"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence".
"But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist".
"I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?”
Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character.
But what is the basis of this idea?
It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake.
Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a human concept (So human concepts cannot be true?), or that God does not exist because the concept of God can be traced to primitive pre-scientific ideas (this is a genetic fallacy), or that God does not exists because belief in God is based on wishful thinking (this is ad hominem).
So it seems that this "argument" doesn't amount to much, but its purpose is, given the lack of arguments, to mock the theist or hurt her feelings. But atheists would say that's not their intention, or that the theist is overly sensitive.
But this comparison of God with Santa suggests that the theist has childish beliefs, is not mature for her age or somehow is not in full possession of her mental abilities.
Some atheists would agree that theism is a kind of mental disorder, but would deny that their intention is to hurt. Others will be bold and confess that their intention is to awaken the rationality in the believer through a kind of shock treatment.
But this claim that theism is a kind of mental disorder, if taken seriously, should bear a heavy burden of the proof, because it needs to be explained how there is more people sick than sane, at all times.
The Santa Claus Argument reflects the atheist belief that were it not for social conditioning we would all be atheists, that somehow being an atheist is normal and being religious is anomalous, and they say this against all evidence. Faith is needed to believe this claim. Human beings don't live in isolation from each other, to abstract from social conditioning is not realistic.
The Santa Claus argument can also be used as a token of recognition between atheists. Mocking the theists is also a pseudo-comical relief for the tension produced by living in a world full of believers. An unsuccessful attempt for humor, because it reveals more bitterness and cynicism than humor. It's so repetitive that easily becomes boring.
The same can be said of the latest version of the Santa Claus argument: The Spaghetti Flying Monster. But atheists think it's funny.
See also:
Russell's Teapot: Does it Hold Water?
Comments
But it simply comes down to 'burden of proof'. When someone makes a claim, they have the burden of proof to back that claim up. If they can't back that claim up, then it is correct to disbelieve the claim.
That is where I fall with religion. If and when someone shows good evidence for their religion/god, I will gladly believe it. Until then, I will withhold my belief.
Does that help?
Does not the Santa argument belittle the belief in God as something easily disposable, a no brainer?
Does atheism require faith?
I don't make that claim. There might be a god. I don't know. But every god claim I've come across up to this point, I don't believe.
"Does not the Santa argument belittle the belief in God as something easily disposable, a no brainer?"
Not as easily disposable. But there is a comparison to make. You can't disprove Santa. You also can't disprove god. Does that make god imaginary? Maybe, maybe not. But it's something to think about.
"Does atheism require faith?"
No.
I have heard the santa argument as well but it is only used to upset you. It is an ad hominem debate. Don't let it get to you.
Instead stand firm and present the historical and scientific evidence of your God. I have a few posts on it at my site.
It is the same as it is that it doesn't take faith to believe it has never rained gold. There is no good evidence that it has ever rained gold, and so I will not believe it.
Likewise, there is no good evidence for your religion being true, and so I will not believe it.
No faith required.
You don't make that claim -explicity- but you had heard it. And once you had heard it you either believe or disbelieve it.
Same with Santa.
That's why I said in my previous post that I think weak atheism is reducible to strong atheism, and this claim of mere "lack of belief" is just a rhetorical device.
You can't disprove Santa
Yes I can. Everybody can. And I don't even take five minutes to discard belief in Santa. Do you? Are you agnostic about Santa?
Agnostic is about knowledge. I don't KNOW that Santa doesn't exist. But I don't believe it. So I'm an aSanta-ist.
Same with god. I don't KNOW if god exists or not. But I don't believe he does. I also don't KNOW if god doesn't exist. But again, I believe he does not.
Why? No evidence.
Your belief is that there is no God and to believe so without it being proven either way requires faith.
By the way morse you should come look at my first few evidence posts.
It's isn't a poor analogy because it isn't 100% certain that it will never rain gold. For all we know, it could happen tomorrow.
The reason we don't think it will happen, and the reason we can be relatively sure of that, is that there is no evidence of it ever occurring before.
The same applies to your god.
Now, I know you want to say my position takes faith. Because that would make you more comfortable with non-believers. But I'm sorry, it just doesn't take faith to disbelieve your, or anyone else's, religious claims. It just takes a good long look at the evidence.
I live my life without faith. You may not agree with me, and that's fine. But whether you agree or not, it doesn't change the fact that it is true of me and most atheists.
I define faith as belief without evidence. So you have faith that there is no God.
But don't worry. Everybody believes in something.
You also believe there's no evidence for God, but there is.
I agree that the evidence is not conclusive to everyone's satisfaction. Nevertheless, if there is some kind of evidence, however weak, then the analogy of God with Santa is flawed.
Amanda:
Hi.
I do not have faith that there is no god. I just don't believe in god. There's a difference.
Everyone believes in many things. But beliefs and faith is not the same thing.
I live my life without faith. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
If it rained gold tomorrow it would be a supernatural occurance.
We KNOW though that it will not rain gold tomorrow.
The reason we don't think it will happen, and the reason we can be relatively sure of that, is that there is no evidence of it ever occurring before.
The same applies to your god.
I will reiterate, if there is no evidence of something ONE way or the OTHER it takes faith to believe EITHER position. I think that is what you are missing.
I will also say for the thousandth time to come over to my site and see the posts or I will start posting 2 page long arguments in here. It is much easier if you go and look. :)
Now, I know you want to say my position takes faith. Because that would make you more comfortable with non-believers. But I'm sorry, it just doesn't take faith to disbelieve your, or anyone else's, religious claims. It just takes a good long look at the evidence.
I want you to acknowledge what is true. I find it funny sometimes how non theists get their panties in a twist in admitting their stance takes faith.
Morse- Definition of faith:
Noun
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
--- Atheism falls under this.----
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
---Atheism falls under this.---
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
---Atheism falls under this.---
--- Atheism falls under this.----
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. No belief, so it doesn't fall under this.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
---Atheism falls under this.---
Again, atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief. There is nothing in atheism to believe. It's just a title for what I am because I've looked at something and said "I don't believe that".
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
---Atheism falls under this.---
Not only is atheism not a belief, it's not a set of beliefs. Atheism is only the lack of a belief in a god. Nothing else.
Now, I personally have a set of principles and beliefs. I am also an atheist. But atheism isn't my belief set. Skepticism might fall under that heading.
We KNOW though that it will not rain gold tomorrow.
No we don't. All we KNOW is that it has never rained gold in the past. We can be reasonably sure that it will not rain gold tomorrow. But not absolutely sure. But I don't take much stock in 'absolute knowledge'. Which is why I am reasonable in my lack of belief in your god.
I will reiterate, if there is no evidence of something ONE way or the OTHER it takes faith to believe EITHER position.
It doesn't work that way. You don't get evidence to disprove something. YOU, being the person making a claim, have the burden of proof. My position doesn't rest on evidence, but yours does. The lack of evidence for your position makes my position, that I don't believe you, possible.
You can't prove a negative, and I make no attempt to do so. I just disbelieve.
I want you to acknowledge what is true.
And I would love for you to show evidence for it.
I find it funny sometimes how non theists get their panties in a twist in admitting their stance takes faith.
My panties are smooth and on straight, but thanks for your concern. :)
I will also say for the thousandth time to come over to my site and see the posts or I will start posting 2 page long arguments in here. It is much easier if you go and look. :)
You can post here, or take a look at my YouTube videos and see that I've responded to most, if not all, of your arguments. I only glanced at your site, so I can't honestly say all. But, and I mean no disrespect, it has been a long time since I've heard a new argument from a theist.
Again, atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief. There is nothing in atheism to believe. It's just a title for what I am because I've looked at something and said "I don't believe that".
Really?
Let us look at some of your previous quotes:
"Same with god. I don't KNOW if god exists or not. But I don't believe he does."
"Everyone believes in many things. But beliefs and faith is not the same thing."
You differentiate belief and faith. I am guessing because you realize what you have is a belief. You labeled yours as a belief till this definition came up. Don't back track now.
Maybe we should also review the definition of belief.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
3. Something believed or accepted as true
Atheism is a belief. A belief without evidence one way or the other which makes it faith.
It doesn't work that way. You don't get evidence to disprove something. YOU, being the person making a claim, have the burden of proof. My position doesn't rest on evidence, but yours does. The lack of evidence for your position makes my position, that I don't believe you, possible.
You are going off onto another tangent about burden of proof. There are a large amount of people believing in a God (without evidence according to you) and a cerytain amount of people who do not believe there is a god (without evidence). Yet to you, only one classifies as faith? Absurd.
As far as my site goes, I highly doubt you have argued the scientific technical terms or you would have been compelled to write a poist discussing them. Please do not tell me you are an atheist not well versed on the scientific debate of God yet feel qualified to say there is no evidence for one?
Are you sure it's possible for a person to lack belief? Isn't belief hard wired into our brain?
Have you noticed that in extreme darkness our brains lie to us and tell us things are there that aren't? In the lack of stimulus, the brain tries to make sense of random noise.
You might use this argument to say that a belief in God comes from the tendency of the brain to make sense of anything, even in the absence of stimulus/evidence.
But then, you must at least consider that an absence of belief requires a conscious choice not to believe. Furthermore, this choice must be continually sustained, against the nature of the mind.
If it is the conscious mind that suppresses belief because of what it considers unreasonable, what of the subconscious? Is it possible to suppress something you don't even know is there?
Look at what I've said. I don't think I've once said "I believe there is no god", because I don't. I've always said "I DON'T believe in god." Hence, no belief.
It's getting a bit boring repeating myself.
Should we try another example to help make it clear?
Carl Sagan wrote a great essay about a dragon living in his garage. Of course, the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, floats in the air and breathes heat-less fire.
Now, it is the burden of proof of the person who believes in this dragon to show evidence for it. If you say "Well, I don't believe you"...is that position based on faith?
Does it take faith to not believe in an invisible dragon?
And again, saying "there's no evidence either way" is wrong. You can't prove a negative. I can never show evidence for that invisible dragon not existing, because it is defined in a way to avoid all detection.
So because I can't prove it doesn't exist, I won't. Rather, I will not believe in it until there is good evidence to support it's existence.
Note again, I will NOT believe. Not believing does not equal believing the opposite.
Not that I expect this to change your mind. You're determined to place the label of "faith" on everyone so it makes you feel better. Which I can understand, and I'm sorry that it's untrue for your sake.
And for your information, I have argued the scientific technical terms for god. Because there are none. There's apologetics that occasionally try to sound scientific, but that's pretty much it.
You said:
Same with god. I don't KNOW if god exists or not. But I don't believe he does. I also don't KNOW if god doesn't exist. But again, I believe he does not.
So you recognize your belief in the non existence of God?
It confuses me because later you said:
Again, atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief. There is nothing in atheism to believe. It's just a title for what I am because I've looked at something and said "I don't believe that".
In the case of golden rain. My belief is it had never happened. But it might had happen. It's a theoretical possibility. What would change my mind is evidence to that respect.
By the way, there are reports in Honduras about Rain of Fish. So it is possible that extrange things can happen. What would an skeptic believe about such reports? Many who label themselves as skeptics are instead strong believers in oficial science and naturalism.
About Santa: there are good reasons to believe he doesn't exist. We would expect to verify certain things if he existed. Gifts would appear in many houses. But we know that gifts are bought by parents, not by Santa, but some think it's cute to lie and tell the children their gifts come from Santa. There is an intentional fiction.
But with God is different. There might be a God even when don't see it. God is not an intentional fiction.
It happens.
You wrote:
Carl Sagan wrote a great essay about a dragon living in his garage. Of course, the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, floats in the air and breathes heat-less fire.
Now, it is the burden of proof of the person who believes in this dragon to show evidence for it. If you say "Well, I don't believe you"...is that position based on faith?
What Sagan is doing is inventing an intentional fiction. But then, it is true that we have a belief about that dragon: We believe it doesn't exist. Don't you?
You wan't to play extreme skepticism?
Let me tell you: I lack belief in your claim of lack of belief. I also lack belief in your claim that there is no evidence for God. I also lack belief in the idea that you had objectively examined the presented evidence for God.
You see: we can play agnosticism to absurd extremes. You can also lack belief in science, lack belief in rationalism, naturalism or materialism. You can also lack belief that there's a universe outside of your mind. I lack belief that you lack belief in those positions.
It happens.
Yeah, right.
Or it might be a freudian slip.
I don't think there are many fellow Honduran interested in atheism. So this is a good choice. Besides, I was linking too many articles in English in "La Razon Prostituida", so I thought: "What the heck?"
My current position is that it is not possible to have a mere lack of belief in God, that you either believe he exists, or believe he does not exist. (See my previous post). But things complicate when we have to define what we understand for God. My current idea of God is closed to that of Paul Tillich. (See this post, and this article.)