Stuff Atheists Say: Believing in God Is Like Believing in Santa

Stuff Atheists Say: Believing in God Is Like Believing in Santa

By Timothy Fox

Welcome to the second installment in my series, Stuff Atheists Say! (Read part 1 here.) This series is dedicated to bad arguments and statements that some atheists (the internet troll type) make to derail a conversation and avoid having to put forth any arguments or evidence of their own. My intention is not to smear every nonbeliever as there are many thoughtful and honest questions that skeptics ask which need to be answered. In fact, there are many atheists who are just as tired as these nonsensical statements as I am! That’s why I want to clear up some of these pointless slogans once and for all. So on to the second one:

Stuff Atheists Say: Believing in God Is Like Believing in Santa

Bad “argument” #2: Believing in God is no different than believing in Santa Claus.
Or maybe you’ve heard it stated: “I don’t need to disprove God any more than I need to disprove the existence of leprechauns.” Or fairies. Or any other type of mythical creature. The point of this statement is to equate God with any other imaginary being that is ridiculous to seriously believe in.

The Santa Delusion

So is believing in God really the same as having an imaginary friend? An invisible sky daddy? Maybe, if believing in a fat man in a red suit who delivers presents in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer to every child in the world is the same thing as believing in a God who created the universe from nothing, brought life from non-life, and grounds objective moral values and duties. If so, then yes, they’re exactly the same.

But if believing in God is so ridiculous, you know what’s even more ridiculous? Giving lectures against his existence. Having debates about it. Trolling blogs and internet chatrooms. Writing popular-level books promoting unbelief. Meanwhile, I don’t see anyone penning The Santa Delusion or The Tooth Fairy Is Not Great.

And I guess that the overwhelming majority of humans throughout all of time are as deluded as little children. Because every culture across history has had some kind of religion or believed in a deity of a sort.  We discuss God’s existence in the classroom, at the dinner table, and over a coffee (or beer). From philosophers to scientists, with believers, skeptics, and everyone in-between. Silly humans.

No, Seriously

But let’s take this argument seriously. Is belief in God really no different than belief in Santa? First, how justified are we in believing in Santa Claus? What would it take for someone to actually think that he exists? Evidence. And here the atheist says “Correct! There’s no evidence for either of them! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in God or Santa!” But is the evidence for Santa Claus and God really the same? Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: a fat man in a red suit delivering presents Christmas Eve. But what about God? If God exists, do you know what you would look for? Before stating that there is no evidence for something, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist!

For it to be reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists, he would have to be the best explanation for the existence of Christmas presents. But is there another, better explanation? Perhaps someone else put the presents under the tree, like parents. Maybe the gifts just popped into existence from nothing. Or maybe they’ve been there for all eternity! You can probably see where this is going. How did the universe get here? Did it just pop into existence uncaused, has it always been here, or is it reasonable to believe that something, or someone, caused it to begin to exist? God is the best explanation for all of reality. And even if you disagree, it’s still a legitimate option, is it not?

But maybe Santa exists and he’s just hiding. That’s why he has never been observed, just like God! Again, what are the reasons to believe that Santa exists? Are there any? Because there are very good reasons to believe that God exists, such as the cosmological argument, moral argument, fine-tuning argument, etc. Can you honestly say the same about Santa? Of course not.

Furthermore, what are the consequences if Santa doesn’t exist? Then kids must get their Christmas presents another way, because we know from experience that presents exist (unless you were on the naughty list, I guess). But if there’s no God? Then the universe came into existence uncaused from nothing for no reason. Life came from non-life and consciousness from non-consciousness. There are no objective morals and values. Exactly the same? No. Not a chance.

Conclusion

I hope we can all see how ridiculous it is to equate God with some imaginary or mythical being. It’s not as trivial as who delivers Christmas presents or trades cash for teeth; we’re talking about the First Cause who created and upholds the entire universe. There are good reasons and arguments for God’s existence. So to those who say that belief in God is no different than belief in Santa Claus, please stop. You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, not us.

For another good and thorough treatment of this issue, check out the Reasonable Faith article Is God Imaginary?

 

For More Articles like Stuff Atheists Say: Believing in God Is Like Believing in Santa visit Tim’s site at FreeThinkingMinistries.com

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
29 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    “But if believing in God is so ridiculous, you know what’s even more ridiculous? Giving lectures against his existence. Having debates about it. Trolling blogs and internet chatrooms. Writing popular-level books promoting unbelief. Meanwhile, I don’t see anyone penning The Santa Delusion or The Tooth Fairy Is Not Great.”

    The obvious answer to that is that people aren’t trying to make public policy based on belief in Santa or The Tooth Fairy. People don’t get attacked for disbelieving in Santa or The Tooth Fairy. People aren’t flying planes into buildings due to Santa and Tooth Fairy belief. Whether or not the Santa/Tooth Fairy comparison is good or bad, this is a peculiar objection to it.

    “But if there’s no God? There are no objective morals and values”

    What difference would the existence of God make to whether or not there were objective morals and values?

    Reply
    • Mike Edwwards says:

      “The obvious answer to that is that people aren’t trying to make public policy based on belief in Santa or The Tooth Fairy”—Correct, but the point is, there is no policy to make because Santa and tooth fairy do not proclaim moral standards. And ALL law legislates morality (murder, rape, child abuse…etc) so the point is, If not a objective standard like God, then where does the objective standard lay? Men ? (Hitlers, or mother Teresa’s) ?

      “People aren’t flying planes into buildings due to Santa and Tooth Fairy belief. Whether or not the Santa/Tooth Fairy comparison is good or bad, this is a peculiar objection to it.”—what Religion teaches this ? Not Christianity/Jesus…your trying to lump all religions into the same theology…Thats just false.

      “What difference would the existence of God make to whether or not there were objective morals and values?” —Because then you would have to have a standard to base this morality on. If not God, then who or what? What being/thing sets the standard for you that we should all follow? If no standards, then its just opinion from person to person……saint to pedophile …no wrong or right in either.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        “Correct”

        Right, so you agree that’s why we don’t see fairy and Santa equivalents of The God Delusion.

        “Not Christianity/Jesus”

        When did I say otherwise?

        “You’re trying to lump…”

        Nope, I didn’t.

        “If not an objective standard like God…”

        What makes God an objective standard? Who says and on what basis?

        Reply
      • toby says:

        If not a objective standard like God, then where does the objective standard lay?
        There is none. Much like there is no standard of beauty or humor or fashion. Business people (a lot of them anyway) all over America frown on employees wearing blue jeans to work because it “doesn’t look professional”. It’s purely a subjective standard and ingrained into a lot of people’s psychology so that they “feel” that it’s true. Which is all apologists offer as proof that objective standards exist: feelings. Which accounts for your emotional appeal to feelings by citing the world’s worst mass murderer and woman thought to be very good. It’s the “written on your heart” fallacy. You feel it, therefore it must be true.

        your [sic] trying to lump all religions into the same theology…Thats [sic] just false.
        At their core all religions rely on one or more supernatural beings that prescribe what their people should do. It’s the interpretation of the people that gives us ISIS, the KKK, Tamil Tigers, Ted Cruz voters, Westboro Baptist, Hamas, Robert Lewis Dear, etc.

        If no standards, then its just opinion from person to person……saint to pedophile …no wrong or right in either.
        Do you hold your opinions to have no value? I don’t see any problem with sociocultural norms relevant to current facts of existence being used as guidelines for life. Like if 99% of humanity were allergic to peanuts it would be illegal to serve them in restaurants.

        Reply
      • MarkB says:

        I’d be ENORMOUSLY interested in how you think there’s a transcendent moral code in that bible of yours — given the proscribed condoned, encouraged, and forbidden acts listed. Your child is disobedient? Stone him to death. Find out on your wedding night that your bride isn’t a virgin? Kill her on her daddy’s doorstep. An unmarried/unengaged woman gets raped? She must marry her rapist, after he pays her daddy 50 shekels. Need a slave? Buy one from a neighboring nation that’s not Jewish or christian. It’s only 6 shekels.

        Do ANY of these is civilized society, and you will spend the rest of your life in a small gray cubicle, fending off Bubba the serial man-rapist. Deservedly so, I might add.

        When ANY of you are prepared to actually ENGAGE an atheist instead of putting up a ridiculous strawman, we are ready to discuss. Will we be polite? Not a requirement, but speaking to us as if we are as worthy a human being as you believe yourself to be will go a LOOONNG way.

        Reply
  2. David says:

    No one was ever burned at the stake for wrong belief in Santa. Honor killings rarely take place on behalf of Santa. And no one has ever tried to tell me that if I don’t trust Santa as my personal savior and convert to Santaanity I will burn in hell forever. Actually, belief in Santa seems a lot more desirable to me than belief in god.

    Reply
  3. John B. Moore says:

    Believing in Santa makes a lot more sense than believing in God. After all, I have actually met Santa in person. I sat on his lap and talked to him. He gave me advice about how to be good – straight from his mouth. And then on Christmas morning, I got real presents which were the actual things I asked Santa to give me. There was a tag on my present saying “From Santa.” It’s true I didn’t see Santa come down the chimney, but my Mom and Dad said it was Santa who brought the presents, and I had all this physical evidence, so I believed them.

    With God, there’s no similar evidence like this at all. The only reason for believing in God is because Mom and Dad tell you to, and the priests and bishops, and all the adults. They just tell you to believe, and so you do, despite the total lack of Santa-quality evidence.

    Reply
    • shaun humphreys says:

      There is a plenty of evidence for the existence of God. Christian apologetics works to provide the world with that evidence. If you want to examine that evidence I strongly suggest that you get into apologetics. I was and atheist before I became a Christian. It was the evidence which convinced me to become a Christian, having spent 12 months out my life to examine what the truth is. If you want to find the truth, you have to put real effort into finding it. Not just sit there and say “there’s no proof”. Apologists provide hundreds, and thousands of pages of proof for you, proof of the universe’s fine tuning, proof of the new testament’s historical reliability, proof of Christ’ resurrection, proof of the irreducible complexity of biological life. This evidence is provided by Christian apologists, many of whom are scientists and historians. “Seek and ye shall find”. Search through it all with an open noble mind.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        Seek and ye shall find.

        All I can say is that some people are satisfied with philosophical arguments that have no real evidence only coherence through definitional gymnastics. Apologists with their “arguments” are only providing people with god of the gap arguments to people who are satisfied by the quick answer and uncomfortable with “we don’t know”. Seek and ye shall find? No, not these days. What they really mean is “if you want to find god, go looking for him/her/it and you’ll find whatever you wanted to find in the first place…which hopefully was our god and you can join the rest of us in telling people how to live”. Essentially: You’ve gotta believe before you believe so that you can believe.

        Reply
  4. Joseph says:

    We know Santa doesn’t exist. Anyone who says Santa exists is making a mistake in reasoning and is committing a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting a fictional character with a real person and then equivocating or switching between the two i.e. an equivocation fallacy. What exists is a man dressed in red clothes giving presents, representing a fictional character. So any statements that states Santa is non-fictional are within the irrational domain. Irrational statements contain fallacies and don’t lead to truth but perpetually confuses. For someone who is deliberately fallacious its best to end the debate and move on to those who can escape from irrationality onto rational ground i.e. remove fallacies from their statements.

    When it comes to God even the atheist has to accept the authority of the Judaeo/Christian bible in order for them to argue their points against God and Christians. The atheist may disbelieve the bible, but has to use it as evidence for their arguments. Anyone who gives examples of crimes committed in the name of God as a representation of the Judaeo/Christian God is really committing the fallacies of fear/emotion and the straw man fallacy, because the bible is clearly against criminal acts. The bible never portrays God as a fictional character. God is a God of Love. God is a God of Judgement. Judgement can mean the suffering or death of a person disobeying laws. The atheist may feel uncomfortable with the notion of death or suffering, but God sees the sins that the atheist cannot see in God’s judgement. The bible states God is spirit and gives eternal life. The bible clearly states “…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…” even towards the enemy!

    What atheist can love, have joy, be kind to their enemy? It’s impossible for an atheist, because the atheist perceives God as their enemy and no atheist can say that they love God. If they do then they are liars. You need to be of the spirit to love God. The atheist cannot accept the spirit. Loving God and others as you love God is an evidence of God.

    The love of presents from a fictional Santa can never come close to the real gifts of love that God gives to all who accepts it.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “What atheist can love, have joy, be kind to their enemy?”

      I am an atheist and I love, have joy and am often kind to my enemies. Therefore your argument fails.

      Reply
      • Joseph says:

        As an atheist you cannot love God who is your enemy. Now, if you maintain you love God then you are contradicting your belief system, hence your statement is irrational i.e. you cannot reject God and love Him at the same time. It’s actually impossible. So my argument holds up very well.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          I don’t love God because I don’t think he exists. I don’t think he’s my enemy because, again, I don’t think he exists. I have no emotions towards other beings I believe to be fictional. I’m guessing you wouldn’t say that you love deities that you don’t believe in either – (Do you love Ganesh? Do you see Ganesh as your enemy?).

          So no, my statement isn’t irrational or self-contradictory, and your argument makes no sense. Not only does it not hold up ‘very’ well, it doesn’t hold up at all.

          Reply
          • Joseph says:

            Well that’s the issue. You may not think God exist but a Christian believes God exist. Your disbelief don’t nullify God’s existence. And it’s not just that God exists but you can know God by following Him in the right way that God has given. Now a Christian also loves God and has a relationship with God trying to be like God, even thou their sins keep getting in the way. You can’t divorce God from the follower of God. So your attack against God is also against the Christian. As you say, you can’t love God, so you can’t say you love the Christian. It’s a special pleading fallacy or double standards and contradictory. God didn’t say “Love your enemies except…”. Every enemy a Christian should love. This is amongst a number of reasons why an atheist has no justification in saying they love their enemies. So yes your statement is irrational because of the fallacies and contradiction in your statement. This means your statement doesn’t hold up rationally. There are also other ways your statement don’t hold up but what I just said suffices.

            Other deities are measured against the standard of the biblical God. So their is no justification for a Christian to believe in them.

            Ganesh, whoever he is, a Christian will love. God didn’t say “Love your enemies except…”. Every enemy a Christian should love.

          • Paul says:

            <>

            Ok. I can see that works for you. However, what about those who actively write articles attacking the idea of God. They don’t believe God exists yet they make their disbelief (in God) the center focus of their life. Is God their enemy despite their non-belief.

        • Andy Ryan says:

          ” You may not think God exist but a Christian believes God exist.”

          Obviously. But you said I was contradicting my own belief system. Nothing you’ve said has shown that I do.

          “As you say, you can’t love God, so you can’t say you love the Christian”

          Nonsense. I love plenty of Christians. I just don’t think they’re right on the God issue. You would reject the idea that you can’t love a non-Christian, wouldn’t you? You said yourself that you love them. If anyone is ‘special pleading’ it’s you, when you claim that an atheist cannot love a Christian because he doesn’t believe in the Christian God, yet claim there’s no problem with you loving followers of other religions when you don’t believe in their Gods.

          “So yes your statement is irrational because of the fallacies and contradiction in your statement.”

          You’ve shown no contradictions or fallacies.

          “This is amongst a number of reasons why an atheist has no justification in saying they love their enemies”

          You’ve provided no reasons at all, let along ‘a number of reasons’.

          Reply
          • Joseph says:

            Ryan, when you say that you “love your enemies” I have to analyse the philosophy of atheism to decide whether the belief system of atheism can justify your statements to me. This is where the fallacies, contradictions, inconsistencies of the reasoning’s are. You as an individual can say anything to me, but it’s the belief system that you conform to that’s at issue here. Your statement is that you are an atheist.

            Firstly, a Christian has justification for loving all their enemies because they are rewarded by God and the Christian is acting in a consistent way according to their belief described in the absolute standards of the Judeo/Christian bible. It’s a journey a Christian takes to know God, who exists in Spirit, Who is Love, Who is Judgement, Who is Righteousness, of which these things aren’t materially discernible and transcends nature itself.

            Atheism has no absolute moral standard. Neither can atheism find a justification for “loving their enemies” in nature or natural laws. Atheism is trapped in moral relativism which leads to the conclusion that the statement of “I love my enemies” is neither right nor wrong. Now, for an atheist, if we came from nothing and we go to nothing what reward or benefit is there for an atheist to say “I love my enemy”! A present from Santa won’t save the argument, because Santa is fictitious.

            So, the statement of “I love my enemies” makes no sense in an atheists worldview, apart from it being borrowed from a Christians worldview and being used as a “rescuing device” to try and save the atheist argument.

            So, an atheist stating “they love their enemies” is irrational because of its fallaciousness, contradiction and irreconcilable worldview. If you are proclaiming another system called ‘Ryanism’ then you will have to abandon your atheism argument.

          • Joseph says:

            Just to clarify your questions.

            Nonsense. I love plenty of Christians. I just don’t think they’re right on the God issue.

            Answer: It’s about loving all Christians. Atheism has no love for God. A Christian is trying to become everything an atheist hates of God. Its a contradiction for a atheist to love the very thing a Christian is trying to become.

            You would reject the idea that you can’t love a non-Christian, wouldn’t you?

            Answer: I repeat, a Christians loves all their enemies

            You said yourself that you love them. If anyone is ‘special pleading’ it’s you, when you claim that an atheist cannot love a Christian because he doesn’t believe in the Christian God, yet claim there’s no problem with you loving followers of other religions when you don’t believe in their Gods.

            Answer: I don’t see any double standards. Loving your enemies is loving followers of any religion whatever type of God they may believe in. Atheism has no love for God, and if you are an atheist its special pleading to say you love all Christians.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Joseph, you say “a Christian is trying to become everything an atheists hates of God”.

            It’s pretty simple: Either it’s possible to love someone who believes in a God that you don’t believe in yourself or it isn’t. And you believe it is. And I said I believe it is too. So we are not actually in disagreement.

            You talk about ‘absolute moral standards’. If your morals are SUBJECT to a God’s existence then by definition they are not absolute. Pick a moral value – does it come from God because its moral or is it moral because it comes from God? Either way, if it’s not a moral value without God then it isn’t absolute – an absolute moral value would, by definition, exist with or without a God.

            I don’t think you know what special pleading means – it doesn’t make sense in the sentence you used about it being special pleading for an atheist to say they love all Christians.

            You asked what reward or benefit I get from loving my enemies. It’s pretty sad that you feel love must accrue rewards or benefits.

            Finally, feel free to call me Andy, or Mr Ryan if you have to use my surname. It’s not polite to address someone by their surname without a title.

          • Joseph says:

            Joseph, you say “a Christian is trying to become everything an atheists hates of God”.

            It’s pretty simple: Either it’s possible to love someone who believes in a God that you don’t believe in yourself or it isn’t. And you believe it is. And I said I believe it is too. So we are not actually in disagreement.

            Answer: As I’ve explain you proclaim that you are an atheist, so you are accepting a belief system that is atheism. It’s not about you it’s about the system you subscribe to. Atheism has no justification for “loving your enemies” i.e. all enemies not some which you have already confessed that you personally only love some Christians which means you don’t subscribe to it. The Judeo/Christian belief has justification for it. Hence, you are borrowing from the Christian standards to rescue your argument. Hence, you are special pleading i.e. You have double standards. Meaning your statement is inconsistent, hence irrational.

            You talk about ‘absolute moral standards’. If your morals are SUBJECT to a God’s existence then by definition they are not absolute. Pick a moral value – does it come from God because its moral or is it moral because it comes from God? Either way, if it’s not a moral value without God then it isn’t absolute – an absolute moral value would, by definition, exist with or without a God.

            Answer: God is absolute. God gives justification for absolutes. Atheism subscribes to relativism. “loving your enemy” is the moral standard at issue here. Loving your enemies standard comes from God and is part of God’s nature. So “loving your enemies” can’t be relative. This moral standard transcends nature and the laws of nature. To be clear, here is the full text of the moral standard. Matthew 5:44 “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

            I don’t think you know what special pleading means – it doesn’t make sense in the sentence you used about it being special pleading for an atheist to say they love all Christians.

            Answer: special pleading is the fallacy of applying a double standard. But it would have been more helpful if you had given me the definition rather than no definition then told me that you don’t think I know what it is. As I have stated atheism has no justification for “loving your enemies” (which is an absolute standard), but Christianity has justification, so you borrow it from Christianity to rescue your argument as an atheist. Thus you have double standards or you fallaciously special pleading.

            You asked what reward or benefit I get from loving my enemies. It’s pretty sad that you feel love must accrue rewards or benefits.

            Answer: Then if there are no benefits or rewards why are you doing it? It’s not in any atheists constitution that I know of. Conclusion is that it’s an arbitrary decision that you have made or it’s special pleading. Arbitrariness is another sign of irrationality as well as fallacious statements.

            Finally, feel free to call me Andy, or Mr Ryan if you have to use my surname. It’s not polite to address someone by their surname without a title.

            Answer: If we were talking person to person I would have, but this is the internet and I have no way of knowing that it is even your real name. So I can’t see why you are offended by this.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Atheism has no justification for “loving your enemies”

            Neither does ‘not believing in aliens’ but that doesn’t mean the two are incompatible. You need to show that not believing in God and ‘loving your enemies’ are actually incompatible. You haven’t done that, so your argument fails.

            ” It’s not in any atheists constitution that I know of”

            Why does it need to be? Is there a ‘not believing in Ganesh’ constitution? Is there a ‘not believing that the moon is made of cheese’ constitution? Why do I need a constitution before I can love somebody? You’re talking nonsense! You need to show that it is RULED OUT by an ‘atheists constitution’ to show that it is incompatible. Again, you have not done this, so, again, your argument fails.

            “Atheism subscribes to relativism”

            Prove it.

            “God is absolute”

            Prove it.

            “Loving your enemies standard comes from God and is part of God’s nature”

            Who says God’s nature is an objective standard?

            “So I can’t see why you are offended by this.”

            Why not just say “Sure, if you’d prefer to be called by your first name, that’s what I’ll do”? For someone who claims to love their enemies you’re pretty rude to someone who isn’t even your enemy!

          • Joseph says:

            Your Statement: Neither does ‘not believing in aliens’ but that doesn’t mean the two are incompatible. You need to show that not believing in God and ‘loving your enemies’ are actually incompatible. You haven’t done that, so your argument fails.

            My Answer: To not believe in God (supernatural) all that’s left is nature i.e. naturalism. Loving all your enemies is not observed in nature.

            Your Statement: Why do I need a constitution before I can love somebody?

            My Answer: If you say you are an atheist then you follow the principles of the belief system that is atheism. If you don’t follow atheism then you are not an atheist but something else. It’s not about loving somebody but about loving ALL your enemies.

            Your Statement: “Atheism subscribes to relativism”

            Prove it.

            “God is absolute”

            Prove it.

            My Answer: Your two statements together are self-refuting, because you are saying prove atheism is absolute (which you can’t prove and which I don’t need to prove), and to prove God is relative which is contradictory because relativism means anyone saying God is absolute, is true. It’s really an irrational proposition you posed.

            Your Statement: Who says God’s nature is an objective standard?

            My Answer: The ultimate standard for a Christian is the Judeo/Christian bible. This is where it is stated.

            Your Statement: Why not just say “Sure, if you’d prefer to be called by your first name, that’s what I’ll do”? For someone who claims to love their enemies you’re pretty rude to someone who isn’t even your enemy!

            My Answer: I answered you with reasons without being rude to you. An insult or being rude to you is if I used profanity before or after your name. Calling you by your actual name doesn’t make me not love you. I may be guilty of breaking your etiquette, but that’s about it.

            I have made the points that I need to make, so I’ll leave it up to future readers to decide who’s statements are irrational and who’s statements aren’t. So I won’t be replying to you under this reply section anymore.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Loving all your enemies is not observed in nature”

            I know lots of non-Christians who love their enemies, so your statement is demonstrably false.

            “If you say you are an atheist then you follow the principles of the belief system that is atheism”

            Atheism has no principles in and of itself. It just means you don’t believe in God. This doesn’t mean atheists cannot have principles, it just means they don’t derive from not believing in God. So again, what you say is false.

            “It’s really an irrational proposition you posed.”

            I didn’t propose anything – I just asked you to back up those two assertions. You haven’t done so.

            Me: Who says God’s nature is an objective standard?
            You: The ultimate standard for a Christian is the Judeo/Christian bible

            Sure, but I asked what makes it an objective standard, rather than a standard that you happen to prefer.

      • Andrew says:

        No you don’t love or have joy without God. You have a chemical response that is completely suceptical to natural laws and your only goal is to get as many euphoric feelings as possible before you die. You have no hope in anything. Not meant to be brutal but your life is completely and totally meaningless according to your worldview. I would encourage you to strongly consider what Frank is saying in this article because the implications are huge. The fact that you even waste your time talking about this tells me you know there is something more. Time, energy, mass and matter don’t just spontaneously generate, it is more logical to believe in Santa than that goofball crud. “Who is more irrational a man who believes in a God he can’t see or a man offended by a God he doesn’t believe in?” Eternity is a long time to be wrong bro, think it through.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          ” Not meant to be brutal but your life is completely and totally meaningless according to your worldview.”

          Speak for yourself, Andrew. Your life may be meaningless to you. You life might be meaningless to without God. But you can’t tell someone else that their life is meaningless to THEM. My life has plenty of meaning to me, so you’re flat out wrong.

          “No you don’t love or have joy without God”
          Again, speak for yourself.

          “Who is more irrational a man who believes in a God he can’t see or a man offended by a God he doesn’t believe in?”

          I’m not offended by anything. It is the view of men I’m criticising, not those of a God who, as you say yourself, I don’t believe in.

          Reply
  5. Louie says:

    The interesting part in all of this, is that he really did exist. St. Nicholas was real, and if I recall correctly, Santa Claus (Jolly St. Nic) is what remains from the original giver of gifts.

    Reply
  6. Luke says:

    Andrew said:“No you don’t love or have joy without G-d. You have a chemical response that is completely suceptical [sic] to natural laws and your only goal is to get as many euphoric feelings as possible before you die. You have no hope in anything. Not meant to be brutal but your life is completely and totally meaningless according to your worldview.”

    Reading this, this immediately came to mind: The lady doth protest to much, methinks.

    Reply
  7. Spiker says:

    The author misses the point of the comparison. The question isn’t how great or powerful one is compared to the other, but whether either exists.
    Merely declaring one to be a first cause, creator, etc
    doesn’t mitigate the problem. It profoundly misses the point of the comparison. As Andy Dufresne once asked, is it deliberate?
    People have made similar declarations abot other characters. It doesn’t follow that those characters exist or accomplished what their followers claimed.
    Assuming what is in question is often referred to as question begging.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *