Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[SalixIncendium]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

 

[MikeF]

This is an excerpt from my post on skepticism which I feel relates to this question: LINK

I do think it is reasonable in a frank and honest discussion as to whether such claimed entities are a valid explanation for whatever an individual may have experienced. It is both the diversity across cultures and across time as well as the conformity to a specific individual's culture and time in regards to similarly described events that gives us confidence that such claims are a product of our inherent fallibility.

Some appeal to our incomplete understanding of the world as an avenue to entertain possibility, but over the millennia, when has our imagined explanation of the unknown ever survived our eventual knowing? Heaven’s above the clouds and Hell’s under our feet have all succumbed to our eventual knowing. From my perspective, a skeptical position treats unexplainable phenomena as exactly that, unexplainable until sufficient verifiable data can be obtained to provide an explanation that comports with the collective core of knowledge and understanding for which we have already established confidence. Outside of that, all that is left to us is to scratch our head and admit we simply don’t know

 

[Secret Chief]

No, because of what you say. Except Nessie of course.

 

[Stevicus]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

A key difference is that Bigfoot, Nessie, unicorns, etc. all relate to phenomena that people claim to have seen on Earth, whereas God is mostly a generalized assumption about a being which is, at the very least, "not of this earth." We have the capability of searching the Earth, so if evidence of Bigfoot exists on Earth, we should be able to find it. If we can't, then that may cast doubt on Bigfoot's existence.

So, if it's a claim about something here on Earth, then that might be easier to confirm or refute than if it's about something from another galaxy or another dimension.

 

[danieldemol]

I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

I used to find the suggestion I was mentally ill insulting. Then I got diagnosed and treated.

Although belief in God is not necessarily the product of mental illness, it does seem to me to be a product of irrational or not completely rational thinking.

Which is ok by me of course, I believe in a sort of God.

But I can see how it would seem insulting to those who feel they have experienced a God to have it compared to any other form of irrational thinking. What I dont see is why a person who sees the same lack of reliable evidence for both should refrain from pointing out the obvious parallel simply because another person feels insulted by it.

Should people have failed to point out some of the things I "experienced" as a person who had paranoid delusions had no reliable evidence to demonstrate their reality just because I felt insulted by it? I think failure to point out these things having no reliable evidence is a dis-service to what those people who could see through my delusions recognised as truth.

Also what to make of the reverse situation? Say some half blind old atheist mistakes a bear in the woods for big foot? How dare you insult him by comparing things he has experienced (bigfoot) to those other things which lack reliable evidence that he has never experienced such as God?

Personally I think humans should aim for the stars when it comes to truth even if they fall short at the moon. To do otherwise would simply allow delusion and misunderstanding of the evidence to run rampant as I see it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I used to find the suggestion I was mentally ill insulting. Then I got diagnosed and treated.

Although belief in God is not necessarily the product of mental illness, it does seem to me to be a product of irrational or not completely rational thinking.

Which is ok by me of course, I believe in a sort of God.

But I can see how it would seem insulting to those who feel they have experienced a God to have it compared to any other form of irrational thinking. What I dont see is why a person who sees the same lack of reliable evidence for both should refrain from pointing out the obvious parallel simply because another person feels insulted by it.

Should people have failed to point out some of the things I "experienced" as a person who had paranoid delusions had no reliable evidence to demonstrate their reality just because I felt insulted by it? I think failure to point out these things having no reliable evidence is a dis-service to what those people who could see through my delusions recognised as truth.

Also what to make of the reverse situation? Say some half blind old atheist mistakes a bear in the woods for big foot? How dare you insult him by comparing things he has experienced (bigfoot) to those other things which lack reliable evidence that he has never experienced such as God?

Personally I think humans should aim for the stars when it comes to truth even if they fall short at the moon. To do otherwise would simply allow delusion and misunderstanding of the evidence to run rampant as I see it.

If you're going to justify the practice, as you did here, it would be helpful to explain "the obvious parallel."

 

[Colt]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

At the end of the day the somehow registered hope in God is inexplicable! I sympathize with genuine atheists, but when mocking terms are used then its really pointless to dialogue with what are really just hecklers. Although belief in such things as Bigfoot etc. may well come from the same department in the searching mind that is intrigued by mystery, that doesn't mean that the formulation of deity concepts and speculation about origins and destiny are in the same class.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

It's perfectly reasonable because it has to do with objectivity. However people, even those with subjective experiences they attribute to being God's or whatever, still has the objective qualifications that it is something borne of that person's mind , and not anywhere else past whatever the cerebellum produces.

I'd say one's inner world exists for that person, it carries its own reality, so I believe those who say they have experiences of God or whatever is valid, but it does not and will not ever apply to anyone or anything else outside a person's mental realm, because it simply does not exist anywhere else aside from that person's mind.

That's why I maintain it is something completely personal to you and you alone and is nobody else's.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's perfectly reasonable because it has to do with objectivity.

ONLY if one claims a god is objectively evident. Yes, there may be those that make such a claim, but I think a large percentage, if not the majority of theists, do not make such a claim.

I'd say one's inner world exists for that person, it carries its own reality, so I believe those who say they have experiences of God or whatever is valid, but it does not and will not ever apply to anyone or anything else outside a person's mental realm, because it simply does not exist anywhere else aside from that person's mind.

I thought you said this had to do with objectivity. Where is the objective evidence for not existing outside one's mind. You have as much objective evidence for this as I do that this pragmatic reality exists exclusively in the Self.

That's why I maintain it is something completely personal to you and you alone and is nobody else's.

On this I am in agreement with you %.

 

[ratiocinator]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Are there?

Normally (in my experience, anyway) the comparison is between the 'evidence' or 'reasoning' offered for god(s) and the 'evidence' and 'reasoning' could apply to those things you mention. If somebody produces some argument and/or evidence for some god(s) and there is equally 'good' evidence or reasoning for Bigfoot, fairies, etc., then that shows that it's not very good evidence or reasoning.

I've seen endless arguments along the lines of some theist saying "but god must exist because [some argument]", an atheist saying "but I could use the same argument for fairies (or whatever)", followed by "but god is nothing like fairies", which spectacularly misses the point.

 

[Koldo]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

It is reasonable because the comparison is being drawn due to one particular aspect: the evidence surrounding their existence is almost entirely grounded on personal testimony (and thus very lacking).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are there?

Yes.

Normally (in my experience, anyway) the comparison is between the 'evidence' or 'reasoning' offered for god(s) and the 'evidence' and 'reasoning' could apply to those things you mention. If somebody produces some argument and/or evidence for some god(s) and there is equally 'good' evidence or reasoning for Bigfoot, fairies, etc., then that shows that it's not very good evidence or reasoning.

I've seen endless arguments along the lines of some theist saying "but god must exist because [some argument]", an atheist saying "but I could use the same argument for fairies (or whatever)", followed by "but god is nothing like fairies", which spectacularly misses the point.

This thread was actually inspired by a response a member made when asked if it was reasonable to believe in a god, and that member's response was along this lines of "is it reasonable to believe in Bigfoot or fairies?"

There are clearly those that think making such comparisons is reasonable in the absence of any claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

On the contrary. It is very proper, even necessary, when we meet a situation of arrogant demand that we "ought to" be believers for no clear reason.

It is very odd and very grave that so many people have come to treat that arrogance as an inherent right. That creates the need to confront them at the same level and put them on their place.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form.

I think that you are being overly optimistic about the situations which motivate those comparisons. They do not involve people nearly that lucid and reasonable.

In all fairness, many a theist - particularly among those who claim to be shocked by the existence of atheists - are in fact quite materialistic and arrogant and won't listen to subtler or more respectful language when confronted.

I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

That is sort of the point. We should not tolerate theistic chauvinism.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

Yes. It is certainly reasonable when, for instance, dealing with Christians who attempt to threaten atheists with eternal damnation.

It is not proper to give people much better treatment than they want to receive.

 

[ratiocinator]

This thread was actually inspired by a response a member made when asked if it was reasonable to believe in a god, and that member's response was along this lines of "is it reasonable to believe in Bigfoot or fairies?"

I didn't see that thread but that again it seems to be about the reasonableness of the beliefs, not a comparison of the concepts.

I could compare the reasonableness of believing evolution with the reasonableness of believing the germ theory of disease or quantum mechanics, without comparing the content of the theories. It would be a reference to the same methodology that has established them (science).

 

[SalixIncendium]

On the contrary. It is very proper, even necessary, when we meet a situation of arrogant demand that we "ought to" be believers for no clear reason.

It is very odd and very grave that so many people have come to treat that arrogance as an inherent right. That creates the need to confront them at the same level and put them on their place.

So it's reasonable to confront arrogance with arrogance?

I think that you are being overly optimistic about the situations which motivate those comparisons. They do not involve people nearly that lucid and reasonable.

In all fairness, many a theist - particularly among those who claim to be shocked by the existence of atheists - are in fact quite materialistic and arrogant and won't listen to subtler or more respectful language when confronted.

Please refer to post #12 above.

These comparisons are made without clear motive. Some tend to apply this comparison to any theist based on unrelated situations.

That is sort of the point. We should not tolerate theistic chauvinism.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you implying that having the experience of a god is theistic chauvinism?

Yes. It is certainly reasonable when, for instance, dealing with Christians who attempt to threaten atheists with eternal damnation.

It is not proper to give people much better treatment than they want to receive.

So are you saying here that it is only reasonable for Christians who threaten theists with eternal damnation?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

If the god is comparable, yes. There is a concept termed "divine simplicity" which I suspect does not apply to many mythological conceptions.

 

[Altfish]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

The reason atheists use the analogy is because to them gods are just the same as mythical beasts and creatures. They are man-made entities.
You, obviously, can see evidence for your god's existence; atheists cannot see that evidence or at least dismiss the evidence as not good enough.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If the god is comparable, yes. There is a concept termed "divine simplicity" which I suspect does not apply to many mythological conceptions.

Are you willing to expand on this concept for those that might not be aware of it? I think it would be very helpful for those that read this to become familiar with the concept.

 

[McBell]

So it's reasonable to confront arrogance with arrogance?

Seems to me that that is actually Biblical.
The whole Eye for an eye thing...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Seems to me that that is actually Biblical.
The whole Eye for an eye thing...

So your argument is that atheists must follow Biblical advice?