What is more believable?

Question

The belief in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or a belief in a God?

I personally am going with the Easter bunny. He doesn't have any special powers he is nothing more than a rabbit attracted to colored eggs and he delvers them to people. I'm sure it's possible to train a rabbit to do that, the other two are just silly.

I want to hear what you think, 10 points to the most compelling argument.

Answer 1

Funny how the religious rush to make ridiculous statements! God exists? Really!

The Easter bunny can be shown to exist as a cartoon character. Santa clause is an invention but again can be shown to be at least evidenced in some ways.

God on the other hand is an item of faith and cannot be proved to exits. If it could be proved it would no longer be a faith!

The bible is a handful of scrolls from a batch of hundreds. It has long been said that the rest of the scrolls heavily disagree with those chosen for the bible. Where are the other scrolls? In a locked vault in the Vatican where no one is allowed to view them!!!

Jesus was supposed to be a real trouble to the Romans but no trace or mention of him can be found in their records. At the same time there were a number of other Jews around claiming to be the Messiah and they are all well recorded!

Santa clause is a kindly giver of presents but is linked in someways to religion. Mankind friendly then!

God on the other hand is something which religious zealots keep trying to ram down our throats!!!! That must make him the big looser here!!!

The Easter bunny is similar to santa without the religion. I vote for the Easter bunny!

Answer 2

Sorry... that is not a valid argument... it is a logical fallacy (flaw in thinking) known as the 'Argument ad Bunnyantiam' (argument from the Easter Bunny). It goes something like this: "I cant figure out how anybody can think that any of this ridiculous drivel makes sense; the Easter Bunny is the least ridiculous of the alternatives presented; therefore, the Easter Bunny did it.

This does not represent a limitation of nature... rather, it represents a limitation of knowledge and/or intellect. It fails to account for other possibilities... for example, I have noticed that the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster [PBUHNA]) accounts for pirates and midgets, which the Easter Bunny does not.

You need to open your mind... just a little bit.

Answer 3

I'm going to have to go with Santa, only because he has so much historical evidence to back him up. He might not be around NOW, but there is more folk-lore to back up his existance than the other two. I mean, c'mon, the Catholic church cannonized "Saint Nicolos" for a reason right? Of COURSE Santa is believable. I might not buy the sled, presents, etc., but like I said, I feel he has a more firm and solid foundation in documentation.

God? while believable for some, isn't believable for others, he's not an all around kind of guy. No real hard historic evidence that God existed (not talking Jesus for all ya fanatics out there, no one asked about him). So I can't go with him.

Bunnies can be taught some stuff, but lack the opposable thumbs to actually carry the bastket and the eggs, so I gotta go with not so believable there too, sorry!

And just for all the people flipping out about this question, it's not asking whether any of us BELIEVE in any deity, it's asking what is MORE believable, logically. Chill people, really.

Answer 4

Well, God exists but Santa Claus is a symbolic character and the Easter bunny is just for sillies.

So I'm going with God.

Answer 5

What's the problem with believing in all? I belive in God (the non-religious type) and Santa, but I don't know of the Easter Bunny--we go for witches in my part of the world. And all this --who is right and wrong, what does it matter? whatever works for you I say, you wouldn't learn much if everyone only believed in a bunny delivering eggs, now would you?

Answer 6

Per the terms you pose, the Easter bunny is certainly the easiest figure for humans to wrap their heads around. God (any of the millions of variations on deity, anyway) abides by terms and conditions that are possible to understand--we can't even describe him/her/it properly with a pronoun without being fairly reductive. Santa, I would think, has high serum cholesterol problems, and the logistics of his pattern of traveling the world overnight and breaking and entering are sketchy. I'd lean toward the bunny by default.

Answer 7

Since I found out as a child that Santa doesn't exist and the Easter bunny doesn't exist then the answer is that it is easier to believe in God. So far, no one has proven that God does not exist.

Answer 8

Well, Santa and the Easter Bunny don't have half of history written about them.

Answer 9

I don't know if this answers your question or not, but one of the main reasons that I believe in Christianity is that the people who knew Jesus were willing to be tortured to death rather than change their story that they saw Jesus return from the dead.

If the apostles were lying about seeing the resurrected Christ, then why didn't they take back their story when they were individually being tortured to death? Every one of the apostles (Except John, who died a natural death in exile on Patmos), were killed for their faith. Wouldn't a liar recant this story to save his own life?

What did the apostles have to gain by making it all up? What good does fame or power do for a dead person?

I accept the apostles' story because the witnesses were creditable.

PS: BTW, I heard the crack about the suicide bombers; however, the difference between the suicide bombers & the Apostles is that the suicide bombers are not eye-witnesses to anything (they didn't meet Muhammad personally), and they are killing innocent people (others) for their faith, not suffering themselves for it.

Answer 10

Lots of help to you if you choose the Easter Bunny over God.