It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
This is why I have a difficult time taking many atheists seriously. Typically, when I talk to atheists on the Internet, they are either intellectually dishonest, emotional, or they troll. I never see any good arguments for atheism or against theism on the Internet and this thread is no different.
Your Santa Claus analogy is obviously flawed for reasons I've already mentioned. So why do you continue to bring it up? Are you incapable of learning? Or are you not man or woman enough to admit that you're wrong?
On the other hand, God is defined as a being who transcends the natural world. Therefore, if God did exist, then there wouldn't be any empirical evidence for His existence. There would only be empirical evidence for His existence if He somehow condescended or diminished Himself.
Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
Then you're using a definition of Santa Claus that falls outside of the standard definition. What you mean by "Santa Claus" isn't what most people mean by Santa Claus, in other words. It just seems dishonest to me to create a thread comparing Santa Claus to God when your definition of Santa Claus is in constant flux and out of the ordinary. I presume that most people who read this thread thought you were talking about the idea of a fat old jolly man dressed in red who lived at the North Pole with elves, and who produced and delivered presents to all good boys and girls on Christmas Eve.
So you believe in things called "elves" and "Santa;" and they're immaterial beings? What reason(s) do you have for believing in immaterial beings called "elves" and "Santa"?
Two things.
First, define what you exactly mean when you say "unicorn" and "santa." Then tell me what reason you have for believing they exist.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do you believe that Father Christmas really exists? I'm especially interested in hearing answers from devoted Christians. If you're a Santa Claus atheist, then why? What rationale are you applying to the non-existence of Santa Claus that cannot be applied to the non-existence of your God?
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
If he doesn't exist in this universe and can have no affect on it, starting to sound remarkably like something that doesn't exist at all.....
Flies all around the world visiting approximately 92 million Christian households in 31 hours, therefore travelling at about 650 mps allowing just over 1 millisecond per visit (according to calculations)
yet to you he is not supernatural?
If you can show me the scientific paper that has observed Santa directly and concluded he is a normal physical being
Not sure I can take that seriously, for very obvious reasons. See below regarding supernatural beings ie. Santa, elves, god. All the same thing basically.
A little pony with a horn on its nose and a fat man in strange garb.
Both supernatural beings with complete control over nature and who can therefore exist without being detected
Unicorns are said by many to be the embodiment of purity (particularly white ones).
It is also a fact that, like god, neither being can be proven not to exist.
Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
If you assume naturalism is true. I have no reason to assume naturalism is true though. Moreover, not being of the natural world does not equal cannot affect the natural world.
I didn't think this conversation could get any stupider, but here you've proven me wrong. First, your patronizing nonsense is starting to get annoying. The Santa Claus analogy is a bad one for reasons I've already explained. Drop it. There's no reason to continue. I don't know if you're being serious right now or not, but you need to learn when to quit.
But if one were to take your nonsense seriously, Santa Claus would need to travel much faster than 650 mph in order to deliver presents to the world. The number of Christian homes in the world is much higher than 92 million. Santa Claus would leave a wake of destruction, noise, and visuals (and thus evidence) behind him if he were traveling at these speeds inside and near homes.
That depends on what you mean by supernatural. What I mean by supernatural is that which isn't of the natural world or that which transcends the natural world. So, no, I do not think the Santa Claus character is supernatural in this sense. After all, he does possess a physical body and a spatial and temporal location.
You're just making up stuff as you go along and labeling it Santa Claus.
No, they're not "all the same thing basically." That's the point I've been making. If you're going to throw around ideas like unicorns and elves, then you're going to have to clearly define them.
Well, then, if little ponies with horns on their noses and fat men with strange garbs who flew around the world delivering presents existed, then wouldn't there be a good amount of empirical evidence for their existence?
You set up a camera by the Christmas tree and keep it on for the entire month of December. If, mysteriously, presents just appeared under the tree without the help of a parent, then I'd say that's good evidence for the existence of an undetectable (at least visually) force or entity who delivers presents. But we don't observe this kind of phenomena.
That's fine inside the idea or description itself, but you first need to provide rational reasons for believing in unicorns in the first place. Why do you believe in unicorns and Santa Claus?
Actually, as I've pointed out numerous times before, there are plenty of ways to show that beings like Santa Claus do not exist or probably do not exist. But you seem incapable of learning or admitting that you're wrong, so we're unnecessarily going around in circles.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Zips are known to exist.
Therefore they were created.
Therefore a zoodle created them.
Therefore zoodles exist.
Q. Wait on, at present, no one knows how zips came to be.
A. They were "created".
Q But why a zoodle, no one has ever seen a zoodle?
A They obviously exist, because they created zips.
Q How do you know zips were created?
A Because they exist.
Q How do you know zoodles exist?
A Because they created zips.............
and on.............and on.............and on...............
Poor old Santa.
edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
How about gravitons?
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
How about gravitons?
How about them? No one really knows what gravity is.
Apples always fall from trees due to a force we don't truly understand.
Our observations about this are predictable.
We can use this testable, repeatable and predictable observation to help explain the universe.
To help understand planetary motion.
To slingshot space capsules around the moon.
In itself, we don't know exactly what it is.
We have never observed an apple leaving the tree and escaping into outer space, yet.
Yeh, that can only be because an invisible supernatural being that cannot be directly observed in any way, wills it so..... obviously. One day he might make apples disappear into space, if it pleases him to do so. We have every reason to think that, quite definitely, no assumptions needed there.............
edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
So you infer their existence from observations ok I can dig that.
Kind of like how life or existence is the observable effect and God would be the unknown but inferred cause?
Well your previous reasoning about Zips etc excluded one thing. You say zips exist but not how. You also don't address the fact that before zips there was nothing and yet Zips self substantiated themselves from nothing.
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
Also you mention observation but observation is only as good as the tool which you observe or measure with. Kind of how galaxies did not exist before the invention of telescopes. Of course they existed but no one had yet created a tool to observe them. Makes me think of a certain cat in a box. You cant discount the existence of God because you do not possess a tool to measure/observe it/him.
Your entire argument here is a reductionist circular logic. You know the universe exist. You know that at some point it did not exist (your own regurgitated scientific observations can confirm this entropy etc).
The tool to observe is yourself. Perhaps you need recalibrating.
What about the prime mover/first cause argument? You can only reduce to the prime mover but because you lack the tool to observe this you deny its existence.
Something tells me that given different temporal circumstances you would be a flat earth supporter. Do not take this as a personal attack I am just following your logic that all that exist is what we can presently observe with our technology.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by anoncoholic
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do you believe that Father Christmas really exists? I'm especially interested in hearing answers from devoted Christians. If you're a Santa Claus atheist, then why? What rationale are you applying to the non-existence of Santa Claus that cannot be applied to the non-existence of your God?
No but I do recognize a bait thread when I see it
troll fail
In other words, you can't rationalize your simultaneous disbelief in Santa Claus and belief in the Christian God? Believe it or not, I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely interested in how people logically rule out the existence of specific deities while simultaneously being convinced of the existence of other deities. Don't you think this conundrum is at least a little bit interesting?edit on 14-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NihilistSanta
I just dropped by to prove I exist
Decided to feed the troll while I was at it.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
So many of the processes that used to be the domain of the god of superstition have, so far, been explained without him (heliocentricity, planetary accretion, evolution, germ theory etc). He is constantly being found more and more unnecessary.
All the while claiming something that didn't need to be brought into existence,yet still existed, caused existence. It is difficult to accept this, as you have not backed it up with anything other than personal assumption.
how someone who doesn't exist in this Universe and never enters it, can affect it, I'm all ears.
Or how you know for sure there is anything beyond the Universe.
Or how you know with direct certainty that existence (in some form, not necessarily how it appears now) had a defined beginning
let alone was "created" by any conscious, cognizant, self aware being that himself didn't need to be created.
Without realizing it, you have just described the general argument for god.
it's veering towards the ad hom (non) argument and sometimes causes offence. Not that you have offended here, I don't mind in the slightest.
No, 650 mps = miles per second, but we are now quibbling over details.
Then you do believe Santa could possibly exist in some way?
Perhaps physically?
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
I did. Supernatural beings.
Beyond your current understanding.
There is
After you perform this controlled experiment on every Christmas tree on earth, basically simultaneously, let
me know.
Rational reasons for believing in unicorns, Santa
Same for god
We could go into this, but I don't see why we should at this point when you're still talking about Santa Claus.
Because the alternates, for instance, nonbeing producing being seem logically incoherent.
No, I don't "know" that I'm correct that God exists, but then again, I don't "know" that I'm correct to think that you or the external world is real.
I do think there are good arguments for God's existence though and that the existence of the universe is more probable and makes more sense under theism than atheism.
Contemporary cosmology.
Does this mean things like quantum mechanics and the general unified field theory are supernatural?
You're missing the point. The point is you could possibly falsify Santa Claus using the experiment I outlined.
No, an ad hom would be me attacking your character and then concluding that your arguments must be wrong because of the character flaws that I pointed out. I never did that though. However, you are indeed childish to be pushing this Santa Claus analogy