How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[BigV]

BigV, I bow to you. You caught the tone perfectly of a certain type of Christian.

Actually, I can try William Lane Craig level next. Here it goes.

If my apologetic for Santa doesn't help you in believing that he exists, that doesn't make Santa any less real. I'm just doing a poor job of making his existence more evident or believable to you.

 

[Silmarien]

And you won't. Because the "case for atheism" is that there is no case for theism.
Still, we know what to do with people who just refuse to see reason, don't we? It was put very neatly, not so long ago...

Very well. You would need to actually demonstrate that there is no case for theism, and I have never seen a good case made for that either.

I'm not trying to demonstrate it. I'm just pleased that you now understand what the argument is.

Oh, I understand your argument. The problem is that until you provide any genuine justification for it, there is no reason to accept it.

First, your presupposition that apologists know more than atheists is an unjustified assumption. Second...it can be quite like talking to a professor of English literature who actually believes that Gandalf is real.

There was no presupposition there. I said that the Christians might know more about the history of religion than the atheists, which is true. There are plenty of religious people out there who are deeply interested in the subject, so an atheist should not operate under the assumption that he or she automatically knows more and is in a position to teach a poor, benighted soul about religion. Mutual respect is always a better policy.

You don't have to admit it. In fact, according to the roles we're playing here, with me as the Santaist and you as the aSantaist, I'd expect you not to. After all, we Santaists are used to people trying to disprove our beliefs and giving up, frustrated, but unable to see the truth.
And now, the final thing that Christians resort to (and I've seen it often). What to say instead of "I'll pray for you"?
I know. As a Santaist, I'll say:
"I'll write to Santa about you, asking him to take you off his Naughty list. Maybe you'll get a surprise this Christmas!"

Again, it's only comparable if the arguments for Christianity are similar to those for Santaism, and in my experience, they are usually not. So you would need to demonstrate that a similar historical analysis can be made to show that Christianity is not historically tenable, which you have thus far not done.

All I see here are strawmen, an appeal to ridicule, and an argument from incredulity, all of which being logical fallacies, puts you squarely in the irrationalist camp. So unless you can demonstrate some rational thought, there is not much anyone can do except treat you as they would the aforementioned Flat Earther.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Very well. You would need to actually demonstrate that there is no case for theism, and I have never seen a good case made for that either.



Oh, I understand your argument. The problem is that until you provide any genuine justification for it, there is no reason to accept it.



There was no presupposition there. I said that the Christians might know more about the history of religion than the atheists, which is true. There are plenty of religious people out there who are deeply interested in the subject, so an atheist should not operate under the assumption that he or she automatically knows more and is in a position to teach a poor, benighted soul about religion. Mutual respect is always a better policy.



Again, it's only comparable if the arguments for Christianity are similar to those for Santaism, and in my experience, they are usually not. So you would need to demonstrate that a similar historical analysis can be made to show that Christianity is not historically tenable, which you have thus far not done.

All I see here are strawmen, an appeal to ridicule, and an argument from incredulity, all of which being logical fallacies, puts you squarely in the irrationalist camp. So unless you can demonstrate some rational thought, there is not much anyone can do except treat you as they would the aforementioned Flat Earther.

Well, well, let's just chew on that for a while. I'm going to bed anyway now. Goodnignt!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Very well. You would need to actually demonstrate that there is no case for theism, and I have never seen a good case made for that either.

And I have never seen a good case made for theism. See how much an unsupported assertion counts for?
Besides which, the topic of conversation is not whether there is a good case for theism or not. That's the subject for another thread, or more likely most of them here on the Christian Apologetics forum.
No, the question here is "How do we know that Santa Claus doesn't exist?" It's in the thread title, and it precisely parallels what Christians say, whether they do it openly ("Try all you like, atheists, you'll never be able to prove to me that God isn't real") or obliquely ("If you are going to disprove my apologetic argument, you will have to do it 100%; reasonable doubt is not enough").

Oh, I understand your argument. The problem is that until you provide any genuine justification for it, there is no reason to accept it.

I don't expect you to accept it. You're playing the aSantaist here. Of course you won't be able to see the truth!

There was no presupposition there. I said that the Christians might know more about the history of religion than the atheists, which is true. There are plenty of religious people out there who are deeply interested in the subject, so an atheist should not operate under the assumption that he or she automatically knows more and is in a position to teach a poor, benighted soul about religion. Mutual respect is always a better policy.

Oh yes, I'm happy to agree with that. There are plenty of atheists who don't know much about history or philosophy, and plenty who do. But what you said was this:

So... basically, atheists are happy to condescend to people who might actually know far more about the history of religion than they themselves

Am I wrong to hear this as "all atheists condescend to people who know far more than them"?

make sweeping comments about epistemology despite never having studied the topic

Am I wrong to hear this as speaking about all atheists?

and then weigh in on historical questions that they're not qualified to discuss?

Am I wrong to understand you to be referring to atheists in general about this?

Silmarien, you are in fact being rather insulting. I would hope that, being made aware of it, you would try to do better in future.

Again, it's only comparable if the arguments for Christianity are similar to those for Santaism, and in my experience, they are usually not. So you would need to demonstrate that a similar historical analysis can be made to show that Christianity is not historically tenable, which you have thus far not done.

But I'm not relying on a historical argument here. You're the one who brought up the history of Santa, and all I had to do is explain why it didn't apply (that is to say, knowing the "timeline" of Santa doesn't mean he isn't real).
All I've done is demonstrate, successfully, that the same arguments used by Christians can be used to defend a ridiculous position. All of the things that I and others have said to you in response to your attempts to disprove Santa are arguments that Christians have made on behalf of God and Jesus.

All I see here are strawmen, an appeal to ridicule, and an argument from incredulity, all of which being logical fallacies, puts you squarely in the irrationalist camp. So unless you can demonstrate some rational thought, there is not much anyone can do except treat you as they would the aforementioned Flat Earther.

That is basically a summary of what it is like to talk to many Christians. Thank you, and not for the first time, for setting it all out.
Argument from incredulity? We see it from Christians all the time.
Strawmanning? Sadly, we find that Christians are guilty of this much more often than not.
Appeal to ridicule? Of course. You must have heard Christians say "At least I don't believe that nothing exploded and here we are!"
Other logical fallacies? We atheists could play bingo with them when we come here.
Sorry you don't like it, Silmarien, but everything I said was copied directly from Christian arguments. If you don't like that, perhaps you should reconsider the arguments that Christians make.

Now, back in character:
Thank you very much, Silmarien, for trying to disprove Santa. Now that I've heard your arguments, my faith in him is stronger than ever. I do hope that one day you can stop being so cynical and accept the truth with a humble and childlike heart. Keep putting your stocking up! You never know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, I can try William Lane Craig level next. Here it goes.

If my apologetic for Santa doesn't help you in believing that he exists, that doesn't make Santa any less real. I'm just doing a poor job of making his existence more evident or believable to you.

If you want to believe in Santa, then have at it.

 

[Silmarien]

And I have never seen a good case made for theism. See how much an unsupported assertion counts for?

My unsupported assertions are as valid as your unsupported assertions, but you're making more of them right now. If you want to say that evidence for Santa is the equivalent of the evidence for Christianity, the burden is on you to support that claim.

I'm waiting for a real argument here.

I don't expect you to accept it. You're playing the aSantaist here. Of course you won't be able to see the truth!

Completely irrational.

Am I wrong to understand you to be referring to atheists in general about this?

Silmarien, you are in fact being rather insulting. I would hope that, being made aware of it, you would try to do better in future.

That is what we call a rhetorical device, not a generalization. If you're going to make sweeping generalizations about how all atheists behave, as you did here, then I see no compelling reason why I should not repeat the same generalization back at you.

If you find it insulting, you are welcome to refrain from generalizations and try to do a bit better in the future yourself.

But I'm not relying on a historical argument here. You're the one who brought up the history of Santa, and all I had to do is explain why it didn't apply (that is to say, knowing the "timeline" of Santa doesn't mean he isn't real).
All I've done is demonstrate, successfully, that the same arguments used by Christians can be used to defend a ridiculous position. All of the things that I and others have said to you in response to your attempts to disprove Santa are arguments that Christians have made on behalf of God and Jesus.

If Christians made the same sort of historical arguments that I've seen in this thread, I would have run away screaming. You have not in fact used the same same arguments, and thus have failed to demonstrate anything, except perhaps an unfamiliarity with the arguments that Christians make in the first place.

That is basically a summary of what it is like to talk to many Christians. Thank you, and not for the first time, for setting it all out.
Argument from incredulity? We see it from Christians all the time.
Strawmanning? Sadly, we find that Christians are guilty of this much more often than not.
Appeal to ridicule? Of course. You must have heard Christians say "At least I don't believe that nothing exploded and here we are!"
Other logical fallacies? We atheists could play bingo with them when we come here.
Sorry you don't like it, Silmarien, but everything I said was copied directly from Christian arguments. If you don't like that, perhaps you should reconsider the arguments that Christians make.

Unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion. It's not that I don't like this, since it's not particularly difficult to argue against someone who doesn't bother to make any arguments in the first place. You make my side of the argument really easy when yours is nothing but a string of logical fallacies.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument here, but I'm not holding my breath for one.

 

[Sanoy]

If you want to say that evidence for Santa is the equivalent of the evidence for Christianity, the burden is on you to support that claim.

I'm waiting for a real argument here.

My first response to the thread was asking for that, 10 pages later it still hasn't shown up. Lots of empty rhetoric and question flinging, but never any actual comparisons. This, whatever this is thread is, has already peaked, it's not getting any higher. It doesn't rise high enough to obstruct ones view of the truth, nor is it an inconvenience to step right over as if a small rock on ones way.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My unsupported assertions are as valid as your unsupported assertions, but you're making more of them right now.

I'm pleased to see you concede the point, that your saying that "You would need to actually demonstrate that there is no case for theism, and I have never seen a good case made for that either" means nothing.

If you want to say that evidence for Santa is the equivalent of the evidence for Christianity, the burden is on you to support that claim.

While I do believe that, this thread is about a different topic, which I'd prefer to stick to.

Completely irrational.

That's what you're supposed to say.

If you find it insulting, you are welcome to refrain from generalizations and try to do a bit better in the future yourself.

It would have been much nicer of you to respond to being told your behaviour is insulting by apologising, and promising to try to do better. But you don't have to, of course.

Unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion.

I do apologise. I forgot, you don't see things the way I do. I'll try not to do it again.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm still waiting for a rational argument here, but I'm not holding my breath for one.

My first response to the thread was asking for that, 10 pages later it still hasn't shown up. Lots of empty rhetoric and question flinging, but never any actual comparisons. This, whatever this is thread is, has already peaked, it's not getting any higher. It doesn't rise high enough to obstruct ones view of the truth, nor is it an inconvenience to step right over as if a small rock on ones way.

I'm sorry to have been off track, and to have neglected you. Let's get back to business.

Do either of you think you are capable of proving that Santa isn't real?

 

[drich0150]

It works exactly like that.

Sorry no. Santa is recent history. there are people still alive when he was created. we have documentation from the CCC that shows his origins/creation and purpose. which you had to change in order to continue this argument. That is what does not work.

You have intentionally expanded the known and knowable lore of santa to expand your argument. this is a logical fallacy in of it self meaning by your own reasoning any honest Argument is now over. why? because you have to violate the rules of logic and reason to perpetuate your side of the argument. once you have breached logic and reason with no attempt to correct what you have done you effectively end any intellectually honest conversation.

So again sorry bruh, Logical arguments do not work that way, you've ended it with an appeal to expand the lore of santa (far beyond that of the CCC and any published santa stories)to match what you think is also behind God.

 

[drich0150]

"You are doing a very ______ job". Don't you consider that to be bad language?

Sorry snow flake, Not according to merriam webster.
Definition of CRAPPY

The merriam webster dictionary does identify slang and curse words/profanity vulgar words, here is an example.
[hide] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...ess and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [/hide]

(shrug). Well, it's been explained to you already. The fact that someone created an advertising campaign proves nothing more than this was the first instance of Santa Claus as we know him today. It certainly doesn't prove that he didn't exist before then.

Again not as we know him today. I have already point to and broke down his history and how he was known. Basically santa clause is an amalgamation of several father winter stories. again I have given a list. but it was not till the CCC in hit's 1933 campaign decided to americanize all of these different stories did we have a unified santa clause. and again the purpose was to sell cold soft drinks in the winter months because at the time only hot drinks were popular in the frozen months.

So? You're just nitpicking. No true Santaist would be disturbed by this for a moment.

Logical fallacy (misused) "no true scotsman fallacy" argument over.
I say misused because my answer reflected on of a purest santa fan and was called out on a no true scotsman any way. (lazy Writing/second rate atheism.)

Maybe look into the church of the FSM that's what people like you do when you finally figure out this santa argument thing is fatally flawed in the very way I am exploiting it. in that there is a cannon with santa that does not parallel with God or Christ and you have to default to many logical fallacies to try and make it work. how ever with the church of the FSM there is no 100% set cannon and you can default to no true scotsman as that is apart of your canon.

Troll? Mock? Not at all. Satirise.

satire requires writing and at least a general understanding of the topic being trolled. This is like watching my 12 year old niece satire on how chickens work. yes it's fun watching someone make a fool of them selves for a while, but after a week or two it becomes sad. because you have been show repeatedly how this fails as satire which means your obstinate efforts becomes trolling. You have been told several times that your efforts do not reflect how christian work with canon. yet you fail to incorporate this into your writing.At which point ceases being satire of any kind and then becomes trolling/mockery

Just making a point. And one which seems to have agitated you, I'm sorry to see. Makes me think we've touched a nerve here, and perhaps you really are starting to see the similarities, and this show of indignation is you trying to distract yourself.

again what you have done does not represent charity in any way outside of your limited scope of the religion. I am simply here to point out and educate you on how wrong you actually are. and to give you examples of how the religion actually works. Doing so in a frank and open honest way would be my satire on how atheist think they know better in all subjects and sometime presume to do so despite what you may want or think.

I mean, (to pull another old chestnut from Christian apologetics, which I've literally seen too many times to count):
I don't see why you're being so vehement here. If you really don't think Santa exists, why are you protesting so much?

again just satirizing my atheist brothers.. If you are going to trade places with obstinate christians then is it not our duty to then play the ying to your yang?

Not at all. Just making reasonable assumptions. Something that Christians do about Jesus and God all the time.

That another logical fallacy Appeal to the crowd. (what people do all the time) does not make it sound logically or right.

In fact I showed you specifically that christians adhere to doctrine and cannon which is something you need to incorporate into your satire if that what it is and not bullying or trolling.

Second, you seem to have forgotten the well-known stories about Santa: he knows exactly who is naughty and who is nice. Therefore, it's quite simple to extrapolate that he might have other extra-sensory perceptions. Santa can fly, manipulate time and (or possible, move at super speed) and read the hearts of people. All of this is, as you put it, "canon".

Actually no. lore/cannon explains how santa knows. It call an elf on the shelf... or alexa.
So it would indeed be wrong to assume otherwise as cannon explains this phenomenon.

We don't need to, any more than you can point to a verse in the Bible which tells us why God exists.

Sorry sport answering a challenge with an challenge is not satire but again crappy writing. step it up some please.

Obviously there are differences between Jesus and Santa, but your mistake is in assuming that all differences are important. Jesus is thin, Santa is fat; Jesus prays to God, Santa rides on a reindeer; Jesus has a Bible, Santa has stories about him. So what?
I have to tell you, we Santaists just see this as quibbling.

now you are just hiding from points you can not otherwise address. the response you made is a tale tell sign that one is in way... way over his head. Yet pride will not allow him to remain silent. So rather address the points made one attacks (ad hoc yet ANOTHER FALLACY) the person he is debating.

Be fair, Drich. I said "this thread is starting to work". Which it is!

work how? I think it's working in a way to how dishonest you are in your intentions and repersentation of christian beliefs and vales for the sake of trolling people in the name of satire. Either one because you do not understand the subject or two because you simply do not care.

Here's the problem: you didn't. And that, my friend, is you being premature with a victory lap.

note to self the term victory lap stung this guy pretty hard otherwise why mention it when the term was not even used to address him or anything he did?

Pride goes before a fall, Drich.

Irony sings before pride.

You've told us that, but you haven't demonstrated it. It's just an unsupported assertion.

citations please. can you produce examples where I have made an unsupported assertion?

"The single most recorded and documented person of his time"? Of course he wasn't. You're confusing the accuracy of a record with its popularity.

Doh! wait a tick there is this:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/
and this:
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
oh and what do I have here:
25,000 New Testament Manuscripts? Big Deal.
there is evidence if you simply look for it!

Again, a reasonable assumption based on the evidence we have, and contradicted by none of it.

that is just a common lie many lazy atheist collectively say when ever they are challenged and can't be bothered to look past the 1st page of a google search!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sorry snow flake, Not according to merriam webster.
Definition of CRAPPY

The merriam webster dictionary does identify slang and curse words/profanity vulgar words, here is an example.
[hide] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...ess and do not curse][bless and do not curse] [/hide]

Again not as we know him today. I have already point to and broke down his history and how he was known. Basically santa clause is an amalgamation of several father winter stories. again I have given a list. but it was not till the CCC in hit's 1933 campaign decided to americanize all of these different stories did we have a unified santa clause. and again the purpose was to sell cold soft drinks in the winter months because at the time only hot drinks were popular in the frozen months.
Logical fallacy (misused) "no true scotsman fallacy" argument over.
I say misused because my answer reflected on of a purest santa fan and was called out on a no true scotsman any way. (lazy Writing/second rate atheism.)

Maybe look into the church of the FSM that's what people like you do when you finally figure out this santa argument thing is fatally flawed in the very way I am exploiting it. in that there is a cannon with santa that does not parallel with God or Christ and you have to default to many logical fallacies to try and make it work. how ever with the church of the FSM there is no 100% set cannon and you can default to no true scotsman as that is apart of your canon.


satire requires writing and at least a general understanding of the topic being trolled. This is like watching my 12 year old niece satire on how chickens work. yes it's fun watching someone make a fool of them selves for a while, but after a week or two it becomes sad. because you have been show repeatedly how this fails as satire which means your obstinate efforts becomes trolling. You have been told several times that your efforts do not reflect how christian work with canon. yet you fail to incorporate this into your writing.At which point ceases being satire of any kind and then becomes trolling/mockery

again what you have done does not represent charity in any way outside of your limited scope of the religion. I am simply here to point out and educate you on how wrong you actually are. and to give you examples of how the religion actually works. Doing so in a frank and open honest way would be my satire on how atheist think they know better in all subjects and sometime presume to do so despite what you may want or think.
again just satirizing my atheist brothers.. If you are going to trade places with obstinate christians then is it not our duty to then play the ying to your yang?

That another logical fallacy Appeal to the crowd. (what people do all the time) does not make it sound logically or right.

In fact I showed you specifically that christians adhere to doctrine and cannon which is something you need to incorporate into your satire if that what it is and not bullying or trolling.


Actually no. lore/cannon explains how santa knows. It call an elf on the shelf... or alexa.
So it would indeed be wrong to assume otherwise as cannon explains this phenomenon.

Sorry sport answering a challenge with an challenge is not satire but again crappy writing. step it up some please.

now you are just hiding from points you can not otherwise address. the response you made is a tale tell sign that one is in way... way over his head. Yet pride will not allow him to remain silent. So rather address the points made one attacks (ad hoc yet ANOTHER FALLACY) the person he is debating.

work how? I think it's working in a way to how dishonest you are in your intentions and repersentation of christian beliefs and vales for the sake of trolling people in the name of satire. Either one because you do not understand the subject or two because you simply do not care.
note to self the term victory lap stung this guy pretty hard otherwise why mention it when the term was not even used to address him or anything he did?

Irony sings before pride.

citations please. can you produce examples where I have made an unsupported assertion?

Doh! wait a tick there is this:
Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared
and this:
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
oh and what do I have here:
25,000 New Testament Manuscripts? Big Deal.
there is evidence if you simply look for it!

that is just a common lie many lazy atheist collectively say when ever they are challenged and can't be bothered to look past the 1st page of a google search!

I'm sorry, Drich. First by using bad language (I consider cr***y to be vulgar English) and second by directly insulting me as a "snowflake" I'm afraid that you've gone too far, and I shall add you to my Ignore List. I'm sorry to have to do this, as I can see you worked quite hard at that, and no doubt the points and articles you sent would have been very interesting. But there we go.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@Silmarien , I believe you were just saying something about how Christians have "a genuine religious duty to care about the way their conduct is perceived by society at large."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Silmarien , I believe you were just saying something about how Christians have "a genuine religious duty to care about the way their conduct is perceived by society at large."

 

[BigV]

Sorry no. Santa is recent history. there are people still alive when he was created. we have documentation from the CCC that shows his origins/creation and purpose. which you had to change in order to continue this argument. That is what does not work.

Same could be said about Jesus. Some people (mostly kids) embraced Santa while others laughed him off as a made-up character.

Do you know that not everyone embraced Jesus and some considered him to be mythological even when the New Testament documents were being written?

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Hm.. it sure does help to have a Christian Church destroy the inconvenient Scriptures that may have supported "Jesus-never-coming-in-the-flesh" teaching.

And then, what do we know about the historical Jesus? Who was his grandfather? And why did the people, according to the Gospels themselves, thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, risen from the dead? What other historical person had this said about him?

But who cares about those antichrists, right? The good thing is that those who believed Jesus was in the flesh won and now you can celebrate 'historical' Jesus!

But if you want to celebrate 'historical' Santa, you can do the same thing. Just ignore or explain away evidence to the contrary.

 

[BigV]

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
oh and what do I have here:
25,000 New Testament Manuscripts? Big Deal.
there is evidence if you simply look for it!

Lets see about Jesus.

Josephus? A historical source for Jesus? Do you know there is very high probability Josephus' 'testimonium' was tempered with by Christians?

Here is a Jesus-historicist who makes a case, and a pretty good one in my view, for ALL of Josephus testimonium being a Christian forgery.
The Testimonium Flavianum (Ant., Book XVIII). Discussion on its authenticity, concluding the whole passage is an interpolation

And does Tacitus talk about Jesus or Christians, who were followers of "Chrestus"? What do we know about Jesus from Tacitus?

 

[Silmarien]

@Silmarien , I believe you were just saying something about how Christians have "a genuine religious duty to care about the way their conduct is perceived by society at large."

Are you summoning me because someone else insulted you?

 

[Sanoy]

I'm sorry to have been off track, and to have neglected you. Let's get back to business.

Do either of you think you are capable of proving that Santa isn't real?

You respond to a post saying that the thread has no content, but is instead filled with nothing but rhetoric and question flinging by....asking a question. Even worse you consider asking questions to be "getting back to business". You need to get a real job and put some content to the claim as you have been asked by several people. I have already replied to this question anyway, and people have tried to explain why epistemology is important.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You respond to a post saying that the thread has no content, but is instead filled with nothing but rhetoric and question flinging by....asking a question. Even worse you consider asking questions to be "getting back to business". You need to get a real job and put some content to the claim as you have been asked by several people. I have already replied to this question anyway, and people have tried to explain why epistemology is important.

Dear me. Not being able to win this argument is really getting under your skin, isn't it?
If you check the title of this thread, you'll see that it's "How do we know that Santa Claus doesn't exist?"
If you feel you've already answered the question, please give me the post number and I shall be happy to read your answer.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Are you summoning me because someone else insulted you?

I am.
Funny, isn't it, how it happened just after you were telling me what moral people Christians are in contrast with atheists? I thought you'd be interested in seeing that not all the Christians on this forum observe the moral duty you mentioned.