How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[InterestedAtheist]

Gifs! Now you're getting it! At last, something I can see.

You look good, Philo!

 

[BigV]

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

Well, his existence can't be disproven, so what choice do I really have? And if there was an eternal hell as a consequence for disbelief in Santa, now belief in him becomes even more compelling.

"Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." (Jesus of Nazareth - Luke 6:26)

Well, too bad for John the Baptist then. He must be a false prophet, because the people spoke highly of him, and Jesus did too.

 

[drich0150]

I'm sorry, Drich. First by using bad language (I consider cr***y to be vulgar English)

which is why I appealed to a actual english reference standard like merriam webster. the whole purpose of that book is to not only define but identify words and their usage. The fact that you personally find offence is what makes you a unique, stand alone, none like you, snow flake. (no two are alike)

Not only does the merriam webster not consider this to be a vulgar word.. the website itself will not allow the publication of such words. So I literally can not write a curse word if i wanted too. Go ahead try it and you will get (bless and do not curse) in place of your word.

which again makes the offence something you have personally conjured.. To which I say.. so what.

Do you want to know what I find offensive? yeah, no body cares. So why would I bring it up? virtue signaling. to pretend to be more virtuous than someone else on a trivial/non issue matter.

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.

again I am just satirizing the typical atheist position and attitude. If you where going to represent christianity in a satirical way then is it not almost mandated someone represent the otherside? I have 12 years working with atheists collage/age christians who have abandoned their faith and their professors at times. who better than me to offer a satirical view of the typical atheist than me? After all isn't that what satire is?

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.

it's honestly not that big of a deal. there are quite a few of you who can not or do not want to be faced with logic and truth they do not have a quick quip for.

People like that typically want to deal with faith only milk of the word (new) christians who are just starting out to try and full fill the great commission. No I get it. because the same can be said about new atheists.. The new one use all of the old material (like feigning satire through santa to show the duplicitous nature of faith only belief. Rather than a more modern example of the FSM church and religion.) This can get tedious at times.

After all how many time do you think you can defeat an argument some new atheist is bring to the table like it is the first time it has ever been shared with out getting bored? Don't get me wrong it was fun to watch you make the same mistakes the same appeal to logical fallacy in earnest that someone who does not understand what they believe would go through.. but ultimately pride will demand that you start to save face and that is when the little jabs and poking turns into mean spirited go for the kill shot back and forth I do not like.. (as ultimatly when your call for no evidence has me provide stacks of it and you do not know what to say or where to go next would then have you attack the messenger rather than the message.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, his existence can't be disproven, so what choice do I really have? And if there was an eternal hell as a consequence for disbelief in Santa, now belief in him becomes even more compelling.

....here's the whole thing, BigV. What we each believe respectively about both Santa and about Jesus is partially dependent on our willingness to vet out the historical essences of both these figures as best and as far as we can. Your conclusions, like mine, have emerged in an ongoing fashion from what we each initially thought about these historical personages and have been further tempered, deeply, by our respective sets of Education that have gone into pushing our further thinking and our permutations of analysis.

So, on the one hand, I don't blame you if you've done a lot of homework and even praying, and you now just "don't see" how, in your own unique way, Jesus could possibly be real. Ok? I get that. Just don't assume that my own set of beliefs about Jesus amount to having only starred at a blank wall and then thought, "Jesus Lives!" No, there's been a whole train load of reading, as well as counter analyzing, as well as keeping myself open to various fields of thought, and also some existential moods................to then arrive at my own unique set of beliefs.

 

[drich0150]

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

Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong all of the time? maybe try googling something before you just write out what is on your sleeve.

No kid believed in santa that was not prompted to by their adult/parent guardian.

Think about it for just one second before you speak.

Santa required a willing parent to play a role why? because the CCC advertisement was a static not real person but a add or painting. So the parent had to play the role. without this parent's willingness the child had no santa knowledge or infrastructure to believe in meaning no one was going to bring them gifts. which like every other 'religion or system of belief would ultimately break the system of belief. IE once The Grecian empire fell Zuse was no longer able to full fill his role as elder God as the Grecian empire was the infrastructure of the greek gods. Greece provided the people with what the gods promised for their belief and structure of government in exchange. however once greece fell the power of the government to keep people fed and cared for fell and so too did belief.

How man years would the most optimistic child maintain belief when his parents tell them I but the presence and you should thank me not santa, or you get nothing... how many christmas' would a child go without before they dropped santa? I would say no one. So again there is no belief in santa without a consenting guardian wanting to play that role.

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

irrelevant. belief in santa is dependant on the parent and has nothing to do with what a child elects to believe. Like wise belief in Christ is only reserved for those in whom are called to believe. We are not all seeds of God we are not all wheat some are tares we are not all sheep some are goats, we are not all gain some are chaff.

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.

if this message was destroyed then how do you know about it? Citation please.

And then, what do we know about the historical Jesus?

See my post to your atheist buddy I gave several links that ensure Christ has more written about him in that time than any other man who lived then. to doubt Christ is to doubt the existance of every other historical figure in his time or before. as we have more written about Christ than any other historical figure in that period.

Who was his grandfather?

Luke's qualification "as was supposed" (ἐνομίζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. From as early as John of Damascus, the view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli (Ἠλί, Heli) was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.[25] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew.[26]
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

And why did the people, according to the Gospels themselves, thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, risen from the dead?

because john came first and was a legit profit in their time that absolutely no one denied as being from God. In short people where familiar with John because he was seen doing the same thing day in and day out in the same place teach a well understood message. He did not go into town he did not stirr up trouble. for most (as God had been silent up till john for some time for some they thought he was the messiah even though he himself said he was not but a voice calling from the wilderness (harkening back to a prophecy of what was to come)

What other historical person had this said about him?

no idea what you are talking about.. Not even santa had this said about him and you are forcing narrative or creating back story to make this fit. to try and prove that this is an everyday thing when no one on the world stage has been there before or since.

But who cares about those antichrists, right?

like???

The good thing is that those who believed Jesus was in the flesh won and now you can celebrate 'historical' Jesus!

weren't you a christian? what happened did you ask Jesus for a girl friend and she married someone else?

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

again the problem either you are not smart enough to understand or simply choosing to ignore, is santa was a intentional creation with no ties to this world. No belief was ever required no one who has understood what santa is or was supposed to believe has ever believed in him as being anything more than an ad campaign.

Again if you want to play this game and mock Christian beliefs atheist in general have moved on to the church of the flying spaghetti monster. there is an official bible and everything.

The reason they moved on is because the Santa argument from an intellectually honest position about santa being christ like is untenable. why? because in order to make the points which one is called to believe in santa like christ you have to manufacture/go outside of cannon or fake back story to santa to put belief in him on par with Christ. this again sport is a logical fallacy. once you do this the discussion is over.

Again way smarter people/atheist stopped using the santa argument because it makes them look stupid to argue logical fallacy. fallacies I have pointed out several times now. maybe you just do not understand how fallacious reasoning is the end of any intelligent conversation.

or maybe you do not care. the point is you have the truth and at this point you can do with it as you will.

 

[BigV]

Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong all of the time? maybe try googling something before you just write out what is on your sleeve.

No kid believed in santa that was not prompted to by their adult/parent guardian.

Think about it for just one second before you speak.

You are too smart for your own good. HOW did this happen, in your view, that Greek speaking followers of Jesus began to believe in him, even as there is no trace of the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Christians?

One of my last tasks, as I was branching out into scepticism from my religious belief, was going to find a trace of original believers in Jesus. Book of Acts tells us that Jerusalem had a vibrant Christian community, with James as their leader. So what happened to them? There is a very good trace that Roman Catholics have to Peter in Rome (i.e. Clement of Alexandria followed by others), but no such info on Jerusalem community!?

All sources for Aramaic and Hebrew Jesus come from Greek Speaking sources. Paul saw a VISION of Christ and nothing more! And he is your first source for the 'historical' Jesus. The Gospels are anonymous and are written in Greek.

At least, with Santa, you know who the source was. That Coca Cola guy should have remained anonymous, THEN his story would be more believable right?

Santa required a willing parent to play a role why? because the CCC advertisement was a static not real person but a add or painting. So the parent had to play the role. without this parent's willingness the child had no santa knowledge or infrastructure to believe in meaning no one was going to bring them gifts. which like every other 'religion or system of belief would ultimately break the system of belief. IE once The Grecian empire fell Zuse was no longer able to full fill his role as elder God as the Grecian empire was the infrastructure of the greek gods. Greece provided the people with what the gods promised for their belief and structure of government in exchange. however once greece fell the power of the government to keep people fed and cared for fell and so too did belief.

And Jesus required a willing audience, accepting of the hallucinators like Paul and those who would believe anonymous sources as if they were factual.

How man years would the most optimistic child maintain belief when his parents tell them I but the presence and you should thank me not santa, or you get nothing... how many christmas' would a child go without before they dropped santa? I would say no one. So again there is no belief in santa without a consenting guardian wanting to play that role.

Jesus is a Santa for Adults. Unlike the children, adults have a much more exhaustive imagination. I mean even in our days grown adults keep seeing Jesus' image in the clouds or on the pizza. Kids, unfortunately for them, are not able to see Santa on their toasters.

if this message was destroyed then how do you know about it? Citation please.

Only the 'anti-heretical' writings remain to my knowledge. You should read Bart Ehrmans's works. He shows that in some areas, the 'heretics' outnumbered those who would later become the orthodoxy. Most if not all heretical writings remain because we can piece together Christian critique or response to them.

To use this anology, if the Santa followers were zealous enough to destroy the Coca Cola evidence, you would have no legs to stand on in your denial of him today, based on your arguments so far.

Imagine Santa Church leaders destroying the character of the Coca Cola Creator. Perhaps he cheated on his wife and was blatantly dishonest. The critique of him would discount anything he'd say about Santa. Santa apologists would say that he cannot be trusted in what he claims about Santa.

again the problem either you are not smart enough to understand or simply choosing to ignore, is santa was a intentional creation with no ties to this world. No belief was ever required no one who has understood what santa is or was supposed to believe has ever believed in him as being anything more than an ad campaign.

Jesus too was likely an intentional creation. Just look at the genalogies and what is said about him. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is parroting John the Baptist, and, conveniently for the Christians, is confused with being a risen John the Baptist! I actually think this is the top case for Jesus being a myth. The Synoptic Gospels (but not John's Gospel) are written to remove the expectation of finding a historical Jesus. The Gospelers tell us that the people of that time were very much confused and thought that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead! No Christian apologist that I know of touches the "Jesus-risen-John" opinion among the people with a 10 ft pole! For it destroys their resurrection apologetic (i.e no Orthodox Jew would believe in the bodily resurrection unless it really happened"

Jesus himself says that out of all men born of women, noone greater than John (the Baptist) arose, putting himself lower than John being that he too was born of a woman.

But don't worry. Fine to believe in Jesus, in spite of all the historical problems.

Now, getting back to Santa. How can you prove Santa doesn't have supernatural abilities to make his presence known? Perhaps inspiring a Coca Cola creator to make him know was Santa's version of the Santa Gospel? And it worked, didn't it? So how can Santa be fake when he is so smart?

 

[Sanoy]

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.

What argument? All I did was ask someone to explain the comparison. To this date I have only gotten questions from you, no answers. In fact you asked two more questions in your reply which should have had nothing but content in it. I answered your question, you will not even attempt to answer mine.

Let's see if you can make it through your next post without asking a question.

 

[drich0150]

You are too smart for your own good. HOW did this happen, in your view, that Greek speaking followers of Jesus began to believe in him, even as there is no trace of the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Christians?.

G-O-O-G-L-E FIRST!!! SPEAK 2nd!!! No one spoke greek sport. They all spoke aramaic. however aramaic was not a recognised nor official dialect that had any legitimacy in the empire. that sounds like an erdmand 1/2 truth!

it is a lot like jamaican creole was (patois) it is was amalgamation of several languages and yes while someone who speaks one of the languages could hammer out or write out what was said there is no official written code. As the language varied from region to region.

Some of the words based in english are easier to understand that native language words. and even with the unification of jamaican creole as being identified as patois there are multiple spellings and dialects as it developed differently from region to region/slave owner spoke different version of english or the slaves came from different tribes to mix with the english.

The same thing happened in this region in the middle east with the greeks and then years later by the romans.. but for them if they wanted to write something down officially Greek was that common tongue/ base language that had actual rules and defined words and agreed upon spellings. while the natives jibber jabbered in an amalgamation of several different languages.

Without an official designation spellings grammar syntax etc aramaic also varies from region to region. which makes a mess when trying to write things down. However before the romans took over the region, Alexander the great did. one of the things he did as a world conqueror was to ensure everyone who was anyone could read and write greek. it was the official language in that part of the world. for hundreds of years because of his conquering efforts.

When rome took over they slowly changed the official language themselves but this took a long time. during the time of christ will the common people spoke aramaic the greek was still the official written language. so any official leader had to at least speak two languages if not three/latin being the third. which means all of the scribes also spoke aramaic and could write in koine greek as this was the norm.

The reason few if any aramaic text survived because scrolls had to be kept in a very specific environment which where kept and maintain in scriptoreums. which more or less is a temp/humidity modified library. If the documents where not handled this way they would deteriorate with in a generation or two. Those written in aramaic would have been taken care of by regional tribes and had no main stream importance and or appeal. Think family bible or inscription verse the official version in the library of congress. How would a family care for their bible verse how the LoC cares for all of their books.

The aramaic bibles where lost to time because they where little more than region specific copes of the primary greek texts centrally held in churches and or scriptoriums. The greek was the master copy and the aramaic was the copy of a copy to teach to non literate people.

One of my last tasks, as I was branching out into scepticism from my religious belief, was going to find a trace of original believers in Jesus.

it seems as if you got a one sided unthought out view of how a particular author or professor saw things. You don't even know that the Koine greek was the reason we even have a bible in any form now. You see the greek as proof of inconsistency and don't understand the foundational consistency the koine greek provides.

Book of Acts tells us that Jerusalem had a vibrant Christian community, with James as their leader. So what happened to them?

The destruction of jerusalem happened in 70 AD where the Roman slaughtered all of the insurrecting jews, their leaders the jewish leadership (the sadducees) and every other person in the temple church or any where else they could find them. only a handful escaped.

So as you can imagine most people scattered when they did they where no longer 'jews' but christian as jews at that moment where not looked upon with a friendly eye.

There is a very good trace that Roman Catholics have to Peter in Rome (i.e. Clement of Alexandria followed by others), but no such info on Jerusalem community!?

because it lay in ruins after 70AD

All sources for Aramaic and Hebrew Jesus come from Greek Speaking sources.

written.

Paul saw a VISION of Christ and nothing more!

Have you ever seen a vision of Christ where He tells you to do something? kinda a big deal.

And he is your first source for the 'historical' Jesus.

actually it is the Gospel of Luke

The Gospels are anonymous and are written in Greek.

No luke specific is identified as a thrid party/secular physician and historian to theophilus. this is unargued even by skeptics.

At least, with Santa, you know who the source was. That Coca Cola guy should have remained anonymous, THEN his story would be more believable right?

Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

There is no belief in santa for anyone as a part of the lore meaning the santa canon (rules) do not require people to believe in anything. They just have to like coke products.

And Jesus required a willing audience, accepting of the hallucinators like Paul and those who would believe anonymous sources as if they were factual.

How stupid do you think people are?? Do you really thin people followed paul because he was said to have a vision? No. They believed because he could to the same miraculous works as the other apostles. in fact he was brought before the others and tested. Peter and the leadership at that time deemed him legit.

Jesus is a Santa for Adults. Unlike the children, adults have a much more exhaustive imagination. I mean even in our days grown adults keep seeing Jesus' image in the clouds or on the pizza. Kids, unfortunately for them, are not able to see Santa on their toasters.

Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

Only the 'anti-heretical' writings remain to my knowledge. You should read Bart Ehrmans's works.

I have and can refute most of it with a clear and concise understanding of history and a accurate understanding of the bible.

He makes alot of statement out of 1/2 truths and sheer ignorance.
He bases most of his arguments on the idea that there is only supposed to be one clear and consist church and that church was supposed to be the catholic church.. with in the bible itself shows that not to be true. rev 1 starts out speaking to the 7 denomination of the church who are considered to be "the church." not only that even if their was only to be one church what makes him think he has the right one? And even if the RC church is one of the seven Christ himself points out errors and problems of each church why would ehrman demand the church to be without error?

Why? because his whole Religious paradigm is wrong. (he does not fully understand Christianity as outlined in scripture his idea of christianity comes fro the catholic church alone it seems. As it is all based on the OT jewish idea of rights and wrong of morality and infallibility.. when in fact the NT church is not about any of those things. It is about righteousness/God's perfect standard Atonement offered only through Christ and all of us needing perpetual forgiveness all of the time. that Love is the new economy of God. Love for God himself with all of your being and love for your neighbor as you love yourself.

Bart seem bent on looking for imperfection in people in the bible to prove God can not exist and he fills in the gaps with obstinate 1/2 truths and the ability to improv.

Here's the thing though.. God already called or identified imperfection in everyone and in everything but himself. Not only that did you know the bible never claims to be without error? that little doctrine did not come about till after the reformation in the idea of sola scriptura originally meaning the only the word (is what we need to live a complete christian life.) this was to combat the other idea coming from the RC church that the pope was a living apostle and could change the bible any way he saw fit. The argument developed that if the bible was all you need it was perfect the way it was, and we did not need a pope to change or arguement the bible (like our pope now saying hell is not real)

So if bart understood these defining principles of NT christianity he would not waist time trying to refute thing that only people who do not understand the church or the religion would think matters... He got you because you did not know how the church works or really its history or what it was about. so you simply blindly and with full faith allowed him to build a version of the church in your mind and then he systematically took it down one part at a time to make it look like we all believe in santa when any intellectual honest person knows and see the two have nothing to do with each others unless the rules that govern the church are changed and the rules governing santa change not a lot but just enough to make a trusting person who does not fully understand either to make it seem like it makes sense to them.

on; He shows that in some areas, the 'heretics' outnumbered those who would later become the orthodoxy. Most if not all heretical writings remain because we can piece together Christian critique or response to them.

actually no they don't.. I know exactly what you are talking about but I forget the name of the author. basically there was a big movement and the only reason we even know about it was because one of the church leaders of that day did what I am doing now and that is going line by line taking apart the erardman of his day. He did this so thoroughly and so completely that with in a few generation the only thing left was this rebuttal. however this was a one time deal. it does not cover all lost writings.. another erdman 1/2 truth.

To use this anology, if the Santa followers were zealous enough to destroy the Coca Cola evidence, you would have no legs to stand on in your denial of him today, based on your arguments so far.

Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

Imagine Santa Church leaders destroying the character of the Coca Cola Creator. Perhaps he cheated on his wife and was blatantly dishonest. The critique of him would discount anything he'd say about Santa. Santa apologists would say that he cannot be trusted in what he claims about Santa.

name one advertisement mascot or better yet a fictional subject of a oil painting who has ever inspired this. then why would you assume santa would emass such a following? As fictional subjects on painted canvas is what satan was derived from. again look at how dishonest you have to be to try and bridge santa with Christ. does integrity and honor no longer mean anything to you? if it does know:Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

Jesus too was likely an intentional creation.

again sport the problem is if you honestly look you will find more about christ than any other man written in his era or before. That means there is more verification for Jesus than Nero than julius caesar then the pharaohs of the great pyramids than anyone in history to that point and even more than some contemporary known figures and writings as well.

Do doubt the existence of Christ is to say all of history upto about 1000 years ago is also in question.

Just look at the genalogies and what is said about him.

what about it? there where two main set of genealogies at the time and he was the right guy in both.

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is parroting John the Baptist, and, conveniently for the Christians, is confused with being a risen John the Baptist!

Glob...
John the baptist quotes and preached from the OT "Repent of your sin and be baptised for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" Why ph why Would Christ the embodiment of the Kingdom not want people to do the same thing?
Plus sport, did you consider they where cousins???? Which means they could have simply looked the same!!!

I actually think this is the top case for Jesus being a myth.

because Jesus may have looked like his cousin? Ever hear of patty duke? this may blow you mind better not google that.

The Synoptic Gospels (but not John's Gospel) are written to remove the expectation of finding a historical Jesus.

You mean because of the resurrection????

The Gospelers tell us that the people of that time were very much confused and thought that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead!

who cares?? so what... Jesus said he wasn't when asked!!!

No Christian apologist that I know of touches the "Jesus-risen-John" opinion among the people with a 10 ft pole! For it destroys their resurrection apologetic (i.e no Orthodox Jew would believe in the bodily resurrection unless it really happened"

I have no idea what this is about... why would Jesus raise John the baptist? John had a role he played it and introduced Christ. he has no other role his job was done and was called home so as not compete with Christ.

Jesus himself says that out of all men born of women, noone greater than John (the Baptist) arose, putting himself lower than John being that he too was born of a woman.

this would be true if Jesus was just a man.. but wait a tick who does Jesus say he is:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist;B)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-23687B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”C)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-23687C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”D)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-23689D" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood,E)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-23690E" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> but by my Father in heaven.

But don't worry. Fine to believe in Jesus, in spite of all the historical problems.

what problems? the problem I've seen here were little more than straw men created by a man who tickles the ears of anyone looking for a reason to leave the faith... Not theologically sound reason, nor historically accurate ones.. just reason that sond good for anyone too lazy to look stuff up themselves as they have much faith and will put that faith into anyone who will allow them to do what they want.

Now, getting back to Santa. How can you prove Santa doesn't have supernatural abilities to make his presence known?

not apart of the official santa cannon/rule that govern the story.
He has elves (elf on the shelf) to let him know who has been bad or Good.

Perhaps inspiring a Coca Cola creator to make him know was Santa's version of the Santa Gospel? And it worked, didn't it? So how can Santa be fake when he is so smart?

you've tried this like 5 times and have failed each time because:
Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

Is that all you got?

you just keep repeating the same thing over and over no proof no citations no links to any thing just a big yah-huh! because that is what you want to believe!!!

You have provided nothing but a simple opposing view. you loosely 1/2 way quote bart but either get what he says wrong or you are making stuff up and trying to pan it off as his work!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What argument? All I did was ask someone to explain the comparison. To this date I have only gotten questions from you, no answers. In fact you asked two more questions in your reply which should have had nothing but content in it. I answered your question, you will not even attempt to answer mine.

Let's see if you can make it through your next post without asking a question.

Sure thing!
Here are some statements for you.
I believe that Santa Claus is real.
As per the name and topic of this thread, I am waiting for someone to disprove Santa.
Nobody has managed it yet.

 

[BigV]

G-O-O-G-L-E FIRST!!! SPEAK 2nd!!! No one spoke greek sport. They all spoke aramaic. however aramaic was not a recognised nor official dialect that had any legitimacy in the empire. that sounds like an erdmand 1/2 truth!

Wow, now I know that you are a genius. Illiterate Aramaic and Hebrew followers of Jesus (excluding hallucinators like Paul, who were educated, but not one of the disciples) wrote in Greek because that was an official dialect of the Roman Empire.

Case closed.

You can't seem to cut and paste from Biblegateway correctly. At least cut out the code text.

Lastly, please note that nothing you've said has disproven Santa. Obviously Santa is way above your level of comprehension. But never too late. Kneel before Santa and ask him to reveal himself to you. If nothing happens the first few hundred times you try it, just keep asking. Eventually, he will reveal himself like Jesus reveals himself.

 

[BigV]

you've tried this like 5 times and have failed each time because:
Santa by the book is not to be seen as a deity of any kind. this fact destroys your analogy.

Who says Santa must be a deity to be real? Why can't he just make up any necessary attributes for himself, just like Jesus?

On the other hand, can Jesus undo the past and still be omnipotent? Of course, so why can't Santa have limitations and yet, be omnipotent also?

Is God a man? Well, yes and no. So Santa can be God and Santa also. Come on. THINK.

 

[Silmarien]

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.

I said that they had moral duties, not that they always observed them. Granted, some actually think that charity can be set aside in polemical situations like this, though I disagree with that.

 

[Sanoy]

Sure thing!
Here are some statements for you.
I believe that Santa Claus is real.
As per the name and topic of this thread, I am waiting for someone to disprove Santa.
Nobody has managed it yet.

No one cares, no one believes you or that you are earnest, nor do they share your epistemic paradigm. Whole lot of reasons why.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I said that they had moral duties, not that they always observed them. Granted, some actually think that charity can be set aside in polemical situations like this, though I disagree with that.

Are you sure you're being 100% honest with yourself here?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No one cares, no one believes you or that you are earnest, nor do they share your epistemic paradigm. Whole lot of reasons why.

Look, if you aren't up to the challenge, Sanoy, just say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you sure you're being 100% honest with yourself here?

I believe her. I don't think Christians should ever set aside being charitable to non-believers, even to those acerbic atheists who are of the most corrosive kind. Hence, this is why one will be hard pressed to see me fully condemning ex-christians or other non-believers or to hear me say anything like, "You're gonna burn, you bum!" I've got about 11,700 plus posts here, so good luck on finding the needle in the haystack, if there is indeed such a needle.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I certainly have seen acerbic atheists. Although many of them may have reasons for being angry, such as ex-gay therapy, for example. but I must say, I'm amused by the idea that the gentle criticism I give you or Silmarien makes her think I'm "demonic".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I believe her.

That's kind of you Philo. But are you sure it's in her own best interests to support Silmarien in not facing her own faults?
Of course, if she really does believe, 100%, that she is behaving in a kind and charitable way, then I will...do the kind thing myself, and leave it at that.

 

[Sanoy]

Look, if you aren't up to the challenge, Sanoy, just say so.

I have no interest in trying to inform a disingenuous adult that Santa doesn't exist within the umbrella of a broken epistemic paradigm. If you want to appear ridiculous go for it, be yourself in all that you do, but don't act as if anyone should have any interest over it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's kind of you Philo. But are you sure it's in her own best interests to support Silmarien in not facing her own faults?

You do realize that @Silmarien has a degree in Philosophy and, as a former atheist, is familiar with the usual atheist tropes of thought and is quite capable of intellectually scaling the walls of the various questions we all existentially face when confronted with the Figure of Christ, right? I mean, I'd assume you'd take this context into account in your insinuation that she's somehow not 'facing the music.' As for the rest of what she thinks, I'm sure she'll be along soon enough and fill you in on some of the additional, numerous details in her mind that only she'd know regarding her on thinking on these things. Unless, of course, she's already tired of your traipsing about here and there over her beliefs........

Of course, if she really does believe, 100%, that she is behaving in a kind and charitable way, then I will...do the kind thing myself, and leave it at that.

That's kind of you.