Is belief really so illocal? (In comparing to 'Santa')

[jimmorrisonbabe]

I'm an Atheist, but I'm wondering why God often gets compared to mythical characters like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, pink unicorns, FSM, etc. They're all creations of the human imagination, yes, but God as an explanation of the universe seems somewhat more logical in terms of how the human mind works in my opinion. As we still don't truly know the definite answer to the origin of the universe, people are bound to believe that 'someone' still caused it. Maybe the fact it's meant to be a greater being than us as well is why I question this, whereas the other examples are just characters. Can someone help me be a little more atheist with this and understand why belief in God is as illogical as belief in mythical characters?

[curiosityandthecat]

Is the concept of a god really more logical than the concept of Santa Claus?

Santa has magical powers, lives "up there", has a collection of subordinates that do his bidding, always knows what you're doing, rewards good deeds and punishes bad. Is he really different? Belief in something simply because it's easy or comfortable doesn't make it true. The reason gods are so often compared to these mythical characters is because, from an objective, historical standpoint, they are exactly the same: designed to fulfill a role and keep people in check. In every sense of the word, the Abrahamic god is a character in exactly the same way Santa Claus is.

[Whitney]

I think the santa et all comparison applies unless one is trying to compare to the deist concept of god.

[JillSwift]

The common thread in the comparisons is evidence. It doesn't matter what attributes you give to a god, or a sprite, or a leprechaun, no matter how well the concept appears to fit human ways of thinking, without evidence there is simply no reason to believe they exist.

The ontological argument is an example of the problem with assuming the human mind is somehow able to divine the universe alone.

It fails the test of evidence easily. I am Imagining the most perfect linguine dish possible. Existence is greater than non-existence. Therefore, this most perfect linguine dish must exist.

Ignoring the subjectivity of the definition of perfection, we still can't know if such a dish actually exists. The most we can know from this exercise is that I've imagined such a thing, and decided that part of it's perfection is existence.

On the other hand, if I had a very large sampling of people who have tried a chef's special linguine dish, and every one who tried the dish proclaimed it the best linguine dish they ever tried, then we might be able to say "This might just be the perfect Linguine dish!"

Evidence is everything. All else is just conjecture and wishful thinking.

[Davin]

/agree

One of the other reasons is: most theists don't realize that their methods and requirements for evidence of fictional characters and other religions should also be applied to their belief in god. So really it's an attempt to show them their hypocrisy by how they're giving their religion special protection from logic and the standards of evidence they require of others.

[Tank]

I think the santa et all comparison applies unless one is trying to compare to the deist concept of god.

Agreed. Once deists start to personify and start anthropomorphising their deity they really turn into theists and just start 'Making shit up.' just like the Tooth Fairy.

[SSY]

/agree

One of the other reasons is: most theists don't realize that their methods and requirements for evidence of fictional characters and other religions should also be applied to their belief in god. So really it's an attempt to show them their hypocrisy by how they're giving their religion special protection from logic and the standards of evidence they require of others.

Agreed, comparing their deity to these (more) obvious fictions is simply a way of highlighting the extraordinary nature of their claims, and goes some way to combating the special pleading fallacy.

[JillSwift]

I think the santa et all comparison applies unless one is trying to compare to the deist concept of god.

Agreed. Once deists start to personify and start anthropomorphising their deity they really turn into theists and just start 'Making shit up.' just like the Tooth Fairy.

Piffle. Deists are "making shit up" too, just not as much. Any claim of a creator god comes with equal amounts of evidence: Zip.

[xSilverPhinx]

People certainly have more reasons for believing in god, but it doesn't make the concept true. Santa is nowhere near the god concept in what it offers a belief system.
People who believe in god and that they go to heaven (or hell) when they die overcome their deaths, even if in a delusional way. They gain a security blanket, a big all powerful daddy in the sky who watches over them and makes sure that nothing that wasn't intended in the first place happens to them. It's the ultimate psychological comfort and a way to control the uncontrollable. Out of all the logical or plausible possibilities that could explain how the universe was created, they still hold on to their personal beliefs for these reasons, even though they don't actually know, they just have faith.

The difference between Santa and a personal conception of a god is that the god concept satisfies enough psychological needs to stay alive in a person's belief system. Santa doesn't, he's just the imaginary friend who brings presents.

[philosoraptor]

Santa, unlike God, was a REAL person, though-Saint Nicholas.  He has become sensationalized into a Godlike figure with special powers, but the conception was based on a real person.

[Gawen]

I'm an Atheist, but I'm wondering why God often gets compared to mythical characters like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, pink unicorns, FSM, etc.

Because they're not real.

They're all creations of the human imagination, yes, but God as an explanation of the universe seems somewhat more logical in terms of how the human mind works in my opinion.

How is it logical that people must become self deceived and delusional to believe in things that aren't there?

As we still don't truly know the definite answer to the origin of the universe, people are bound to believe that 'someone' still caused it.

Yes, and the volcano gods were angry with the people so they spewed their might and roasted a few people. Or, Thor still whacks bad guys with a hammer and that's why you hear thunder. Or, Zeus throws his lightning bolts. Or some guy back in the dark ages left the pub a bit too happy...spooked an owl that he never saw, but heard...and that's why there's now a spirit in that place.

Maybe the fact it's meant to be a greater being than us as well is why I question this,

I'm a wee bit confused. What fact are you talking about? And why question about something that has no evidence of itself?

whereas the other examples are just characters.

So is God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Invisible Pink Unicorn...

[Asmodean]

Or, Thor still whacks bad guys with a hammer and that's why you hear thunder.

I just had to

[Gawen]

Or, Thor still whacks bad guys with a hammer and that's why you hear thunder.

I just had to

Hee hee....good one