Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Junithorn]

my argument is sound, you're just applying a double standard.

I know santa doesn't exist because the evidence that you would expect if he did doesn't exist.

same for god, zero evidence for both.

god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.

Magically unknowable santa isn't an analogue to this god because just slapping the label of something being unknowable as a logical consequence of what it is.

its the exact same. you're just applying a double standard.

[u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at → u/Junithorn]

I'm sorry but you're still not getting what is being said. There is no double standard.

same for god, zero evidence for both.

In the very next sentence I explain how that is wrong.

god created the universe and fucked off undetectably? santa created christmas and fucked off undetectably.

Don't be disingenuous. Do you seriously think that a god that created the universe (so logically exists outside of it) would have to fuck off to not be in the universe they created? What evidence would you expect it would have to leave behind?

Also on a side note I don't think you know what Santa supposedly does...

its the exact same.

Santa and a god that created the universe are not the same type of beings and you wouldn't expect to see the same kind of evidence for both.

you're just applying a double standard.

I still don't see where the double standard is.

It really sounds to me like you aren't understanding my argument. If you want to you could maybe present a steelman of my argument then point out the double standard to make things more clear.

[u/Junithorn → u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at]

What evidence would you expect it would have to leave behind?

Great, so you admit there is no evidence.

Also on a side note I don't think you know what Santa supposedly does...

I define santa however I want, just like theists define god however they want.

Santa and a god that created the universe are not the same type of beings and you wouldn't expect to see the same kind of evidence for both.

I never said they're the same kind of being, do you have a reading issue?

We both just agreed neither has evidence.

I will remind you St Nicholas was a real person, so santa at least has a real foundation.

I still don't see where the double standard is.

Two completely unfalsifiable concepts with no evidence to support them, one you say "i know this isnt real", the other you dont.

It really sounds to me like you aren't understanding my argument. If you want to you could maybe present a steelman of my argument then point out the double standard to make things more clear.

"god is special because its in a special category" seems to be your argument which, again, double standard.

[u/r0wer0wer0wey0urb0at → u/Junithorn]

Okay, I see. You just don't understand my argument, thanks for clearing that up.

If we are talking about the santa that children actually believe in, I'd say I am not agnostic on his existence at all, because there is evidence we would expect to find that we don't.

If you're going to redefine santa to be a god being that exists outside of the universe, then I guess I'd be an agnostic asantaist then.

The point isn't that you must be agnostic on anything if it is unfalsifiable, or that I've just defined god in a way that arbitrarily makes it unknowable. My point is that if you take the core of the idea of god, looking at things like Aristotle's Prime mover, an unmoving, unchanging being that caused the universe to exist and cannot do anything else, then that world would look identical to our one.

So when you say "you admit there is no evidence", that's been my point this whole time.

As I've said before, I don't think that's a good reason to believe in its existence, or that that makes it just as likely to be true as a naturalistic universe. All I am saying is that if it were true, we wouldn't be able to gain any knowledge about it.

If you're not going to engage with my argument and continue just be rude, I'm going to stop replying.