Does Atheism = No beliefs?

Semantics? Hair splitting? Maybe.

As for Santa Claus we can look at the literary and historical record to show its origins. So that is direct knowledge we have. Also, we know he does not visit our houses on Christmas.

Yeah, on second thought, that's probably all my point comes down to.
Agreed upon definitions of "knowledge" and "rational" and such would probably clear it all up just fine.

Agreed.
I would also say we have the same sort of direct evidence for God.
Possibly not a document from someone saying "I made God up.." But if that's the only sticking point between rationally knowing something exists or not... then I think it's on fairly shaky ground anyway.

If anyone cares to follow up on this line of thinking, this would probably be a better place to do such so as to not go too far off topic here.
Also, I love to shamelessly plug any thread I started in the past

I Know That God Does Not Exist

quote:

---

You cant know that something or someone is not there until you can establish where there is.

---

Why? That is, why isn't "here" good enough?

Instead, all you need is a sufficiently complete definition of what you mean by "god." When your definition is so vague that it doesn't actually say anything, then can it even be said to exist?

But with regard to the North Pole and Santa, it's called "magic." That's the same claim that every theist has ever claimed regarding their god as to why it can't be detected where it is claimed to exist.

So if that's not acceptable with regard to Santa, why does it suddenly become legitimate for god?

Right.

Santa Claus used to have a physical location.
Then we looked there, and there was no Santa Claus.

God used to have a physical location.
Then we looked there, and there was no God.

Read that carefully.

Now apply the idea to what some are trying to say about where God is now.
How can they know that something or someone is there until they can establish where there is?

Obviously, if someone is claiming that God exists... just "everywhere" or "you can't detect Him" or something like that... how are they making that claim?

They aren't.
Or, at least, we know they're not making such a claim rationally.

quote:

---

If it's not rational to say you "know there is no god..." is it ever rational to say you "know there is no Santa Claus...?"

---

What good is "being rational" if you can't be rational enough to say you know there is no Santa Claus?
Just be honest with yourself.
If you don't want to be rational... then don't be rational.
Just don't lie to yourself about it as that causes other internal issues and unhappiness that will be much more difficult to overcome (examples of the pitfalls of such things are evident all over these forums...)

So God isn't any more rational than Santa Claus.

Who cares?

Do you think God cares, if He exists?
If He did, wouldn't that make Him sensitive, immature and unworthy?

If you see the upsides and positives about being rational in certain situations... then use the power of rationality in those situations.

But if you try to re-define the idea of rationality so that you can feel like you're getting those upsides and positives in a situation where they just don't apply... you're only fooling yourself. And then you diminish the power of "real" rationality even when used where you used to enjoy it. ...because you'll "know" (because you taught it to yourself) that "rationality" isn't all that great anyway... it can't even help you find God.

Well, duh.

Unless you are talking about Jesus... and the jury is out on whether or not He will return to his prior location...

I thought most Christians were aware of the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum where God was said to dwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies

I haven't won as many drinks with it as with the "Name the most Northern, Eastern, Western and Southern US States" challenge but it has paid its way.

Edited by jar, : needed an n

Heaven. In the clouds.
Turns out there are no gods there.

Granted, it was a long time ago... but does that make it better or worse?

The point, regardless, is that people give Santa and God descriptions that can be tested in reality.

Some might be physical locations.
Some might be controlling certain weather.
Some might be helping this or that situation in reality.

In all cases where things can be checked, though... it comes down to the same answer. No Santa, and No God.

That leaves us with all the cases where things can't be checked.
Which leaves us with the problem of "rationality."

If it can't be checked... what's the rational reason to think Santa or God is there in the first place?
Other than, of course, that certain people want Santa or God to be somewhere... anywhere... and those are the only places left.

Not very rational for the idea of figuring out if they exist or not.
But, very helpful for the idea of holding onto a personally-desired story that doesn't seem to have any anchor in reality.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

"I don't know what's going on."
-The Cure

If you read that quote with a strong Russian accent, it sounds awesome.

Just a quick question. What would you call someone who believes that there probably is an intelligent cause for our existence, but does not adhere to any specific religion, or even any particular belief in the nature of that intelligence? He isn't really theistic because he doesn't necessarily believe that this intelligence is at all involved with the world now, he isn't really a deist because he acknowledges that possibly he/she/it could be involved and he isn't an atheist either. Wouldn't agnostic fit that person better than any other term. I suggest that there is a lot of people who fall into that category.