I believe in Santa Claus

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People that think there is no evidence pointing towards the existence of God and the truth of Christianity are the ones that are truly believing in something foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not IMO - the foolish ones are the people who base their entire lives on evidence that, frankly, wouldn't sell me a secondhand car.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can twist all you want but there are strong rational reasons for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. To ignore that evidence or try to dismiss it out of hand without doing a true evaluation shows the real follower of blind faith.

[PairTheBoard]

imo, every Christian should read the works of Hans Kung, especially his book, "On Being a Christian". It's also worth reading by people who argue against Christianity. It's an eye opener. Kung was highly influencial during the Second Vatican Council lead by Pope John. His works were taught in Catholic Seminaries until later in his life when he came out with "On the Infallibility of the Pope". The Church couldn't swallow that one.

PairTheBoard

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
einbert:"Just like SOME OF the people Sklansky argues against today, you either say that you believe in something that you really don't, OR you completely lack the ability to reason logically. "

Exactly Wrong. And very on point in your wrongness. When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus. Do I believe like a 3 year old child believes. Well, yes and no. If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No. But I do go along with the Santaology which says Santa lives at the North Pole. It's not central to my belief in Santa but I can go along with it. If you say I am either being illogical or lying you are wrong. You just don't get it.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what you have said you don't believe in Santa like a 3 year old. A 3 year old would believe that an expedition to the north pole would find santa, as well as that presents will appear under the tree because of santa. If you felt the same your family would have no presents, and you would be a very bad parent to ruin christmas for your family.

As for him being wrong, you haven't shown any reasoning as to why he is wrong. You have just stated that he is wrong. That isn't a valid refutation.

[ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't raise my belief in Santa to the level of Faith but it's similiar. And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa. David is like the 9 year old kid who wants to argue with the 3 year old kid.

Here's the thing. Matters of Faith involve, for lack of a better word, METAPHYSICAL concepts; like God, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Emaculate Conception, etc. Whatever a person's understanding of these concepts, from the point of view of the faithful, the important thing is that it brings them to the faith. If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it. David does. When he does he is simply out of his depth.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with david. There are good reasons to believe in god and your religion I am sure, but blind faith is very troublesome. Many people rely on their religion to tell them what is morally correct, and this can cause big problems. A clear example of this would be islamic extremists who interpret the koran in a way that leads to terrorists activities. A 3 year old who believe's in santa doesn't harm anyone, but when other peoples actions and decisions have a big influence on other peoples lives, they have a moral responsiblity to make informed, rational decisions. Blindly following a religion or anything for that matter is an obstruction in reason, and is a bad thing.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay.
[ QUOTE ]
If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, so I guess you think he lives in the South pole?

Wait a second, I get it. You really DON'T believe in Santa Claus, you just felt like claiming that you did for whatever reason. Okay, I get it now.

[ QUOTE ]
And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that faith is not based on logical reasoning. Belief in a specific God is usually not based on logical reasoning either.

However, by claiming to believe in Santa Claus you are basically being as contrarian to logical reasoning as you possibly can be. There's a huge difference between a belief in something that's not logical but MIGHT exist (the Christain God) and something that's not logical and it's pretty easy for a logically thinking person to see that it doesn't exist (Santa Claus).

[ QUOTE ]
Matters of Faith involve, for lack of a better word, METAPHYSICAL concepts; like God, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Emaculate Conception, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, it's immaculate. You should learn your own faith a little better--that's one of the principle foundations of your faith and you can't even spell it correctly?

[ QUOTE ]
metaphysical- beyond what is perceptible to the sense

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's the definition you were referring to. And fine, belief in God can go beyond the senses (this includes logical, rational, empirical thinking in my opinion). But there is a difference between going beyond empiricism and simply spitting in empiricism's face. The difference is as key as the difference between stating "the big bang might not have happened" (which is a very real possibility) and "evolution does not occur in biological life forms" (which is definitely not a possibility, you can see this by examining the scientific evidence). Belief in God is not specifically supported by empirical thinking, but the absence of a God isn't really supported by it either. However, the existence of Santa Claus is something that logic can easily put away as being not true.

Logic can't disprove the Immaculate conception, it can't disprove that Jesus was the son of God, it can't disprove that he was crucified and was resurrected after three days. It doesn't necessarily support these concepts, but it certainly can't disprove them. It can, however, prove that there isn't a Santa Claus. This is a big distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the Church should. If someone wants to participate in something like a religion, they should at least try to understand the important concepts behind that religion. But if you would prefer to simply claim to belong to a given religion without investigating its foundations and principles, that's your own choice. I don't think the church should encourage this kind of thinking, but more membership implies more money so it's easy to see why they would.

It's obvious you're just blatantly exaggerating to the point of getting attention or starting a fight. We both know you don't really believe in Santa Claus, it's obvious from the context of your last post.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
there are strong rational reasons for the [...] truth of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement to be very untrue--please elaborate.

[Gin 'n Tonic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are strong rational reasons for the [...] truth of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement to be very untrue--please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

Quoted by einbert:
PTB: "When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus.

Einbert:"Okay."

Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No."


Einbert: "Oh, so I guess you think he lives in the South pole?

Wait a second, I get it. You really DON'T believe in Santa Claus, you just felt like claiming that you did for whatever reason. Okay, I get it now."

Either you didn't read carefully or purposely chose to ignore the sentences I wrote immediately following the one you just quoted, where I said that I went along with the Santaology which says Santa lives at the North Pole. The fact that an expedition would not find him does not disuade by belief in Santa any more than the lame observation by the Soviets that they couldn't find god in outer space disuaded believers in god. You just don't get what it means to have a mature belief in Santa.

You have also become argumentative and abrasive.


Quoted by einbert:
PTB: "And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa."

einbert: "I understand that faith is not based on logical reasoning. Belief in a specific God is usually not based on logical reasoning either.

However, by claiming to believe in Santa Claus you are basically being as contrarian to logical reasoning as you possibly can be. There's a huge difference between a belief in something that's not logical but MIGHT exist (the Christain God) and something that's not logical and it's pretty easy for a logically thinking person to see that it doesn't exist (Santa Claus)."

I am not at all being contrarian to logical reasoning by believing in Santa. That is exactly the point of this thread. My belief in Santa is born out of a spirit of whimsy. Whimsy is neither logical nor illogical. It's whimsy. And, my rational mind tells me that this belief is a good thing. It stimulates all sorts of child like good will and generousity within me. I like it. I will even prosylatize a little and encourage you to endulge in a little whimsy and believe along with the rest of us Santa believers. Take a spin outside your logic box. You might enjoy it.

Faith in a religion like Christianity touches much deeper chords than the whimsical of course. Take a read of the book, "On Being a Christian" that I mention in another post. You will find your logical arguments are about 100 years out of date.

Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"Matters of Faith involve, for lack of a better word, METAPHYSICAL concepts; like God, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Emaculate Conception, etc."

einbert: "First of all, it's immaculate. You should learn your own faith a little better--that's one of the principle foundations of your faith and you can't even spell it correctly?"

Now you're just being an ass. That's the cheapest shot in the book. And I'm not claiming Christianity as my faith. I'm acting as Christianity's Advocate here. If the devil deserves one certainly Christianity is entitled as well.

Quoted by einbert from a dictionary I assume:
"metaphysical- beyond what is perceptible to the sense"


einbert:"I think that's the definition you were referring to. And fine, belief in God can go beyond the senses (this includes logical, rational, empirical thinking in my opinion). But there is a difference between going beyond empiricism and simply spitting in empiricism's face. The difference is as key as the difference between stating "the big bang might not have happened" (which is a very real possibility) and "evolution does not occur in biological life forms" (which is definitely not a possibility, you can see this by examining the scientific evidence). Belief in God is not specifically supported by empirical thinking, but the absence of a God isn't really supported by it either. However, the existence of Santa Claus is something that logic can easily put away as being not true.

Logic can't disprove the Immaculate conception, it can't disprove that Jesus was the son of God, it can't disprove that he was crucified and was resurrected after three days. It doesn't necessarily support these concepts, but it certainly can't disprove them. It can, however, prove that there isn't a Santa Claus. This is a big distinction."

Not at all. As I mention above Santa is a Whimsical Concept much like God is for lack of a better word a Metaphysical Concept. In your dictionary quote on the meaning of "Metaphysical" it mentions "the senses". To be more specific, I believe it is talking about the 5 senses along with sensing devices produced by science. That does not mean that the metaphysical cannot be sensed by human beings. We possess possibly infitely many ways of sensing or experiencing reality. The sense of Awe. The sense of Beauty. The sense of Truth beyond logic. The sense of Whimsy if you will. The sense of spirituality.

Once you start talking about God you are in the realm of the Metaphysical. All discusion thereafter is essentially metaphysical. When you say God is All Powerful, "All Powerfull" becomes a metaphysical concept. To attack it with mundane logic is as silly as your attack on my whimsical belief in Santa - he's not logical. Really.

"The Son of God" and the "Immaculate Conception" are metaphysical concepts. To attack them from the mundane by assuming they must mean that God magically inseminated Mary is just as silly. Of course there are Christians who insist that this is what they mean. You can attack them if you like. Or you could take a more mature enlightened view by informing yourself of the Big Picture of Christianity by studying the Modern Theology that has been developed over the last 100 years. Maybe you don't like their arrogance. Maybe you should take a look at your own. Maybe you should treat them like you treat a 3 year old child who exitedly tells you all about Santa. Give them a few generations to grow in their understanding.

Unfortunately some of these Christian 3 year olds have gained political power in parts of the country and want to shove their naivety down my mature child's throat. I'm totally with you in opposing these people. But aside from that, why not let The Christian Church worry about the Christians in it?


Quoted by einbert:
PTB:"If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it."


einbert:"I feel the Church should. If someone wants to participate in something like a religion, they should at least try to understand the important concepts behind that religion. But if you would prefer to simply claim to belong to a given religion without investigating its foundations and principles, that's your own choice. I don't think the church should encourage this kind of thinking, but more membership implies more money so it's easy to see why they would."

Maybe you should be the next Pope. For hundreds of years the mundane was practically the only way the vast majority of the faithful were capable of understanding their faith. This is still largely true today. Of course you don't care about the Faith. But the Church does. They consider it a matter of life and death. It was only 100 years ago, as a reaction to the Logical Positivism that was taking over Philosophical Thought that Modern Theology was dared to be attempted. Modern Theology was developed to allow modern thinking people like yourself access to the Faith. As was mentioned upon the Popes recent death; Christianity is still a young faith. That is if it is allowed to continue development into the future. Those who hang on to their mundane understanding of the Faith will always be embraced by the Church imo. But as time goes on I see the Fundamentalist who are yelling the loudest and getting the most attention as diminishing while the Moderns - who are perfectly compatible with your ways of thinking - will increase. Only time will tell of course. It may be the mundane will come to dominate in which case Chistianity will become like the "salt that has lost it's flavor" and slowy die out. jmo.



einbert:"It's obvious you're just blatantly exaggerating to the point of getting attention or starting a fight. We both know you don't really believe in Santa Claus, it's obvious from the context of your last post."

I think it's you who are itching for a fight. I don't want to give you one. And even if you can't believe in Santa the way I do I hope I have convinced you to at least believe that I believe.

PairTheBoard

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are strong rational reasons for the [...] truth of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement to be very untrue--please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, this forum isnt appropriate to that sort of sweeping discussion. Perhaps if there are certain parts of Christianity that you have objection to or you think are particularly weak, it might make it a more viable to discuss in these forums.

[PairTheBoard]

PGarlic:"What occured between your childhood and now that has renewed your believe in the big man?"

Here's what happenned PGarlic. I'm not against giving presents. But I don't like the idea of being Forced to give presents. I especially dislike being forced to give presents because a comercialized culture hypes a certain day with the design to sell sell sell for the sake of Retailing Profits. So I adopted the policy of never giving presents on Christmas. I might give presents any day during the year that I felt moved to do so but I refused to give presents on Christmas. Well, one Christmas a certain family member's feelings were very badly hurt. Maybe my Grinch policy had caught on or something. I'm not sure. But she cried because she didn't get any present on Christmas. She was in her 80's at the time. I decided I needed to make a change. What I came up with was this. I still refused to give presents on Christmas. But what I did do on Christmas was deliver presents to my family from Santa. Lo and Behold I found that it was good Ho Ho Ho. I've been a believer in Santa ever since.

PairTheBoard

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are strong rational reasons for the [...] truth of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement to be very untrue--please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, this forum isnt appropriate to that sort of sweeping discussion. Perhaps if there are certain parts of Christianity that you have objection to or you think are particularly weak, it might make it a more viable to discuss in these forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it inappropriate?