Santa V God

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

History does have its examples of trying, Mao's cultural revolution for example.

Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??

As to the origins of Santa or religions. Anyone remember the show McGiver? I'm sure there are other examples in your life. I hardly remember the premise, but McGiver would get himself into situations that were seemingly impossible to get out of, but with a hairpin and a match, or a can of oil and a scarf, or a mirror and a toothpick... He'd devise some way to solve the situation and save the day. He supposedly thought out of the box. Well when encountered with a seemingly impossible situation, one could sit for a moment rather than get excited and contemplate, WWMD What Would McGiver Do? Now McGiver is obviously a made up character, it is a TV show, and we can rant as to the distructive nature of television violence, or we can look at how we can benefit by taking the best out of the story and utilizing it in our lives.

I see the same with the stories of Santa, Krishna, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. You can choose to focus on the negative, complain about this that or the other thing. Or when confronted with an issue sit down and doodle in the sand, or under the bodhi tree, or climb a mountain...contemplate, think outside the box, look within for a solution. Utilize the stories for their value today, in your life right now. Millions believe they have value, and to them they do! Other millions believe they have no value and to them they don't! That is the power of belief, faith and choice.

So it is fine if you don't believe. But why do you insist I am not allowed to?

[Alex P]

I think once is enough Wil...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.


Once again your presumption that faith is necessarily blind — For this reason alone I think your arguments are founded on faulty data, or put another way, you are blind when it comes to matters of faith?

You isolate my words from the context in which they were delivered and you can argue the point as you do. Remove context though and everything is meaningless.

Nonsense. It's more honest than your equating Santa Claus with a Deity, and it's way more honest in not being founded on supposition.

Thomas

How so? The symbolic and cultural parallels between God and Santa are strikingly obvious. At least obvious enough to stimulate this debate. The question is an honest one. One that is challenging to the believer as it has within it that there is a possibility that the 'grown ups" God is just as fictional as Santa Clause. Such a possibility can make the believer uncomfortable just as the child being ribbed by his peers for believing in Santa is uncomfortable, angry, defensive. Woops...another parallel!!

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Lack of evidence does not prove anything one way or another. It may just mean that our understanding of how to get at the truth is faulty.

Sorry but I refute this out of hand. If there were a lack of evidence because nobody had ever bothered to look then I would agree. But the fact is every claim of evidence made by any religion down through the ages has been investigated and proven false. It is not just lack of evidence, it is much more than that.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Thomas brother, in January 1997 discover magazine reported there were astronomers that had come to a conclusion that a dozen planets were orbiting distant stars..

"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs the motion of the parent stars."

So the astronomers, the visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of unseen heavenly bodies..... And this is just related evidence not direct observations, but this is adequate for those scientists and many others to accept these conclusions...

I was just reading the details about this and saw your post and thought, hey to a degree that is how faith works right?

Alex,

First of all astronomers and physicists postulated the theory that it should be possible to detect orbiting bodies around a star by the gravitational wobble that body would cause. Then the astronomers using this theory began the search. Low and behold they found such wobbling stars. They then used spectrography to analyse the light from the star and found that when a planet passed between the star and the observer the could read the signature change that confirmed a planet was indeed there. So theory and observation went hand in hand before anyone accepted this as proof. Not at all like faith.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I can understand faith and I can understand doubt but for me the only answer to genuine critical enquiry dispels the former and confirms the doubt. I do not mean that it blows the essence of spirituality out of the water but a quick analyses and weighing of the facts means no one can truly have complete faith and be wholly sane. So this as I understand it is exactly the position a child is put in when he discovers the Christmas presents in the closet. He cannot go on believing what he has proof of is a lie.

Your argument you assumes a standard for disconfirmation that applies to both the existence of Santa Clause and the existence of G-d. But your use of the standard involves a misapplication. How would one prove G-d does not exist? Can't be done, as Thomas has pointed out. In other words, the analogy is not a good one.

As for Santa Claus, discovering the Christmas presents in the closet would raise doubts about the existence of Santa, but does not unequivocally disprove Santa's existence. For one thing, Santa may have done an early drop off in order to take care of other commitments.

As you can see, Tao, your argument involves numerous tacit assumptions and logic that don't hang together.

I saw today a database of 4200 different religions and their splinter groups. 4200 different groups that believe they have the truth and that others are, at best, misguided. What does critical enquiry of that fact say other than people make it up, not A God

I think you're saying that once you deconstruct the mythology there is no reality of G-d. This does not follow.

Everywhere we look we can see people making it up as they go along. I submit this is no different and just as much a myth as Santa Claus.

The reality of G-d is not dependent on the adequacy of religions.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Sorry but I refute this out of hand. If there were a lack of evidence because nobody had ever bothered to look then I would agree. But the fact is every claim of evidence made by any religion down through the ages has been investigated and proven false. It is not just lack of evidence, it is much more than that.

We were talking about the existence of G-d. It makes no sense to apply an empirical standard of evidence to a matter of faith. Wrong level of analysis.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??

Bit of a cheap shot Wil, dont you think? Or do you really think I am a reincarnation of the Buddha Mao?

So it is fine if you don't believe. But why do you insist I am not allowed to?

When have I ever insisted what you do or dont believe? I come here to talk about belief and make my point based on my own perspective of things. I am not proselytising, I have no agenda that I am promoting. All I do is discuss from the point of view of an atheist. Or do you think an atheist has no right to discuss religion and belief? Do you think that religion and belief have no impact on my world because I am an atheist? Must we all sing the same song to sit round this campfire?

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

We were talking about the existence of G-d. It makes no sense to apply an empirical standard of evidence to a matter of faith. Wrong level of analysis.

Only a theist would make such a statement. One rule for faith...another for logic.... you really think that valid?


Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The reality of G-d is not dependent on the adequacy of religions.

Then what are you left with?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Bit of a cheap shot Wil, dont you think? Or do you really think I am a reincarnation of the Buddha Mao?

When have I ever insisted what you do or dont believe? I come here to talk about belief and make my point based on my own perspective of things. I am not proselytising, I have no agenda that I am promoting. All I do is discuss from the point of view of an atheist. Or do you think an atheist has no right to discuss religion and belief? Do you think that religion and belief have no impact on my world because I am an atheist? Must we all sing the same song to sit round this campfire?

Tao

Can atheists believe in reincarnation? No you brought up Mao, I thought as an example in response to Operacast, I was trying to clarify, totally confused as to your assertion.

When have you insisted I don't believe. Now I could read back but didn't you advocate outlawing religion? My bad if my memory is incorrect. You indicated 4200 religions...no imho we don't need to all sing the same song around the campfire.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Then what are you left with?

I agree religions are man made. They could be divinely inspired, but they are translated, written down, through the mind of man, and hence distorted in that process. I believe that is what N-N is referring to, you can tear apart the scripture and find man's failing in describing the undescribable.

There are plenty of religions that stay away from the influence of others. Plenty of folks who dismiss Santa out of hand. I respect that right. Folks that don't play on Halloween, oh well. You can dismiss it all if you so choose. For me, I'll play.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by wil

imho we don't need to all sing the same song around the campfire.

I'd say they are all singing the same song.... Just not in the same key.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Only a theist would make such a statement.

Actually no. It's the distinction between metaphysics and physics.

One rule for faith...another for logic.... you really think that valid?

Why would the empirical standard for studying individual natural phenomena apply to metaphysics? How do you put the unitary structure of the Universe into a test tube? Like I said, makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Then what are you left with?

You're left with the conclusion you had already drawn when you started this thread.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Alex P

I'd say they are all singing the same song.... Just not in the same key.

or language, or cadence, or the same verses...but yes, I hear you, the same song.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

You can dismiss it all if you so choose. For me, I'll play.

I would posit that the vast majority of atheists, myself included, play along with Santa Claus and halloween. An atheist can do so by removing, very easily, any religious connotations.

Tao