www.ditl.org

IanKennedy wrote: I truly cannot find a difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god.

What I find fascinating is the fact that every culture in existence, and even those that no longer exist, has or had some concept of a deity or deities. The need to worship something greater than ourselves is a very basic, fundamental part of every society, whether you worship Jehovah, Olorun, Zeus, or the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

Yeah, its one of those statements followed by "The correct view" just makes you laugh at how pathetic a line it really is.

So nobody can tell me the difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god?

mwhittington wrote:

IanKennedy wrote: I truly cannot find a difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god.

What I find fascinating is the fact that every culture in existence, and even those that no longer exist, has or had some concept of a deity or deities. The need to worship something greater than ourselves is a very basic, fundamental part of every society, whether you worship Jehovah, Olorun, Zeus, or the Great Bird of the Galaxy.

Yes, using the same logic sh*t must be wonderful, after all 100,000,000 flies can't be wrong.

IanKennedy wrote:So nobody can tell me the difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god?

One being based on a guy who made toys.
The other being a holiday enjoyment.
The last is the one who inspired one of the World's dominate faiths.

Really, its pretty damn sad when you can't see that gap without having someone explain it to you. For our next trick we'll put a row boat, rubber ducky and the USS Nimitz side by side and see if you've clever enough to figure that tricky question out.

Deepcrush wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:So nobody can tell me the difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god?

One being based on a guy who made toys.
The other being a holiday enjoyment.
The last is the one who inspired one of the World's dominate faiths.

Really, its pretty damn sad when you can't see that gap without having someone explain it to you. For our next trick we'll put a row boat, rubber ducky and the USS Nimitz side by side and see if you've clever enough to figure that tricky question out.

That's really easy, the duck is the odd one out, it's not a boat.

What's really sad is that you can't see that there is no difference. Each is a fairy story told to you by your parents to get you to behave or you won't get some sort of treat. IMHO because who else's would I give.

One is based on a guy who made gifts for the poor families around him as he had no family of his own.

Two is a commercial gimmick... who looks fluffy.

*EDIT* (because I missed part of what I tried to copy when it didn't post)
Three is someone who showed what is it to devote yourself totally to others. Regardless if he was just a normal human trying to help those around him, or the Son of God come to save our souls, or just a Jew who didn't like paying Roman taxes.

Ik, its rather clear as its not that you don't see. But more that you refused to see the difference. You were hoping to insult people of faith and drive up your own ego in the process. Instead now you're just looking like a moron for throwing out a comment that you and everyone else on here knows was wrong. Worse, you'd tried the "Be a good boy or else" faith tag on someone who's not only a faith apart from their parents' but also a trained killer (this of course being prior to working for the school system). Neither of which I'm thinking would earn me treats if I was waiting on mommy and daddy for good behavior.

But with this, I think I'm going to step out of this thread. While I won't pretend to expect any better from most of the people on this forum these days. I can only waste so much time the mindless hypocrisy runs from you guys before it cuts into gaming time.

Deepcrush wrote:One is based on a guy who made gifts for the poor families around him as he had no family of his own.

Two is a commercial gimmick... who looks fluffy.

Three is someone who showed what is it to devote yourself totally to others.

Ik, its rather clear as its not that you don't see. But more that you refused to see the difference. You were hoping to insult people of faith and drive up your own ego in the process. Instead now you're just looking like a moron for throwing out a comment that you and everyone else on here knows was wrong. Worse, you'd tried the "Be a good boy or else" faith tag on someone who's not only a faith apart from their parents' but also a trained killer (this of course being prior to working for the school system).

But you still got the entire concept of faith from your parents. Which variety you choose to believe isn't actually relevant. I'm not trying to insult anyone, only the idea of faith it's self. Surely you are secure enough in your faith that you can cope with the idea of someone challenging the concept without it rocking your world view. You know there are people out there that don't believe as you do so that cannot come as any big surprise. I really can't see where the insult is supposed to come from.

Neither of which I'm thinking would earn me treats if I was waiting on mommy and daddy for good behavior.

Wow, you where a trained killer as a child? I didn't realize that. Gosh you parents must have had a difficult time getting you to behave. No wonder they had to rely on threats from an omnipotent being. The treats are inherent in the whole Christian religion, if you don't behave you go to hell. I didn't make up the treats, or a story that they exist they're right there in black and white (supposedly from the hand of god).

But with this, I think I'm going to step out of this thread. While I won't pretend to expect any better from most of the people on this forum these days. I can only waste so much time the mindless hypocrisy runs from you guys before it cuts into gaming time.

It seems fairly evident, Ian, that you can't see the difference because you don't want to, in exactly the same way as Deep and I find the difference obvious.

The "no difference" concept isn't intended to imply that the two are absolutely identical in every respect, and only a moron would take it that way.

The point is that there are extremely close parallels between Santa, the Tooth Fairy and god.

All of them are claimed to reward good behaviour and/or punish bad behaviour.

All of them are widely believed in, albeit by different segments of the population.

All of them are claimed to have supernatural properties.

All of them are believed in because parents teach their kids that they are true.

All of them are used by parents / authority figures as a way to enforce desired behaviours by saying that they regard those behaviours as good or bad.

And most importantly, all of them are believed in only on faith, with no real justification. And yet their believers tend to be very certain of their existence in spite of this.

Yes, they vary in minor details such as what they are alleged to look like, or which particular behaviours they reward or punish. But in the important aspects, they are the same.

Oh, and I'd add... to people who don't believe, especially to those who once did, the whole idea seems not only wrong, but absurd.

Mikey wrote:It seems fairly evident, Ian, that you can't see the difference because you don't want to, in exactly the same way as Deep and I find the difference obvious.

I would argue that I can't see the difference because there isn't one. Equally, that you do think there is one because you need there to be one in order to continue to justify your belief in god.

I don't see the need to believe in something without good reason. As a rational person you have the same view, except, when it comes to god, when you simply choose to believe even when there's no good reason to do so. When people are asked why this is so they use the f word, faith that is.

The problem with that is one can have faith in any number of things. For example there are lots of people who have faith (a very strong belief) that the moon landings where faked, that people are being abducted by aliens and a whole slew of other things. Why is it that these people are treated as not quite right while believers in god get the beliefs that must be respected accolade given to them. Now, as I've said I do not equate you with these people but I cannot see the reason for such a disparity in the treatment of the two groups. Surely if as a society we are to respect and go along with the beliefs of others then these people are getting very unethical treatment indeed.

Take something slightly more mainstream Homeopathy. Here, we are asked to belief that if you take a poison and serially dilute it to the point that there is not one single molecule of the poison left in the water then that water is somehow imprinted with the ability to cure people poisoned with the original poison. From a scientific point of view there's no way it can work. Clinical trials, that are properly run, show that it doesn't work. The problem is that people have great faith in the ability of Homeopathy, and that faith is the very same type of faith as the belief in god. The obvious question then is should these people be able to setup organisations where the people running it can live tax free. Are we all to be looked down on if we even question the logic behind these beliefs. In short are all faiths equal?

IanKennedy wrote:I would argue that I can't see the difference because there isn't one.

Well, of course you would! If you held any tenet other than that, you wouldn't be much of an atheist, would you? That's the whole point - you believe as you do, and I believe as I do. Fundamentally, insofar as our own thought processes regarding this matter, there is no difference between saying "I believe..." and "I know..."

IanKennedy wrote:Equally, that you do think there is one because you need there to be one in order to continue to justify your belief in god.

Again, that's almost necessary for you to believe to support your atheistic tenet. If I had to answer that, I'd say that I don't need to justify anything - the act of faith is sort of mutually exclusive with the need to justify the object of that faith. That's why I've NEVER disagreed with the idea that there is no evidence for G-d's existence - I am fully comfortable with "taking it on faith," and moreover that's really the whole point AFAIC.

IanKennedy wrote:I don't see the need to believe in something without good reason. As a rational person you have the same view, except, when it comes to god, when you simply choose to believe even when there's no good reason to do so. When people are asked why this is so they use the f word, faith that is.

Yep. However, your description carries the implication that "faith" is an invalid reason for that belief, or something of a cop-out to avoid facing the lack of evidence. It isn't - as I said above, I (and I suspect most people who believe in a deistic religion) embrace that lack of evidence as a means of differentiating the theological from the secular. To further explain, if there were no such separation between the secular and the theological in most believers' lives, there wouldn't be any reason to continue with the day-to-day of religion (as distinct from just belief.)

IanKennedy wrote:The problem with that is one can have faith in any number of things. For example there are lots of people who have faith (a very strong belief) that the moon landings where faked, that people are being abducted by aliens and a whole slew of other things. Why is it that these people are treated as not quite right while believers in god get the beliefs that must be respected accolade given to them. Now, as I've said I do not equate you with these people but I cannot see the reason for such a disparity in the treatment of the two groups. Surely if as a society we are to respect and go along with the beliefs of others then these people are getting very unethical treatment indeed.

I think you are mistaking colloquiality with definitive credos. Idiomatic language such as "People who believe the moon landing was faked are nuts" is merely colloquialism (and ruder language) for "I (the hypothetical speaker) disagree with them." Now, of course there are degrees - David Berkowitz really believed that his neighbor's dog spoke to him, and had enough influence to help cause him to murder people. However, such things are almost happenstance, and definitely not to be equated with a conscious decision to have faith (such as in a religious concept or conspiracy theory.)

BTW,

IanKennedy wrote:Now, as I've said I do not equate you with these people

I also seem to remember you saying that I am cognitively impaired for failing to believe as you do.

IanKennedy wrote:The obvious question then is should these people be able to setup organisations where the people running it can live tax free.

That's not really a question which is germane to this discussion. Firstly, the tax status of faith-based organizations is a question of politics and statecraft, not of theology; secondly, the type of organization you postulate in your example is most patently not a religion or theological sect, no matter how strongly it believes in homeopathy. If you want to alter that example to, say, a sect which gathers to practice the ritual and study of worshiping Baphomet; well, then, yes - if it can be determined that it is a truly-believing group (and not a tax dodge) then such a sect should be treated the same under the law as any other religious organization.

IanKennedy wrote:Are we all to be looked down on if we even question the logic behind these beliefs.

I still think your conception of the persecution of atheists is anachronistic. From what I've seen around here - and here is really the only place I've had occasion to engage in theological debate with atheists - people of faith have been forced to defend their decision to believe, while nobody has ever questioned an atheist's right or occasion to think the way he does.

IanKennedy wrote:In short are all faiths equal?

Depends on what you mean by equal. If you mean, as I suspect, "equally valid to that faith's adherents," then absolutely so long as it is a truly-held credo and not (like some "churches" instituted for secular purposes) a dodge. Going back to your homeopathy example - if someone truly believes in the efficacy of homeopathic remedies and such a remedy helps them, then who cares if that help is due to a placebo effect?

Well, of course you would! If you held any tenet other than that, you wouldn't be much of an atheist, would you? That's the whole point - you believe as you do, and I believe as I do.

It's not that he doesn't see the difference because he's an atheist, it's that he's an atheist because he doesn't see the difference.

The problem with faith is that it is not a path to truth. As you yourself admit, one can have faith in any position whatsoever, and every one of them is equal. For example, earlier people disagreed with Ian's statement that Santa and god are essentially identical. Yet by the faith standard, all he has to do is say that he has faith that Santa and god are identical, and suddenly this becomes a reasonable and respected view.

I care about my beliefs, and I care about whether they are true or not. I want to believe things that are true and not believe things that are not true. Faith does absolutely nothing to help me in this respect, but rationality, evidence, logic and such do.

Depends on what you mean by equal. If you mean, as I suspect, "equally valid to that faith's adherents," then absolutely so long as it is a truly-held credo and not (like some "churches" instituted for secular purposes) a dodge.

I suspect he means are they equal in terms of their truth.

Going back to your homeopathy example - if someone truly believes in the efficacy of homeopathic remedies and such a remedy helps them, then who cares if that help is due to a placebo effect?

The trouble is with the "if". The placebo effect only goes so far.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It's not that he doesn't see the difference because he's an atheist, it's that he's an atheist because he doesn't see the difference.

Indeed, exactly as I just said.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The problem with faith is that it is not a path to truth.

Certainly I wouldn't imagine you'd say anything else. As above, if you didn't think this way you wouldn't have ended up as an atheist either. If you mean that it is not a path to fact, then I'd agree with you. I've never expected historical or scientific fact from my faith, anymore than I'd expect my dog to graze like a ruminant. However, personal truths - self-realization, a core of belief with which to center oneself, etc. - are not only provided by faith, they are its raison d'etre. If you find such things provided by your own choice of belief, or imagine that you don't need such things, or have them fulfilled by other aspects of your life, then great.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yet by the faith standard, all he has to do is say that he has faith that Santa and god are identical, and suddenly this becomes a reasonable and respected view.

Sure, and it would also be incredibly ridiculous. Ian doesn't have faith in such a tenet, and to claim so would be contentious without adding anything of value, as have been some other arguments made here. If that were an argument that someone wanted to make, it would be better served by putting it in a separate thread entitled, "Contentious attacks on faith to which we don't want answers."

GrahamKennedy wrote:I care about my beliefs, and I care about whether they are true or not. I want to believe things that are true and not believe things that are not true. Faith does absolutely nothing to help me in this respect, but rationality, evidence, logic and such do.

Er... OK, I'm glad for you. I'm not sure what bearing this has on anything, but I'm glad you found something that works for you. I honestly don't recall where anyone said that you shouldn't believe the way you do, or that your current paradigm doesn't work for you. Certainly I haven't said any such thing. The difference between us, seemingly, is that the way you think doesn't bother me.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The trouble is with the "if". The placebo effect only goes so far.

Yeah, that was a hypothetical example which I'd already shown doesn't really work toward the point Ian was making.

I mean equal in the degree of respect that should be granted to people who belief it. We are told that faith is something that has to be respected, Voyager was very big on this, to bring in Star Trek, for example. It's a view that seems to be quite prevalent in American society, at least from it's portrayal on television. As I said there are people who have an unshakable belief in the 'fact' that the moon landing where faked, others that people are being abducted by aliens and having experiments performed on them. American society seems to treat these people as if they are insane because of what they have faith in. At the same time chistians get very upset if you challenge their faith, take Deeps as an example. I'm being openly accused of insulting him because I challenge the concept of religion and faith. Clearly some faiths are treated better than others. That is also reflected in the fact that 'religious' faiths are given tax breaks. If all faiths are equal then are all to be given tax breaks. (irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the politics giving anyone tax breaks).

The alien abduction people are constantly shown as idiots in American television and movies, take for example "Independence Day" or "Conspiracy Theory" (with Mel Gibson). This goes way beyond disagreeing with them they are truly treated as nuts.

I also seem to remember you saying that I am cognitively impaired for failing to believe as you do.

And I also remember saying that you where wrong in the belief and apologising if you mistook my statement for something it wasn't.