Grudge Match: Santa versus God!

[Piddzilla]

ADMIN NOTE: Pid and I started arguing about God in the Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will thread, and I decided to move the discussion here so as not to interfere with the other thread any further.

Originally posted by Yoda
There are plenty of signs of God's existence.

Sure, if you allready believe in God. Then you think everything is a sign of God. But that sort of "sign" doesn't convince me, as sort of a "non-beliver", one bit.

Did you know there are multiple flood stories in various cultures? I believe the Chinese word for "boat" originally meant something like "vessel carrying eight people." And yes, The Ark contained eight people. The Bible also refers, if memory serves (in the original translation, that is) to the world as a "sphere." Far beyond its time in terms of science. Are these coincidences?

Not a very strong case you got there, Yoda...

First of all... There are a lot of totally different themes but a lot of those themes are alike. Probably depending on similar types of environment. Second... Word spreads around. Tales travel. Third... A flood, a boat and a sphere? Evidence of... what?

If God were real, why wouldn't His religion be one of the big ones? Or for that matter, the biggest? Questioning the big religions just because they're big doesn't jibe.

I'm not questioning them just because they're big - but because it just happens to be so that the big religions are the most aggressive ones and the most judgmental ones.

Then we can of course go into why these big religions are so big. Christianity for example. The reason to why it spread so rapidly throughout Europe might have something to do with the Roman empire, don't you think? And then we have of course the crusades. And missions into the territories of "savages" in Africa and America and so on.

I listen to Yoda's arguments and I have to say it's very hard to debate with him. It's like he's showing me a paper of a circle and says to me: "This is a square!". Then he presents arguments that are made to support the belief that a circle is in fact a square. Very well articulated and carefully planned arguemnts - but, to me, totally absurd. It's like the branch of philosophers who believe that until the day someone spots a black swan - black swans do exist. Because if you have never seen a black swan - how can you prove it does in fact not exist? We could exchange the word "God" for "Santa Claus" and everyone here would understand how absurd it is.

(don't know if I got the birds and colors right there... But at least I think so.. You know what I mean...)

[Yoda]

Sure, if you allready believe in God. Then you think everything is a sign of God. But that sort of "sign" doesn't convince me, as sort of a "non-beliver", one bit.
You're making assumptions. But if you think you know exactly what kind of signs I'm talking about, by all means, go ahead and tell me what they are, and why you don't buy them. Then I'll inform you that those weren't what I had in mind, and the discussion can continue along more fruitful, and less assumption-based lines. :)


Not a very strong case you got there, Yoda...
Case for what? I mentioned two very small things and asked if they were coincidences. I'm not making my case for God to you here. It's only clog this thread up. It would merit a thread of its own, easily.


First of all... There are a lot of totally different themes but a lot of those themes are alike. Probably depending on similar types of environment.
Yes, a lot of those themes are alike. Think about it: if you tell ten people to draw, say, a person, you'll get ten very different drawings. If you show ten people a person and have them draw that, they'll be far more similar. A certain level of similarity implies a basis in fact. Where that level is more subjective, but frankly, it doesn't matter much. As true as it is that some people will see God in ridiculous if they are determined to (a taco, for example), it's equally true that people will almost always find a way to deny God rather than re-think their decision on the matter.


Second... Word spreads around. Tales travel.
That's an argument for it as much as against it. Word does spread...but when the word is bullsh*t, it doesn't tend to last as long. Winston Churchill's quip about how a lie can get half-way round the world before the "truth has a chance to put is trousers on" comes to mind. If religion is a lie, it's lapped the truth in this global ideological race thousands of times by now.


Third... A flood, a boat and a sphere? Evidence of... what?
I don't see why you don't understand what I'm getting at in regards to the sphere. I spelled it out: "Far beyond its time in terms of science." Is that a coincidence?


I'm not questioning them just because they're big - but because it just happens to be so that the big religions are the most aggressive ones and the most judgmental ones.
Aggressive and judgemental how? I sounds like you're confusing Christians with Christianity.


We could exchange the word "God" for "Santa Claus" and everyone here would understand how absurd it is.
Not really, because many people make similar arguments and it does little to sway them, because the idea of God has more evidence for it than the idea of Santa Claus.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

You're making assumptions. But if you think you know exactly what kind of signs I'm talking about, by all means, go ahead and tell me what they are, and why you don't buy them. Then I'll inform you that those weren't what I had in mind, and the discussion can continue along more fruitful, and less assumption-based lines. :)

I don't have a clue what signs you are talking about. But if you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would know what signs I was talking about. Why do you comment on my post if you're unaware of what it's about? I'll give you a hint. I think it was Sexy Celebrity who wrote something, a little story about his childhood, that I did not consider to be a sign of God's existence.

Case for what? I mentioned two very small things and asked if they were coincidences. I'm not making my case for God to you here. It's only clog this thread up. It would merit a thread of its own, easily.

Ok, if they are not coincidences, then what are they? Why did you bring them up? As you said - two very small things, yes. In fact, they are so small that they are not even coincidences.

Yes, a lot of those themes are alike. Think about it: if you tell ten people to draw, say, a person, you'll get ten very different drawings. If you show ten people a person and have them draw that, they'll be far more similar. A certain level of similarity implies a basis in fact. Where that level is more subjective, but frankly, it doesn't matter much. As true as it is that some people will see God in ridiculous if they are determined to (a taco, for example), it's equally true that people will almost always find a way to deny God rather than re-think their decision on the matter.

What has that to do with our argument about the universal and global creation myths? I try to meet your arguments with well thought-through and serious arguments and all you say is that I ridicule God?

I would like to go back to the topic, if you don't mind. You mentioned old myths about floods as a sign of that when it comes down to it, all people aroung the world are worshipping the same god and their beliefs on how the earth was created are pretty much the same everywhere. And if I understood you correctly, this would thus be a sign of God's existence. And I tried to make a point saying that the flood theme is just one theme among many that occur around the world. In the nordic mythology for example it is said that the world was created from a state of chaos and the first two people were created from two lumps of wood. Since the christians came to the north the creation myths and the views on life after death changed and became similar to the cristian myths. Then, of course, we became christians around here too. (Sometime in the beginning of the 11th century to be exact).

That's an argument for it as much as against it. Word does spread...but when the word is bullsh*t, it doesn't tend to last as long. Winston Churchill's quip about how a lie can get half-way round the world before the "truth has a chance to put is trousers on" comes to mind. If religion is a lie, it's lapped the truth in this global ideological race thousands of times by now.

You have to remember that the word being spread is always the word of the king or the rulers of the peoples. As I said before, the christians can thank the roman empire for the spreading of christianity around Europe. It's not really a question of the word being spread so widely because of its exellence. It's being spread so widely because it was forced on people.

I don't see why you don't understand what I'm getting at in regards to the sphere. I spelled it out: "Far beyond its time in terms of science." Is that a coincidence?

You're right, I don't understand what you're getting at. Again, I ask you: if it's not a coincidence, then what is it? Is it proof of anything? If yes, then of what? Is the fact that the concept of a sphere is mentioned in the bible a proof of God as the creator? One single "fact"? In that case Nostradamus must have been at least the second coming.


Aggressive and judgemental how? I sounds like you're confusing Christians with Christianity.

:confused: You mean like, nazism isn't to blame for what the nazis did? Or, communism is in fact a good thing. It's just that the communists haven't got it yet?

How do you test if a theory is in fact working? You have to put that theory into practice, right? If you after a long time of practicing discover that the results in many cases are really bad, something must be wrong. Then you can change the way you're practicing the theory but in the end if the results still are bad. Don't you think that it might then be the theory that's the basic problem?

Not really, because many people make similar arguments and it does little to sway them, because the idea of God has more evidence for it than the idea of Santa Claus.

That's only your opinion, it is not a fact.

[Yoda]

Piddy:

I don't have a clue what signs you are talking about. But if you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would know what signs I was talking about. Why do you comment on my post if you're unaware of what it's about? I'll give you a hint. I think it was Sexy Celebrity who wrote something, a little story about his childhood, that I did not consider to be a sign of God's existence.
I've read your previous posts. You said "Sure, if you allready believe in God. Then you think everything is a sign of God. But that sort of "sign" doesn't convince me, as sort of a "non-beliver", one bit." Why, pray tell, would we be talking about SC's supposed sign? I didn't mention him. We may both share some spiritual beliefs, but we're not the same person, here.


Ok, if they are not coincidences, then what are they? Why did you bring them up? As you said - two very small things, yes. In fact, they are so small that they are not even coincidences.
If they're not coincidences, then they are evidence. And no, they are not "so small." Do you have any idea how ahead of its time, scientifically, that claim on the Earth as being a sphere is?



What has that to do with our argument about the universal and global creation myths? I try to meet your arguments with well thought-through and serious arguments and all you say is that I ridicule God?
I didn't say you ridiculed God. I said that "people will almost always find a way to deny God rather than re-think their decision on the matter." Whic his true.


I would like to go back to the topic, if you don't mind. You mentioned old myths about floods as a sign of that when it comes down to it, all people aroung the world are worshipping the same god and their beliefs on how the earth was created are pretty much the same everywhere. And if I understood you correctly, this would thus be a sign of God's existence. And I tried to make a point saying that the flood theme is just one theme among many that occur around the world. In the nordic mythology for example it is said that the world was created from a state of chaos and the first two people were created from two lumps of wood. Since the christians came to the north the creation myths and the views on life after death changed and became similar to the cristian myths. Then, of course, we became christians around here too. (Sometime in the beginning of the 11th century to be exact).
So they semi-converted; what's your point?


You have to remember that the word being spread is always the word of the king or the rulers of the peoples. As I said before, the christians can thank the roman empire for the spreading of christianity around Europe. It's not really a question of the word being spread so widely because of its exellence. It's being spread so widely because it was forced on people.
Wrong. People being forced in Christianity is in the minimum throughout history, though a big deal is made of the instances in which it was. If you want to gripe about a religion unreasonably forcing itself on others and disrespecting dissenters, you'd do well to attack Islam first.

The fact that Christianity is still thriving on almost all fronts flies in the face of the idea that it was forced and therefore artificially supported. If that were true, we'd have seen it die down significantly by now. But all it's done is grow.


You're right, I don't understand what you're getting at. Again, I ask you: if it's not a coincidence, then what is it? Is it proof of anything? If yes, then of what? Is the fact that the concept of a sphere is mentioned in the bible a proof of God as the creator? One single "fact"? In that case Nostradamus must have been at least the second coming.
Nostradamus wrote vaugely and made mistakes. Frankly, I don't know why you even need to ask me why that sort of claim supports the validity of The Bible. If The Bible said "Pidzilla will argue with Yoda in the year 2003," wouldn't you regard it as more likely to be the result of something supernatural, given the unlikeliness of simply guessing such a thing?


You mean like, nazism isn't to blame for what the nazis did? Or, communism is in fact a good thing. It's just that the communists haven't got it yet?
No.

Like this: Christians do things allegedly in the name of Christianity that have no basis in The Bible or Christ's teachings. IE: if I kill someone in YOUR name, we shouldn't blame YOU unless you were goading me into it. The Bible preaches love and tolerance. It does not teach forcible conversions. If someone does such a thing, they are acting out of their own flaws, and not out of the beliefs they claim to subscribe to. It's that simple.


How do you test if a theory is in fact working? You have to put that theory into practice, right? If you after a long time of practicing discover that the results in many cases are really bad, something must be wrong. Then you can change the way you're practicing the theory but in the end if the results still are bad. Don't you think that it might then be the theory that's the basic problem?
Christianity is not a theory. It is a set of beliefs and rules and such. The fact that the results are really bad (though not in "many cases," as you state) can be attributed to the fact that the standards in question are remarkably high. What you have to ask yourself is whether or not Christians are proportionally worse in terms of behavior than other groups of people. And clearly, they are not; on the whole, they're generally kinder people, as anyone who knows any significant number of them can testify to without hesitation.

If you see a disproportionate number of believers causing major trouble even though their belief system does not dictate it, sure, it's reasonable to investigate, but you don't have that with Christianity, and there's really no way to trace that kind of nonsense and intolerance back to Christ's teachings.


That's only your opinion, it is not a fact.
You're stating the obvious. When you say the two are akin you are also stating an opinion. Reminding us all of the fact that we're dealing with opinions gets us nowhere.

Frankly, whether you believe in God or not, to imply that He has as little evidence to support His existence as Santa Claus is flat-out ridiculous, and I think you know it. And, frankly, if you actually believe it, then I've got to conclude, with all due respect, that you haven't really looked into the matter.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
Piddy:


I've read your previous posts. You said "Sure, if you allready believe in God. Then you think everything is a sign of God. But that sort of "sign" doesn't convince me, as sort of a "non-beliver", one bit." Why, pray tell, would we be talking about SC's supposed sign? I didn't mention him. We may both share some spiritual beliefs, but we're not the same person, here.

Ok, usually your respond is supposed to be about the thing I was talking about. But apparently not in this case. I misunderstood...


If they're not coincidences, then they are evidence. And no, they are not "so small." Do you have any idea how ahead of its time, scientifically, that claim on the Earth as being a sphere is?

What do you mean "ahead of its time"? It was a sphere during that time too, wasn't it? Maybe some people that could put two and two together existed even when the bible was written. The vikings thought the earth was created through a state of chaos (Big Bang). Do you realize how ahead of its time that claim is?

I didn't say you ridiculed God. I said that "people will almost always find a way to deny God rather than re-think their decision on the matter." Whic his true.

Maybe. Not in my case though. I don't give it much thought at all and I have never met anyone - you included - that has convinced me that the bible is intirely true.

So they semi-converted; what's your point?

My point is that the similar stories and myths you talked about was completely different from the beginning. In fact, they have probably been changing and developing continuously (spel.) since their birth. So my point is that that evidence is a very weak evidence.

Wrong. People being forced in Christianity is in the minimum throughout history, though a big deal is made of the instances in which it was. If you want to gripe about a religion unreasonably forcing itself on others and disrespecting dissenters, you'd do well to attack Islam first.

The only thing I'm attacking here, if you want to use that harsh of a word, is your remarks about how everyone that doesn't believe in the christian god or the bible are nothing but people without the capacity to think freely or people that lack soul or people that are just cynical etc. etc. etc.

You said that people that have been forced into christianity is in the minimum. I would like to see facts and statistics on that. Show me numbers on how many people that converted, or became christians in another similar way, during their life - not being born into christianity - that wasn't in some way forced to do it. I will be very surprised if you find any statistics on that, statistics that cover all history up to our days, including all the crusades, the inquistition and the missionaries in Africa and Latin America and so on.

The fact that Christianity is still thriving on almost all fronts flies in the face of the idea that it was forced and therefore artificially supported. If that were true, we'd have seen it die down significantly by now. But all it's done is grow.

Maybe it's thriving on your front. I think it's mostly hypocritical. People say they believe in god but it really doesn't mean **** to them. But I live in Sweden where a little more than 30% believe in God while you live in USA where about 85% of the population believes in God. When I grew up no one around me taught me to believe in God or to read the bible.

Nostradamus wrote vaugely and made mistakes. Frankly, I don't know why you even need to ask me why that sort of claim supports the validity of The Bible. If The Bible said "Pidzilla will argue with Yoda in the year 2003," wouldn't you regard it as more likely to be the result of something supernatural, given the unlikeliness of simply guessing such a thing?

Let's put it this way... If Nostradamus had been a biblical person, you would have mentioned him as a great example of how ahead of its time the bible is. Why is the bible true? Because the bible says so!

No.

Like this: Christians do things allegedly in the name of Christianity that have no basis in The Bible or Christ's teachings. IE: if I kill someone in YOUR name, we shouldn't blame YOU unless you were goading me into it. The Bible preaches love and tolerance. It does not teach forcible conversions. If someone does such a thing, they are acting out of their own flaws, and not out of the beliefs they claim to subscribe to. It's that simple.

As I said before. I have no quarrels with Jesus. I buy his teachings any day (a lot of it anyway). The old testament however... that's another thing. But that's not the issue here.

And Yoda:

"If you want to gripe about a religion unreasonably forcing itself on others and disrespecting dissenters, you'd do well to attack Islam first"

Please, elaborate on how this statement made by you work together with what you said about christians who do things in the name of christianity. Please tell me how this differ from when muslims do things in the name of islam. Then go on and tell me how this statement is a way for you, as a christian, to preach "love and tolerance".

Christianity is not a theory. It is a set of beliefs and rules and such. The fact that the results are really bad (though not in "many cases," as you state) can be attributed to the fact that the standards in question are remarkably high. What you have to ask yourself is whether or not Christians are proportionally worse in terms of behavior than other groups of people. And clearly, they are not; on the whole, they're generally kinder people, as anyone who knows any significant number of them can testify to without hesitation.

Another totally outrageous statement from you. You just told me christians are better people than others. I'm not even going to comment on that one.

If you see a disproportionate number of believers causing major trouble even though their belief system does not dictate it, sure, it's reasonable to investigate, but you don't have that with Christianity, and there's really no way to trace that kind of nonsense and intolerance back to Christ's teachings.

Well, I didn't plan to put Jesus on trial here. I don't care if people find harmony and comfort in religion, on the contrary I think it's great. But consider the name of this topic: "Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will". I know that you wrote it that way just to create a lively debate, but let's just use it as an example. What is that statement if not a complete attack from a devoted christian on non-believers for not believing? This is what I don't like when christians do - judge or degrade non-believers or people that think differently.

So, should I attack you or your views? Of course your views. But according to you, your views are not to blame. You're just telling me the words or the philosophy of the bible which is flawless. In this case, it's obviously right to kill the messenger. Christianity is not to blame for the acts of christians. Sounds like running away from responsibility to me.

You're stating the obvious. When you say the two are akin you are also stating an opinion. Reminding us all of the fact that we're dealing with opinions gets us nowhere.

Actually, I think it's the first time you've said that what you say here is just an opinion. I'm always getting the impression that our discussions always are about you telling me how it is (i.e. facts) while I'm telling you that's not at all how it is (i.e. not at all facts).

Frankly, whether you believe in God or not, to imply that He has as little evidence to support His existence as Santa Claus is flat-out ridiculous, and I think you know it. And, frankly, if you actually believe it, then I've got to conclude, with all due respect, that you haven't really looked into the matter.

The question of God's to be or not to be is of course a greater philosophical question than the question of Santa's. But to me, the argumentation isn't that different. The question about God is only more complex and, yes, more important because so many people believe in God.

By the way... I've seen Santa a couple of times... I know for a fact that he exists.

[Yoda]

Thread created. I'll try to reply before long, though knowing me, I'll probably put if off until the weekend. So many arguments, so little time.

[Piddzilla]

k

[Piddzilla]

However, I'm a little confused about the fact that I'm put up as this topic's starter. You were the one who wanted to take this into another topic, not me.

I would never start a topic with the rediculous subject title: "Santa vs God". And if your emphasis is going to be on just that I can promise you this topic won't be very long lived. At least not with me in it.

[Yoda]

Relax. :) The title is my doing, and it's to inject some humor into everything. The thread is "started by you" simply because the discussion in the other thread kicked off, primarily, with your post, if memory serves. The thread was created using the "Split Thread" option built into the forum software.

I put the admin note up there to straighten things out. I don't think anyone here's gonna get the wrong idea.

[Piddzilla]

We'll just have to see about that....

I started to talk about Santa in the last topic to add some humour without you being even close to a :) . Can't see why it's funny here all of a sudden...

I can't help getting a feeling that someone (you) is trying to dodge my arguments with this little manoeuvre by you. I don't think that discussion was more off-topic than any other discussion we've had. But I'll save all serious accusations until I've read your replies.

[Santa Claus]

I EXIST!


That's it. Don't you two puling miscreants realize that when someone says they don't believe I lose a pound and a hair? I'll be non-existent after this thread and you two pukes will be responsible for the death of Santa.

Your children will hate you, do you hear me?


A-Holes.

[Yoda]

Maybe I'm just in a better mood now. The thread title is OBVIOUSLY a joke...your comparison of God to Santa was not. It can be seen as meant to demean religion as easily as it can be seen as meant to inject humor into a serious discussion.

As for dodging: that's a cheap shot, and even worse, a pretty baseless one. Have you EVER seen me "dodge" ANYTHING on this forum? Have you ever seen me do anything other than argue for weeks on end on any topic anyone cares to discuss with me? There's also the little matter of explaining just how I can dodge a question by giving it its own thread.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but perhaps you're thinking wishfully.

[Sir Toose]

Well, this just went all to hell.


Piddy:
Maybe. Not in my case though. I don't give it much thought at all and I have never met anyone - you included - that has convinced me that the bible is intirely true.

I think of the bible as a macrocosmic versus microcosmic. I think some of the bible is in fact 'story' but told in a way to drive home a point.

I think we are supposed to read the bible and get the 'gist' of the meaning...

You KNOW who is in the details after all.

And to clarify... in my opinion, much of the details are a test of faith.

But you can believe what you want, of course.

[Yoda]

Ok, usually your respond is supposed to be about the thing I was talking about. But apparently not in this case. I misunderstood...
Well, it was. I said there were plenty of signs; which is what you were talking about. That doesn't mean I have to refer to specific TYPE of sign. Regardless, there's nothing more to be learned from this line of discussion, as I'm sure we can both agree.


What do you mean "ahead of its time"? It was a sphere during that time too, wasn't it? Maybe some people that could put two and two together existed even when the bible was written.
"Ahead of its time" meaning "unusually early in discovery or invention." Sure, the Earth has always been a sphere, but we haven't always been able to identify it as such. Sure, there's a chance some people could put two and two together; but it's significantly noteworthy that an impressive scientific observation, for its time, like that would be in an otherwise unscientific document. It is not proof; but it is evidence. It is worth noting. I am not making it out to be the basis for my Faith; far from it. It's simply an interesting thing worth mentioning.


The vikings thought the earth was created through a state of chaos (Big Bang). Do you realize how ahead of its time that claim is?
Not as ahead of its time, and potentially not at all, as the Big Bang theory is, well, just that: a theory. Regardless, do you or do you not look upon the vikings with a bit more trust and respect than you would have otherwise for holding an ideal you regard as true ahead of their time?


Maybe. Not in my case though.
You've got to be pretty arrogant to try and tell me you're somehow exempt from the thing almost every human being is bound to: pride. There's really no denying that people will almost always argue rather than concede. Religion holds no monopoly on such things. Not even close.


I don't give it much thought at all and I have never met anyone - you included - that has convinced me that the bible is intirely true.
I haven't really attempted to convince you that The Bible is entirely true. I have little interest in doing so. What you believe is of little consequences from where I stand, though I admittedly take a little more interest in the idea that there is no God whatsoever, which I find to be an extremist position.


My point is that the similar stories and myths you talked about was completely different from the beginning. In fact, they have probably been changing and developing continuously (spel.) since their birth. So my point is that that evidence is a very weak evidence.
You say they were different from the beginning; this begs two questions:

1) What're you basing that statement on?
2) Why would they become more, and not less, like each other over time?


The only thing I'm attacking here, if you want to use that harsh of a word, is your remarks about how everyone that doesn't believe in the christian god or the bible are nothing but people without the capacity to think freely or people that lack soul or people that are just cynical etc. etc. etc.
I'd sympathize with attacking that sort of statement...if I'd said it. I don't believe I did. I didn't say anyone "lacked Soul" (I think we've all got Souls whether we believe in them or not), and I'm pretty dang sure I didn't call any Atheists inherently cynical.

As for thinking freely: as I said, I DO believe we ALL have Free Will...my argument about Free Will and the denial of any supernatural force operates under the assumption that the materialists are correct. It's a "okay, assuming what you say is true, wouldn't THIS be true?" kind of argument.


You said that people that have been forced into christianity is in the minimum. I would like to see facts and statistics on that. Show me numbers on how many people that converted, or became christians in another similar way, during their life - not being born into christianity - that wasn't in some way forced to do it. I will be very surprised if you find any statistics on that, statistics that cover all history up to our days, including all the crusades, the inquistition and the missionaries in Africa and Latin America and so on.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have statistics on the matter; such statistics don't exist, and if they did, they would be highly unreliable. You and I posess some degree of common sense, however, and therefore we know, for example, that "Zach" is not the most common name in the world, even if we have no data to back it up.

Use your common sense: Christianity is made up of the roughly 2 billion people right now, if memory serves. Do you really believe half of them, or more, were forced into conversion? Heck, you can't even really force conversion in any REAL way. Holding a gun to someone's head until they say "I love Jesus" will not cause them to love Jesus.

The fact of the matter is that things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition represent a tiny portion of Christian history. Perhaps you'd have me believe they are major events which embody the entire religion, but you could only do so if you ignored the bulk of Christian history. That said, I'm not sure why you listed "missionaries" alongside those other two things.


Maybe it's thriving on your front. I think it's mostly hypocritical. People say they believe in god but it really doesn't mean **** to them. But I live in Sweden where a little more than 30% believe in God while you live in USA where about 85% of the population believes in God. When I grew up no one around me taught me to believe in God or to read the bible.
It's thriving overall. It is the largest religion in the world, and one of the faster-growing religions, as well. I hear it's growing particularly quickly in China and Africa, though I haven't verified this.

Anyway, I don't think it's hypocritical to believe in God without living your life accordingly. I think it's a bit dumb, but not hypocritical. Most people throughout history have believed in a Higher Power of some sort; it's a very hard thing to deny, because of both the implications denial entails, and the fact that, be it through design or evolution, such a belief is clearly built into us on some level.


Let's put it this way... If Nostradamus had been a biblical person, you would have mentioned him as a great example of how ahead of its time the bible is. Why is the bible true? Because the bible says so!
I have never once used The Bible to validate The Bible. That would be circular; then again, anything a Materialist (and many Atheists) says has the same inherent problem.

And no, I don't think I'd mention him as a great example. As I stated before: he wrote vaguely and made mistakes. If you claim I'd say otherwise were he one of JC's right-hand men, I can't say much in response, as such a claim is highly speculative and more or less impossible to argue with beyond a simple "nah-uh."


Please, elaborate on how this statement made by you work together with what you said about christians who do things in the name of christianity. Please tell me how this differ from when muslims do things in the name of islam.
I didn't say it differed at all. I said exactly what I said:

"If you want to gripe about a religion unreasonably forcing itself on others and disrespecting dissenters, you'd do well to attack Islam first."

IE: Islam has far more intolerance for dissent in its history than Christianity. There's really no contest. I didn't say, nor imply, that the belief system itself is at fault because of this (though you could, arguably, make the case that it has inherent problems).


Then go on and tell me how this statement is a way for you, as a christian, to preach "love and tolerance".
"Love, while always forgiving of imperfections and mistakes, can never cease to will their removal."

You're implying that it's wrong to recognize and state the fact that the Islamic religion has a history with an inordinate amount of disrespect for dissenters?


Another totally outrageous statement from you. You just told me christians are better people than others. I'm not even going to comment on that one.
I said they're generally kinder; it's up to you whether that makes them "better" overall. Hypothetical situation: you see five 19-year olds walking down a dark alleyway at night. They're coming towards you. If you're like most people, you're probably a little worried as to their intentions. They keep walking. They come closer and you see...that they're carrying Bibles. Be honest: do you or do you not feel somewhat relieved? Do you see them as more or less of a threat than you did before you saw what they were carrying?



But consider the name of this topic: "Atheism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will". I know that you wrote it that way just to create a lively debate, but let's just use it as an example. What is that statement if not a complete attack from a devoted christian on non-believers for not believing? This is what I don't like when christians do - judge or degrade non-believers or people that think differently.
Oh, I don't deny at all that the subject was meant to create interest and a lively debate.

What I do deny that it is not an "attack." Frankly, how would you see it as such? It is a claim: if you deny supernatural forces, logically, you deny Free Will. How is it an attack to make that observation? And even if you view it as an attempt to "attack" Materialists and other such people, what's so unreasonable about it? I did not tease, mock, or treat rudely anyone who disagreed with me. I made a claim, and later on engaged in some arguments about it. It was all very civil. Where's the degradation you claim I subjected others to?

As for "judging" -- I only "judged" non-believers in the sense that I disagreed with them.


So, should I attack you or your views? Of course your views. But according to you, your views are not to blame. You're just telling me the words or the philosophy of the bible which is flawless. In this case, it's obviously right to kill the messenger. Christianity is not to blame for the acts of christians. Sounds like running away from responsibility to me.
No, it sounds like common sense. Blame Christianity if you find fault with its teachings. If a religion preaches love, and someone warps that in their mind to mean "this person won't listen to the religion that preaches love! KILL HIM!," what possible reason could you have for blaming the religion? Answer: none. You are not responsible if I kill someone in YOUR name, unless you encouraged it.

That's not running away from responsibility. That's putting responsibility on those responsible. People are responsible for their decisions. Belief systems, religious or otherwise, are responsible for what they teach and support. EVERY group in the history of the world has had bad eggs who twist and skew meanings into hateful perversions.


Actually, I think it's the first time you've said that what you say here is just an opinion. I'm always getting the impression that our discussions always are about you telling me how it is (i.e. facts) while I'm telling you that's not at all how it is (i.e. not at all facts).
I don't say it often because it's a given. Obviously I believe what I'm saying (if I didn't, I wouldn't say it). I don't know why you get the impression that I'm "telling you how it is." Perhaps it's because I "speak" bluntly and directly and with some level of confidence or force. I don't know. Rest assured, however, that I'm well aware that most of this is highly subjective.

Now, there are times when simple logic dictates certain conclusions, but that's quite different.


The question of God's to be or not to be is of course a greater philosophical question than the question of Santa's. But to me, the argumentation isn't that different. The question about God is only more complex and, yes, more important because so many people believe in God.
Right. More complex to such a degree so as to distance one from the other dramatically. If Santa doesn't exist, what's it tell us? Well, that people made him up and that someone else must be giving us our presents; like, say, our parents. If God doexn't exist, what's it tell us? A heck of a lot more. There are a LOT of logical inevitabilities that come undeniably attached to the rejection of a Higher Power.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Sir Toose
I think of the bible as a macrocosmic versus microcosmic. I think some of the bible is in fact 'story' but told in a way to drive home a point.

I think we are supposed to read the bible and get the 'gist' of the meaning...

You KNOW who is in the details after all.

And to clarify... in my opinion, much of the details are a test of faith.
Well put. This is the view a fair number of Theists hold. There's little doubt among most Christians that certain parts of The Bible are metaphorical. The tricky part is distinguishing the allegorical from the literal. Though the fact that The Bible preaches so many timeless things certainly speaks in its favor, in terms of validity.

[Sir Toose]

Also there's the oft forgotten fact that those who clamor for proof also find no disproof.

It is a lazy way to go about things saying 'prove this to me' when one can learn all he/she wants to learn for him/her self.

It's a bit irrelevant, but to me it speaks to the credibility of the arguer... have you or have you not done your homework, so to speak.

Not directed at you Piddy before you twist your panties in a knot. I've argued points like this often and run across those who seem to be allergic to doing their own research and forming their own conclusions.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
Maybe I'm just in a better mood now. The thread title is OBVIOUSLY a joke...your comparison of God to Santa was not. It can be seen as meant to demean religion as easily as it can be seen as meant to inject humor into a serious discussion.

Let's just say that it was meant to demean religion but in a humorous way. I was choosing between the Loch Ness beast and Santa, but chose Santa because he's more harmless (or is he?) and it was funnier to use him to illustrate the absurdity in this discussion.

As for dodging: that's a cheap shot, and even worse, a pretty baseless one. Have you EVER seen me "dodge" ANYTHING on this forum? Have you ever seen me do anything other than argue for weeks on end on any topic anyone cares to discuss with me? There's also the little matter of explaining just how I can dodge a question by giving it its own thread.

I've seen you skip a comment or two on some discussions, yes. Often comments that I was especially pleased with. :D . In this case you could have taken my posts totally out of context by changing topics like this. I still don't see how the question of God's existence doesn't belong in a topic about atheists. But I've read your latest replies and my fears of foul play were unfounded. Carry on...

Forgive me for being so blunt, but perhaps you're thinking wishfully.

Be as blunt as you want - no need for forgiving. My wishful thinking contains of me wishing you will produce some valuable points. ;)

Originally posted by Sir Toose
Well, this just went all to hell.

Please prove the existence of hell before you bring that concept into the discussion. :furious:

I think of the bible as a macrocosmic versus microcosmic. I think some of the bible is in fact 'story' but told in a way to drive home a point.

Me too.

I think we are supposed to read the bible and get the 'gist' of the meaning...

You KNOW who is in the details after all.

And to clarify... in my opinion, much of the details are a test of faith.

But you can believe what you want, of course.

I absolutely too believe it's all about faith. If you feel that you believe this or not. In other words - believing is in our heads. We have to produce the belief ourselves.

I too think the Bible is a story made up to make a point. I think Jesus did a lot of marvelous things - but when it comes to walking on water, waking up the dead, feeding people with two fishes and so on, that's just metaphors for something else. Like him giving the people spirit to fight against the opressors.

Originally posted by Yoda

Well, it was. I said there were plenty of signs; which is what you were talking about. That doesn't mean I have to refer to specific TYPE of sign. Regardless, there's nothing more to be learned from this line of discussion, as I'm sure we can both agree.

That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about one specific sign - the sign Sexy Celebrity was talking about - no other signs. But I agree with you. It carries no value for this discussion.

"Ahead of its time" meaning "unusually early in discovery or invention." Sure, the Earth has always been a sphere, but we haven't always been able to identify it as such. Sure, there's a chance some people could put two and two together; but it's significantly noteworthy that an impressive scientific observation, for its time, like that would be in an otherwise unscientific document. It is not proof; but it is evidence. It is worth noting. I am not making it out to be the basis for my Faith; far from it. It's simply an interesting thing worth mentioning.

Yes, I know what "ahead of its time" means. And I do agree on the fact that they made this observation on an extraordinary early stage and, yes, it's extremely remarkable. But who did the observation? The human beings or God? Or did God in some way show it to them? I still don't think it's an evidence of God's existence. The fact that it's in the bible just shows that the bible was written by some educated and innovative people in some cases.

Not as ahead of its time, and potentially not at all, as the Big Bang theory is, well, just that: a theory. Regardless, do you or do you not look upon the vikings with a bit more trust and respect than you would have otherwise for holding an ideal you regard as true ahead of their time?

A theory to you perhaps. I saw a scientific documentary yesterday. (Actually, I just zapped by it for a couple of mins). You know how light travels, Yoda, and how we can see the lights in space from stars that died years and years ago. Well, with some very sophisticated instruments these scientists could see the light from Big Bang. You couldn't see it with your eyes but the light is like microwaves. In fact, it IS microwaves. Of course, I'm not presenting a very convincing case here about it since I just watched it for two mins. Anyway....

Vikings? Trustworthy? :laugh: These guys used to throw a lump of wood in the water when they came to a new shore and settle where the lump hit land. They based large parts of their existence on superstition and oracles and magic numbers and so on. Yes, I respect my ancestors and their belief system, but when I mentioned their views on the creation I just mentioned it to make a point. The point being that not only the bible contains statements or segments that are in some way ahead of its time and pretty extraordinary. You can find it in almost any creation myth.

You've got to be pretty arrogant to try and tell me you're somehow exempt from the thing almost every human being is bound to: pride. There's really no denying that people will almost always argue rather than concede. Religion holds no monopoly on such things. Not even close.

???? Nooo.. I'm saying that I'm not doing this to defy God. I'm defying your, and everybody else's, capacity in proving to me that he does in fact exist. It's about faith and believing because there is no chance in hell (doh!) that you can prove to me that God exists. You could however make me start feeling the faith and devotion that you feel - which is as likely to happen as me performing a sex change, considering your tactics.

Ask Toose about my pride. The (few) times I've been wrong arguing with him, I've been the first to admit it.

I haven't really attempted to convince you that The Bible is entirely true. I have little interest in doing so. What you believe is of little consequences from where I stand, though I admittedly take a little more interest in the idea that there is no God whatsoever, which I find to be an extremist position.

A position which I don't take.

You say they were different from the beginning; this begs two questions:

1) What're you basing that statement on?

The example that I put up for you before: The Vikings' creation myths and belief system changed gradually when the christians came to Scandinavia. We didn't stop our pagan living automatically when we became christians. It took hundreds of years and still today there are traces of our past in our culture. We celebrate Midsummer Eve, a pagan rite inferior only to Christmas. The last of April we celebrate the coming of spring by making big fires, another left over from our pagan past. And Sweden is a "christian" country. If you do some research you can find in written the signs of our culture gradually changing from one thing to another. You would see the same signs, I believe, if you for example do equal research on the Irish's culture. Or the Jamaicans'.

2) Why would they become more, and not less, like each other over time?

I think it's pretty obvious that if you mix two things together they become more similar to each other than they start to differ from each other.

I'd sympathize with attacking that sort of statement...if I'd said it. I don't believe I did. I didn't say anyone "lacked Soul" (I think we've all got Souls whether we believe in them or not), and I'm pretty dang sure I didn't call any Atheists inherently cynical.

Ok, maybe me reading to much between the lines and putting the wrong meaning into it.

As for thinking freely: as I said, I DO believe we ALL have Free Will...my argument about Free Will and the denial of any supernatural force operates under the assumption that the materialists are correct. It's a "okay, assuming what you say is true, wouldn't THIS be true?" kind of argument.

What, in this context, is a materialist?

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have statistics on the matter; such statistics don't exist, and if they did, they would be highly unreliable. You and I posess some degree of common sense, however, and therefore we know, for example, that "Zach" is not the most common name in the world, even if we have no data to back it up.

Yes, they do not exist, exactly my point. So therefore I'm kind of surprised that you're so sure about your case here. And also, how can you say that the statistics would be unreliable when you haven't even seen the statistics? Statistics that doesn't even exist??

Yes, I do have some common sense. I just have to open my eyes and do my history lesson and then I will be able to come to conclusions without having any statistics. I think the most common name in the world is Chang. Christian?

Use your common sense: Christianity is made up of the roughly 2 billion people right now, if memory serves. Do you really believe half of them, or more, were forced into conversion? Heck, you can't even really force conversion in any REAL way. Holding a gun to someone's head until they say "I love Jesus" will not cause them to love Jesus.

First of all, scroll up and once again read what I said about this in my previous post.

Now, as you might have noticed when you read my post was that I wasn't talking about all the christians in the world today. I was talking about those christians throughout history that became christians without being born as one with christian parents. I'm talking about the ancestors of african-americans, the ancestors of the native north and south americans, the ancestors of the christian africans, the ancestors of the christian jews, the ancestors of the Lapps in Scandinavia and so on. People who was either forced into the religion because otherwise they would get killed or driven out of the country, or forced into the religion because otherwise they wouldn't be an accepted part of society which could mean for example no right to work and make a living.

The fact of the matter is that things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition represent a tiny portion of Christian history. Perhaps you'd have me believe they are major events which embody the entire religion, but you could only do so if you ignored the bulk of Christian history. That said, I'm not sure why you listed "missionaries" alongside those other two things.

Because they made people offers they couldn't refuse. They promised them this and that, education, peace, to become a worthy citizen and other things - IF they confessed to christianity. This had less to do with holding people at gunpoint then persuading them to walk on the sunny side of the street. It has very little to do with "seeing the light" or "find Jesus".

It's thriving overall. It is the largest religion in the world, and one of the faster-growing religions, as well. I hear it's growing particularly quickly in China and Africa, though I haven't verified this.

It's probably true it's the largest religion without a doubt, counting the number of followers. I've tried to look on the Net which is the fastest growing religion but the answer varies. Some say it's Scientology. Anyway... If it is the "leading" religion - the bigger the reason for criticizing it and letting it, as the King of relgions, take the crap for all the crap that's being done because of religion - whatever the religion might be.

Anyway, I don't think it's hypocritical to believe in God without living your life accordingly. I think it's a bit dumb, but not hypocritical. Most people throughout history have believed in a Higher Power of some sort; it's a very hard thing to deny, because of both the implications denial entails, and the fact that, be it through design or evolution, such a belief is clearly built into us on some level.

Once again, I don't deny a higher power or powers. I just don't live my life by it, or think about what it means to my life, or what or who this power really is.

And I do think it's hypocritical to be a christian, claim to believe in God, not living especially righteous, but at the same time criticize non-believers and followers of other religions. And I hear this all the time.

I have never once used The Bible to validate The Bible. That would be circular; then again, anything a Materialist (and many Atheists) says has the same inherent problem.

You used the Bible to validate the existence of God when you used the sphere matter. And since the Bilbe is supposed to be, in some sense, the word of God, then you did try to validate the Bible by using the Bible. Yes, it is very circular.

It's like if I was to defend a police officer accused of unnecessary violence against a suspect. What good would it do if I picked up the book of regulations for the Police and said: "Look, in here it specifically says that police officers are not allowed to use unnecessary violence against suspects! That means my client is innocent".

And no, I don't think I'd mention him as a great example. As I stated before: he wrote vaguely and made mistakes. If you claim I'd say otherwise were he one of JC's right-hand men, I can't say much in response, as such a claim is highly speculative and more or less impossible to argue with beyond a simple "nah-uh."

You're right, it is highly speculative like a lot of things we say here.

I didn't say it differed at all. I said exactly what I said:

"If you want to gripe about a religion unreasonably forcing itself on others and disrespecting dissenters, you'd do well to attack Islam first."

IE: Islam has far more intolerance for dissent in its history than Christianity. There's really no contest. I didn't say, nor imply, that the belief system itself is at fault because of this (though you could, arguably, make the case that it has inherent problems).

Back these statements up with facts, please. No contest? Well, first you have to take your own religion down from the pedestal.

George W Bush more than gladly spoke about crusades until some advisor told him it wasn't politically correct. And this is the 21st century. I actually talked to someone yesterday (an american) - a very educated, intelligent and open minded person - and she shocked me with her views on muslims and arabs. "Of course I'm not saying they're all bad... But.. Remember that they all belong to the same religion...". And she was referring to american muslims in the sense that if they had to choose between USA and Osama - they would choose Osama any day. Why? Because he, like them, is a muslim.

And you could tell me now - you probably will too - that she's just one single voice of American that doesn't signify a bigger group. But nothing could be more wrong. I couldn't understand first how this person, a person that I share a lot of values and views with, had this suspiciousness against all muslims. Then of course it hit me... She's a catholic and a faithful such. She's very convinced that her religion is right. And the reason for the hate in some people against USA is, according to her views, because of their religion.

Yoda, your and other people's way of regarding christianity as superior does not in any way contribute to a more peaceful world. Then you can talk as much as you want about "peace and tolerance"... it's just bull**** anyway...

"Love, while always forgiving of imperfections and mistakes, can never cease to will their removal."

You're implying that it's wrong to recognize and state the fact that the Islamic religion has a history with an inordinate amount of disrespect for dissenters?

No, not as long as you don't use it to draw the attention from the history of Christianity. Or to use it to in some awkward way show that Christianity is not "the worst" religion. I don't care which religion is "the worst". I think you're implying that the christian religion is flawless in its foundations. But even if Islam according to you was flawless in its foundations (which you clearly do not believe) you would accuse it for being bad anyway. You just don't like religions other than Christianity.

I caught you with your hand in the cookie can but you just pointed at your cousing saying "But he took twice as many as I did!!!".

Islam isn't flawless, but neither is Christianity.

I said they're generally kinder; it's up to you whether that makes them "better" overall. Hypothetical situation: you see five 19-year olds walking down a dark alleyway at night. They're coming towards you. If you're like most people, you're probably a little worried as to their intentions. They keep walking. They come closer and you see...that they're carrying Bibles. Be honest: do you or do you not feel somewhat relieved? Do you see them as more or less of a threat than you did before you saw what they were carrying?

Relieved is perhaps not my first emotion... Surprised, probably.

However...

If they were black maybe I would be nervous since I'm white.

If they were wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods I would probably be furious.

If I was a muslim and the dark alley was in Serbia during the 90's I would probably **** my pants before they killed me.

Or if the alley was in New York just weeks after 9-11 I would, as a muslim, probably want to run and hide too.

Oh, I don't deny at all that the subject was meant to create interest and a lively debate.

What I do deny that it is not an "attack." Frankly, how would you see it as such? It is a claim: if you deny supernatural forces, logically, you deny Free Will. How is it an attack to make that observation? And even if you view it as an attempt to "attack" Materialists and other such people, what's so unreasonable about it? I did not tease, mock, or treat rudely anyone who disagreed with me. I made a claim, and later on engaged in some arguments about it. It was all very civil. Where's the degradation you claim I subjected others to?

As for "judging" -- I only "judged" non-believers in the sense that I disagreed with them.

Oh allright. "Provocation"? Does that word suit you better? And I didn't say it was unreasonable - I just don't like it. It's divinding matters into black or white. "If you don't think like this, then you automatically must think like that!". Like your claim that not believing in supernatural forces excludes Free Will. I still don't get that... But maybe you have to be camping on either the western or the eastern shore to understand that reasoning. It won't do to just be swimming somewhere in the middle. :D

And, yes, I think you degrade people that doesn't have the faith you have. Your story about the kids in the alley shows that.

No, it sounds like common sense. Blame Christianity if you find fault with its teachings. If a religion preaches love, and someone warps that in their mind to mean "this person won't listen to the religion that preaches love! KILL HIM!," what possible reason could you have for blaming the religion? Answer: none. You are not responsible if I kill someone in YOUR name, unless you encouraged it.

Of course every individual is responsible of his or her own actions. Do you think I'm nuts? Do you think I want to kill every muslim for what Al Quaida did?? But the problem with this world is that people don't care to find out why certain things happen - they only focus on the symptoms. You don't think religions is the reason for a lot of problems in this world? Fine. I think a lot of wars and a lot of deaths could have been avoided if fundamentalists (protestants, catholics, shia muslims, sunni muslims, jews and so on) weren't allowed to influence the governing of countries.

That's not running away from responsibility. That's putting responsibility on those responsible. People are responsible for their decisions. Belief systems, religious or otherwise, are responsible for what they teach and support. EVERY group in the history of the world has had bad eggs who twist and skew meanings into hateful perversions.

Still, I think you're being a bit hypocritical since these views of yours don't apply on Islam and other religions other than Christianity.

I don't say it often because it's a given. Obviously I believe what I'm saying (if I didn't, I wouldn't say it). I don't know why you get the impression that I'm "telling you how it is." Perhaps it's because I "speak" bluntly and directly and with some level of confidence or force. I don't know. Rest assured, however, that I'm well aware that most of this is highly subjective.

:laugh: I get that impression not because you speak so bluntly and with such confidence but because you present a fact (not a statement, but a fact) and then you defend it to every cost without listening to what the other debators are saying about it. But I can be like that too, I guess... Only that my facts are better. ;)

Right. More complex to such a degree so as to distance one from the other dramatically. If Santa doesn't exist, what's it tell us? Well, that people made him up and that someone else must be giving us our presents; like, say, our parents. If God doexn't exist, what's it tell us? A heck of a lot more. There are a LOT of logical inevitabilities that come undeniably attached to the rejection of a Higher Power.

Sure.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Sir Toose
Not directed at you Piddy before you twist your panties in a knot.

I'm glad to know that. And my panties are allready twisted in a knot. That's the way I like to wear them.

[Sir Toose]

Please prove the existence of hell before you bring that concept into the discussion.



Have children, sir. You'll become intimately acquainted with both sides of the spectrum ie Good & Evil.

:laugh:

[LordSlaytan]

Sorry guys, I lose intrest when one post is thesis length. :sick:

[Piddzilla]

I so completely understand that. It sucks that the posts always get so long. No one ever reads what I write anyway... except for Yoda of course.

[Yoda]

I am, like, so gonna reply to this tonight.

[Piddzilla]

No, you're not!

[Yoda]

Yeah, but I've got like twenty good excuses. :p

I would've let it be, but I re-read your last post the other night and my eyes almost bugged out at some of the mischaracterizations, so I feel compelled to pick this ball up again and run with it.

[Piddzilla]

Ok, but try to keep it short. The long posts are no fun.

[Yoda]

They're fun for me. :D

[Piddzilla]

Ok, have a go at it then... And why is everybody feeling :( tonight??

[Yoda]

Various reasons, I'm sure. I'm feeling better now, though.

[Piddzilla]

Damnit! :D

[blibblobblib]

Thought this post could be ressurected for a re-match.

Of course im too silly at the moment to get philosophical so im just going to go with the nintendo style beat em up.....

Santa is big and fat and starong....rather like a lot of wrestlers...but god is all whispy like and can be anything he/she wants to be.....so theres no contest really...unless his in the form of Alannis Morristte, then Santa could sit on her.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Santa freaks me out - I mean, change a few letters around and you get SATAN. And he wears a red suit.... and he lives in the North Pole - the opposite of that is down, which is where HELL is.

So what's this Satan guy doing coming around every CHRISTmas? It's spooky ooky. Why did he have to be called Santa (Satan!) and wear a red suit? When did Santa first appear anyway?

I mean, why not name him Godta? Godta Christ.

[Caitlyn]

Santa freaks me out - I mean, change a few letters around and you get SATAN. And he wears a red suit.... and he lives in the North Pole - the opposite of that is down, which is where HELL is.

So what's this Satan guy doing coming around every CHRISTmas? It's spooky ooky. Why did he have to be called Santa (Satan!) and wear a red suit? When did Santa first appear anyway?

I mean, why not name him Godta? Godta Christ.


:laugh: …

The name Santa Claus actually came from a mispronunciation of the Dutch name for him… :D