God & the Fairy Tree

Brenna, I don't know what that was all about, but it seems that you think we are having a fight or something. We're not, as far as I'm concerned.My repeatedly explaining the purpose of this thread is necessary, because people keep missing my point that it's not about the existence of fairies or God per se, but about the consistency of the reasoning behind the beliefs.And that includes you, as you have just proved.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

i don't think we're having a fight. i just think it's silly to have a whole thread on this when clearly all that needed to be said was said in the op. unless you're waiting to be congratulated on your piercing insight. no, i'm fully aware of the topic, i just think it's not worthy of a whole thread. as such, i'm choosing to extend it.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

That goes without question. However the point raised here was that within the scope of this conversation, it was becoming somewhat of a habit to discredit faith by presenting demographics and family values as the underlying determinants. If several million people equates as rare, then you are correct. - But I choose to remain skeptical of that statement.Most of the controversy circling these discussions are bound by sincerity. For example, if we we are evaluating results, a biased person(group) would selectively illustrate the instances to favor his or her argument. The same applies for other groups. The point of it is, beyond personal emotions, the argument is tainted and futile.If we are to conclude that our world is plagued by peer influences, then let us free ourselves and tear down our schools, burn the books and abolish television as well as all other forms of influence. Let us return to our roots and deliver our children to pure and unadulterated lifestyles.The reality of it is, that none believers believe that those teaching faith to their children are wrong in doing so. They establish this notion based on the condition that they cannot prove or disprove the information. It is in every sense of the word, selective reasoning, it proves than our inherent inabilities to cope with indifference is very much alive despite a timeline riddled with such atrocities, and yet... no one cares to pay tribute to the reality of who we are. Every generation feels and believes he or she is unique and somehow superior to the past.SO where is the problem? the one believing in the unknown or the one who cannot accept the unknown?
The one acknowledging indifference or the one balking at indifference?Comparing fairies to God and faith is about equivalent to comparing a Skateboard to a Bus. Though both have wheels and carry a person they share very little where form and function are concerned.

But the topic isn't about comparing skateboards to buses. It's about comparing the belief in skateboards to the belief in buses. Why is it "reasonable" to believe in buses but not in skateboards?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As I said twice in my examples, absence of evidence IS, in fact, evidence of absence if the evidence has been repeatedly sought and no sign has ever been found. This is why we don't believe in fairies, or Thor, or alien abductions, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.To believe that the Spaghetti Monster actually exists is delusional, because the evidence shows otherwise (someone would have noticed a giant, flying pile of spaghetti by now). To believe fairies live in the fairy tree is delusional, because the evidence shows otherwise (no matter how many times you look, no fairy is ever seen, and no other evidence of their passing is left). The lack of evidence in these cases IS the evidence that they do not, in fact, exist at all.The cases for the existence of fairies, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, trolls, goblins, and any other supernatural entities are all the same. Those who believe in any of them through blind faith directly contradict the evidence that the entities do not, in fact exist. The silly notion that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence even when the evidence has been repeatedly, thoroughly sought and never found is false. That same logic would force anyone of faith (regardless of what they have faith in) to believe in any unfalsifiable idea that comes to mind. If you believe in fairies despite a lack of evidence becasue they could have flown away, you should believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn simply stepped away from your hand, as well - the arguments are identical.The same applies to God, to the outside observer. No real evidence has ever been shown that any deity or other supernatural entity exists, and to someone who does not have faith, it seems equally preposterous that one should believe in, say, the Christian God but not Thor or Mustakrakish the Lake Troll. Golden mean fallacy. Both perspectives are not "equally valid." It is impossible to prove that God does not exist - you cannot prove a negative. Believing in an unfalsifiable position based on no evidence is irrational. The default position over whether any entity exists, from God to a magic invisible dragon outside your front door, is that it does not exist until it has been shown via evidence to exist. Any other position forces the assumption that the dragon must exist as well, along with the unicorn, the flying bowl of spaghetti, the fairies in their tree, trolls under every bridge, ghosts, alien abductions, the Scientologist Emperor Xenu, and every other supernatural, unfalsifiable entity ever conjured up by anyones imagination ever. This is an untenable, irrational, invalid position.And you see again why this will always result in an impasse. The supernatural entity of choice is given a different standard by the person of faith. While you and I would both say "anyone who believes in fairies is either a child or delusional," I would apply the same logic to the existence of God and you would not. You may have some event or perspective in your personal, subjective experience that you hold as evidence of the divine, but it is not objective and as such cannot convince the outside observer.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

But I would not say that anyone who believes in fairies is either a child or delusional.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Or... absence of evidence can indicate lack of suitable instrumentation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The skateboard and bus was not proposed as a refinement of the original illustration but rather to put into perspective the gaping contrast between the initial illustration. Fairies are to God as skateboards are to buses. Can we compare skateboards to buses? Is is reasonable to expect accurate reasoning from the initial comparison?The implications surrounding the level of faith involved in fairy tales and God is about as contrasting as night is to day. They are none comparative items. Faith in God rests on numerous measurable accounts and facts. Do fairies offer any historical measurable facts? Do they have any bearing on the origin and direction of mankind? Is it even worthy of mentioning this?Those are all rhetorical questions,and have long been answered.
The point of it all is, we cannot compare belief in fairies, unicorns, goblins and any other form of child level beliefs to that of God. Why? because none of those things implicate a level of reasoning nor do they deal with the salvation of mankind. We could invest reasoning(if we so wanted) however, already we know the results.Unless of course, someone feels that fairies could somehow compete with God. In which case I would say, please provide us with the(older than) documents to do so.

I can see how God is no more knowable in an observable sense than are fairies, goblins, and Tazmanian Devils! I will say, however, that is is not a ludicrous belief to assert that an uncaused first cause Creator makes more sense than eternally existing uncaused matter.Fairies never had a hand in creating the universe, although they are responsible for shiny quarters and fifty cent pieces under our pillows when we lose our baby teeth.

No. It doesn't. That statement rests on a profound misunderstanding of what faith is. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, not measurable. Faith is for where there are no facts. Well, of course they could.Have you ever heard of Columbus?Before he did his experiment, it was well known that the earth was round and its circumference was known to a reasonable approximation. Columbus believed that he could sail west from Europe to Asia, but the prevailing wisdom was that it was too far - the existing equipment couldn't span the gap.There were (at least) three different points of view:

1. There was a huge God-like landmass in the way.
2. There was a flotilla of fairy-like islands in the way.
3. There was nothing but empty ocean in the way.

Until the equipment was available, until the experiment was done, there was no way of knowing which point of view was correct. All three points of view were equivalent.In spite of all the bluster by theists, we have no way of knowing if there is a God or fairies or both. And in spite of all the bluster by atheists, we have no way of knowing that there isn't.Edited by Ringo, : @#$% spellling!Edited by Ringo, : More @#$% spellinge! @#$%$#@%$#@!

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm sorry but just what is the support for that assertion? How is a fairy different from, say, Loki? Really? What measurable facts are those?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So doesn't that make god different from fairies. I don't have some event or perspective in my personal, subjective experience that I hold as evidence of the faiies like I do for god.So when you say: Maybe to the outside believer, but to the inside believer, they ARE different and should be held to a different standard.

How do you know that? Just because King James never wrote a book about them?Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because the people who put up that sign were joking, and they'll tell you that if you ask them. God-believers, though, aren't joking.Why fairy-belief and god-belief are supposed to be intellectually different, I dunno. I think of god-believers pretty much the same as fairy-believers -- pretty much harmless cranks who are mostly able to lead independent lives without too much outside intervention.What would make me nervous, though, is if a fairy-believer insists that the fairies tell her that fetuses are human beings and that we should teach Tolkien in our public schools as literal history. Then I think it is entirely appropriate to tell her that she's freaking nuts.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Correct, faith is what it is. However, when we are talking about having faith in God, what exactly is that implying? The answer has long been written and would be disappointing to many.Can we say that the OP was asking(simply) "Why do people choose to believe in something they cannot touch or see?"Interesting thing about Columbus and the development of mankind. We already know that history has shown that we are on an evolutionary path of knowledge. What was once considered sorcery and magic is now understood to be basic science. Where is it all going? Are we also proving foolish in our assumption that we are at the pinnacle of our development saying 'Only fools invest in something they cannot see'I doubt we will live long enough to compare the results.