Fellow Atheists: Do you claim no god exists, or do you simply lack belief?

Why the double standard? Apply the same rationale here - Santa doesnt use coal anymore, he just doesnt leave anything when a kid is naughty.

No, it cant, because like hell, all one need do is manipulate one's believe and justify it with 'faith'. Or better yet "interpret" the story of santa to say 'oh coal is outdated so santa doesnt use it anymore.'

Indeed and the story is santa doesnt leave coal and the fairy only takes certian teeth. You have yet to disprove either - and you cannot. And you cannot becuase like God, they are inventions.

Wrong. You havent shown that at all. The nanny cam merely tightens details, namely that their standards are high and that santa doesnt leave coal. This doesnt disprove their existence IN THE SLIGHTEST. If anything it just disproves the idea santa leaves coal and nothing more.
As for faith, this the crux of religious conviction and so it is only reasonable to use it as an easy cop out to questions, which is what theists do anyway, to maintain conviction in a crap story. Despite the use of faith, you have yet to disprove santa or the tooth fairy.

Again, for what purpose? It wont disprove the fairy exists.

Not at all. You are, for some strange reason, applying one and only notion of what santa and the tooth fairy are. The result is an easy ability to disprove them, but its illogical. I could set the parameters for God's nature and then disprove that, but that would not disprove the possibility of God in another form to exist - same with santa and the like.

 

Exactly. Hey, maybe santa uses an invisible coat when he goes to houses, I mean, he's got an entire set of magical toy factories.

 

If we are talking about a different Santa, your personal 'modern day Santa' that you made up,going against the actual traditional Santa that we all know and love, then you would have had to make that distinction in the initial post. Then I wouldn't have bothered with it.

Same thing with the tooth fairy.

..and I'm talking about the traditional invention of Santa Clause and he does to bring the coal if you are naughty. See above mdf.

Megafan, we are discussing this as though the story is a fact, and in the factual story of Santa, he leaves presents or coal depending if you are "naughty or nice." So one way or the other he is doomed to come to your house and climb down your chimney.. I'm sorry but I did not predestine Santa Clause,everyone did.

 

No mention on wiki about the invisible coat,sorry but I would have set motion sensors up if I he did.

 

Not at all. The beings I describe are the one only - they are the true Santa and true Tooth Fairy. Are you and I having a schism here?

And I ma talking about the modern santa who doesnt use coal.

Of course.

No, in the factual story he leaves nothing. I guess you and I have different denominations of Santa, but I was raised to believe Santa left nothing. My dad was raised to believe Santa left you a sack of potatoes if you were naughty.

Not at all. He only comes to give you presents if you are good. The hidden cam proves this.

obviously not.

 

I'll have to update it then.

Ok, set them up. I have not seen a study with motion sensors and camera that has disproven santa. Why dont you do that this year and see. But if he isnt there is, just means the kid in question was naughty.

 

You didn't read the link ... again, did you. It is a collection of qutations from field experts from all over the faith spectrum.

Laziness. Your laziness makes others assinine?

And people wonder why atheism is the bottom of the faith barrel, filled with anger and malcontent.

 

Of course I read it. A collection of quotations of people talking about how widely accepted the existence of Christ is by other people just doesn't quite do it for me

 

No Megadethfan, you are trying to creating a schism after the fact that Your Santa got stuck in my bear trap, an I robbed your tooth fairy of his existence..

Don't move the goal post now, that is just not good form.



.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). Period experts, which after dismissing it as Christian Propoganda, then the author ... having failed to read it - belatedly realizing - because you were told what it was about - the arguements just don;t do it for you ... because ... well, atheism is certain neither emotional nor cultish with answers like that

I am sure the unified academic position is wrong ... because a random atheist who has clearly read nothing and offers zero evidence says so.

Feel free to conduct a search of random atheist web site that has plagurized Wells work, and then go back and read the sourec again, were Wells and his followers are dismissed as .. beyond reason.

Like, sorry, all you academics with pointy heads ... your acadmeics conflicts with fully evidenced but oddly unexplainable faith that is not a faith so I deny YOU! is such a wonderful arguement.

See why I left atheism?

 

That isn't just wiki MDF, it's also oral tradition.

 

I've already pointed out the fallacy you and your 'sources' are guilty of. Here's a reminder:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/e/sean_c_rhoades/LogicalDebate/FallacyOfTheDay/Fallacy45.htm

 

ROFL!!!!

Were is Wolf to declare somethuing intellectualy bankrupt?

The process of peer review is a logical fallacy to an atheist!!!

This is why I coined the word athtarded.

 

What trap was that?

You did no such thing mate.

I havent. You have yet to disprove the existence of Santa or the tooth fairy.

 

I'll have to update the oral tradition as well then. Oh wait, I already have.

 

You argue that Christ existed because everyone says so. Your sources argue that Christ exists because... it's commonly accepted that he existed. Hm.

He's a magic man who's supposed to have been born of a virgin mother, executed by the Romans, raised from the dead afterwards and then floated up into the sky a while later, and you want me to believe that this stuff really happened despite a lack of any evidence outside of religious claims about him.

 

Granny says if dey claim dey's no God...

... den dey gonna go to Hell...

... says so inna Bible.

 

Is that... is that like "ass-tarded" with a lisp, or something?


Oh no wait, its just mindless nonsense/trolling.

 

You still haven't read it have you? THey argue that he exists because of the vidence, which is clearly spelled out as beginning with the Epistles of Paul, and going from there ... created a cogent, remarkably complete picture. Which you would know if you read it. You STILL haven't.

And as several posters keep reminding you, when people HAVE read something, and they here some loon talking about it who has no idea what the hell he is saying? Its pretty damb transparent.

Literally, your arguement are nothing more than depserately pulling crap quite literally out of your ass. And that is not just fallacious, its dishonest - its exactly what I said about the Jesus Myth - many times.

Enjoy your tin foil hat D.

 

You sure did. Unfortunately to late.

Megadethfan, You made the mistake in trying to be clever and using Santa Clause and the tooth fairy as a negative that can't be disproved. But Santa and the tooth fairy are bad examples because they are both physical entities that show up when you are expecting them.

You should have used Rstones invisible pink panda if you wanted to mock God, at least you would have been successful in that.

Now you admit to moving the goal posts with the wiki edit remark and saying you just updated oral traditions..

You walked right into my trap MDF and you didn't see it coming.

 

I don't want your tin foil hat - you can keep it.

Your "evidence" starts with the Epistles of a man who never met the character you claim existed? Hm. Your "evidence" is religious literature...

Yeah, I can see how I look pretty silly here.

 

Jesus is supposed to be physical.. People are supposed to have seen angels, Mary and Jesus, according to various claims.

 

Yep, a man who met all the Apostles. Apparently, you don;t know how using the verified letters of Paul to corroberate the other portions of the Bible works.

So, A guy never met Napoleon, but he did meet his generals ... therefore the generals never met Jesus, certainly didn't write anything about him - nor his enemies - and Napoleon is a myth.

Yes, you do look pretty silly. Espcially since that claim is standard atheist propoganda, and been made and rebutted several time already ... and yet, in cultish devotion, you return to it like repetition will just magically make it true?

Agh, I see, the Stalin approach, tell a lie a thousand times and it suddenly becomes the truth? Well, it doesn't.

 

His epistles don't corroborate much. I understand that they leave out many very important bits of the Jesus narrative.

I expect those developed later when others were writing the Gospels and other related texts.

 

LOL You may have noticed that, traditions are updated, whether oral social, ideological or whatever, every minute of every day. The only requirement is practice of them.

Actually, prospect, they are perfect examples. Their physical appearance does not in any way diminish their likelihood, or rather does not enhance your claim that you know they definitively do not exist.
What about leprechauns, ghosts, demons, - all the other Gods, creatures and mythical legends of the world. I dont have to restrict myself to santa and the tooth fairy to prove my point - they are just the easiest to relate to. And they serve the purpose of showing how pointless it is debating God, let alone caring about him as a possibility in the universe.

I have not failed yet. I have refuted your attempts to 'disprove' them. But yes, there may be easier creatures to use.

Not at all. I am saying that the wiki link is wrong and the oral tradition is incomplete. I'm not changing the goal posts - I'm putting a spotlight on them.

Your bear trap is as rusty as it is useless. You havent refuted me in the slightest.

Do I need to recap all the points?