Bible Humper

Hello everyone.

Christmas is in the air. We hear it in the jingles being played on the radio. We see it in the coloured lights we're hanging all over our houses. We taste it in the eggnog which can once again be found in our fridges. We smell it in the sweet savour of the freshly cut trees in our livingrooms. Yes indeed, it is that time of year again.

I have decided that in keeping with the spirit of the season, today's attack on Christianity would be appropriately themed. So refill that glass of eggnog. Sit back, relax, and enjoy

The Bible Humper's Christmas Challenge.

We've all heard of both Yahweh and Santa Claus. Many of us have indeed believed in both of these beings at some point in our lives. But although Mad Kally has observed that Yahweh seems to be merely an adult version of the jolly old toymaker, Santa still just doesn't get the respect he deserves from the Christian apologists. These are people who have found the arguments for their deity to be sufficiently strong that they have judged belief in this entity to be the only rational course. Poor Santa isn't even given the slightest thought. This despite the fact that according to their own standards, Santa Claus has much more going for him than Yahweh does regarding the question of his existence. Thus the challenge. A special thanks to Dr.S, whose post which listed the similarities between Santa and Yahweh inspired this challenge.

First, some similarities between these beings:

*Both are old but powerful Caucasian males with long white beards.

*Both live in inaccessible places. Inaccessible, that is, when the story was first told. The North Pole and the other side of the sky. Both these places have been found to be empty. (Heaven has since been moved to some "spirit realm" the Space Shuttle kept bumping into Cherubs)

*Both are concerned with human behavior and will punish and reward according to their own standards.

*Both have the psychic ability to spy on the entire human race.

*Both keep permanent records on each individual in a large book.

*Both employ magical helpers-elves or angels.

*Both refuse to show themselves.

*Both require individuals to "believe in them" before they receive rewards.

One has sandals, and the other shiny black fur-trimmed boots. Other than that, these guys are twins. Keep an eye on that footwear, ladies and gentlemen, when these guys go toe-to-toe it will be important to keep them straight.

Why don't we take a look now at a few basic reasons why Santa is more likely than Yahweh before we move on to a more in depth look at it. Let us say for the sake of argument that magic is real, and so both Yahweh and Santa are possible beings.

*Santa doesn't suffer from the paradox of omnipotence, the problem of evil, and many more absurdities that are inherent to the concept of an omnimax deity.

*Santa lacks a holy text allegedly inspired by his omniscient, omnipotent self that is packed to the brim with mistakes, absurdities, and contradictions, as well as numerous stories that have proven to be legend rather than history.

*There is no suspicion that Santa's magic stories were "borrowed" from another religion because of a suspicious amount of parallels. Jesus suffers greatly from this with such a damning amount of stories that are identical to the legends of Mithras, that the early church declared that the devil himself must have had a hand in it. All for the purpose of causing confusion in the faithful.

*The stories of Santa don't contradict his nature, unlike the "loving" Yahweh who orders some atrocities, and performs others personally.

*Nothing in the Santa stories, taken literally or not, contradicts the evidence found in the fields of evolution, astronomy, geology, etc.

Actually, it is the very fact that we don't know nearly as much about this Santa character that is the decisive factor! The Christian tells us that there is an deity who is invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive for free will purposes all at once. Right. The reason that they have been forced into swallowing this conception of their deity is that time and again, as human progress moves ever forwards, all that was once called magic becomes understood to be natural.

The only two tools we have for discerning truth about the universe are our reasons and our perceptions. Every tool at our disposal which can be used to decide upon the truthfulness of anything is ultimately reducible to one or both of these. They are the bare minimum. It is obviously impossible to use our perceptions to perceive the imperceptable!

When we asked them show us God, they told us that he can't be seen, for he is as a spirit. He is invisible.

Then we asked how we could detect God. After all, we had been told that he is omnipresent. He is within everyone and everything all at once! But they told us that he can't be detected. He is intangible.

So now we're left confused about the claims that this entity exists. If we can't perceive him, how then can we confirm that that the Christians are right, and that he does indeed exist? Our reasons are the only tools left to us. If we can't perceive this entity directly, then surely we can confirm his existence indirectly, by his manifestations and influence upon the world. However...

When we asked them why evil exists in a universe that is allegedly controlled by this benevolent deity, we were told that he doesn't intervene for the sake of free will. He is inactive.

Then we asked them why an unearthly and transcendant being would prioritise the question of whether or not any particular human was to conclude that he exists. Specifically to come to this conclusion without any evidence supporting it. To have faith. But we were told that we just have to take their word for it, because no mere man can know a deity's mind. He is incomprehensible.

So here we have a religion which is entirely solipsistic. It posits that although the universe does indeed appear to the observer to follow natural laws such as cause and effect, it is all just a grand illusion controlled by a deity who wants to find out who is prepared to believe in him without any evidence.

The one and only argument they have to support this claim? That atheists cannot demonstrate that there is not an invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive deity who authored a universe which would appear to all observers to follow natural laws! That's it!

The first question that comes to mind is this. How does one go about demonstrating that this entity does not exist when they have specifically described this deity so that no matter how much of what we perceive contradicts this religion, and no matter how much the fruits of our reasons contradict this religion, the Christian always has an excuse to hide behind. At the same time that he declares that all of his deity's traits preclude demonstrability of any kind, he insists that demonstration is the only credible means by which we can conclusively argue against the existence of this entity! The fact that demonstration of some sort, something that can be perceived directly or logically inferred, is a pre-requisite for a credible claim that belief in this deity was arrived at rationally, is on the other hand denied vehemently.

In order to have something demonstrated to me, I must make use of either my reason or perception. If something cannot be directly perceived by my sense organs, with or without technological assistance, then an argument that appeals to my reason must be made. It is necessary to show how specific aspects of what can be perceived, lead to the logical conclusion that something which cannot be directly perceived nonetheless exists. Sub-atomic phenomena are an obvious example of this.

So the Christian has drawn a line in the sand and declared that the only thing which would be sufficient to justify not believing in this deity is to actually demonstrate that he doesn't exist. To demonstrate the undemonstrable!

This is certainly an impossible task!

From the point of view of the atheist, though, it is reasonable to wonder how one comes to believe in the undemonstrable in the first place! It is always denied that the Christian's belief has anything to do with something other than the truthfulness of the subject of that belief. Such as being brought up to be a member of that religion. No, we are assured that the process by which they gave their allegiance to this religion was a completely rational process.

I beg to differ! Seeing as how the deity of their religion is completely undemonstrable in every way, I'm forced to wonder how they could have rationally come to believe in this particular undemonstrable entity! The conclusion is a completely rational one only if emotions, social pressure, indoctrination, and credulity all had nothing to do with the conclusion that this undemonstrable being actually exists. But how could these factors not have had an influence? What else is there when we already know that the deity wasn't demonstrated to the Christian?

Whether or not the process by which the Christian has concluded that his religion is true is actually ultimately sound, though, it is still glaringly obvious that the same incredibly low standard of burden of proof is applied only to his religion. Not to any other, just towards his own. It is entirely reasonable for the atheist to wonder why this is so. If the undemonstrable claim that there is an invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive Yahweh is considered sufficient by virtue of the fact that it cannot be demonstrated that he does not exist, then one has to wonder why an invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive Santa is considered to be worthy of scorn. This despite the fact that it is equally impossible to demonstrate that he does not exist.

No supernatural solipsism has a sound argument which thrusts it ahead of it's fellows. Much less a sound argument which gives more credibility specifically to the theistic variant of it. MUCH LESS the Monotheistic brand of the theistic variant of it! MUCH LESS the specific christian version of the monotheistic brand of the theistic variant of it! MUCH LESS the particular flavour of any Sect of the specific Christian version of the monotheistic brand of the theistic variant of it!

Too bad that all theistic solipsisms are equally (un)compelling. The idea that there are invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive entities known as Santa Claus, Mrs Claus, and all of their elven helpers, is also impossible to demonstrate to be false. Actually, all of the supernatural solipsisms that have less recorded about them than Christianity are all more likely than that religion for the simple reason that they have more aspects about them that an apologist can defend by reminding us about the trait of "incomprehensibility" mentioned above. Santa benefits from this greatly! Every single line in the bible, whether it contains something embarrassing or not, is just another point for Santa because it constitutes something definate towards which the apologist can no longer apply the "incomprehensible" defense.

First of all, the question of Santa's existence does not have a holy text allegedly inspired by his omniscient, omnipotent self that is packed to the brim with mistakes, absurdities, and contradictions, as well as numerous stories that have proven to be legend rather than history.


Santa's believers never have to hide when <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html" target="_blank">the hundreds of biblical contradictions</a> are pulled out.

Fans of Santa never get caught with their pants down when <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/injustices.html" target="_blank">the injustices found in a book allegedly inspired by a benevolent deity</a> are brought to the table.

True Santaists never have to cry foul when <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/absurdities.htm" target="_blank">someone demands to know why so many absurdities are found in a book which is claimed to be inspired by an omniscient deity</a>

Santa's faithful get to take the moral high-ground whenever <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html" target="_blank">the massive amounts of cruelty and violence found in the bible</a> are being discussed.

Santa's believers don't have to somehow rationalise away <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/intolerance.html" target="_blank">the existence of so much narrow-minded intolerance in the bible.</a>

Most importantly, perhaps, Santa Claus has not made prophecies of things that did not come to pass. <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html" target="_blank">The bible has all sorts of false prophecies!</a>.

And since it is just as easy to believe in an undemonstrable Santa as it is an undemonstrable Yahweh, choosing Santa means never having to explain to your sweetheart your love for a book which is full of <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html" target="_blank">insults to women</a>.

Even if a Christian was to sift through these massive lists, and dream up a rationalisation for each and every item, the very fact that there is even the slightest doubt about this book, much less enough doubt to make a mockery of it, sends Santa straight to the head of the race.

You cannot prove that Santa does not inspire parents to make particular purchases depending upon the behavior of the child in question. He keeps this activity a secret for free will purposes, he wants to see who believes in him, and who doesn't. Don't ask why he does it, because he is incomprehensible to mere mortals; "Santa works in mysterious ways". He always answers a deserving child's request, though, it's just that sometimes the answer is sometimes "Yes", sometimes "No", and sometimes "Later".

We already know that Santa Claus is omnibenevolent by virtue of the fact that he rewards good behavior. You thought you knew the same thing about Yahweh until you actually read his book! The fact that there is not a single thing to be found which contradicts the idea that Santa Claus is perfectly benevolent stands in stark contrast to the massive amounts of evidence against Yahweh's benevolence. Not only does the evidence of cruelty, intolerance, violence, and injustice found in the Bible cast doubts upon the idea of an omnibenevolent Yahweh which Santa does not suffer, but the lack of a single recorded immoral act which can be pinned on Santa makes him a being more worthy of worship in the first place!

We know that Santa Claus perceives whether or not children behaved well that year, which obviously means that he has extrasensory perceptions. I have yet to see any evidence that there is a limit to this extraordinary ability, so unless it can be demonstrated that there are limits, we can assert with confidence that Santa is indeed omniscient and nobody can demonstrate otherwise. Contrast this with what we see in the Bible, that Yahweh was unable to forsee that putting Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden with a mischeivous talking serpent, and a magic apple within reach of them which had the potential to cause a disaster of cosmic proportions, was not a wise thing to do. Even if it is asserted that Yahweh couldn't have known their future because they would not then have had free will, I don't think that you need a magic spell to tell you that this is a bad idea! Ultimately, an all-powerful entity must be omniscient. The fact that Yahweh is described as omniscient, but his book contradicts this claim, is more doubt upon him which Santa doesn't suffer from. Santa is so far more consistent with the description of an actually omniscient being too, just to add insult to injury.


We know that Santa has powers beyond those available to mere mortals. I have yet to see a credible source of information that puts limits upon his powers, so from what we know, there aren't any. Yahweh, on the other hand, took seven days to create the universe according to his book. He even needed a rest afterwards! Once again we have a situation where Yahweh, who is alleged to be omnipotent, suffers from doubts which do not plague Santa. Nobody has said anything about any limits on Santa's powers, and nobody has shown a credible source of information which contains anything that contradicts any such hypothetical description of limits, so this is once again a reason to doubt Yahweh which Santa doesn't suffer from. Santa is also more consistent with the concept of omnipotence, if the concept of omnipotence is judged to even be a coherent one, by virtue of the fact that nothing known suggests there actually are limits to his powers.

Now, my challenge to Christians is this. You have claimed that your conclusion that Yahweh exists is a rational one. We'll see. The fact that it cannot be demonstrated that your deity does not exist is considered to be sufficient for continued belief in this deity. Fine.

We have Yahweh and Santa, two entities which are invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive. Neither one can be demonstrated to not exist, so they both start on an equal footing.

Yahweh loses a few points on the believe-o-meter in round one because he is described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. The paradox of omnipotence is the first of many hurdles in the way here. This description costs him whether the paradox of omnipotence is shown to be sound or not, because if omnipotence is found to be logically feasible, there are items in the bible which contradict this attribution of the trait of omnipotence upon him anyway. Even if you are sure it is all "explainable", there is nothing at all about Santa which has to be "explained" by a Santaist before it makes sense. Santa's flexibility allows him to score here no matter what.

Yahweh loses points on the Believe-o-meter now directly because of his book. The laundry list of contradictions and absurdities linked to above cast doubt upon the idea that it was inspired by an actual deity.

Yahweh again fumbles some of his points due to his book, because of the cruelty and injustice found within. Because it is claimed that this deity is benevolent, each and every one of those items listed in that link cause a minute shift in favour of Santa.

Yahweh drops his points once more on the Believe-o-meter when we look at the fact that unlike Santa, who does not have anything in his stories which contradicts the findings of evolution, astronomy, geology, etc, Yahweh's followers are forced to "explain" the parts of the bible that describe a Firmament, a flat earth, creation, etc. On top of this, their "explanations" of these verses aren't even strong enough to convince many of their fellow Christians, who declare that since the bible itself says that a seven day creation occured, well by God that's what happened!

Yahweh falls even further behind on the Believe-o-meter when we note that the stories told about his avatar are suspiciously identical to those told about Mithras.

Even if you reject each and every one of the reasons why Santa has received a higher score on the Believe-o-meter, the very fact that he cannot be demonstrated not to exist starts him out on an even footing with Yahweh.

Both of these beings are described as invisible, intangible, incomprehensible, and inactive. Neither one can be demonstrated to not exist. If Yahweh has been concluded to exist by you via what you claim to be an entirely rational process, and the fact that it cannot be demonstrated that he does not exist is sufficient unto itself, then in order to be consistent enough to actually credibly claim that neither emotion, social pressures, indoctrination, nor credulity played any role at all in the process which resulted in your belief, that you did not give Christianity any special treatment that Santa and other religions didn't get, then you have to admit that Santa Claus deserves the exact same consideration, and believe in him too.

Celsus

You've been waiting all year just to post that one, haven't you?

B. H. Manners

Ho Ho Ho

Merry Christmas!

Fiach

The Greatest Appeal of God

He is a vast limitless being,
without form or shape.
He is not material.
Damn, he's not even energy.
He has neither brain
nor a pair of eyes;
No umbilicus, anus, or nipples?
And there are no Jacobs
under the missing todger.


But He designed all matter,
tiny ministrings and quarks,
protons, neutrons, and electrons.
He made galaxies by the billions
each with billions of stars
to become trillions and trillions
of possible worlds and beings.
He made reproducing molecules.

In a rush of divine genius,
He hooked nucleotides together
in a double helix vine.
His invention of mutation led to
millions of different species
on this planet alone and
maybe a billion more on others.
But he cares about my sex life.

Fiach

I ate Pascal's Wafer

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I think he's been writing it all year too.

-Nick

Bill Snedden

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Bravo!!

And to you to BH! Job well done!

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Bible Humper

Thanks a lot, everyone!

Actually, I came up with this all today. The important content has been building up in my head over time, though, thanks to my participation in various discussions here at Infidels!

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Jove

Bravo. Sheer genius.

And the poem, as well.

GunnerJ

I think this challenge has been around long enough. where are the takers?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Ohio_Infidel

Most theists aren't used to reading things this long in their entirety. You know: books, Bible Humpers's challenge, the Bible...