That would be logical, if Santa claus were real. Do you believe in Santa claus? No. God? No. Bad comparison.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Santa Claus was a real man, but now he's just a folk tale. Saint Nicholas. But that's beside the point. One's reason in believing that Santa isn't real is that, one year around Christmas, you saw your parents putting out the presents (or someone who did told you). People's reason for not believing in God is generally something about how good people can have bad things happen to them, or the fact that evil exists, or their undying faith in evolution. The reasons are completely separate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Or you can take this into consideration: If, as a child, you were told that Santa Claus is real and that God was a folk tale, wouldn't you believe it? Of course you would. The concept is that both of the things that people claim those figures do is impossible and imaginary. You don't believe that Santa can travel the world in his sleigh drawn by raindeers in one night, so why should you believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky watching over all of us?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Of couse. But if you told a child anything, they would believe you. And yes, it is impossible for someone to ride their sled all over the world in one night. But what about God's existence is impossible? His ability to be everywhere at all times? His all-powerful nature? The fact that he came to earth as a man, died, rose again, and ascended to Heaven as a man? You will say yes, but what makes them impossible in your mind? You don't think those things are possible because they sound so extraordinary. In other words, because they're impossible. You see that atheists don't believe in God because they can't imagine God's power in their own minds. They end up in a circle of not believing because something like that can't be believed in. Christians cannot imagine God's power any more than atheists, but we believe that He exists anyway. The question of God's existence is one of Faith, not of possibility or proof.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But were you not just told "His ability to be everywhere at all times? His all-powerful nature? The fact that he came to earth as a man, died, rose again, and ascended to Heaven as a man?" Unless you yourself existed in those times, you don't know. Also, science is an answer to 99% of questions, ancient people made stories to explain unexplainable things, like why people die, how the sun rises in the east, sets in the west, etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(My name): Excellent point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(My name): I was not alive during those times, but if I did not hear those things at some time, how would I be able to decide for myself if those things are true or not? Yes I was told those things, but I did not automatically believe them. There are many factors that went into my decision to believe in God. Yes, science can answer a great many things, no one denies that. However, science is limited by the scientific method to things which are observable and repeatable. There are some things which science cannot answer, like whether there is life after death, if humans or animals or both have souls, if spirits live and miracles happen, how the world was created, and most importantly, the existence of God. All of the things you mentioned conveniently fall under the section of questions which science can answer. There are more important questions out there. Like the question of right and wrong. Can science prove that they exist?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Au contrair. Science cannot answer those questions yet, but what makes you think that those questions will undeniably be forever unanswered? Think about it this way. 1,000 years ago, who would have imagined a nuclear bomb or even an airplane? They weren't even able to fantasize about it, yet today we have a whole arsenal of them. Science is hard work that pays off in the end. It just requires a great amount of patience and dedication.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Science is limited by observability. as soon as we could observe the structure of the atom, we could figure out how to split it. But will we ever be able to observe spirits and souls? Will we ever be able to observe right and wrong (more than we already do)? Science does not have all of the answers. But the answers are already known to some; to those who believe in what God says about souls, spirits, and right and wrong. I for one will not wait for science to test them to believe in them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right and wrong is more of a matter of philosophy than anything else. And you are assuming that there is such thing as spirits and souls. You can't observe what doesn't exist, right?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can't prove scientifically what you can't observe. That doesn't mean that what you can't see doesn't exist. Right and wrong exist as much as anything else, and matter more than anything that you can observe and record.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Correct. But if it truly doesn't exist, then you can't prove it's there either. We've come to a standstill on that. Your last sentence is debateable. It doesn't necessarily have to matter more than anyting you can observe and record. Right and wrong are terms assosciated with the views of society. One group of people can have completely different views on right and wrong from another group.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Debatable?! How we live our lives is the single most important issue for any and all humans! If there is a right and wrong way to live, you would want to know so that you would be able to live the way you were meant to. Different views does not necessarily mean different right and wrong. Right and wrong are objective, not subjective.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

False. Right and wrong are not objective, how can they possibly be? And nobody was "meant" to live in any certain way. The present is the present. The future is nothing more than a figment of imagination and hope/dread, depending on the situation. If everybody believed in God, then it would be objective because there would be certain rules and you would KNOW what is right and wrong. But in reality, this makes right and wrong a subjective concept.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You view right and wrong as a variable, but if that were true, then psychopaths (who don't think that they're doing anything wrong), would be justified in whatever they do. By sentencing people who don't know any better to prison, we show that we do believe in at least some absolute right and wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

By we, I assume you mean a majority. This would make it subjective. The psychopaths would be justified in their eyes, but might not be in the eyes of others. Some people, who are not psychopathic, may even agree. This would not make them psychopathic, but it would mean that right and wrong is subjective.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right is doing unto others as you would have done to you. Wrong is not doing what you know is right/doing what you know is wrong. That is the fact of the matter, the objective truth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, your first two sentences are completely correct. However, one person may think that they know what is right and wrong, while another person may think that they do too, but in reality, their views differ. Therefore making right and wrong subjective. This also makes the whole concept of right and wrong subjective.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You just agreed with me on the nature of Right and Wrong, then disagreed with what I said. Do people's basic view of what they want for themselves differ from person to person? Generally, it's a comfortable life, pleasant company, and good health, right? How would this differ from person to another?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

believing in santa claus means my folks give me presents. Believing in god hasn't got me anything good to pawn recently, so no, I can't really see your point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

being as neither have any proof of existing (in the current form, re: Santa Claus, as he's based on a folk tale of a real person) it's the exact same thing. A book is not infallible proof of a deity we can't prove that there's some dude dropping presents down our chimney every December. there is no proof of either, so to an atheist, it's the same thing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's the whole point of the post.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

then, may I ask, why did it embroil into a long discussion? did someone not understand the point?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I guess, and plus, these posts always end up like this.

by Anonymous 13 years ago