For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So even if my definition of 'fairy' is a bit off, that fairy is or was quite real.
He/she did or does exist - wings or not.

Something can be defined as existing as a thought only, like your tooth fairy.

I don't think he's claiming that the Tooth Fairy exists as a thought.
I think he's saying that when he says 'tooth fairy' he's referring to his father (or other individual), who exists, and for a certain number of nights in Lion's childhood, fulfilled the role of tooth fairy.


Ultimately, though, saying that one believes in the tooth fairy because Daddy used to lie about the tooth fairy kinda defeats the purpose of claiming that belief is supported. Especially in a discussion about gods.

Maybe he's being a little more cryptic. Maybe he's saying that people are gods.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe he's saying that people are gods.

I usually see that as an accusation against atheists. The claim that we've declared ourselves as gods, so we don't need the 'real' ones.

Not sure how that's supposed to work, but that's their accusation.

 

[phands]

Equating the Tooth Fairy to God suggests you have no argument against God. Or worse.

That is an incredibly naive reply....or just plain intentionally wrong.

The tooth fairy is clearly a made-up piece of nonsense, so by equating god with the tooth fairy, the inference that god is also made-up nonsense is obvious to anyone with the rudiments of logic available. Especially when so many dumb-as-bricks theists cite the bible as proof of god.

 

[phands]

That's true; But then, so is the idea of the Tooth Fairy.

As is the idea of a god.

 

[James Brown]

There was a person I met who didn't like when skeptics compared God with Santa Claus. He said, "No rational person believes in Santa Claus!"

 

[Copernicus]

Equating the Tooth Fairy to God suggests you have no argument against God. Or worse.

That is an incredibly naive reply....or just plain intentionally wrong.

The tooth fairy is clearly a made-up piece of nonsense, so by equating god with the tooth fairy, the inference that god is also made-up nonsense is obvious to anyone with the rudiments of logic available. Especially when so many dumb-as-bricks theists cite the bible as proof of god.

I think that phands gets to the point of the equivalence. If you ask a theist to list reasons for rejecting belief in the Tooth Fairy, you can expect to get a fairly coherent set of reasons. What seems to make theists so angry about this kind of equivalence is not just the perceived insult that their god is a made-up piece of nonsense, but that atheists are often reluctant to provide a similar list of reasons for rejecting belief in their god, relying instead on the relatively lazy argument that the burden of proof is on theists to make their case. IMO, that is true, but most theists seem convinced that they have sufficient proof in their own minds, even if atheists don't agree. So the burden-of-proof argument usually falls flat with them. It convinces a lot of atheists, however.

It would be silly to argue that the tooth fairy does not exist because nobody has yet come up with reasonable evidence to prove her existence. That may be true, but surely there are better reasons to deny the existence of a tooth fairy. The same sorts of argument that make the tooth fairy implausible are the same sorts that make gods implausible. The ultimate point to be made is that belief in a god almost always comes down to special pleading--the refusal to consider arguments that theists themselves would use to dismiss the existence of imaginary beings like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

 

[skepticalbip]

There was a person I met who didn't like when skeptics compared God with Santa Claus. He said, "No rational person believes in Santa Claus!"

While his statement is true, he seems to be implying that everyone who doesn't believe in Santa is rational. That would be a fallacy of composition. Someone who doesn't believe in Santa could, and often do, believe in something equally absurd - which was the point of the comparison.

 

[phands]

I think that phands gets to the point of the equivalence. If you ask a theist to list reasons for rejecting belief in the Tooth Fairy, you can expect to get a fairly coherent set of reasons. What seems to make theists so angry about this kind of equivalence is not just the perceived insult that their god is a made-up piece of nonsense, but that atheists are often reluctant to provide a similar list of reasons for rejecting belief in their god, relying instead on the relatively lazy argument that the burden of proof is on theists to make their case. IMO, that is true, but most theists seem convinced that they have sufficient proof in their own minds, even if atheists don't agree. So the burden-of-proof argument usually falls flat with them. It convinces a lot of atheists, however.

It would be silly to argue that the tooth fairy does not exist because nobody has yet come up with reasonable evidence to prove her existence. That may be true, but surely there are better reasons to deny the existence of a tooth fairy. The same sorts of argument that make the tooth fairy implausible are the same sorts that make gods implausible. The ultimate point to be made is that belief in a god almost always comes down to special pleading--the refusal to consider arguments that theists themselves would use to dismiss the existence of imaginary beings like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

However, as I said in #217 in this thread, the probabilities of existence, based on evidence, should be considered. And that is where so many of those stupid arguments made by the likes of <personal attack deleted--staff edit> Lion IRC fail.....they assume equivalent likelihood, and ignore contradictory evidence.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that phands gets to the point of the equivalence. If you ask a theist to list reasons for rejecting belief in the Tooth Fairy, you can expect to get a fairly coherent set of reasons. What seems to make theists so angry about this kind of equivalence is not just the perceived insult that their god is a made-up piece of nonsense, but that atheists are often reluctant to provide a similar list of reasons for rejecting belief in their god, relying instead on the relatively lazy argument that the burden of proof is on theists to make their case. IMO, that is true, but most theists seem convinced that they have sufficient proof in their own minds, even if atheists don't agree. So the burden-of-proof argument usually falls flat with them. It convinces a lot of atheists, however.

It would be silly to argue that the tooth fairy does not exist because nobody has yet come up with reasonable evidence to prove her existence. That may be true, but surely there are better reasons to deny the existence of a tooth fairy. The same sorts of argument that make the tooth fairy implausible are the same sorts that make gods implausible. The ultimate point to be made is that belief in a god almost always comes down to special pleading--the refusal to consider arguments that theists themselves would use to dismiss the existence of imaginary beings like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

However, as I said in #217 in this thread, the probabilities of existence, based on evidence, should be considered. And that is where so many of those stupid arguments made by the likes of <personal attack deleted--staff edit> Lion IRC fail.....they assume equivalent likelihood, and ignore contradictory evidence.

For me, the major difference between Santa Claus and God is that adults believe Santa Claus to be a fairytale character, whereas society generally takes God to be a real entity. So that counts as a kind of evidence in favor of belief in God, even though it is grounded in fallacious reasoning. The fact is that most of us believe what we do because we trust the sources that we get our information from. Most people (in the US, at least) have a visceral trust in clergy and theologians as reasonably reliable sources of information. We tend to think more in terms of plausibility rather than probability, IMO.

 

[bilby]

So even if my definition of 'fairy' is a bit off, that fairy is or was quite real.
He/she did or does exist - wings or not.

Something can be defined as existing as a thought only, like your tooth fairy.

I don't think he's claiming that the Tooth Fairy exists as a thought.
I think he's saying that when he says 'tooth fairy' he's referring to his father (or other individual), who exists, and for a certain number of nights in Lion's childhood, fulfilled the role of tooth fairy.


Ultimately, though, saying that one believes in the tooth fairy because Daddy used to lie about the tooth fairy kinda defeats the purpose of claiming that belief is supported. Especially in a discussion about gods.

Nah, the whole post is a Trojan Horse for the strawman that his opponents are people who 'still think definitions are irrelevant'.

Obviously, as his opponents have such a stupid position, he is the noble and factually correct adult in the room. And with a bit of luck, that HUGE bit of dishonesty will go unnoticed - people will be too busy arguing with the first part of the post to even notice his smug self-satisfaction at having bested the atheists once again, and become a legend in his own mind.

It's odd that someone so convinced of the truth of his position needs to stoop to such deceit; But doubtless he has a solid rationalisation for that too.

 

[Random Person]

Equating the Tooth Fairy to God suggests you have no argument against God. Or worse.

That is an incredibly naive reply....or just plain intentionally wrong.

The tooth fairy is clearly a made-up piece of nonsense, so by equating god with the tooth fairy, the inference that god is also made-up nonsense is obvious to anyone with the rudiments of logic available. Especially when so many dumb-as-bricks theists cite the bible as proof of god.

I think that phands gets to the point of the equivalence. If you ask a theist to list reasons for rejecting belief in the Tooth Fairy, you can expect to get a fairly coherent set of reasons. What seems to make theists so angry about this kind of equivalence is not just the perceived insult that their god is a made-up piece of nonsense, but that atheists are often reluctant to provide a similar list of reasons for rejecting belief in their god, relying instead on the relatively lazy argument that the burden of proof is on theists to make their case. IMO, that is true, but most theists seem convinced that they have sufficient proof in their own minds, even if atheists don't agree. So the burden-of-proof argument usually falls flat with them. It convinces a lot of atheists, however.

It would be silly to argue that the tooth fairy does not exist because nobody has yet come up with reasonable evidence to prove her existence. That may be true, but surely there are better reasons to deny the existence of a tooth fairy. The same sorts of argument that make the tooth fairy implausible are the same sorts that make gods implausible. The ultimate point to be made is that belief in a god almost always comes down to special pleading--the refusal to consider arguments that theists themselves would use to dismiss the existence of imaginary beings like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

We know tooth fairies don't exist because the money for tooth exchange is always perpetrated by the parents. Tooth Fairies don't exist whether god does or not.

 

[skepticalbip]

We know tooth fairies don't exist because the money for tooth exchange is always perpetrated by the parents. Tooth Fairies don't exist whether god does or not.

But then assume that the tooth fairy "works in mysterious ways". Why do you think that the tooth fairy doesn't compel parents to leave money for the tooth and then make them think it was their idea?

 

[James Brown]

If God can inspire people to write scripture in their deity's name, can't the Tooth Fairy inspire parents to be more tooth-fairy-like and leave money for teeth?

 

[Copernicus]

Skepticalbip and James Brown underscore the point I made earlier, Random. The equivalence between God and the Tooth Fairy is about arguments made to support belief in their existence. You can't dismiss the arguments for the Tooth Fairy on one hand but accept arguments for God on the other. The same arguments apply. The only difference is that we know the arguments for the Tooth Fairy are frivolous, but sincerity is irrelevant to the point being made. Hence, the argument for God reduces to special pleading.

 

[abaddon]

nm

 

[Random Person]

Skepticalbip and James Brown underscore the point I made earlier, Random. The equivalence between God and the Tooth Fairy is about arguments made to support belief in their existence. You can't dismiss the arguments for the Tooth Fairy on one hand but accept arguments for God on the other. The same arguments apply. The only difference is that we know the arguments for the Tooth Fairy are frivolous, but sincerity is irrelevant to the point being made. Hence, the argument for God reduces to special pleading.

Don't get duped into intellectual laziness. The Tooth Fairy can be dismissed through reason and logic. If god can be dismissed it will have to be with reason and logic that aren'y equivalent to the Tooth Fairy dismissal.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not believe in imaginary supernatural friends, evil spirits, and natural disasters being god's punishment for homosexuals.

 

[Juma]

Skepticalbip and James Brown underscore the point I made earlier, Random. The equivalence between God and the Tooth Fairy is about arguments made to support belief in their existence. You can't dismiss the arguments for the Tooth Fairy on one hand but accept arguments for God on the other. The same arguments apply. The only difference is that we know the arguments for the Tooth Fairy are frivolous, but sincerity is irrelevant to the point being made. Hence, the argument for God reduces to special pleading.

Don't get duped into intellectual laziness. The Tooth Fairy can be dismissed through reason and logic. If god can be dismissed it will have to be with reason and logic that aren'y equivalent to the Tooth Fairy dismissal.

Only if you takes on a godlike perspective. So you are making the same mistake as theists di.
From the perspective that matters: the child, there is no difference.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Skepticalbip and James Brown underscore the point I made earlier, Random. The equivalence between God and the Tooth Fairy is about arguments made to support belief in their existence. You can't dismiss the arguments for the Tooth Fairy on one hand but accept arguments for God on the other. The same arguments apply. The only difference is that we know the arguments for the Tooth Fairy are frivolous, but sincerity is irrelevant to the point being made. Hence, the argument for God reduces to special pleading.

Don't get duped into intellectual laziness. The Tooth Fairy can be dismissed through reason and logic. If god can be dismissed it will have to be with reason and logic that aren'y equivalent to the Tooth Fairy dismissal.

Pot, kettle, Dude.

 

[skepticalbip]

Skepticalbip and James Brown underscore the point I made earlier, Random. The equivalence between God and the Tooth Fairy is about arguments made to support belief in their existence. You can't dismiss the arguments for the Tooth Fairy on one hand but accept arguments for God on the other. The same arguments apply. The only difference is that we know the arguments for the Tooth Fairy are frivolous, but sincerity is irrelevant to the point being made. Hence, the argument for God reduces to special pleading.

Don't get duped into intellectual laziness. The Tooth Fairy can be dismissed through reason and logic. If god can be dismissed it will have to be with reason and logic that aren'y equivalent to the Tooth Fairy dismissal.

The existence of gods can not be supported with logic and/or reason, only emotional need and the blind acceptance of authority figures' unsupported claims - pretty much the same as Santa and the tooth fairy.