Jayhawker Soule

I accuse God(s) of nothing. I accuse you of embracing nonsense for which you have no evidence, substituting popularity contests for reason in the faint hope that you may somehow legitimatize your fantasy.

The underlying question posed is: Which fantasy is more viable? Such a question may be fair, but it is also false. It is, however, a fundamantal question for most theists, who thoughtfully or thoughtlessly reject dozens of religions and religious traditions by selecting one.

So, when faced with a collection of fantasies, what is your selection criteria?

TooBad

The mere existence of a long-standing religious tradition does not in itself provide support for the veracity of that tradition, as is shown by the fact that there are many long-standing but mutually incompatible religious traditions, each claiming a monopoly on the truth.
There is no evidence that Santa Claus exists. But at least the traditional descriptions of Santa Claus have the merit of being conceptually coherent. In the absence of an intelligible and consistent definition of God, it's not even clear what it means to say that God exists. Questions of evidence don't even apply, until we know what it is we're trying to establish. So, in that respect, Santa has a clear head-start on God.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

Amos

Hi there Bible Humper.

You forgot to add that the St.Nicholas myth is for children what God is for adults in that both first require faith that leads to understanding after a period of doubt is overcome.

Notice that his birthday is celebrated on Dec.6 which is a forsehadow of Epiphany which is celebrated on Jan.6 after the New has taken hold at New Year.

Like God the Saint is all knowing and has all the other omni's to be able to judge good and evil as a basis for his "coming" etc.

Bible Humper

Amos, wazzuuuuuup!

I mentioned part of what you are saying here in my first post. The part I didn't mention, and won't because I don't believe it, is your statement that faith in Santa and Yahweh both "require faith that leads to understanding after a period of doubt is overcome."

A child is naturally gullible, this helps it survive the early years by being easily convinced of the presence of danger(especially) to the point that his natural curiosity doesn't overcome it. This is why the way the churches rush to sink their hooks into children early is so loathsome.

Children don't have a "period of doubt" before they believe in Yahweh and Santa, in fact the biggest problem is that they often reach adulthood, when they are finally able to think for themselves, without having ever doubted Yahweh and don't start!
The faith begins before the person can think for himself, and by the time he can there is such a huge emotional investment involved that it requires great strength of character to break out. Check the testimonials of the members of this community for examples.

This is why the Catholic church declares that it's faithful flock should bring their children regularly until they are eight years old. They have openly declared that if you bring the child until he's eight, you'll have a catholic for life.

&lt;cough&gt;brainwashing and indoctrinating developing minds&lt;cough&gt; Ahem, excuse me.

Hehe, an short Amosism.

What!?!? Saint Nicholas is an omnimax being?

Please clarify what you meant, Amos.

Also, I notice you have "coming" in quotation marks, were you referring to the "imminent" return of Jesus&lt;snicker&gt; or to my speculations regarding Santa raising the dead?


In what way did you mean "coming"?

Dr S

Of course it's nonsense to compare the Creator to Santa Claus.

Is it? Let's see.

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 that is. 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 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.

Nonsense to compare them? One has sandals and the other shiny black fur-trimmed boots, other than that those guys are twins.

Mageth

Dr S.:

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

MadMordigan

Both myths also have millions of people who believe it is justified to LIE to other in order to perpetuate their beliefs.

Tom Sawyer

SUTG,

IMHO, the reason for the comparison is to simply ask the question of why do you believe in this one thing and not in the other. The question has also been phrased as why do you believe in the Christian God but not the Hindu Gods or Allah or Zeus or the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn - an imaginary being with no evidence of its existence).

Most people born in Christian communities are Christian. Most people born in Muslim communities are Muslim. Most people born in Hindu communities are Hindu. Most people born in Ancient Greece were Greek Pantheonists. The question, and others like it, attempt to bring up the issue that perhaps there is a reason for that and that what people believe is true is somehow related to what they are taught is true.

On behalf of atheists, I apologize if you think the question is derogatory but perhaps instead of asking why we ask the question, why don't you answer it?

luvluv

Folks, there is a big difference between NOT HAVING evidence FOR a things existence, and HAVING evidence AGAINST a things existence.

We have evidence against the existence of the mythological version of Santa Claus.

The alternative explanations for all the phenomenae attributed to Santa are more exhaustive than the alternative explanations for the phenomenoae attributed to God.

I KNOW that my parents got me all the presents I ever recieved as a child. I do not yet know that the universe created itself or that life evolved through totally naturalistic processes. The fact is, despite the hubris on this board, science to date does not have know how the universe or life came to be.

The answer would be that the gaps on Santa have been effectively closed, and the gaps on God are still wide open. You may operate under the unscientific and totally philosophical notion that all gaps will eventually be closed, but that does not change the fact that they are not, presently, closed.

People believe in God because there is still good reason to.

luvluv

By the way, there is, or was, a Santa Claus
(St. Nicholas) which is why this particular argument against theism is pretty suspect.

You should probably use the Easter Bunny or, better yet, the tooth fairy (since we do know that bunnies exist).