The following discussion took place due to the video “New Atheists VS Informed Atheists.”
A certain EmptyDisc commented:
I find the atheists who don’t know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist fascinating.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
I find the Atheists who don’t know that Santa Claus is not in the same category as God fascinating.
EmptyDisc:
Quite so, and the overlap of people who believe both these things is often a single circle.
A certain Anton Ekstrand chimed in with:
It all depends what you mean by ‘know’. I believe that Santa Clause doesn’t exist, but I don’t necessarily know that. It just seems like the most reasonable conclusion.
EmptyDisc:
You are fascinating. Just to be clear, you DON’T know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?
Anton Ekstrand:
As I said, it all depends on what you mean by ‘know’. What level of certainty would you require to accept the claim as knowledge? I have no problem saying, in everyday parlance, that I know Santa Clause doesn’t exist. But I can’t demonstrate that he doesn’t, in the same way I can’t demonstrate a god doesn’t exist. It’s all based on an assessment that there’s no apparent reason to accept either claim, and the fact that the stories surrounding both characters/entities seem fictional to me.
A certain Redbad joined in with:
@EmptyDisc can you prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? And I mean prove with 100% certainty. (Be careful how you disprove his existence as I will parody that to disprove God)
Ken Ammi:
@EmptyDisc It’s like what Dinesh D’Souza pointed out: there’s no Atheists writing books like “The Unicorn Delusion” or “Unicorns Are Not Great” or “The End of Unicorns.”
Redbad:
@Ken Ammi wading through the field of straw men you set up in the beginning of your article on why you think people become atheists don’t be was tiresome.
Then you try to use definitions (which aren’t evidence) to disprove a negative. And it gets worse you hand pick the easiest version of Santa Claus to try and debunk, while just asserting god as a necessary being (you nor any has proven necessary beings exist).
Try harder what if Santa has god like powers? None of his tasks seem remotely difficult then. Think of Santa as necessary for Christmas.
Ken Ammi:
What is subjectively tiresome to you is not a standard.
The statement “you can’t prove a negative” is proof of a negative.
Now, the bottom line issues is that you refer to no one has “proven necessary beings exist” so the first step is to justify demanding proof on your worldview.
Redbad:
Ken Ammi necessary beings don’t exist on my worldview so if you can show one to exist I’ll change worldview. Go back to proving a magical Santa doesn’t exist don’t get lost in “your worldview doesn’t blah blah..” you give Santa verifiable facts that we can check to see if he exists or not. Can you give me a verifiable fact to show if god exists?(note it needs to be specific because if I can use the same fact to prove anything else than it’s not very helpful)
Ken Ammi:
By definition a necessary being exist and do so on any worldview: that’s the whole point of being a necessary being.
Now, you seem rather desperate to abscond from the implications of your worldview—and I can’t blame you since it fails before it even begins.
You now realize that your worldview is such an utter failure that you can’t even viably demand evidence yet, you keep right on doing it (not surprising, of course, since being consistent is not a universal imperative on Atheism) with “show one to exist.”
But see, when you say “you give Santa verifiable facts that we can check to see if he exists or not” that is on my worldview so you can’t apply that to yours. See, you have to keep on begging, borrowing, and stealing from my worldview in order to attempt to discredit my worldview which is a self-defeating exercise for you, of course, and inconsistent with your worldview according to which accidentally existing apes can believe and even demand that anything they want to assert is true.
So, rather than covering your eyes and claiming you didn’t notice that your worldview collapsed—even when it’s being pointed out to you—ponder how/why your worldview utterly failed you at a most fundamental level.
Redbad:
you can’t be serious. You can’t miss the point this badly. You entire counter argument was “my definitions are correct and yours aren’t”. You just said that necessary beings exist on any worldview. That’s what I’m asking for you show not just state. If this is the case then Santa is necessary for Christmas boom now he exists. I didn’t ask for you to avoid the worldview conversation because I think mine doesn’t work ( it wouldn’t be my worldview if I thought that) it’s because it a bullshit move to avoid the real conversation. My worldview answers every question yours does but without the addition of magic. Either disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities or prove a necessary god must exist without just stating it. Ps if you insist that definitions are evidence than god is not possible on your own worldview. He can’t be perfectly just and perfectly merciful those definitions are antithetical.
Ken Ammi:
Please mind your manners.
Correlating Santa with a philosophically necessary being is a category error (seems like further evidence that you are not aware of the concept of a philosophically necessary being).
Now, if your worldview does work then let’s see how it does with that you asked me to “show…prove…evidence” but the first step would be for you to justify such demands on your worldview.
As for “disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities,” see here: https://truefreethinker.com/can-you-disprove-santa-claus-atheism-and-santa-syndrome
Redbad:
Ken Ammi you can’t be serious. You can’t miss the point this badly. You entire counter argument was “my definitions are correct and yours aren’t”. You just said that necessary beings exist on any worldview. That’s what I’m asking for you show not just state. If this is the case then Santa is necessary for Christmas boom now he exists. I didn’t ask for you to avoid the worldview conversation because I think mine doesn’t work ( it wouldn’t be my worldview if I thought that) it’s because it a bullshit move to avoid the real conversation. My worldview answers every question yours does but without the addition of magic. Either disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities or prove a necessary god must exist without just stating it.
Ps if you insist that definitions are evidence than god is not possible on your own worldview. He can’t be perfectly just and perfectly merciful those definitions are antithetical.
Ken Ammi:
Please mind your manners.
No, rather the entire counter argument has been that you’ve no premise upon which to even demand certain definitions, on Atheism.
Likewise with you “asking for you show not just state” which is why we’re at the level of fundamental worldview issues since yours provides no premise upon which it’s incumbent for an accidentally existing ape to show anything at all.
That the underlying issue which you subjectively misinterpret as a way to “avoid the real conversation” since I’ve been begging you to begin the real conversation but you just want to jump to merely asserted conclusions such as “Show!” but rather than replying, “Sir, yes, sir!” I reply, “Why?” and all you can reply with is subjective personal preferences du jour based on hidden assumptions.
It’s not incumbent upon your worldview to answers any question and does so by an accidentally existing ape subjectively interpreting accidental neural chemistry—if, that is, you interpret it at all since it may be the case that the accidental laws of physics which accidentally cause the accidental neural chemistry to accidentally result in thoughts means that your thoughts are predetermined by them.
Redbad:
Ken Ammi my apologies if I wasn’t behaving. I agree with that on my world view my asking for evidence is subjective but it’s the only way I can think of to find truth. What on your world view provides the imperative to do anything?
Ken Ammi:
I appreciate that deeply and pray that you’re okay in general. Keep in mind that it’s not just that on your “world view my asking for evidence is subjective” but also “to find truth” means to find the byproducts of an accident. On my world view truth is, it’s absolute, knowing it is an imperative since it was purposefully created and as were we so that we could discern it, and truth personified since Jesus said, “I am…the Truth.”
Redbad:
I still don’t understand why knowing truth is an imperative on your worldview? Even if it was created by God you don’t have to find it. If you have free will God can’t give any imperatives just suggestions. Accident or not the desire to seek truth on either of our worldviews is subjective.
Ken Ammi:
Well, on Atheism it matters not if an accidentally existing ape understands what another accidentally existing ape is saying.
On my worldview, truth was created, it’s not accidental.
We were created, we’re not accidental and so were created to discern truth.
Thus, there’s a universal imperative to adhere to truth even if we can chose to reject it.
And, we can demand/expect others to adhere to it since it’s absolute and we are told to know it and adhere to it..
So, perhaps, “the desire” to seek it is subjective but the universal imperative is objective.
Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended it since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.