God & the Fairy Tree

This is basically the same argument as the 'All Christians Are Atheists Concerning Zeus' ploy. Forget about the excuses for not seeing fairies or not feeling God's presence. What you need to know is 'why do people believe in gods and not fairies?' We take the sign as a joke because it is not common to believe in fairies, that's all. As a people in general, we are convinced, we 'know' there are no fairies, while we are in large part still comfortable with the idea of gods. Blame it on culture...we grew out of fairies and leprechauns, satyrs and ogres and giants. We moved on to the completely unseen, the supernatural and extraterrestrial. If you are a total skeptic, this would be a natural progression. As we learned more about the world we were able to laugh at the idea of sneaky imps and such but we still didn't have all the answers.I can't tell you why we don't believe in fairies, as you know we can and will believe anything, and you probably sucked it right in as a child with the tooth fairy and Santa. Later, it probably wasn't hard to convince you they were fake, and you may have even figured it out yourself.So how come we haven't figured out there is no God? I suppose you have, and I suppose the rest of us still 'feel' that there is something more. I know I always have, and I am unsure about what form It takes or what It is outside of my imagination, but I certainly feel that there is more.I do believe that you can tap into some higher feelings, whether they are initiated by God or by one's own consciousness, and I wouldn't hesitate to tell people to meditate or spend quiet time to see what they find. I feel it is vital for humans to collect their thoughts, and I know I have 'recieved' much inspiration from analyzing myself and praying. Can't prove it's God, of course, but as long as feelings ARE being produced FROM spiritual endeavors, the belief in the existance of the supernatural will continue. It just so happens that we no longer believe the Supernatural has tiny glittering wings, and that is the result of the collective imagination of the world and centuries of transition.There have always been Marthas and Marys, and I know that some of us are just born to be the practical type, but I have an innate distrust of those who are afraid to listen to their own thoughts. I am not going to laugh at someone who says 'you haven't heard God speaking to you' because they are simply relating their experience with spirituality through the accepted terminology of the time. However, I am skeptical of the folks who think 'God's voice' is money, success, perfect children, answers to all your prayers.

That's just not true. ALL supernatural entities have supposed characteristics and histories that can make some or all appear false to the observer.There is also the prevailing idea which I subscribe to, that ALL entities are people's versions of ONE entity. That can not be proven, but it eliminates the need for competition entirely. I can quite contentedly tell you that I believe something exists, and I am capable of finding which version most fits my ideas of what that Something is.

I must ask, if you admit to not knowing or having answers, why you would toss away possibilities that are not falsifiable? I would expect more open-mindedness from non-religious people who are not 'convinced' of a scenerio. Yet in the previous post you scorned astrology and psychic readings? Perhaps you have falsified some things in your own mind?I am quite sure that folks don't go through life not knowing. Not knowing with certainty is one thing, but for all of our actions we must have some kind of reason. You can not live life without filling in the gaps one way or another, and state of true skepticism is rare.ABE...I just saw all of the OT warnings, so I will clarify that what I am trying to say is this:To me, the question should not be asked to theists 'why don't you believe in fairies?' because obviously we already have a belief which is not compatible with or has no need/niche for their existance. I am more curious why those without compelling answers would not gather around the tree and try to prove something, rather than take it as a joke as well? Is it already a given that some things were falsified, and if so, why should thiests be the only ones answering the 'how?'?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I don't think it is a fallacy.The one thing you are forgetting is that the people who believe in God really do 'feel' the presence of God. We can't get into whether or not it is real, but for the sake of the argument, they don't feel or see fairies, they do believe they see or feel God, so to them, there is no fallacy in the logic.The only way it would be a fair comparison is if you put a thiest in a room with a psychic or a person who DID see fairies, because what you have is a situation where you are mocking people based on your opinion that all entities are false, and that therefore the theists are being dishonest.If a person really saw fairies, there is no fallacy in saying someone scared them off, any more than if it was a chipmunk tree. I wouldn't grovel for excuses about why someone doesn't 'know' God, but in a world where police stations actually hire psychics to solve crimes for the force, and where I have to see these things presented as facts on tv, and my kids as well...what can I say? Why don't I feel ghosts like my houseguest at the moment? Why can't I solve crime? If I ask my buddy here why I haven't seen ghosts, is any answer he gives me a fallacy?Am I somehow not allowed to feel God while others can see ghosts and get public credit for it? Are you working from a presumption that all of these things are falsified, and therefore all statemenets are fallacies?And btw, why is it that we always say people are 'born' psychic, but must be in a haunted place to see ghosts, or a prayerful stste to feel God, or really quiet to see fairies?

Well, for the record, no one has described 'feeling God in their lives' with any specific so far. If it comes down to 'wonder, awe, and insignificance at the beholding of the cosmos' I doubt we would even be having this discussion. Anyone can have that, and anyone can miss out on it. If someone tells me they don't appreciate nature I am inclined to suggest getting a life before even contemplating a more virtuous one. That's kind of post hoc unfair, and make-believe. No one developes a complete theology from looking at the stars. Besides, that wasn't the fallacy in question in this thread. I don't think any idea is above criticism, and I would call most pagans and spiritualists much more than gullible, basically because I haven't found one of them who could convince me they truly believed anything. Most of them get bored and one day start waltzing around with a velvet cape and making excuses to do childish things like run in the park at night, which I'll admit is fun..but you are steering me off the point.Again, if I ask my houseguest tonight why it is that I have never heard ghosts, and he tells me it is because I have not been in a haunted place, is that a fallacy or a possibility?We are not even talking about why I don't believe in ghosts, just about why I don't hear them, but I guarantee if I started believing in them it would make it easier for me to 'hear' them, and vice versa. You guys want to know the idfference between a fairy tree and God? Belief, that's all.Imagine if the owner of the grounds where the tree was came out and said "a joke?, why I have seen the fairies many times!". Perhaps you would call him deluded, but the sign would no longer be a fallacy of Para's description. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I can't tell you if God exists, but I wouldn't consider a person who spends no time simply contemplating the big questions for themselves as a deep person of any sort. One need not dwell on them indefinitely, but I fail to see how an intelligent person can go through life without some goal posts set up for their own existence. It is crucial to Christian thought and many other philosphies as well, that every person can be a mediator or fulfill a special need for the world. At the very least I can say my purpose now is to provide a safe and supportive home for my children...but to what end?Objectively speaking, do we tell children that we have no idea why we are here, or do we tell them that everyone is special and can do great things for the world even without being noticed?How could you tell children there is no meaning to life? You may tell them you don't know, but perhaps they will find someone who claims they do. Children don't like not knowing, and honestly, adults don't either. That is what makes great scientists and philosophers and theologians. The rest of us have given up on the unanswered. We tend to let the petty and paltry daily grind get in the way of the real, big questions, because, yes, when you grow up there is so much more to deal with it almost does seem like life is just about work, laundry, social commitments...what?????Somehow, I don't see how anyone on this board could make a statement like 'I simply don't spend any time wondering about the big questions'. I thought that was the purpose of the board, oh well.

Great. I don't see how any of these questions can be answered without figuring out on some level what the purpose of our existence is or whether there is a God.As to the rest of it, I don't call anything mental masturbation unless it interferes with reality, and nothing is a waste of time which contributes to the body of knowledge and thought we already have. My mother, for years, tried to curb this so called mental messing about, and there are certainly times when I can't take one more word from Wilde, or any other muser, including the Bible shredders...but it is vital and completely human to desire an understanding of the human condition, and we are certainly evolved with the ability and the need to learn much more about life than the sciences.

But I am not advocating that, and I wish people would speak more objectively to me rather than put typi-thiest words in my mouth.I am simply pointing out that when we teach a child anything at all, we are giving them the groundwork for future ideas. You really can't go to a child and say 'sit there' without a reason just as you can't get them started on life with no idea of what life is. We set their goals, whether it be success, amusement, idleness, or heroism, we are imparting our philosophies.I really don't want to get into an argument about whether we should pass on our faith to our children, and I did not imply that atheists wander around without meaning in their lives. In fact, I have said the opposite on more than one occasion. It is true of everybody that even with so many things unanswered, we are living life as if they have been. The atheist is not living with an eye peeled for gods, and the thiest is not living frivolously just in case there is no God. Agnosticism is a state of mind that does not carry through to our actions.

How can you know that questions can't be answered? That's a weird thing for scientists to say. Don't you think at one time we considered it unknowable what the weather was like on the moon? Don't you think that we considered it unknowable if the sun revolved? What about the ocean floor? I mean, seriously, you will probably go post on an abiogenesis thread, and at the same time say 'it is silly to wonder how we got here'.Btw...does nator read and/or copy you? I can't help but notice that she throws around the same words in a very close proximity to your posts. Odd coincidence. How do you tell a question which has no answers from a question not yet answered? That's rude. I imagine you have no kids, or you wouldn't speak so frivolously of what you imagine you would tell them. Yeah, a big difference for sure. I am certain that the relation of species is not important to starving people, sick people, depressed people, the poor and uneducated of all time....and the meaning of life IS. Do you believe that Mother Theresa gave hope to millions by talking about science? I am telling you that everyone on this board is only blessed to be able to sit and discuss all aspects of existence in the way that we do.

No, no...not spoken out loud, that't not the point.Everyone assumed the sign was a joke, that's all. What if it wasn't?I ma not ignoring the rest of your post, but I need a quick break.

Sorry, Para, I did skip this one, but I am sure you can see that I have been consistant in my responses to others and that this was simply not noticed by me.I will admit that in threads where similar words are used repeatedly, or where words could be more specifically defined for the purpose of the thread {they may be words that could be loosely interchanged in a more casual communication}, I will 'plug' in a well-used word rather indiscriminatingly. I appreciate your efforts to clarify. I understand that there has been no testing for fairies. In a general sense I say society has falsified fairies by collective agreement, for if all beings of this nature are imaginative, they were only 'true' because we made them so, and 'false' because we caused their existence to cease. Perhaps nullified is a better word.Since we are clearly not talking of things which have been objectively or scientifically falsified, I can only make a distinction in your examples between things which have been 'proved' subjectively and things which haven't.People of faith are, hopefully, realizing that faith is not knowledge. At the same time, things which have undergone their own personal tests with some positive result, can be regarded as more likely than things which have never been seen/felt/experienced.It's definitely not the kind of thing science wants to hear, but people of faith speak in a language where the 'faith' part is a given. We are comfortable with the expressions such as 'felt/seen/heard/experinced God' in the CONTEXT of faith.I don't find hardly anyone who truly is going to say they have evidence of supernatural events, and when I do I regard them with as much skepticism as you would, but I also don't find it a fallacy, as in, a mistake, an error, or an illogic, to speak about spiritual things or events experienced, with comparitive distinction.A person can and may have subjective experience of one deity or another, they may have no experiences and still believe in one deity for other reasons, and, with a big, huge disclaimer saying 'This is all entirely faith based and subjective' be able to contrast two claims of dubious veracity.We do not say 'which one do you know?', but 'which one do you believe?' In a situation where two Christains may discuss 'feeling' God, the disclaimers are not necessary. It may be assumed that Christains hand-wave away all other supernatural things, but there should be some logic behind it, and some inconsistancy in the outcome.Point is, there may be no difference 'scientifically' between a fairy tree and a God sense, but it is not improper or 'wrong' to discriminate within the context of faith. What most atheists seem to be saying is that if you accept one thing you must accept all others or be guilty of some mistake in logic. When you have a belief, the logic changes. If you believe in Jesus, it is therefore illogical to believe in Zeus. It is illogical to believe in one God and also in many.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I don't want to continue too much with this if it is against Parasomnium's wishes.It is an interesting topic that seems to be coming up in various places.Accomplishment is definitely in the eye of the beholder, and in order to accomplish, you must have a goal. The goal is the biggest question there is. If your goal is to ease suffering, Ma Theresa accomplished. She did not eradicate disease, sure, but she eradicated lonliness. In my view, neither goal can be set without some belief in the value of life, the goodness of helping people, and our purpose or obligation to the world. All of these things come intrinsically or are left over from very Christian concepts. I feel it is important for people to examine why they declare as 'useful' those things which they do, rather than subconsciously fall back onto the deep-thinking of others.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.