When a child learns about the identity of Santa Claus, that it is the child's parents that are giving the gifts, the child is instructed that now (s)he is part of the game and not to share this info with other children who still do believe.
Similarly, in the course of adulthood some adults learn the truth that there is no God, that God is an invention by early humans as a mechanism of control over other humans, and for control of wealth.
We were not told to "keep this a secret" from others who do believe in God, many of us share the information of the invention of the God concept.
Is the dialouge between Atheism and Theism, in which Atheists talk with Theists, similar to the big brother who informs the little brother that Santa isn't real, and that mommy and daddy are putting gifts under the tree,
and the younger brother or sister says "No thats not true, Santa is real, who else is eating the cookies and read the story Night before Christmas"?
Is this comparison valid?
2007-01-23 04:35:06 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I believe it's valid.
2007-01-23 04:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Most people who tell their little brother and sisters that Santa isn't real are kind about it. They don't replace that belief in Santa with the belief that there is no Santa and it's stupid to have ever believed and stop it! Never believe in anything or you're stupid! They temper their answers. And then they make the giving special in another (usually somewhat spiritual) way.
I'm no Christian. I belong to no organized religion. Nor am I agnostic. I have my own strong belief system. I do not proseltyize. I do not judge others unless they are hypocrites or intolerants. But a WHOLE lot of atheists on this board are really, really intolerant and seem to be a little bit in love with the fact that they are the smart ones, they are the ones who know the answer: that they are the ones who have the One True Faith: the faith of no faith. Some of you act as silly (and self-congratulatory) as funamentalist Christians.
Get over yourselves, people. So you don't believe in any creator of any kind and you think death equals an eternal dirt nap: good for you. But it doesn't make you any more special than anyone else and it also doesn't necessarily make you right. I respect your belief system; please do the same and try to respect someone else's. As long as they not overly annoying about it. Lest you become that which you hate. Science isn't any better a god than Zeus.
2007-01-23 04:49:06 · answer #2 · answered by landbornemermaid 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
how can you say this there is no Santa Clus in the Bible which is the source of all Truth and Light on Earth... those who believe in false gods will receive a pittance in the afterlife (Jer 13:25) and will receive God's wrath (Am 2:4), but those who believe in Jesus Christ and through him the Father the One True God (John 12:44) will be saved (Acts 16:31)
2007-01-23 04:52:58 · answer #3 · answered by romulusnr 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, considering I am probably more familiar with the history and development of atheist thought in western civilization than most atheists without degrees in philosophy, the analogy doesn't seem to work. For example, who is the major atheological influence on Karl Marx? Who did Freud get his projection theory of religion from? Who was the first atheologian to assert Jesus did not exist? Was Voltaire atheist or deist? Etc. etc. In short, I know more about the intellectual foundations of atheism than you do. Sorry.
2007-01-23 04:49:12 · answer #4 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not valid. The last time I checked, Santa never cured cancer. I know two people who, after the doctors gave up on them and their family turned to prayer, were cured. Please, remember, I just said the doctors gave up, it wasn't a medical thing that happened. The families prayed to God and both of the men have been cancer free for over five years.
You don't think God is real, and you compair my faith to that of a child's belief in Santa. Well, I think you're wrong. When doctors give up, are we just supposed to roll over and die. That's it, science can't help us, so we give in? I've seen prayer work, and if that isn't the evidence of God, then you're just blind.
Having faith, having a belief in something isn't wrong. You make it sound dirty, but you have faith. You believe in science, in what you can touch. What do you believe in when science fails you? What if it was you with the cancer and your doctor said, "There is nothing more we can do. You're going to die." Would you roll over, or would you welcome the prayers of your family? Faith is powerful, so stop making us seem like we're stupid for having it. We believe in God and in what we feel in our hearts and souls. You believe in what you see with your eyes and touch. I have felt healing when walking in a church, I've found strength in prayers to stop hurting myself (something no scientist with medical knowledge or any amount of pharmicital drugs had done before), and it was through my faith in God that I was able to turn my life around. Why is that so wrong? If it helps me, why are you so eager for me to not believe? That, my friend, is a selfish desire that will only harm in the end.
2007-01-23 04:48:17 · answer #5 · answered by sister steph 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Way to pick on the fourteen year old Christian.
D=
Lol,I can see what you mean,though. I have a five year old brother,and His thoughts on God and Santa are always changing,but I can't say anything. It makes him happy,and I think it'd be best for him to just find all of this out on his own.
2007-01-23 04:39:25 · answer #6 · answered by Myaloo 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, especially considering not just the existence but the mythology of Santa Claus. Like god, he sees everything you do, keeps a list of your sins, and rewards those who are good. Is it only a coincidence that bad people get something that burns in their stockings?
2007-01-23 04:42:39 · answer #7 · answered by Dave P 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no longer an atheist, yet i am going to respond to in any case. the three factors he lists: a million) DNA isn't purely a molecule with a trend; that is a code, a language, and an thoughts storage mechanism. 2) All codes are created through a unsleeping concepts; there is not any organic procedure time-honored to technological expertise that creates coded thoughts. 3) for this reason DNA become designed through a concepts. it is depending in great section on Creationist and recommendations theorist Werner Gitt's artwork. it is his definition of thoughts: (NC = mandatory situation, SC= adequate situation) NC1: A code device ought to exist. NC2: The chain of symbols ought to include semantics. SCI: It must be feasible to figure the ulterior target on the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic ranges (celebration: Karl v. Frisch analysed the dance of foraging bees and, in conformance with our form, ascertained the ranges of semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. subsequently, thoughts is unambiguously modern). SC2: a series of symbols does no longer characterize thoughts no matter if that is in accordance with randomness. in accordance to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics professional, randomness won't be able to, in idea, be shown; subsequently, for this reason, communique about the originating reason is critical. In SC2, randomness won't be able to be shown. In SC1 he by some ability ought to "figure" an ulterior target, at the same time as he won't be able to instruct that it is not random. If it is random, there is not any target, yet he states he won't be able to tell at the same time as something is random or no longer. His gut feeling won't be able to be used to outline what's "thoughts" and what's no longer. through retaining that archives must have an sensible source to be seen thoughts, and through assuming genomic sequences are thoughts setting up that definition, Gitt defines into existence an sensible source for the genome with out going to the hardship of checking no matter if one become actual there. it is round reasoning. in case you truly want extra refutations that comprise severe symbolic common sense and require a honest carry close of thoughts idea you may inspect the internet website that i tried to get right down to an "Irreducible Complexity" - lol
2016-10-15 23:58:00 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a good analogy and the points you are making are good ones.
I think that a lot of Theists will argue about Santa Claus, saying he's an invention of man, so on and so on......
2007-01-23 04:43:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, exactly, that is the same perspective and thought process.
Think of santa claus, kids think he is an omniscent super being that knows when they've been bad or good. The kids try to be good so they can get presents upon Christmas.
Think of Jesus, Christians think he is an omniscent super being that knows when they've been bad or good. The Christians try to be good so they can get everlasting life upon death.
2007-01-23 04:41:09 · answer #10 · answered by cpt_of_tower 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
total nonsense. You are suggesting that some people "know" that there is no God and are misleading people.
I believe that there IS a God. I am not "playing along".
Invalid comparison.
2007-01-23 04:52:55 · answer #11 · answered by Jennifer D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋