God & the Fairy Tree

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.

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.

If you were to provide me with evidence that fairies are in some way implicated in the creation of the universe and that the evidence precedes the scriptures on the timeline then I would certainly change my views on that.factoid: King James was never the author of any bible. He more or less authorized the translation.Regardless if someone wrote a bible 'about' fairies instead of God then it might work. But it would have to stand the test of time and scrutinity and that would become the back breaker.

I agree. Sadly the world is filled with people who 'settle' for 'hand me down faith' and 'I'll take your word for it' faith and 'It suites me fine' faith. And to this I say, good luck with that. Because these people will be the ones impairing their abilities grow in knowledge and reason. Insecurity is the primary culprit which drives people into denial.It raises an interesting question also, do these people behave this way deliberately or are they 'incapable' of facing the implications of reasoning the existence of God the none physical entity? - I personally believe we are dealing with a little of each.So I will re-enforce your final statement saying "To believe in God despite a lack of evidence is identical to belief in the fairies in the fairy tree to the outside observer."Edited by pbee, : typo

The ridicule is bound by our own personal assessment and logical implications of the belief in question.We reject and ridicule what we do not understand, it is our nature.

In this case, I would believe in fairies. Not sure what you are implying by this.

Uncut diamonds and broken tempered glass have the same face value. Why is one worthless and the other priceless?The answer to the question is quite obvious.

Everyone is a tall order, please explain how this works(for everyone) exactly.Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

Now, it all makes sense.

If I told my children that there were(hidden) fairies at the tree, they would certainly say "Dad!.... theres no such thing as fairies". Now I could reason with them, however, I never personally believed fairies existed simply because we have never been presented with any fairy claims beyond children's books. If there would have been, then things would certainly be different. I don't know how intricate or meaningful the entire claim would be but the circumstances would change nonetheless. Very much so. We are all moving on the assumption that fairies are limited to children's fairy tales. We seem to be missing the part which explains how these people have committed a fallacy. As it has been demonstrated numerous times throughout this thread, not all beliefs are created equal. Are we still talking about fairies or a different belief? Regardless of the belief or faith, in order to accurately criticize and categorize the sanity of the belief, it is mandatory to evaluate each doctrine individually. If we apply a general model to all types of faith and beliefs, then we can never truly conclude anything. We will only be generalizing. Now we are getting somewheres, can you explain in which areas the reasoning is lost? And does this apparent loss of reason apply to every type of faith or only to these person(s) or group?

That almost makes some sort of sense. Are we implying that people are dishonest if they believe in God?This logic is nothing more than common arrogance. The only way to gain authority over others beliefs is through a recognized counteractive process. What we are looking at here, are personal feelings presented as authoritative statements, no more no less. - aka. wishful thinking

Now we have partially traveled down the road to rationality. People can only be dishonest if they willingly participate. Some people(many) are unknowingly lead to believe in something. Such as God. They are not entirely at fault and (dis)honesty may not be applicable. If they are educated on matters and willingly choose to continue on a path of ignorance then the term may be better suited.I am a big fan of rationality! If only we used more rationality and less throw away logic, the world could become a better place.The final part of your statement is perhaps the most logical and functional statement I have read in this thread to date(I may have missed some). - This is the single most effective method of dealing with social indifference.

Yes it certainly does, in a case such as this it looks like we are definitely dealing with a little B&S. - My take on this is simple, beware of those who blame you for God's lack of. If God does indeed exist as advertised, then we have no need for games or excuses. Anyone trying to imply otherwise is most likely compensating.Having said this, I am not certain that someone molesting children for example, would receive a sympathetic ear either.Your example raises some interesting questions though. Isn't there a well documented format to receive answers from God? - As far as I can tell, if we play by the rules, then the promise of divine intervention stands. If memory serves me right there is a passage in the scriptures which urges people to put God to the test. My recommendation would be to take the initiative, do the research and find out what is required and make the call. If... after all is said and done you receive no response then you could rest easy knowing you have taken the initiative on your conclusion.

if we go to the root of the issue, it all begins with evidence. Now, we are left trying to prove that the proposition is false in order to gain authority over the claim.Claim: God "Everything you see, I have created"
Evidence: we are surrounded by it.
Challenge: To demonstrate that God did not create everything, as claimed.Quick and dirty.Damned sure... does nothing to this claim.

I am tempted to laugh, but not in a discriminatory way. Only because of the irony which surrounds this logic. The evidence, is all around us. It's a very simple claim, no matter how we churn it, the resulting problem will always be the same.The only way out of this, is to personally refuse to acknowledge the claim(which we are all entitled).