Belief in Santa Claus vs belief in God (an apology from domatron23)

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][

How ofter are supernatural events being mentioned in Tacitus? Tell us how "Annals" of imperial Rome, a book devoted to giving an insight into Roman events and political scene, can be likened to the gospels which tell us a man walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick.

Well I guess we might as well take the Iliad, Odysee and Epics of Gilgmesh just as seriously as the gospels then too.

Dracargen

You do not have to believe the miracles in the Gospels to accept them as historical fact.

By the way, could you explain why the New Testament has 5,600 original manuscripts, while the Iliad, the world's second-most accurately copied document known to man, has 643?

the Iliad and the Epics of Gilgamesh were not written by eye-witnesses. hell, the authors lived centuries after the supposed events. the authors of the Gospels were either eye-witnesses, or they used eye-witnesses as their source.

also, dismissing the Gospels solely because they talk about miracles and supernatural events is a fallacy called begging the question.

fanofazrienoch

Tell me then of every author from the Bible, granted you can prove that each was an "eye" witness then? If that's the criteria then, I guess we can throw out a large portion.

If it's such a fallacy then, tell us why we cannot take these other texts as truth just as you're trying with the bible?

Why are these suckas looking for proof of Jesus' miracles.

You have to have FAITH. You have to BELIEVE. That means not needing or wanting any proof.

Call yourselves Christians? pffft

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

the Iliad and the Epics of Gilgamesh were not written by eye-witnesses. hell, the authors lived centuries after the supposed events. the authors of the Gospels were either eye-witnesses, or they used eye-witnesses as their source.

also, dismissing the Gospels solely because they talk about miracles and supernatural events is a fallacy called begging the question.

Donkey_Puncher

Tell me then of every author from the Bible, granted you can prove that each was an "eye" witness then? If that's the criteria then, I guess we can throw out a large portion.

Throw out any story you'd like--that won't help you with the Gospels, nor would it adversly affect Christianity.:|

You do not have to believe the miracles in the Gospels to accept them as historical fact.

By the way, could you explain why the New Testament has 5,600 original manuscripts, while the Iliad, the world's second-most accurately copied document known to man, has 643?

Dracargen

It's merely due to the fact that at the time of the Bible's creation in the first few centuries CE, literature was being copied down far more. Just because it has more manuscripts does not lend it to be truth. It merely says that more people wrote on it, period. Another reason would be that the Iliad and Odysee were oral poems created during the greek dark ages, an age where Linear B was lost and the new greek alphabet was established afterwards.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

the Iliad and the Epics of Gilgamesh were not written by eye-witnesses. hell, the authors lived centuries after the supposed events. the authors of the Gospels were either eye-witnesses, or they used eye-witnesses as their source.

also, dismissing the Gospels solely because they talk about miracles and supernatural events is a fallacy called begging the question.

Donkey_Puncher

Tell me then of every author from the Bible, granted you can prove that each was an "eye" witness then? If that's the criteria then, I guess we can throw out a large portion.

If it's such a fallacy then, tell us why we cannot take these other texts as truth just as you're trying with the bible?

Throw out any story you'd like--that won't help you with the Gospels, nor would it adversly affect Christianity.:|Dracargen

Aside from the Gospels, is the entire Bible sourced by each author? Do YOU hold these books to be credible (one's with out authors or eyewitness accounts)?

I'm looking for consistancy.

Why are these suckas looking for proof of Jesus' miracles.

You have to have FAITH. You have to BELIEVE. That means not needing or wanting any proof.

Call yourselves Christians? pffft

bradleybhoy

That definition is false.

Do not tell me how to believe what I believe.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

You do not have to believe the miracles in the Gospels to accept them as historical fact.

By the way, could you explain why the New Testament has 5,600 original manuscripts, while the Iliad, the world's second-most accurately copied document known to man, has 643?

Donkey_Puncher

It's merely due to the fact that at the time of the Bible's creation in the first few centuries CE, literature was being copied down far more. Just because it has more manuscripts does not lend it to be truth. It merely says that more people wrote on it, period. Another reason would be that the Iliad and Odysee were oral poems created during the greek dark ages, an age where Linear B was lost and the new greek alphabet was established afterwards.

when talking about the textual reliability, there is absolutely no work of antiquity that is more reliable than the New Testament. Dr. Gary habermas said it best:

To start, are we even able to ascertain whether the text of the Bible is that of the original authors? While this issue relates strictly to the reliability of the text rather than to the historicity of its contents, the issue is still important in the overall scheme of this discussion. Generally, several qualities enhance manuscript value, assisting textual scholars in arriving at the best reading of the original text. The strongest case is made when many manuscripts are available, as close in time to the original autographs as possible. Wide geographical distribution of the copies and their textual families are likewise crucial. Of course, having complete texts is essential.

In light of these criteria, the New Testament is the best attested work from the ancient world. First, it has by far the greatest number of existing manuscripts. Ancient classical works are attested to by very few full or partial manuscripts-usually less than ten. In comparison, over five thousand full or partial Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist. Thousands of additional texts exist in other languages, especially Latin. This overwhelming number of copies yields a much stronger base for establishing the original text.

Concerning the date between the original writing and the earliest copies, ancient classical works generally exhibit gaps of at least seven hundred years. The interval significantly lengthens to twice this amount (or longer) with certain works by a number of key writers such as Plato and Aristotle. In contrast, the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri contain most of the New Testament, dating about 100-150 years later than the New Testament, using an approximate date of A.D. 100 for its completion. The Codex Sinaiticus is a complete copy of the New Testament, while the Codex Vaticanus is a nearly complete manuscript, both dating roughly 250 years after the originals. These small gaps help to ensure the accuracy of the New Testament text.

Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half remain.

The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."3 Even Helmut Koester summarizes:

Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.4

The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.6 Dr Gary Habermas

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

You do not have to believe the miracles in the Gospels to accept them as historical fact.

By the way, could you explain why the New Testament has 5,600 original manuscripts, while the Iliad, the world's second-most accurately copied document known to man, has 643?

Donkey_Puncher

It's merely due to the fact that at the time of the Bible's creation in the first few centuries CE, literature was being copied down far more. Just because it has more manuscripts does not lend it to be truth. It merely says that more people wrote on it, period. Another reason would be that the Iliad and Odysee were oral poems created during the greek dark ages, an age where Linear B was lost and the new greek alphabet was established afterwards.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Allow me to refer you to the definition of "generally."

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing with silly claims about fairy tales all night, so let's just say I'll believe in all that stuff when God comes down himself and tells me it's all true. But apparently he would rather turn it all into some elaborate mind game just for the hell of it. Okay. Time to go do something that is slightly less a complete waste of time.

Dracargen

And the inevitable conclusion:

"Well, you're wrong, it's a fairy tale, God didn't show himself to me, so he doesn't exist, you're stupid, I don't have time for this, my head hurts, I'm tired, whatever."

Allow me to refer you to the bandwagon fallacy.

Also known as, "while I may be bored enough to argue about pointless crap, I am not bored enough to argue about pointless crap for 12 hours, since this crap will just go back and forth indefinitely."

Okay, you're right. The Bible is an accurate record. Jesus died for my sins, because God is apparently a vindictive jag off who has to have someone suffer, even if it isn't the "sinner." I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior, and I suppose eveveryone who lived before monotheism even existed after some "prophet's" ancient drug trip (which is how a lot of supposed prophets made their "predictions") is just plain screwed. I'm sorry that by even arguing about something, you feel that should somehow commit me to remaining here for about 30 hours to keep arguing with arguments that don't even make any sense to me and at the end of the day just keep ultimately coming back to "Believe the Bible. It's true because I say so or so-and-so person says so." This is pointless, boring, and a waste of everyone's time. You're not going to change my mind. I'm not going to change yours, and we both know it. Yeah, walking on water and turning water into wine is the stuff of fairy tales, like Poseidon or Odin or whatever the flavor of the era religion happens to be, which is what Christianity is in the greater scheme of things. If God refuses to forgive people for their "sins" or whatever unless someone is tortured for them, well, he sounds like a gigantic something-I'd-get-suspended-for-posting-here anyway. Pray for my soul now or something. Goodbye.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

That doesn't change the fact that they are biased accounts.

The Gospels may be considered the biographies of Jesus, but they are also the tools of spreading Christianity. They serve a purpose beyond the recording of facts.

I wouldn't reference the Bible on the history of Jesus for the same reasons I wouldn't reference Hitler on the nature of the Jewish people. You may get answers, but not necessarily the right ones.

and again, appeal to motives. this is a FALLACY. and their purpose was to record the life of Jesus. People later used them to spread christianity because. but regardless, your objections are completely unwarranted and unfounded in the historical method.

History is not only the recording of past texts, but also the process of analyzing them. Anyone with a pair of eyes and a little common sense can see that the Gospels were written in a biased light.

and I almost forgot, the reason I discount the validity of the miraculous claims of other holy books is because I've never seen a case for their reliability as historical documents. fanofazrienoch

How is the quran any different from the Gospels in that sense? They are both written by known people, eyewitness' like you claimed, and both contain miracles.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

and I almost forgot, the reason I discount the validity of the miraculous claims of other holy books is because I've never seen a case for their reliability as historical documents. Donkey_Puncher

How is the quran any different from the Gospels in that sense? They are both written by known people, eyewitness' like you claimed, and both contain miracles.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

Gamer556

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

That doesn't change the fact that they are biased accounts.

The Gospels may be considered the biographies of Jesus, but they are also the tools of spreading Christianity. They serve a purpose beyond the recording of facts.

I wouldn't reference the Bible on the history of Jesus for the same reasons I wouldn't reference Hitler on the nature of the Jewish people. You may get answers, but not necessarily the right ones.

and again, appeal to motives. this is a FALLACY. and their purpose was to record the life of Jesus. People later used them to spread christianity because. but regardless, your objections are completely unwarranted and unfounded in the historical method.

History is not only the recording of past texts, but also the process of analyzing them. Anyone with a pair of eyes and a little common sense can see that the Gospels were written in a biased light.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Allow me to refer you to the definition of "generally."

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing with silly claims about fairy tales all night, so let's just say I'll believe in all that stuff when God comes down himself and tells me it's all true. But apparently he would rather turn it all into some elaborate mind game just for the hell of it. Okay. Time to go do something that is slightly less a complete waste of time.

SpaceMoose

And the inevitable conclusion:

"Well, you're wrong, it's a fairy tale, God didn't show himself to me, so he doesn't exist, you're stupid, I don't have time for this, my head hurts, I'm tired, whatever."

Allow me to refer you to the bandwagon fallacy.

Also known as, "while I may be bored enough to argue about pointless crap, I am not bored enough to argue about pointless crap for 12 hours, since this crap will just go back and forth indefinitely."

Okay, you're right. The Bible is an accurate record. Jesus died for my sins, because God is apparently a vindictive jag off who has to have someone suffer, even if it isn't the "sinner." I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior, and I suppose eveveryone who lived before monotheism even existed after some "prophet's" ancient drug trip (which is how a lot of supposed prophets made their "predictions") is just plain screwed. I'm sorry that by even arguing about something, you feel that should somehow commit me to remaining here for about 30 hours to keep arguing with arguments that don't even make any sense to me and at the end of the day just keep ultimately coming back to "Believe the Bible. It's true because I say so or so-and-so person says so." This is pointless, boring, and a waste of everyone's time. You're not going to change my mind. I'm not going to change yours, and we both know it. Yeah, walking on water and turning water into wine is the stuff of fairy tales, like Poseidon or Odin or whatever the flavor of the era religion happens to be, which is what Christianity is in the greater scheme of things. If God refuese forgive people for their "sins" or whatever unless someone is tortured for them, well, he sounds like a gigantic something-I'd-get-suspended-for-posting-here anyway. Pray for my soul now or something. Goodbye.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Throw out any story you'd like--that won't help you with the Gospels, nor would it adversly affect Christianity.:|Donkey_Puncher

Aside from the Gospels, is the entire Bible sourced by each author? Do YOU hold these books to be credible (one's with out authors or eyewitness accounts)?

I'm looking for consistancy.

*Shrug* I haven't been making that argument. I don't know who made the Old Testament (nobody does, though its authorship is usually attributed to Moses), and the New Testament was written by mostly Saint John and Saint Paul, or at least people who were influenced by their works. I don't think it really matters who wrote it.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Throw out any story you'd like--that won't help you with the Gospels, nor would it adversly affect Christianity.:|Dracargen

Aside from the Gospels, is the entire Bible sourced by each author? Do YOU hold these books to be credible (one's with out authors or eyewitness accounts)?

I'm looking for consistancy.

*Shrug* I haven't been making that argument. I don't know who made the Old Testament (nobody does, though its authorship is usually attributed to Moses), and the New Testament was written by mostly Saint John and Saint Paul, or at least people who were influenced by their works. I don't think it really matters who wrote it.

*rant*

SpaceMoose

Don't worry; I'll pray for you.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

Why are these suckas looking for proof of Jesus' miracles.

You have to have FAITH. You have to BELIEVE. That means not needing or wanting any proof.

Call yourselves Christians? pffft

Dracargen

That definition is false.

Do not tell me how to believe what I believe.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Throw out any story you'd like--that won't help you with the Gospels, nor would it adversly affect Christianity.:|Donkey_Puncher

Aside from the Gospels, is the entire Bible sourced by each author? Do YOU hold these books to be credible (one's with out authors or eyewitness accounts)?

I'm looking for consistancy.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

*rant*

Dracargen

Don't worry; I'll pray for you.

Damn people stop trying to make people be someone else than who they are. Let people live there life. Why do you care?

All this thread was made for was to hate, and you know it :|

Stop trying to force people how to live there life :x

xSIZEMATTER

Agreed. I can't see why most athiests are forcing us to not believe in Christ. IF we want to believe there is a God, fine. If we want to believe the moon is a figment of your imagination, fine (however silly that example was.)

People don't beleive in christianity. They beleive in the God of christianity.

PLus i find it ridiculous how santa can be compared to God. Honestly.

...The only way to redeem our spirits was for a perfect and unblemished physical sacrifice to be made...-ArchAngeL-777-

WHY?

I'm going to bet you never really asked that, huh? WHY? If God makes the rules, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE A SACRIFICE TO FORGIVE SINS? WHY WOULD HE MAKE THAT A RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Okay, I'm back out of here for now I think.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]...The only way to redeem our spirits was for a perfect and unblemished physical sacrifice to be made...SpaceMoose

WHY?

I'm going to bet you never really asked that, huh? WHY? If God makes the rules, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE A SACRIFICE TO FORGIVE SINS? WHY WOULD HE MAKE THAT A RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Okay, I'm back out of here for now I think.

But Santa Claus is not real. Christanity's beliefs could be. You can't compare them.

It's like God/Aliens.

blackngold29

But Santa does exist :|

But Santa Claus is not real. Christanity's beliefs could be. You can't compare them.

It's like God/Aliens.

blackngold29

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Just an interesting video that I found on youtube

Dracargen

Oh, Domatron, I thought you were above this.:cry:

Well I think it's fair enough to call this my most epically failed attempt at a decent thread. I'll try to revive it though and gain back a little of my respect in the eyes of my fellow gamespotters.

Now first of all I made one incredibly stupid mistake when I created this thread, I put "Santa vs Christianity" instead of "Santa vs God". Christianity is specifically referring to the belief that Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins etc whereas God just refers to the God hypothesis in general as it may apply to any religious faith. There's a big difference between the two and I'm honestly sorry for failing to differentiate them.

Secondly I failed to give a decent line of argument. I just left you all with the title which admittedly implied that Christianity was just as poorly supported and juvenile as a belief in Santa. That's not at all what I meant and I'm sorry for not making that clear or simply not coming up with a less inflammatory title.

Here is the argument that I was interested in and the discussion that I wanted to provoke. Both Santa Claus and God are, to a certain extent, aetiological beliefs i.e. they are beliefs which explain the causes of observable phenomena in our world. For example the myth of Zeus gives an aetiological explanation of why thunder occurs, the myth of Persephone and Hades explains the seasons and so on and so forth. In the case of this topic, Santa explains how presents appear underneath christmas trees while God explains how we were created (and a great deal of other things besides that).

The question is, what happens to both of these beliefs when we encounter evidence that contradicts them? For the belief in Santa we can easily find out, through staying up over night on Christmas eve, that a jolly fat man in a red suit does not, in fact, come down our chimnies and throw presents under our trees. We can also easily find out how presents do in fact come to be under our trees when we realise that friends and family are putting them there. The answer seems obvious in the case of Santa that we should no longer believe.

But what about God and the things that he claims to do? We observe that there are no miracles happening today (I mean the water to wine / walking on water stuff) and we have an explanation for how we came to be (evolution and abiogenesis) that is well evidenced. What I want to examine here is this question; why does a child who has been told that Santa Claus delivers presents almost always reject this explanation upon finding evidence to the contrary while a religious person who has been told that God created mankind almost always sticks with this explanation despite evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps the evidence against the God hypothesis isn't quite as compelling as finding presents in your parents closet or perhaps the God hypothesis is stuck to so readily because it provides a stable social framework / moral value set?

Anyways that's what I intended for this thread and that's what I should have prepared before I posted. My bad guys and sorry if I come off as some sort of evangelical atheist. I really don't mind what you believe in but I just thought that this topic would be an interesting analogy. Hey even Dracargen compared God and aliens in a recent blog and I know that he certainly wasn't deciding the validity of one against the other. Same thing that I attempted here, unsuccessfully it would seem.

Peace everyone lets try to keep religion threads interesting rather than offensive.

How do we know anything? How do we think? How do we exist? Why do we have emotions? How can we dream? Chance you say? Oh. Two rocks hit each other and the universe comes out. Oh thats not how it happened? Tell me. Oh you weren't there? Oh. But you say scientists know? GASP! Were they there? No? Oh. Religion believes in Jesus, Mohammed, etc; and atheists believe in scientists. Disproving religion to a christian is only for kicks for atheists. Disproving them won't do anything. Will it stop wars? Death? Nope, it justs makes atheists feel better. Don't get me wrong though they're are some atheists out there that respect religion. But answer these 3 questions atheists and don't give me no crap answer by throwing in equations or the dictionary:

1. Without religion, could you honestly say the world would be a better place? (Think hard)

2. If you think religion is destroying the world, why, instead of talking through the computer, go set out and make even a small distance like donating money to victims, working with help organizations, etc;?

3. Is your existence an accident? Where will you go when you die?

(This isn't directed to the thread starter)

How do we know anything? How do we think? How do we exist? Why do we have emotions? How can we dream? Chance you say? Oh. Two rocks hit each other and the universe comes out. Oh thats not how it happened? Tell me. Oh you weren't there? Oh. But you say scientists know? GASP! Were they there? No? Oh. Religion believes in Jesus, Mohammed, etc; and atheists believe in scientists. Disproving religion to a christian is only for kicks for atheists. Disproving them won't do anything. Will it stop wars? Death? Nope, it justs makes atheists feel better. Don't get me wrong though they're are some atheists out there that respect religion. But answer these 3 questions atheists and don't give me no crap answer by throwing in equations or the dictionary:

1. Without religion, could you honestly say the world would be a better place? (Think hard)

2. If you think religion is destroying the world, why, instead of talking through the computer, go set out and make even a small distance like donating money to victims, working with help organizations, etc;?

3. Is your existence an accident? Where will you go when you die?

(This isn't directed to the thread starter)

MassEfectivator

Directed to me or not I'll answer those questions.

1. Nope, without religion I would expect the world to be worse

2. Religion isn't destroying the world, idiots are.

3. Yes my existence is an accident (doesn't make it insignificant) and when I die I wont go anywhere because "I" will no longer exist.

How do we know anything? How do we think? How do we exist? Why do we have emotions? How can we dream? Chance you say? Oh. Two rocks hit each other and the universe comes out. Oh thats not how it happened? Tell me. Oh you weren't there? Oh. But you say scientists know? GASP! Were they there? No? Oh. Religion believes in Jesus, Mohammed, etc; and atheists believe in scientists. Disproving religion to a christian is only for kicks for atheists. Disproving them won't do anything. Will it stop wars? Death? Nope, it justs makes atheists feel better. Don't get me wrong though they're are some atheists out there that respect religion. But answer these 3 questions atheists and don't give me no crap answer by throwing in equations or the dictionary:

1. Without religion, could you honestly say the world would be a better place? (Think hard)

2. If you think religion is destroying the world, why, instead of talking through the computer, go set out and make even a small distance like donating money to victims, working with help organizations, etc;?

3. Is your existence an accident? Where will you go when you die?

(This isn't directed to the thread starter)

MassEfectivator

Are you directing this to atheists only, or to anyone who doesn't place stock in religion? Either way, here's something:

1. I wager it would be about the same, only with a few less conflicts and less people cramming unprovable claims around like they're fact.

2. I don't know about you, but I do volunteer. How I spend my computer time says nothing about what I do when I'm not online.

3. Existance is not an accident by any means. It's the end result of natural laws taking action. (This should have been another question, but whatever): I don't know. Most likely I'll cease to exist, as my brain will have stopped functioning. Honestly, you don't know either, unless you've talked to some dead people. You believe what you believe for whatever reasons you choose, but you do not know. As it stands, no one can know, so does it really matter?

Did anyone complaining about the video in the OP actually watch it? It says nothing derogatory about christianity or belief in general, it's merely a discussion about the nature of belief.rinkegekido2110

Ya I get the feeling that people just read the topic title and then got a little mad. Never mind I'll give this thread one more chance to generate some actual discussion then I'll let it die.

1. Without religion, could you honestly say the world would be a better place? (Think hard)

MassEfectivator

it's possible. about the only bad thing about Atheism people bring up is the former Communist states of Russia, but a "Godless" Capitalist society could prosper and be better off then the Soviets.

EDIT#2:

Well I think it's fair enough to call this my most epically failed attempt at a decent thread. I'll try to revive it though and gain back a little of my respect in the eyes of my fellow gamespotters.

Now first of all I made one incredibly stupid mistake when I created this thread, I put "Santa vs Christianity" instead of "Santa vs God". Christianity is specifically referring to the belief that Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins etc whereas God just refers to the God hypothesis in general as it may apply to any religious faith. There's a big difference between the two and I'm honestly sorry for failing to differentiate them.

Secondly I failed to give a decent line of argument. I just left you all with the title which admittedly implied that Christianity was just as poorly supported and juvenile as a belief in Santa. That's not at all what I meant and I'm sorry for not making that clear or simply not coming up with a less inflammatory title.

Here is the argument that I was interested in and the discussion that I wanted to provoke. Both Santa Claus and God are, to a certain extent, aetiological beliefs i.e. they are beliefs which explain the causes of observable phenomena in our world. For example the myth of Zeus gives an aetiological explanation of why thunder occurs, the myth of Persephone and Hades explains the seasons and so on and so forth. In the case of this topic, Santa explains how presents appear underneath christmas trees while God explains how we were created (and a great deal of other things besides that).

The question is, what happens to both of these beliefs when we encounter evidence that contradicts them? For the belief in Santa we can easily find out, through staying up over night on Christmas eve, that a jolly fat man in a red suit does not, in fact, come down our chimnies and throw presents under our trees. We can also easily find out how presents do in fact come to be under our trees when we realise that friends and family are putting them there. The answer seems obvious in the case of Santa that we should no longer believe.

But what about God and the things that he claims to do? We observe that there are no miracles happening today (I mean the water to wine / walking on water stuff) and we have an explanation for how we came to be (evolution and abiogenesis) that is well evidenced. What I want to examine here is this question; why does a child who has been told that Santa Claus delivers presents almost always reject this explanation upon finding evidence to the contrary while a religious person who has been told that God created mankind almost always sticks with this explanation despite evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps the evidence against the God hypothesis isn't quite as compelling as finding presents in your parents closet or perhaps the God hypothesis is stuck to so readily because it provides a stable social framework / moral value set?

Anyways that's what I intended for this thread and that's what I should have prepared before I posted. My bad guys and sorry if I come off as some sort of evangelical atheist. I really don't mind what you believe in but I just thought that this topic would be an interesting analogy. Hey even Dracargen compared God and aliens in a recent blog and I know that he certainly wasn't deciding the validity of one against the other. Same thing that I attempted here, unsuccessfully it would seem.

Peace everyone lets try to keep religion threads interesting rather than offensive.

domatron23

You're now back on my list of "best atheists on the Internet."

I used to believe in both of them. Then I grew up and stopped believing in Santa.