I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Meticulous Man]

Because it would be unnecessary to say that. You wouldn't even think about it. Saying "I'm an atheist", for example, actually presupposes the existence of God.

[giblets]

Because it would be unnecessary to say that. You wouldn't even think about it. Saying "I'm an atheist", for example, actually presupposes the existence of God.

Okay, so if one person is like "do you believe in God" and the other person doesn't believe in any gods, what is the correct way to respond? Should they say "I don't believe in any gods"? Would "I'm an atheist" be an acceptable answer?

[Meticulous Man]

There would be no correct way to answer a question like that IMO. You could as well flip a coin.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm an atheist.

[flash9286]

There would be no correct way to answer a question like that IMO. You could as well flip a coin.

So do you think it is impossible to know whether there is a god or that there isn't evidence either way at this point? I think most atheists have one of those belief and still call themselves atheists.

[Elok]

Because it would be unnecessary to say that. You wouldn't even think about it. Saying "I'm an atheist", for example, actually presupposes the existence of God.

Does saying "I don't believe the moon landing was faked" presuppose that the moon landing was faked?

[Meticulous Man]

So do you think it is impossible to know whether there is a god or that there isn't evidence either way at this point? I think most atheists have one of those belief and still call themselves atheists.

I'd say "God" refers to a subjective experience, and that it doesn't make much sense to argue about whether God exists "out there".

Does saying "I don't believe the moon landing was faked" presuppose that the moon landing was faked?

Saying that only reveals that there are doubts as to whether the moon landing really happened or not. Can you be certain that that is the case?

[David Floyd]

Slowwhand,

I'm not interested in shaking your faith. I am, however, interested in you admitting that it isn't based on anything you can prove - ie, evidence - which your favorite verse seems to imply.

Ben,

Funny thing, back before when I was an atheist I argued in favour of Santa Claus. It all revolves around two questions. One, what do you mean by Santa Claus?

OK, the tooth fairy. Whatever.

If you mean St. Nicholas, he existed. He still exists, in a sense, up in heaven with the other saints. So your argument can't be that a St. Nicholas didn't exist. You have to admit that a St. Nick did exist. So that leaves you with what? The story of a fat man in a red suit who flies around the world delivering gifts and presents to everyone.

Now as for that argument, is it true that those who believe in Santa Claus claim this is so? Or is it something else?

Children who believe in Santa Claus typically have no idea of the story of St. Nicholas - their belief in Santa Claus involves writing letters, being good, and getting stuff.

"All minds, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge."

Is the first preposition. Can man know the universe to the extent where he can grapple with the true reality, or it is more like a small boat adrift on the ocean of knowledge, where we merely float along the surface?

Well, we certainly know enough to prove the physical impossibility of Santa Claus delivering presents to every child in the world on Christmas Eve and the Tooth Fairy leaving money under kids' pillows when they lose a tooth. We certainly know enough to conclusively disprove things like Young Earth Creationism, to the point where the only way out for a YEC adherent is to make up a spurious claim about "appearance of age". Can we know everything? How should I know? Does that mean we shouldn't try? No.

"The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see."

This is the second preposition. This argues that ideas, thoughts are in a fact, not concrete, but they are real, and more real that the things which are concrete. This addresses your argument here. Is faith real? I would argue yes. Is it concrete in the way that you can bang a table? No.

No, that isn't my argument. I never said faith isn't real - I said that faith doesn't equal evidence. Faith is just as real as, say, lust, or any other belief/emotion. But a belief in something, a faith in something, doesn't necessarily make that so. I know, because I just wished for a million dollars, and I still don't have it.

But look at it from this perspective. Have you read Ozymandias? "Look on my works ye mighty and despair"? Works fade. Even the most solid things weather, erode and decay. But faith, hope, charity, and joy, they last forever. Take a moment of time and it is preserved, forever, in your head. A joy that will never fade. One man may remember what one did for another, and pay it forward, and continue the story. How many aeons ago, did 300 men stand at Thermopylae? And do we not recall their deeds even to this day?

First of all, there were far more than 300 Greeks at Thermopylae. See, I can do the same thing - that is, pick apart something obviously meant as an example in order to discredit the argument. Annoying, isn't it? More importantly, what's your point? The fact that deeds done in history can sometimes be relevant today doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the matter at hand.

This is what I do with my life, take the stories, the thoughts, the ideas and carry them on. So yes, is there a Santa Claus? Yes, I would argue there is a Santa Claus, just as there was a Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for our sins. The faith, though real is not concrete, but his deeds, his death his resurrection, all happened, just as 300 men suffered and died at Thermopylae. They did so for democracy, for freedom, as Christ did for men's souls.

If your point is that "deeds, death, and resurrection" happened just as surely as only 300 men died at Thermopylae, then yes, I see your point. If your point is that because Thermopylae happened, then your other beliefs must also be true, then I'm scratching my head. Huh??? Also, why are you waxing rhapsodic about Thermopylae? You are aware that ancient Sparta wasn't any sort of democracy most of us would care to live in, yes?

[SlowwHand]

Why are you trying so hard to shake people's faith, David? Why does it mean so much to you?

Answer my question and quit talking about tooth faeries and damned Santa Claus. Why can't you just leave people alone in their "ignorance"?

[David Floyd]

Asked and answered. I'll repeat myself...

Slowwhand,

I'm not interested in shaking your faith. I am, however, interested in you admitting that it isn't based on anything you can prove - ie, evidence - which your favorite verse seems to imply.

Additionally, if someone says something ludicrous - for example, that Germany outproduced the United States in WW2 - you can bet I'm going to correct their ignorance.

[Robert]

There is a reason that in Scandinavia, with the highest 'quality of life' by many standards, the suicide rate is the highest in the world.

The people in Scandinavia commit suicide more often because of their northern position on the globe, during the winter there's barely sunlight in Scandinavia, and lack of sunlight makes people more depressed and leads to suicide.
It has nothing to do with happiness, religion, wealth or the lack of it. It's just a biological consequence of having days without sunlight and weeks with only 1 hour per day.

[Robert]

Comparing the believe in Santa Claus with the faith in God is as stupid and ridiculous as claiming that the Bible contains a scientific valid account of creation.

There are many many many valid arguments one can use against theism or Christianity, but the Santa Claus one is one of the most silly ones. (on par with the alternates like the flying spaghetti monster)

[giblets]

Parents tell child at a young age that there's a guy called "Santa Claus" who will bring them presents if they're good. Santa Claus is somehow omniscient and has magical powers. Child believes it because they're wired to believe what they're told.

Parents tell child at a young age that there's a guy called "Jesus" who will bring them eternal salvation if they're good. Jesus is somehow omniscient and has magical powers. Child believes it because they're wired to believe what they're told.

What's the difference?

[Caligastia]

I don't think you even know the definition of fear:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear

JM

Now you're confusing awe with humility.

[Elok]

Saying that only reveals that there are doubts as to whether the moon landing really happened or not. Can you be certain that that is the case?

No, but that doesn't say anything about the moon landing's credibility. The argument you presented against the term "atheist" works equally well for pretty much any other term. Which is to say, it doesn't work. "Big" implies "small," "yes" implies "no," "antidisestablishmentarianism" implies "disestablishmentarianism," and so on, but that says nothing about either position.