. Thinking Santa doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't later change your mind if you find evidence that Santa does exist.
>>268297
>I have experienced God directly back when I was agnostic. Nothing can shake my faith and experience.
That's cool. What happened?
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in god?
No.
>If no, why not?
Because there's no compelling evidence for any gods.
I also find the entire concept of a 'god' to be highly dubious and vague to the point of being incoherent most of the time.
>>268367
I experienced getting gifts from Santa when I was a child. Nothing can shake my faith and experience.
>>268340
>mature discussion
>I read the god delusion so I'm now equipped for serious religious debate by regurgitating it's half baked arguments
>>268388
So you still don't have an argument?
>>268388
>Still has yet to add anything
You sound like one miserable fuck. You really need Jesus in your life.
I don't believe in god because he has given me no reason to
if god exist, where is he? why doesn't he make the world better? why doesn't he care about us?
if he exists then fuck him, but almost certainly he doesn't. I have not seen any evidence ever of gods existence.
>>268390
>all these metaphysical assertions abput reality are wrong except for mine
>>268390
What argument? I never pretended to have one. This is literally my third post in the whole thread.
>>268397
Is baby mad he's not an intellectual Titan just because he ordered Dawkins whole backlog on amazon
I don't know. I don't believe in any of the current believed in gods because I don't see proof, but I can't prove there is no god.
>>267815
Do you guys believe in Santa? If yes, why? If no, why not?
When did you realize Santa isn't real?
>>268412
Can you prove there is no Santa? Remember, he's a saint and can perform miracles.
>>268246
This board dislikes atheists more than anything. Whenever someone even brings up the possibility of God not existing it's always ,etc with "hurr, durr, stupid atheist!"
>>268418
If we take what we currently know about Santa and apply it to the real world, I would say yes you could prove there is no Santa as we understand him.
But being unable to prove something doesn't exist is really stupid. By that logic you should believe in most things just because you can't prove they don't exist.
>>268418
>believing in Santa is tantamount to believing in a first cause or a probable source of the universe's intelligibility
>>268430
but believing in something just because you can't prove it doesn't exist*
>>268430
He's a saint, he can perform miracles that defy the laws of physics. If you aren't open to the possibility of Santa, or you can't admit the nature of Santa is unknowable because miracles can't be explained by science, you're just a hypocrite.
>>268431
I don't see many deists reporting into god threads.
>>268463
Well first you have to prove miracles exist. And I said Santa as we know him, and you really just gave me your own interpretation of him. The average person I would argue, does not see Santa as a saint that performs miracles. Of course I could be wrong about that to which I would adjust my views accordingly. But given that a huge part of what we understand as santa is that he gives presents to children, and we could definitely confirm that no parents have unexplained gifts from Santa, I would say once again, that as we know him he does not exist.
Some sort of Santa nobody knows about? Sure, I can't disprove it but i'm not going to do anything about it.
>>268471
>Well first you have to prove miracles exist.
That's tantamount is insisting you have to prove the divine exists. You're rejecting god if you reject miracles.
>And I said Santa as we know him
He's a saint.
> The average person I would argue, does not see Santa as a saint that performs miracles. Of course I could be wrong about that to which I would adjust my views accordingly.
He's fucking Saint Nick.
>But given that a huge part of what we understand as santa is that he gives presents to children, and we could definitely confirm that no parents have unexplained gifts from Santa
Maybe because parents don't count as small children moron.
> I would say once again, that as we know him he does not exist.
Then you reject Christ.
>>268246
Why do you people think this is some edgy teenager phase and not something we've spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about? If anything, religion is the phase. Atheists are always there, but your religion will be changed or replaced or even die out in a few thousand years.
>>268495
>You're rejecting god if you reject miracles.
No i'm not, I'm rejecting god as YOU understand god
>He's a saint.
I am very aware that Santa is derived from Saint Nicholas, but again that title isn't really applied to him anymore by the mainstream belief in Santa or culture around him
>He's fucking Saint Nick.
I just said that, but perceptions change
>Maybe because parents don't count as small children moron.
While i'm pretty sure you could infer what I meant by that, i'll explain and say that no parent would ever say that any gift their child receives is from Santa, and was in fact bought by them
>Then you reject Christ.
I reject Christ as you know him, and do not accept any evidence of his divinity to be concrete. I can't prove he isn't, but I said earlier that just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you should believe in it.
Nah, I don't. I'm not certain why.
I went to a catholic elementary school, and then a catholic high school. But none of it ever really gelled with me.
A year or so after I left school I just ended up accepting that I don't believe. For a while I was filled with that smug zeal you see in many young athiests who are convinced they're right and everyone else is stupid. But I eventually grew out of it.
Nowadays I'd probably call myself an Apathiest. The existence or non-existence of God is not really relevant to me as an individual. Should Gods existence be proven or disproven tomorrow, it more than likely wouldn't change anything about the way I choose to live.
>>268514
>No i'm not, I'm rejecting god as YOU understand god
Filthy deist
>miracle on 34th street
>MIRACLE
>WATCH ANY CHRISTMAS SPECIAL
>ITS ABOUT CHRISTMAS MIRACLES
>ITS A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE
Santa is still associated Christmastime and miracles, no matter how secular Christmas becomes.
> say that no parent would ever say that any gift their child receives is from Santa, and was in fact bought by them
No priest, bounty of god, etc, etc.
Basically, atheists are hypocrites because they aren't open to the possibility that Santa exists.
A reminder that the logical principles the world is built on only work if there is a creator god that set the universe in motion. If you deny this then you must also deny math, physics, and all other natural sciences as well.
>>268532
What if god appears before you and tells you to cut off your foreskin or else you're going to hell?
>>268548
>A reminder that the logical principles the world is built on only work if there is a creator god that set the universe in motion. If you deny this then you must also deny math, physics, and all other natural sciences as well.
You mean they only work under certain assumptions, like you're not a brain in a vat. Assumption of a creator god not required, although you might find comfort in it.
Can I belive in Santa and stI'll be an Atheist?
>>268555
ayy bro, even if I'm a brain in a vat someone still had to create the material plane where my brain exists. The people who created my brain and put it in the vat can only create objects they themselves can define; thus we operate on the same principles. You can say the same thing about God; there would be no way for him to create us is ways he cannot define, thus we were created with terms he can define, thus we operate on terms he defined, thus we understand the world on said terms; the same terms as god.
>>268548
>A reminder that the logical principles the world is built on only work if there is a creator god that set the universe in motion.
Literally how does this logically follow.
>>268580
The universe spontaneously created itself.
>>268595
Then the universe is god.
>who pantheist here
>>268595
How bro? An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force; for the universe to create itself it would have to break the very rules it operates on.
>>268604
>Mein neger
>Tfw Spinoza never gets any recognition
God has visited Earth many times and sent his angels in space ships. Educate yourselives
>>268608
How does an egg hatch?
>answer: god
No I don't believe in medieval fantasies.
>>268622
You're literally being retarded at this point. When a sperm + egg meet it becomes a living, moving organism growing inside a shell; the object is constantly in motion. I understand you don't have much experience exiting shells but this is common knowledge man.
>>268608
>Energy follows the same rules as matter
Nope.
>>268595
>your unfalsifiable metaphysical assertion is bullshit
>... So here's mine
Lmao
>>268641
How can the concept of rest apply when the universe did not exist at that point?
>>268649
>implying matter and energy aren't one in the same
>>268608
>An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force
Try that shit on the quantum level, see how far you get. Stop trying to use human intuition for this shit.
>>268608
Causality doesn't apply before the universe because spacetime didn't even exist.
>>268650
Exactly. It require an assumption, not a specific assumption. Any unfalsifiable metaphysical assumption that meshes with logical principles.
>>268387
>>268654
>Implying matter and energy are even in the same ballpark
>>268682
E=mc^2 you illiterate
>>268682
Temperature is defined as the amount of energy an object, thus a set of matter, has.
>>268576
Please help I am at a dark place in my life
>this thread
ITT: Humanities Majors try to prove their edgy atheism by using science they read in magazines and don't understand
This thread has gone to some weird places
>>268707
What perspective do the religious people on this board have towards human evolution, and the early history of our species?
>>268707
>edgy atheism
Why do people think atheism is "edgy"? I just don't understand. It's not like we're Satanists.
>>268824
don't mind him, he obviously comes from some crazy religious american town where 98% of people are 'christains' and teens go through a rebellious atheism phase
Daily reminder all you heathens will burn in hell
>>269010
Kind of excited
>>268549
That seems kind of Tyranical. Would a God who demands such things be worthy of worship?
In any case. It's hard to know for certain how I'd react. I reckon I'd probably not do it.
>>268280
Other religions haven't been shown to be rational to the same degree as Christianity and Islam have. Simply speaking, the monotheistic ontologies put forward by Aquinas, Scotus, Avicenna, Leibniz etc are all imperfect, but at the end of the day are superior to all the atheistic and polytheistic ones I've studied. So It is more rational for me to believe in God than believe a self subsistent universe, a polytheistic pantheon, etc.
>>269010
Daily reminder that you don't have nerve endings while dead.
>>269194
God can just make you a new body to burn with in hell :)
>>269213
Is God literally the original psychopath edgelord?
>>267815
Agnostic. Hate fedora fags who say we'd be on mars right now if religion didn't exist because that's not true.
Nope.
God would have given humanity the proper laws, morals and customs to practice if he were real. Also why would have he permitted it to be corrupted and let it be corrupted for millennia, since that would lead people needlessly astray.
This is, of course, if he wanted to be worshiped. On the scientific side, the only gap God fills now is the creation of the universe.
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in god?
No, I dont.
>If no, why not?
Because I have no reason to.
Also whenever I see religious posters attempting to argue, I become more and more atheist. Its a pathetic sight, to be honest.
Look at this shit >>268252 >>268246
Not to mention the fedora shit.
I don't believe because I got pants'd in the locker room my sophomore year and everyone saw how small I am. I hope when I die that all of that is forgotten.
First and foremost I have to say that I vehemently do not believe in any form of established religion. That is, I don't think anyone "got it right", not by a long shot. Why is that? Because the spread of christianity, islam and all other religions can be traced via human messengers and circumstances. It's been used to further political agendas all over the place.
Now is there something out there which might resemble a god in any way, shape or form? Maybe. But I doubt it has little interest for us.
I don't believe because I have had no reason to believe. I was raised irreligiously, and my answer to "why did the universe begin?" is "we don't know yet." Saying that all matter needs an original mover to have any sort of action to originate from, you are assuming that we already know everything there is to know about the origins of the universe.
Judging from how drastically scientific theories have changed in the past 100 years, I think that asserting anything so confidently is taking the easy way out, and pretty self-serving.
Is there a God? Who cares? What has he ever done for me?
>>267815
I don't think I ever believed in a god. I remember asking my parents about God and Jesus when I was little, but I never thought of it as more real than a fairy tale. It probably helped that none of relatives are, or were,religious and the few times that they went to church it was solely because they thought it a nice tradition to have marriages and funerals there.
>>267815
no, but honestly i don't care much i'm pretty much an agnostic erring on the side of atheism because i see it as more probable, but that's really as strong as my position gets.
>>268824
when I begin to relate immutable properties and laws of reality to metaphysical concepts like a god, or deism, or panentheism, all I can find as opposition is a deliberate campaign against christianity
>>268358
This atheist logic is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What rustles my jimmies is that you fedoras actually believe it makes any sense.
People have always known that Santa doesn't exist. The tradition from which he comes from clearly states that. By saying that Santa exists you are rejecting everything that Santa represents, and the tradition through which the concept of Santa came to be known by you. The same way, the christian God, by concept and by tradition, is supposed to exist. So why would you accept one tradition and knowledge, and say that Santa exists, while reject the other one, namely the Bible, and say that God doesn't exist?
When you make the assumption that spaghetti monsters and santas can exist because you can't prove otherwise that they exist, you are denying the reality of where they originate, and basically rejecting common sense and logic in itself by deprying an idea of the world around it. You are basically being illogical, and it's quite ironic, coming from "muh enlightened mind" individuals.
Also:
>God doesn't exist
>so whorsip me instead
evry tiem
>"Edgy" is all these contrarian religious nuts can come up with
>>267815
Yea, Catholic.
I can prove the existence of God in like 6+ ways, without using theology.
Atheism is the result of no abstraction, which is the result of staying inside or being stubborn as fuck
>>268555
if the brain in the vat was true, you wouldn't be able to kill yourself.
Which I suggest you do.
>>268824
It's just an attempt to discredit them with emotive language, due to being unable to prove shit. Some countries like Norway and Japan are over 50% atheist, nothing edgy about it there. You'd have to be an American from the South to earnestly believe that.
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in god?
No
>If yes, why? If no, why not?
There is no reason to believe in supernatural. I was raised without religion
>When did you come out of the atheist closet?
Majority of my countrymen are irreligious. Christians are weird annoying minority here
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in a god?
No.
>If no, why not?
My family is irreligious since 3 generations now.
>When did you come out of the atheist closet?
There never was any closet. I guess from the first day of school since I didn't go to the religion hour it was official.
>>269986
very few fedoras actually exist, just like very few Christians kill abortion doctors, edgy means nothing, address the statement rather, than the common interpretation.
>>267815
I'm an agnostic atheist tee bee aych.
I don't believe in deities, but I don't claim to know that they exist or not.
>>269986
also, talking the santa analogy literally, how many other literal interpretations go unnoticed?
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in god?
Irreligious Pantheist
>If yes, why?
Because I believe the universe and the divine are one.
>When did you come out of the atheist closet?
Wasn't in it.
>>268608
>the laws of physics existed before the universe did
Are you fucking kidding me?
>>269986
Stop dancing around the issue fagboy. Exactly what reasons do you have to believe in god?
>>269986
>All atheists worship or even know who is Dawkins
Nice strawman
Yes, for a scientific and logical reason.
You can't prove God doesn't exist, nor that he does exist with science. I figure why not, no harm.
>>268418
I'd like to see you prove that Saint Nicholas didn't exist
>>269986
>he doesnt believe in santa
kek even a 5 year old can do that
>>267815
I'm not American so I was just raised without religion. I never had to come out of a closet because almost everyone is non-religious here.
>>270381
Santa is real. More real than god. People can't even describe god, but people know exactly what Santa looks like, plus there's tons of physical evidence, such as a half drunken cup of milk, a cookie with Santa's bite marks, presents from Santa every year, and that time he left coal in my brother's stockings. This evidence is entirely reproducible, and I intend to photograph it and share the proof with all of you after Christmas. I bet you can't do that with your imaginary god.
>>270368
Yes, for a scientific and logical reason.
You can't prove Leprechauns don't exist, nor that they do exist with science. I figure why not, no harm.
>>270404
Is this the level you're trying to argue at?
>>270419
Sucks to be you. I bet your devil parents are apostates and told you Santa is a false idol, and now you've fallen from Santa's grace and he doesn't even give you presents anymore. I bet they tried to take credit for Santa's generosity, claiming they got you those presents, not Santa, and everything can be explained in a secular, rational, Santa-hating way. My faith in Santa is rewarded with real and tangible proof, not vague uncertainties about the afterlife.
>>270435
Are you capable of seeing why people dislike atheists?
>>270419
If you asked me the question 'do i believe in a god' i would answer no, not that the idea of god is an impossibility. I agree though, that dude taking about santa not discussing anything on a worthwhile level
>>270446
>Americans are all people
>>270446
In my country atheism is the norm. Being religious is weird.
>>270446
Still not seeing you prove Santa isn't real.
>>270454
I should formulated it different,
"why people dislike arguing with people like you"
I didn't grow up with religion because my country is like 90% atheist, I never even held a bible in my hand. Literally barely know anything about any religion. That's why.
>>268824
Probably because Burgerclaps turn their atheism into an identity because of the "le rebel against society :DDD" sentiment. All these people who have "by the way i'm an atheist" plastered all over their social network accounts etc are fucking cringeworthy.
Honestly, America should just be nuked.
>>270458
>still no proof
Santa: 1 Santatheists: 0
>>270454
are you from a Scandinavian country?
>>270454
how is that wording any better, seem like a reasonable statement.
>>270460
I grew up not being taught religion, i did however go to an evangelical school that taught creationism in Australia, i am currently an ecologist, and the geological and evolutionary data these fanatics disregard is unbelievable
>>270470
>are you from a Scandinavian country?
Estonia. Only 14% of people are religious here.
>>270465
Santatheists just dismiss Santa as not even worth discussing because they can't disprove Santa.
>>270475
Because not all or even most atheists argue like that anon.
>>270357
>stop dancing around the issue fagboy
Nice argument there buddy. I have already answered in depth. The fact that you cannot refute my points does not mean that I danced around the issue, it only means you are incapable of critical thinking and can't go beyond the common atheist argument that you've heard Hitchens use on youtube.
I will explain it in a simpler way for your "enlightened superior mind": comparing God and Santa is a false equivalence, and a dishonest one at that.
>>270363
>All atheists worship Dawkins
I didn't say that, you should learn more carefully. I said that Dawkins wants to be worshipped, and there are people who actually do it (and not that all atheists do it). These people spend even 100 thousand bucks just to have breakfast with him, and these same people complain because a small percentage of the money you give to church goes to pay priest's wages, and not 100% goes to charity. Quite hypocritical if you ask me
>or even know who is Dawkins
That's some damage control. He obviously directly or indirectly inspires most "young atheists" and their ideas. The fact that not 100% of them follow his guidance does not mean that I shouldn't point out his hypocrisy. That's a really big ass non sequitur my friend.
>>270486
Disprove Santa. It should be a simple task.
>>270479
I know not all theist argue like>>270486 this either.
Not the anon you replied to, but the fact that dawkins is selling breakfasts only seems to show the influence of capitalist economy's not atheism.
> The fact that not 100% of them follow his guidance
so what exactly do you think of those who are catholic copared to protestant, compared to other abrahamic religions such as judaism or islam?
>>270486
>these same people
>hypocritical
Whoa there, that's some major fallacy there.
>>267815
I believe in God because I choose to, just as atheists choose to believe the opposite.
>>270504
I already did. Santa was never supposed to be real.
Are you so dense that you don't understand this simple concept? I thought you claimed to be smarter than theists
>>270486
Why the fuck is it so hard to understand that people in France, Sweden, Japan or Czech republic (my country) wouldn't even know about Dawkins and New Atheism?
>>270517
You didn't disprove Santa, you just said based on your premises, Santa doesn't exist. That's a retarded argument, and the assumption of a priori premises like that could equally be used to prove or disprove god.
>>270520
These people think the whole world is like the Bible Belt
>>270486
>These people spend even 100 thousand bucks just to have breakfast with him, and these same people complain because a small percentage of the money you give to church goes to pay priest's wages, and not 100% goes to charity.
Proof required, you will need a quote from a person who paid $100,000 for breakfast and complains about priest wages from charity. Otherwise this is a strawman and you must retract your assertion.
>>270517
>X was never supposed to be real
>Therefore X is not real
That's some god tier logic right there.
>>269986
Santa is simply the Christian name for pagan gods, bringing of tidings of yule, just like Christmas is the Christian name for Winter solstice, right? And that a mythological figure who brings presents to children come wintertime predates Christian influence. And the folklore was later applied to St. Nick, as a way for the Church to absorb pagan traditions on convert pagans.
You know this right? Of do you take your revisionist Church history at face value?
>>270563
>youve never been to the north pole
>santa may or may not be there
>youre a hypocrite if you arent at least santagnostic
QED
>>270520
Because I am european and I know about him?
You underestimate the extent of anglo influence on the world (whether in the good or on the bad). Just consider how many people can speak English.
If you can spell "atheism" and write it on youtube, you will discover the existence of a guy names Richard Dawkins that does not believe in God. It's really quite easy.
Also, as I have already said, he is just an example. I never meant to say that 100% of atheists around the world know about him, nor that he is so influential that every atheist argument ever used here came from him.
>>270529
>you just said based on your premises, Santa doesn't exist
How is the fact that Santa was never supposed to be real, MY premise?
Prove to me that when the idea of Santa was born, the guy/the people who invented it went around saying to adults "Santa exists and will bring gits to your children" and I will admit that my premise is wrong.
If you fail to do so, the only retarded person here is you
>and the assumption of a priori premise
>>270535
just go on his website.
Statistically speaking, at least one person who paid for it also complains about that. Unless you think that militant atheists who spend so much money to worship their idol closely, don't also talk shit about "muh money scheming religion" all the time.
Either way, this is just diverting the attention from the main point, that is, that Dawkins likes to be worshipped
>>270564
>>270564
let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said.
For the sake of my argument it is irrelevant if it's originally Christian or not. The point is that the first time the figure of Santa (or his ancestor in the folklore) gave presents, it was parents who gave gifts to their children. They never believed that figure to be a real one.
If anything, this proves to you that myrhology =/= religion. In fact, according to atheist logic, at a certain point in history, Santa would have come to be known as "real" by people, which didn't happen at all.
>>270563
Are Christians really this bad at science? There's two north poles you know. You would have to figure out which one, and you'd have to assume that the Christmas magic he uses to deliver presents can't hide his presence from mortal eyes.
>>270563
I am an atheist, this santa troll is retarded, if not actually a religious person trying to exaggerate the opposing viewpoint to strengthen their actual position on an actually serious topic
>>270547
>your argument is retarded because your argument is retarded
That's you, in case you didn't realise it yet.
God-tier logic indeed on your part
>>270574
> the guy/the people who invented it went around saying to adults "Santa exists and will bring gits to your children" and I will admit that my premise is wrong.
>burden of proof
Nope, you have to prove it. I'm asserting Santa exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
>Statistically speaking, at least one person who paid for it also complains about that.
Please show me your calculations and what is the statistical certainty?
>>270564
>Santa is simply the Christian name for pagan gods
Look up Saint Nicholas of Myra
What you find may suprise you
>>270594
>And the folklore was later applied to St. Nick, as a way for the Church to absorb pagan traditions on convert pagans.
Do you even reading comprehension? This is why people don't like arguing with Christians.
>>270574
I know about Dawkins because I was studying biology. Most people here don't care about religion.
Out of my hs class there wasn't a single Christian. Churches are kept as historcal monuments and visited by tourists, but church attendance is very low
>>270606
But Saint Nick was always connected with giving gifts.
Which is where that tradition came from.
>>270585
At least we can agree both fallacies are "God" tier fallacies.
>>270594
I think the point is more that selective inclusion and exclusion of particular folk law, instead of acknowledging odin and zeus in addition to santa seems to be a contrary position to hold without additional evidence, eg archaeological data
>>270617
And you're implying that the mythology behind what is currently known as Santa purely has roots to Saint Nicholas? Winter gift giving predates Saint Nicholas, that's probably why he did it in the first place. But at least Saint Nicholas was real and adults knew he might secretly give gifts to kids as posed in >>270574
>>270593
>Theists claims that God exists
>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he exists"
>Atheists claims Santa exists
>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he doesn't exist"
I will let you guess what your problem here is
>Nope, you have to prove it
But I already did, anon. You are literally pretending not to listen to my arguments and saying "it's not enough, it's not enough", whilst at the same time not coming up with decent counter-arguments, because you don't want to admit to yourself that you (at the very least) used a fallacious and useless argument to affirm your beliefs.
>Please show me your calculations and what is the statistical certainty?
Common sense. Isn't that the reason why you don't believe in God? So common sense is right when it fits your beliefs and wrong when you are trying to childishly win an argument on the internet?
>>270615
>Out of my hs class there wasn't a single Christian
Well, I know a slovakian guy (I know it's not the same country, but it's culturally similar) and I remember his facebook page being full of atheists trying to demolish religion by linking the wikipedia page of the Crusades, so I believe you.
>>270635
>>Theists claims that God exists
>>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he exists"
>>Atheists claims Santa exists
>>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he doesn't exist"
>I will let you guess what your problem here is
>whoosh
>>270634
>And you're implying that the mythology behind what is currently known as Santa purely has roots to Saint Nicholas?
Define "current santa"
>>270635
>Theists claims that God exists
>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he exists"
>Atheists claims Santa exists
>"the burden of proof is on you to prove he doesn't exist
Pretty sure the point is that no body actually expects 'proof of santa's existence' therefore no body ask for proof that santa does not exist, while religious assertions about reality are defended in the same manner, namely if you can't prove there is no god, then god is possible
>>270642
Santa, as in Santa instead of his historical allegory, Saint Nicholas.
The same way there's Lord and Savior, Son of God, Jesus Christ, surrounded by superstitions and belief and the historical Yeshua who lived during Roman times and died on a stick.
/his/ attempts to discuss God
/his/ ends up discussing Santa instead
This board is heading towards trash tier as we speak
>>270669
The logical fallacies that apply to god can also be applied to Santa.
I'll save you the trouble of looking for a fedora tipping picture
>*tips fedora*
>>270679
I don't think people really believe in God in that sense
It's mostly cultural thing
>>270654
Anon wants me to prove that Santa doesn't exist to believe that Santa doesn't exist. At the same time he thinks that he can safely dismiss the existence of God even though nobody can prove that he doesn't exist.
The point is that he puts the burden of proof on whoever doesn't agree with him, despite whatever the subject of the debate is
>no body actually expects 'proof of santa's existence'
That's what anon did though. And he did so because he couldn't refute my argument.
> religious assertions about reality are defended in the same manner, namely if you can't prove there is no god, then god is possible
I won't debate this now because it's not the topic of the debate. The point is that comparing Santa and God is dishonest, since the very nature of the two concepts/ideas is totally different. If you want to disprove God you'll had to find better arguments than that.
>>270679
The logical fallacies that apply to french fries might apply to meteorites, for that matter. The fact that dialectic tools might be shared by two things/concepts/ideas says nothing about their qualities and other apects of their existence/not existence.
>>270713
> At the same time he thinks that he can safely dismiss the existence of God even though nobody can prove that he doesn't exist.
Where did you get that Santa believer is an atheist? Are you projecting?
>>270734
>Someone tries to argue that someone can believe Santa exists the same way someone can believe God exists
>"hurr durr he never said he was an atheist"
Come on now, don't be ridiculous
>>270713
>The point is that comparing Santa and God is dishonest
>you have no honor sir!
>since the very nature of the two concepts/ideas is totally different
>but this figment of my imagination is special because its real
It was bait you fucking moron.
>>270741
>he is literally BTFO in every way
>i-It was bait, I s-swear!
Sure thing buddy
>but this figment of my imagination is special because its real
so it was bait but you still keep writing the way you would write if you actually believed what you claim was bait?
You are embarassing 2bh m8
>>270740
I'm starting you think you don't have critical thinking skills. It's been explained to you several times in this thread.
>>270740
The logic for gods plausibility is as reliable as the plausibility of santa, or unicorns, or the old teapot orbiting mars example
>>270747
Do you seriously not get it the point of it? All he proved is you have to resort to special pleading to differentiate why such fallacies are fallacious when applied to Santa, but not god. It's an ad absurdum argument on the methods used to defend the existence of god.
>>270752
Nope, special pleading
>I won't debate this now because it's not the topic of the debate. The point is that comparing Santa and God is dishonest, since the very nature of the two concepts/ideas is totally different. If you want to disprove God you'll had to find better arguments than that.
God is by definition special
>>270747
Wait, so you actually think there is an Atheist who believes in Santa out there?
Fuck god, no proof he exists, unlike Santa. Even a 5 year old can tell you Santa is real. Get fucked Santatheists, I hope you get nothing for Christmas.
>>267815
>Do you guys believe in god?
No, and I doubt most people on 4chan seriously do. Even that poll we did still has Atheist/Agnostics leading by a wide margin.
>If no, why not?
I have yet to see tangible and irrefutable evidence why one faith is any better than any other, plus a boatload of moral issues and uncertainties. Besides, the most openly religious people on this site are total assholes that defeat the purpose of being religious anyway.
>When did you come out of the atheist closet?
When I hit 18. Still haven't told my family because they're kind of conservative.
>>270751
>It's been explained to you several times in this thread.
What, this? >>270752
Because I have already refuted this point at the very beginning>>269986
Your only answer is name-calling and logical fallacies.
>>270758
God from its beginning was supposed to be real, Santa was from the beginning supposed to be not real. This is a fact and not special pleading.
That's why you are making a false equivalence when comparing the two.
It's really hard not to get angry when you are being this retarded just for the sake of it.
>>270769
No
Nice b8 though m8.
>>270797
Saint Nicholas was a real person and he gave out gifts to strangers.
>>269986
>When you make the assumption that spaghetti monsters and santas can exist because you can't prove otherwise that they exist, you are denying the reality of where they originate, and basically rejecting common sense and logic in itself by deprying an idea of the world around it. You are basically being illogical, and it's quite ironic, coming from "muh enlightened mind" individuals.
muh special pleading
>>270809
Even if the figure of Santa is inspired by Saint Nicholas, it doesn't change that Saint Nicholas =/= Santa.
yes
because "nothing created the everything" is pants on head retarded, as is "a dot of everything, eternally existed, then exploded for no reason, making the universe, and human beings with emotions"
religion has nothing to do with the logic and rational thought process that results in me concluding that the theory of a creator God is the most logical theory
the theist thinks
>incredible existence of life and the universe
>theorise that an incredible creator created it
the atheist thinks
>i can't prove God in my man made test tube or with my man made carbon dating, therefore it is as likely as a spaghetti monster, and until i can prove something with my man made testing devices i am going to assume that nothing made the everything
atheism is "autistic illogicalism"
>>270797
> supposed to be real
So the only difference is one is supposed to be real and the other isn't? So anything imaginary that is "supposed to be real" is fair game? That's the condition for your special pleading? "Supposed to be real"?
>>267815
Richard Dawkins might the 4chan poster boy for Edgy Atheism, but his books were actually a pretty good (if extreme) jumping point when I was just starting to consider athetism as a position to religiousity.
A real edgy atheist would be Christopher Hitchens. That guy really went out of his way to piss everybody off.
>>270797
Ok so I should move back from irreligious examples to: I believe that odin is refutable, or that my belief in the divine natural of Pharaoh's is no less valid than your belief in an abrahamic god, who's scripture includes passages such as 2 Kings 2:23-25
>23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
>>270836
*irrefutable
>>267815
What I believe in has no impact on what actually exists in the world, and considering how little mankind really understands about the universe, I don't have enough information to come to any conclusions. For that reason I'm agnostic. For all we know the universe could just be a large cumstain on some giant neckbeard's couch, and the 23 flavors that make up doctor pepper still remain a mystery to me.
Honestly, it's not something I spend much time thinking about. I don't care.
>>270819
I don't follow. What's the logical connection between something being incredible and there being will behind it? Is it impossible for incredible things to happen by accident?
>>270814
it's not special pleading though. It doesn't matter how many times you write it. To start with, the exception of "special pleading" is such if you don't give evidence for it. I have already explained why God and Santa are different.
>>270826
Nothing imaginary is supposed to be real, so the rest of your argument is invalid.
You believe that God is imaginary a priori, so there's a logical fallacy coming from you.
You are also twisting my words. The point is that the first people who have introduced the idea of God in their mind did so because they believed truly in the existence of God. Unlike those who introduced in their mind the idea of Santa.
Mind you, this doesn't prove the existence of God. It proves though that an equivalence between God and Santa is a false and dishonest one
>>270836
But Odin and the Pharaohs aren't supposed to be real. Only god is supposed to be real.
>>270853
>everything came from nothing, by accident
this is autistic illogicalism
illogical because it makes no sense. and autistic, because you know it makes no sense, but your autism demands that you need to see a reading on an oscilloscope or carbon dating gizmo that says on its LCD screen "God = *insert chemical formula*" for you to even consider the idea
>>270857
>It proves though that an equivalence between God and Santa is a false and dishonest one
Can you stop with the special pleading? Your case is now that genuine belief for adults only makes it special? That puts god on the level of NWO Zionist conspiracies, because people actually believe it.
>>270836
>quoting a passage of the Bible out of context will prove that God doesn't exist.
>Why? Well because I don't agree with it
>and because Odin and the Pharaoh are gods too in my opinion
>and this is totally not a series of non sequitur and logical fallacies
I don't, because the concept of God is seldompy defined consistently, if at all, the claims surrouding God aren't testable or repeatable, and most of the proofs for God are little more than language games
>>270869
fucking straw man
i'm the ecology anon, and the majority of the biological complexity of an ecosystem can't be, and will never be completely represented as a 'formula'. this is still legitimate science, statistical analysis with 95% probability for significant interctions are methods which are actually used
>>270872
I have already said that it doesn't prove the existence of God.
It proves though that comparing God to Santa is a false equivalence.
Doesn't matter how many times you reject this simple and basic notion for the sake it, it doesn't make it any less true.
>Can you stop with the special pleading?
For the tenth time, It's not special pleading m8. See >>270857
At least try to find a different logical fallacy to accuse me of, if you really like to do that so much
>>270869
>everything came from nothing, by accident
I didn't say that. But there's a possibility it could have happened by accident.
It's a case of:
C exists.
If A then C.
If B then C.
You can not conclude A, you can not conclude B, you may not even be able to conclude it was either A or B and it could have been something else entirely.
Where A is god willed it, B is it it happened without will, and C is the existence of incredible things.
From a pure logic view I don't see how you can conclude incredible things mean the existence of god, unless your premise is
C if and only if A.
>>270897
>It proves though that comparing God to Santa is a false equivalence.
He never actually said Santa was the same as god. He was just dismissing arguments used for god by applying them to santa. Just because people actually believe in god doesn't make those arguments any more valid, it just makes god not Santa.
Continuing to assert that "people believing in it" makes invalid arguments suddenly valid is special pleading.
>>270876
either you are not capable of critical thinking in regards to your favoured beliefs, or you choose not to, some parts of this discussing were worthwhile, but this is going now where. ok i posted one amusingly abnormal part of christian scripture. what if i supported a currently relevant religious viewpoint, such as reincarnation and hinduism
>>270917
But that doesn't count because you don't actually believe in it.
>>270902
A has built in to it the axiom that it has the ability to create the universe (A is a creator God)
B = nothing.
you can say that A is outlandish or extraordinary, but both A and B have their extraordinary attributes... the difference is that B is by definition not an extraordinary or exceptional event. yet we are meant to believe that the ordinary gives rise to the extraordinary... much more unrealistic than the extraordinary giving rise to the extraordinary
>>270922
Then your assumptions are that
The universe needs an entity to create it.
And things happening of their own accord are nothing.
>yet we are meant to believe that the ordinary gives rise to the extraordinary... much more unrealistic than the extraordinary giving rise to the extraordinary
This is fallacious. Extraordinary things can happen by accident, you even admit there is a chance of it. Therefore you can not claim B is by definition not an extraordinary. This is contradictory. B simply lacks a specific will behind it. Further, the evaluation of what is extraordinary and what is not is subjective, and not objective, and based on human faculty.
What you are describing as god is simply a synonym for extraordinary. If it is extraordinary, then it must be god.
>>270922
>yet we are meant to believe that the ordinary gives rise to the extraordinary... much more unrealistic than the extraordinary giving rise to the extraordinary
Sorry, what is this based on?
>>270950
>Extraordinary things can happen by accident
what do you mean by extraordinary?
i don't think anything happens by accident. i don't think there is any scientific basis to claim things happen by accident in the material world and plane that humans exist and have knowledge of
>>270913
>He never actually said Santa was the same as god
Oh, so his was a special pleading then?
> He was just dismissing arguments used for god by applying them to santa
But in doing that he is comparing them. Since the two are different in pretty much anything, it is stupid to use the fact that you can use the same arguments on both of them as proof that the argument is flawed. I can use the argument of "taste" to judge the quality/price ratio of a new smartphone, even though that would be retarded. That doesn't mean that using the same argument to judge french fries wouldn't make sense. Also, in using taste to judge both french fries and smartphones I am in a way comparing the two, whether you like it or not. But you are telling me that taste is a good measure for everyhing, and not applying it to smartphones is special pleading. Do you understand now?
>Continuing to assert that "people believing in it" makes invalid arguments suddenly valid is special pleading.
Your mistake is thinking that my argument is invalid, which is not. Besides now you are justifying the fact that you call my argument special pleading with the fact that it's invalid, whereas until now you justified the invalidity of my point by saying that it's special pleading. So which one is it? You are using circular reasoning now.
>>270922
>B = nothing.
Based on?
> the difference is that B is by definition not an extraordinary or exceptional event.
What definition is is based on?
> yet we are meant to believe that the ordinary gives rise to the extraordinary... much more unrealistic than the extraordinary giving rise to the extraordinary
Where have you established a proper causal connection between the before and after?
This is not logic. Please clearly state your premises and how you arrive at your logical conclusions with those premises.
>>270994
*invalidity of my argument
>>270992
>i don't think anything happens by accident. i don't think there is any scientific basis to claim things happen by accident in the material world and plane that humans exist and have knowledge of
Repeating:
What you are describing as god is simply a synonym for extraordinary. If it is extraordinary, then it must be god.
It is almost meaningless. Your assumption is that
A if and only if B
Where A is extraordinary events
and B is god wills it
>>271008
>A if and only if B
>Where A is extraordinary events
and B is god wills it
Okay, great. Now how are you going to test this?
>>270997
>based on?
because either there was nothing, and then from the nothing came the dot of everything that exploded for no reason, or there was eternally something, that, without external force, "evolved" or advanced to the universe, which continues to expand, containing life... which is illogical
>what definition is this based on?
atheists start with the supposition that there is a material, natural explanation to everything in existence... there can not be a higher power outside the confines of the material universe... this is the position of the atheist
>>270994
All you have established is that people believe in god, and only children believe in santa.
You haven't explained how this distinction makes arguments invalid for Santa, suddenly valid for god.
You have not explained "taste" as you put it, and how it makes your logical fallacies not fallacious. You have simply asserted there is a difference in the quality of the two without explanation on why that changes the situation. With a phone, you can make the assertion, a phone is not being used as food, and therefore taste is not a suitable measure of quality.
Merely establishing a difference is not enough, you must establish what that difference changes things.
Thus you are special pleading.
>>271021
You can't, and it's an almost meaningless statement. It simply means things you perceive as special are god.
I see no particular reason to accept the premise, and since the conclusion is based on the premise, I see no logical reason to accept the conclusion.
>because either there was nothing, and then from the nothing came the dot of everything that exploded for no reason, or there was eternally something, that, without external force, "evolved" or advanced to the universe, which continues to expand, containing life... which is illogical
What logic are you basing this on? Clearly state your premises and your conclusion. I don't see why external force is required. There are also theories like the collapsing universe that explain a source for "external force" or theories that propose that it was only the dimensions we perceived coming into existence, but not necessarily that there was nothing, just nothing in these dimensions.
You concluding a condition from a result means you are assuming an if-and-only-if premise.
>atheists start with the supposition that there is a material, natural explanation to everything in existence... there can not be a higher power outside the confines of the material universe... this is the position of the atheist
This is a strawman, and this has absolutely nothing to do with defining B as by definition not extraordinary. This is a total non sequitur.
>>271067
was replying to >>271033
as well
>B is by definition not an extraordinary or exceptional event.
is not the logical conclusion of
>atheists start with the supposition that there is a material, natural explanation to everything in existence... there can not be a higher power outside the confines of the material universe... this is the position of the atheist
I never had to "come out of the closet" since my family has been largely non-religious for generations now.
>>271067
>not necessarily that there was nothing, just nothing in these dimensions.
using the atheist language, you're using the "nothing of the gaps" argument
you're pushing back the nothing to another dimension, but you still have the problem of explaining nothing creating everything. at some point there has to be a higher power to initiate the external force
>>271105
>at some point there has to be a higher power to initiate the external force
Or you could just admit you don't know everything, like a non-retard
>>271035
>All you have established is that people believe in god, and only children believe in santa.
well, that is partly my premise, so I am glad you accept it.
It is deceiving to put it that way. I have established that nobody believed Santa was real, when people first came to know of the concept of Santa. It is slightly different and I am pointing it out for the sake of clarity.
>You haven't explained how this distinction makes arguments invalid for Santa, suddenly valid for god.
I didn't say that. I said it makes invalid an argument against the existence of God, based on the fact that you can use it against Santa. The point is that the comparison of "probability of existing" between the two is fallacious.
>You have simply asserted there is a difference in the quality of the two without explanation on why that changes the situation
But it does. You can't judge two things with different qualities in the same way. Just like you can't judge a phone based on taste, you cannot judge the existence of God based on the existence of Santa.
I am not using the invalidity of the comparison to prove that God exists, I am simply stating that the argument is invalid and therefore unfit to prove the non-esistence of God, nor is it fit to prove a supposed irrationality of the belief in God itself.
>With a phone, you can make the assertion, a phone is not being used as food, and therefore taste is not a suitable measure of quality.
Exactly. And Santa is not being used as someone that actually exists/for worship, and therefore is not a suitable measure of the probability of the divine.
>Thus you are special pleading.
Thus I am not
I believe in the possible existence of a god, but I do not believe in any specific religion due to the undeniable mountain of bullshit they all come with.
I won't follow a religion and only focus on the positive parts, and ignore all the other fucked up and retarded shit because its hypocritical. I won't have others tell me what to do/think based on what THEIR personal beliefs are. I'll just be a fucking good person on my own, thanks.
>>271105
>at some point there has to be a higher power to initiate the external force
What do you base this one, that there has to be something? The human incomplete understanding of the universe and all of existence? You are using god to fill in a gap in your understanding instead of saying you might not know. Those were simply examples of alternatives, not assertions of truth.
As far as the specific argument is, and not just a critique of the logic, an external force does not imply will or volition, nor does it necessitate the design of things that are incredible.
Thus, there might exist a completely willess and accidental external force that is a higher power, but little more than a phenomenon, which I do not think you would accept as god.
The problem if any of your arguments rely on assumptions of A-if-and-only-if-B
>>271131
>Exactly. And Santa is not being used as someone that actually exists/for worship, and therefore is not a suitable measure of the probability of the divine.
This does not explain "taste" as you put it. You're merely putting forward they are different, and therefore deserve to be treated differently, without explaining why they deserve to be treated differently. You are still special pleading.
>>267815
>Do you believe in god? Why?
I don't believe that any religion has a privileged access to a higher level of truth, if that's what you're asking. If a god-like entity actually exist, it probabily is well beyond what we can define and comprehend anyway
>When did you come out of the atheist closet?
Is this actually a thing in America or is it just an ebin meme?
>>271170
>without explaining why they deserve to be treated differently
I already explained why. For their very nature and history.
>This does not explain "taste" as you put it
>without explaining why they deserve to be treated differently
So you are saying that a phone deserves to be tasted and that it is in no way retarded?
>>271158
>there might exist a completely willess and accidental external force that is a higher power, but little more than a phenomenon
>accidental
>phenomenon
these words don't have any real meaning... not in the atheist model of a universe that exists without a higher power of any intelligence
>>271199
>I already explained why. For their very nature and history.
>So you are saying that a phone deserves to be tasted and that it is in no way retarded?
These are not the same. You are simply saying "because they are different". Not "because taste is not a measure of a phone, and therefore taste can not be used as an argument". All you are saying is "a phone and french fries are different" not how the difference applies to the arguments.
Thus special pleading. Again, you need to not only establish a difference, but why that difference, makes a difference.
>>271203
>accidental
>happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.
It means without the will of a higher intelligence. In the atheist model of the universe, it goes without saying, but we are talking about your logical proof for god, so it needs to be explicitly stated. "Accidental" is synonymous with "god not involved"
>phenomenon
>a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.
It's used to describe a thing. One could also say "a thing happened". Or "a thing happened and I'm not sure why". "Phenomenon" is a bit more convenient.
You're deflecting, and your tangent hasn't really proven anything.
>>271199
What you're saying is your argument wouldn't hold up against a small child that actually believes in Santa.
>>270123
Not true. They also frequently use "fedora".
>>271221
>You are simply saying "because they are different"
No, I am not
>Not "because taste is not a measure of a phone, and therefore taste can not be used as an argument".
But that is literally what I said. I said that "because the figure of Santa is not a measure of the existence of God, therefore the figure of Santa can not be used as an argument to disprove the existence of God". It's really simple m8, doesn't matter how much you try to twist it and to do damage control.
>All you are saying is "a phone and french fries are different"
No, the fact that they are different is the premise.
>you need to not only establish a difference, but why that difference, makes a difference
That difference makes a difference in the fact that you can't use the argument of non-existence of Santa to prove that God doesn't exist
>>271253
>What you're saying is your argument wouldn't hold up against a small child that actually believes in Santa.
Yeah? How so? Yours is a baseless implication.
I told the child that Santa exists, I represent the society that enforces that belief on him. I just need to tell him Santa doesn't exist for him to believe it, because the authority lies on me.
By comparison it's like if Jesus came to me in person, in flesh and blood, and told me "Actually I am not the son of God, I invented everything, God doesn't exist". I would of course believe him.
>>271262
> "because the figure of Santa is not a measure of the existence of God, therefore the figure of Santa can not be used as an argument to disprove the existence of God"
This is special pleading. You are saying god is immune from fallacies that other things are because god is different. That is the same as saying god is infallible. You're not talking about a specific argument, you're categorically excluding god from fallacy just because it is different.
>That difference makes a difference in the fact that you can't use the argument of non-existence of Santa to prove that God doesn't exist
This is a categorical exemption that does not follow. This is saying fries can not be compared in value to phones at all, not just in taste, but anything.
This is beyond stupid.
>>271284
Con't.
I can only assume you're assuming that the Santa argument was saying Santa does not exist, therefore god does not exist. Which is not the case. He was deliberately using the same logical fallacies that people use to defend god, and attacking those fallacies, not directly proving or disproving the existence of god.
Not really, why should i? Generally stopped believing in god about the same time i stopped believing in Santa, the Easter bunny and the monster under my bed. Never really been particularly vocal about since most people in Denmark don't give a fuck.
>>271326
>monster under my bed
But it's real. Don't believe me? Turn off the lights and tuck yourself in and just lie there for 15 minutes, then take a look.
>>271284
>You are saying god is immune from fallacies
So you are saying that your argument is a fallacy?
>That is the same as saying god is infallible
non sequitur
>You're not talking about a specific argument
I am though.
>you're categorically excluding god from fallacy just because it is different.
I am not. For example the invalidity of Santa because rooted in a different conception and acceptance of his figure doesn't hold up when talking about gods worshipped by other religions.
You are putting words in my mouth.
>This is saying fries can not be compared in value to phones at all, not just in taste, but anything
Not true. Taste is represented by the argument of non-existence.
For example we could look at it from another perspective, let's call it "dimensions". Now, dimensions are both acceptable qualities when addressing french fries and smartphones. In the case of Santa and God, one could come up with the comparison that both make you happy (=dimensions). God makes you happy spiritually, Santa makes you happy materially (with gifts). That's an acceptable comparison.
>This is a categorical exemption that does not follow
It's not. It's not categorial, it's specific to an aim, your aim to prove the non-existence and irrationality of God with the non-existence of Santa, and with nothing else.
> can only assume you're assuming that the Santa argument was saying Santa does not exist, therefore god does not exist.
No I am not
>He was deliberately using the same logical fallacies that people use to defend god, and attacking those fallacies
He is using the fact that you cannot prove the existence of Santa empirically (and therefore not just assume that he doesn't exist) as proof that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove his existence empirically either. Since nobody actually believes in Santa, for him that's proof enough that nobody should believe in God and hence it's illogical to do so. That's a false equivalence and I already explained why.
>>271338
I'm sorry, but this is full of shit that makes no sense.
>God makes you happy spiritually, Santa makes you happy materially (with gifts). That's an acceptable comparison.
You're saying arguments only apply to material things, but not spiritual things. That's what happens when you are asked to explain in more detail.
>It's not. It's not categorial, it's specific to an aim, your aim to prove the non-existence and irrationality of God with the non-existence of Santa, and with nothing else.
That's not the point, and people have told you several times throughout the thread that isn't the point. The point is several of the arguments that work for god work for Santa.
>He is using the fact that you cannot prove the existence of Santa empirically (and therefore not just assume that he doesn't exist) as proof that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove his existence empirically either.
No, he's saying that if you can't prove god doesn't exist, you can't prove Santa doesn't exist. He in fact asserts Santa exists, you are projecting that he is arguing Santa does not exist, and he is making a direct equivalency. He is only saying those arguments are fallacious because they apply to something ridiculous.
>Since nobody actually believes in Santa, for him that's proof enough that nobody should believe in God and hence it's illogical to do so.
No, he's proving that many of the arguments are invalid.
>That's a false equivalence and I already explained why.
You are the only one explicitly stating this. He never makes that assertion. What he asserts is that the arguments themselves are ridiculous because they can be applied to a ridiculous figure.
And yes, you are taking the categorical road out by straw-manning this as the crux of the argument.
>>271338
He's saying:
If A then B
is false logic, and A can not be used to prove B, by substituting B for something obviously false. He's not directly saying B is false. He's saying the logic to justify B is false.
He is saying
A is true
If A then B
Then it follows that
If A then C
But C is false, therefore there is a fault in the logic.
He is NOT saying
C is false
If A then B
If A then C
Therefore B is false. But that's what you're claiming he's arguing.
You are asserting he is saying because Santa is false, God is false, all he is doing is saying the logic used to support God is false, not that God is false.
>>271363
>You're saying arguments only apply to material things, but not spiritual things
KEK what? Non sequitur to the max. I didn't do that and you know it.
What is the point of me telling you things if you twist my words and delebarately miss the point everytime?
>that's not the point
Nigger you just told me that it's a categorial extemption. I told you it's not. Now you say it's not the point. So what? You still said it's a categorical extemption, which is not. Nice way to pretend I didn't refute your argument though.
>No, he's saying that if you can't prove god doesn't exist, you can't prove Santa doesn't exist
Duh? That's what I fucking said? Can you read?
Quoting >>271338
He is using the fact that you cannot prove the existence of Santa empirically (and therefore not just assume that he doesn't exist) as proof that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove his existence empirically either
> He in fact asserts Santa exists, you are projecting that he is arguing Santa does not exist
He asserts that Santa exists in trying to mimic and therefore make a comparison between that and theists saying that God exists. Since it is ridiculous to think that Santa exists, then he is implying that it's ridiculous to believe in God too.
How fucking retarded do you have to be, that I have to explain you the obvious of someone else's statements, because you can't otherwise refute my points?
>you are projecting that he is arguing Santa does not exist
That's the implication of such an assertion, how fucking dense are you?
>No, he's proving that many of the arguments are invalid.
He is not proving shit. His premise is wrong because based on a false equivalence. He is free to try and disprove God in less retarded ways, but I am afraid he is too retarded to do that. Also stop pretending that wasn't you from the beginning.
>>271363
>You are the only one explicitly stating this. He never makes that assertion
Of course he doesn't say that his comparison is a false one. Who the fuck says "I am saying this but it is wrong and I am retarded". Do you even realise how weak your arguments are?
> What he asserts is that the arguments themselves are ridiculous
THis is a logical fallacy in itself but only God knows how hard it would be to make you understand that so I give it up
>you are taking the categorical road
I already explained I am not. But there's not blinder person than the one who does not want to see
>>271388
Nobody says that since you can't prove God's existence then God exists.
Since you cannot prove God's existence, then you cannot affirm neither that he doesn't exist nor that he exists. None of the two.
Therefore saying that using such an argument to support God has a false logic is retarded because nobody is doing it in the first place, certainly not me.
>>271432
*can't prove God's non-existence
*since you cannot prove God's non-existence
>>271400
>KEK what? Non sequitur to the max. I didn't do that and you know it.
>> In the case of Santa and God, one could come up with the comparison that both make you happy (=dimensions). God makes you happy spiritually, Santa makes you happy materially (with gifts). That's an acceptable comparison.
I quoted you, that was the explicit difference you gave. Don't KEK me you kek.
>Nigger you just told me that it's a categorial extemption. I told you it's not. Now you say it's not the point. So what? You still said it's a categorical extemption, which is not. Nice way to pretend I didn't refute your argument though.
It IS categorical. The point is not to disprove god, the point is to say you can't use those arguments for god. You overstepped the scope of the argument to make it categorical.
>Duh? That's what I fucking said? Can you read?
And then you extrapolated that he was saying Santa doesn't exist, therefore god doesn't exist.
>He is using the fact that you cannot prove the existence of Santa empirically (and therefore not just assume that he doesn't exist) as proof that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove his existence empirically either
Projecting.
>That's the implication of such an assertion, how fucking dense are you?
The implication is a fault with your logic, not a direct attack on the conclusion.
>He is not proving shit. His premise is wrong because based on a false equivalence.
You're the one drawing an equivalence. He's saying the arguments are false.
Your entire argument comes from projecting, over reaching, extrapolating, and straw manning.
>>271406
>THis is a logical fallacy in itself but only God knows how hard it would be to make you understand that so I give it up
So you're wrong, but you can't explain yourself
>I already explained I am not. But there's not blinder person than the one who does not want to see
Except you did.
>>267815
I believe in a higher power but that this power is cold and completely dismissive of us.
>>267815
Athesit i guess, but I diubt it matter either way. I dubt we are anything more than a byproduct in gods scheme if he is there.
>>268548
>muh "le how did the universe exist if god doesnt"
How does god exist then? Where did he come from? If he "just is" how is the universe "just being" sound so silly to you?
>theists getting mad that their imaginary skyman is just as real as a big fat skyman in a sleigh that gives kids presents
kek
>>271477
How do those presents get under the tree when every one is asleep?
>>271438
>I quoted you
Indeed, and my point went over your head. The point was not that one is spiritual and the other one isn't. My point was that you can make a comparison between qualities that are similar enough to be congruent. But no, you read spiritual and you chimped out. So I KEK you as much as I want, KEK!
>the point is to say you can't use those arguments for god
Who's projecting now? I didn't use those arguments to prove God, neither did anyone in the thread. He started using Santa for the opposite reason. By making an analogy of flawed logic, he wanted to use Santa to prove the irrationality of the belief in God. Funny how you say I make the argument categorical whereas it was the other anon who was basically doing exactly that.
>you extrapolated that he was saying Santa doesn't exist, therefore god doesn't exist.
He is saying that there is the same probability that they exist. Since nobody believes in Santa, it's only implicit that he is saying God doesn't exist either, since their probability of existing would be the same. Even if he doesn't say that God exists, he is saying that nobody should believe he does. The point is that such an analogy in probability isn't there because you can't make a genuine comparison between Santa and God, as I have explained countless times and you are too retarded to understand or you pretend not to.
>He's saying the arguments are false.
He could have done so without mentioning Santa then, don't you think? The fact ALONE that he mentions Santa is proof that a comparison is made. It's incredibly how you are trying to damage control and deny the obvious
>Your entire argument comes from projecting, over reaching, extrapolating, and straw manning.
Nice sentence full of projection there buddy
Also
>but its different because people dont actually believe in santa
Most of the posts could have Santa directly substituted with any given god, which people actually believed in, like Krishna or something.
>>271438
>>271438
>So you're wrong, but you can't explain yourself
Wrong about what? The fallacy was in your sentence that has nothing to do with my argument. I simply pointed out that it would take me a whole other thread to make you understand why that's a fallacy. Nice b8 though.
>Except you did.
Except I didn't
>>271453
His intentions and the anon he addresses don't change the fact that using those arguments with Santa to try and prove their lack of logic in relation to God is a false equivalence.
>>271502
>Indeed, and my point went over your head. The point was not that one is spiritual and the other one isn't. My point was that you can make a comparison between qualities that are similar enough to be congruent. But no, you read spiritual and you chimped out. So I KEK you as much as I want, KEK!
No, the problem was that instead of explaining like I asked you to, you explained something that had nothing to do with what you were asserting, and therefore meaningless.
>By making an analogy of flawed logic, he wanted to use Santa to prove the irrationality of the belief in God.
That is true, because asserting irrationality is an attack on logic. He was not directly asserting god does not exist, he was attacking the rationality of belief. It took you a while to get that.
>He is saying that there is the same probability that they exist. Since nobody believes in Santa, it's only implicit that he is saying God doesn't exist either, since their probability of existing would be the same.
I don't think you understand how probability works.
>He could have done so without mentioning Santa then, don't you think? The fact ALONE that he mentions Santa is proof that a comparison is made. It's incredibly how you are trying to damage control and deny the obvious
You seem to be missing the point of the equivalency. They are equivalent as how those arguments apply to them. Not that both are false.
>Nice sentence full of projection there buddy
Well you did, so that's what you get.
> If a scientist makes a statement about science, it is correct.
> It's true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.
> Therefore, a scientist has made a statement about it.
or
> If it rains, the street will be wet.
> The street is wet.
> Therefore, it rained.
All three could be true and it still is a formal logical fallacy.
>>271566
>the problem was that instead of explaining like I asked you to, you explained something that had nothing to do with what you were asserting
It has everything to do with it, but you lack reading comprehension I guess.
>asserting irrationality is an attack on logic
> he was attacking the rationality of belief.
Just read yourself m8
>I don't think you understand how probability works.
Is that supposed to be an argument?
> They are equivalent as how those arguments apply to them
At least you finally admit that was your/his point all along. The argument doesn't apply to them both the same way just like taste doesn't apply the same way to french fries and phones
>Well you did, so that's what you get.
I didn't though. You believed so because you were projecting.
I have a date with my gf, so this is my last post.
Are all theists this retarded? This is why I'm a deist, just accept that belief in god is because of your fee-fees and the mental gymnastics of major religions are incomprehensible.
>>271612
>It has everything to do with it, but you lack reading comprehension I guess.
You disowned it and said that wasn't what you meant.
>Just read yourself m8
Attacking the irrationality of belief is not the same as attacking existence, unless you believe existence is synonymous with belief, and you think god only exists as a belief, and is not an objective entity that exists whether or not you believe in him.
It sounds like your faith is lacking in that you feel the need that it must be rationalized, and that somehow god stops existing if you stop believing in him.
>Is that supposed to be an argument?
It means your tangent about probability was silly.
>At least you finally admit that was your/his point all along. The argument doesn't apply to them both the same way just like taste doesn't apply the same way to french fries and phones
You failed to explain the difference except demanding categorical exemption. Even in a best case scenario, all you did was say you can't taste phones, but didn't say how phones could be valued. All you did was categorize phones as different from french fries. You said they're not in the same category, and can't be compared. You didn't explain an alternative for judging phones, nor did you explain why you can't taste phones when it's not self-evident.
>I didn't though.
It was pointed out how you projected.
>I have a date with my gf, so this is my last post.
God says dating your hand is a sin.
>>271619
Honestly since they started increasins on this site, their quality has decreased incredibly.
I don't know if it's because of edgy christposting, that is people who pretend to be christian just to be contrarian, or if it's due to an influx of "i saw jeebus therefore he real" type of theists.
>>267815
i read the kuran when i was about 15 and didn't like its moral values. slowly over the course of highschool i stopped believing in god, at my last year i was full on agnostic atheist
i don't like discussing religion with people irl though, it generally end with them being butthurt and on the defensive, that is why i never told my parents that i'm an atheist even though they are secular
t.turk
>>267815
I have no idea what the fuck is going on half the time on just this planet alone. How the hell am I supposed to know something as big as that? I know virtually nothing, and that won't change until I die. I can't change that so it makes no difference to me.
>>270819
>because "nothing created the everything" is pants on head retarded, as is "a dot of everything, eternally existed, then exploded for no reason, making the universe, and human beings with emotions"
My face fucking hurts from the facepalm.
>>267815
Stopped believing when I was like 8, people stopped answering my questions about God and Heaven so I just stopped believing.
My GF is a pretty devout Christian, and wonders if I'll ever find my faith again, I just don't like how the Bible teaches you to ALWAYS turn to God when shit goes wrong, sort it out yourselves you pussies. If I even need to pray to a magical man in the sky to make myself feel better, I must be in some serious shit.
>>271706
I don't like discussing religion with anyone either, usually they take their Bible, Kuran whatever as the one true world and refuse to criticise it. Doing so is "offensive" and they just stop talking.
>>268246
When will newfags figure out that being religious is neither edgy or rebellious?
>>267815
Because Pascal was was right, and I flipped my coin already.
No. I wasn't raised religious, so it's never been a part of my worldview. For me to start believing in God would require a logical leap that's weird to me, doesn't entirely make sense, and I'm not very comfortable with. When it comes down to it, I just don't really think it matters if God exist or not, so I don't care about being religious.
I never really had to come out of a closet because I never decided to stop believing. I'm not always very forthcoming, though; I had too many bad experiences with other kids being dicks to me for not being a Christian as a kid.
>>272416
>God helps those who help themselves
Have you never heard that?
