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

[Debater Slayer]

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?

I think it depends on the context of the comparison, the concept of god in question, and the criteria against which the two are being compared, but generally, I don't think it's reasonable except in highly limited contexts. Those include when someone tries to preach their beliefs to others and makes an argument such as, "There have been many stories about [insert specific supernatural deity concept here], so it must be real." Basically, if an argument used to assert the existence of a specific deity to a non-believer could equally be applied to a cryptid or other non-existent creature, highlighting that could be useful in some contexts, and I don't think it has to be done in an insulting manner (which also depends on reading the room and being aware of other people's sensibilities).

On the other hand, I find the comparison pointless and misplaced in most contexts because god concepts and most people's reasons for believing in them are often heavily intertwined with culture, history, peer and other social dynamics (e.g., growing up in a monotheistic or pantheistic culture), and material conditions such as education and economics, which they have variously influenced (and vice versa) throughout history. This rarely applies to Bigfoot or fairies, at least nowadays, and even when it does, the scope of the influence isn't remotely comparable to that of the numerous god concepts that have helped to shape different cultures and their ethos throughout history, up to and including the present day.

 

[joelr]

P

Of course there is the catchall phrase of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns and Spaghetti Monster because they really don’t care and don’t really want to delve deeper. Perhaps because they won’t like what they would see in themselves if they looked? Perhaps because they love darkness more than having their lives in the light? Perhaps because of horrible things that have happened in their lives and they blame God by denying HIs existence?

As a wise man said, “

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?​

Have you dug? I haven't heard any historical knowledge from you either? Why so judge-y?
I just read Professor of Hebrew Bible Francesca Stavrakopoulou's excellent new book on early Yahweh and how it compares to surrounding deities from the earlier thousand years (he's the same).
Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted which covers the historical consensus on NT/Jesus history and how people come out of seminary schools to be church leaders and never again talk about the historical facts and inconsistencies in scripture. He's given lectures at churches and had many people come up to him asking "why wasn't I told this stuff in church?".
Now Dr James Tabor lectures on youtube who has work explaining the Hellenistic theology and how the NT is 100% adopted from Hellenism (mixed with Judaism) and how we know.

I dislike the darkness, I would like to be enlightened. So I am continuing to learn information. Are you?
Horrible things have happened, because horrible things happen to everyone. We all have parents for one, they get old. I don't blame any gods. It would be like blaming Zeus. Why would I blame a character in a myth? Or a modern idea about God compiled from Platonic philosophy? When Hellenism came up with the idea that we are all divine souls that are fallen on earth and must be redeemed through a savior demigod to enter the afterlife, it was fiction. It probably didn't become true when the NT writers borrowed it.

And I've been listening to Dale Allison interviews who is a historian but mainly a NT scholar, and is a believer and I listen to his reasons for belief. He is liberal and fully accepts mainstream Christian scholarship about the Gospels being re-writes of Mark, at least Matthew and Luke, anonymous, non-eyewitness and so on. But he is a Christian and possibly the most respected NT scholar. So I had to hear his reasoning.

​

But your arguments against non-believers is super cliche apologetics? Do you deny evolution because "we did not come from monkees" as well? Why would you want to make such terrible generalizations? Generally it means you don't have an argument.

You are talking about Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns and Spaghetti Monster as if you know the cultural history and history of all of them in all belief systems. Do you know it about your own religion? You can read Jesus Interrupted for free online. By one of the most respected NT historians. Dr Tabors videos are also free.

But you just gave a laundry list of thoughts you say is in others minds.
THEN, post this:

As a wise man said, “

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?​

Well, wise man, apparently Kenny also knows, and he will tell you what your thoughts are if you don't share his beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

Do I interpret your response correctly when I think you say that it is OK to make the comparison between mythical creatures and gods and to mock believers for their irrational beliefs?

Hmmm…. that is an interesting question that gave me pause to think. Wording is important and what is or isn’t OK wasn’t the heart of what I wrote.

I would say it is expected to be mocked. In light of my signature, I would say it is rather expected not whether it is rok. “Irrational beliefs” is generally a matter of perspective but not to say there aren’t irrational beliefs.

I don’t think mocking anyone is morally correct whether one is an atheist or a believer in a Creator.

 

[Koldo]

I think it depends on the context of the comparison, the concept of god in question, and the criteria against which the two are being compared, but generally, I don't think it's reasonable except in highly limited contexts. Those include when someone tries to preach their beliefs to others and makes an argument such as, "There have been many stories about [insert specific supernatural deity concept here], so it must be real." Basically, if an argument used to assert the existence of a specific deity to a non-believer could equally be applied to a cryptid or other non-existent creature, highlighting that could be useful in some contexts, and I don't think it has to be done in an insulting manner (which also depends on reading the room and being aware of other people's sensibilities).

On the other hand, I find the comparison pointless and misplaced in most contexts because god concepts and most people's reasons for believing in them are often heavily intertwined with culture, history, peer and other social dynamics (e.g., growing up in a monotheistic or pantheistic culture), and material conditions such as education and economics, which they have variously influenced (and vice versa) throughout history. This rarely applies to Bigfoot or fairies, at least nowadays, and even when it does, the scope of the influence isn't remotely comparable to that of the numerous god concepts that have helped to shape different cultures and their ethos throughout history, up to and including the present day.

How is the belief (or the lack of) in fairies and leprechauns not interwined with culture, history, peer and other social dynamics?

Why would the scope of influence be taken into consideration when that is completely besides the point whenever those comparisons are made?

 

[Kenny]

I’m not sure why such an adverse reaction towards a simple answer to the poster

Have you dug?

Yes and continue to do so.

I haven't heard any historical knowledge from you either?

I’m not sure how this applies to the post. Are you asking for a certain historical knowledge?

Why so judge-y?

I’m sorry it came across that way. Certainly wasn’t attempting to do so.

I just read Professor of Hebrew Bible Francesca Stavrakopoulou's excellent new book on early Yahweh and how it compares to surrounding deities from the earlier thousand years (he's the same).

I’m not sure how this applies to the post. YAHWEH, according to my signature, was from the beginning. It would stand to logic that it would have some semblance in all religions (in lieu of my signature)

Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted which covers the historical consensus on NT/Jesus history and how people come out of seminary schools to be church leaders and never again talk about the historical facts and inconsistencies in scripture. He's given lectures at churches and had many people come up to him asking "why wasn't I told this stuff in church?".

I’m sorry… not sure of the relevance. Another subject and thread?

Now Dr James Tabor lectures on youtube who has work explaining the Hellenistic theology and how the NT is 100% adopted from Hellenism (mixed with Judaism) and how we know.

I find that to be opinions and personal interpretations.

I dislike the darkness, I would like to be enlightened.

So beautiful. I pray that God would indeed shine His light on you. We (Christians) understand He is the light of the world and there is no darkness in Him.

So I am continuing to learn information. Are you?

Absolutely!

I didn’t continue to answer the rest of your post as it was too long and would take too many posts to answer. Can we try to keep it shorter in scope?

 

[PureX]

Let's clear a few things up, here. Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns all exist, and there is a mountain of evidence to prove it.

1. They all exist as specific universally recognized ideas. When I post any of the above word-labels on your screen, everyone one of you knows quite precisely what idea the labels are referring to. And the fact that we can discuss in writing them proves it.

2. They all exist as a universally recognized visual image. Not only will the idea of the labeled entity come into all of our minds when I post one of these word-labels, but so will a common image for each of them. As we all know what the entity being referred to looks like.

3. They all exist PHYSICALLY. There are millions of physical objects all around the world that when pointed to and asked "what is that", the reply will be that it's one of the above labeled entities (Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, or leprechauns). In fact, I could go into my local Dollar Store right now and likely find a couple toy or decorative objects bearing these same labels.

ALL of these idealized entities exist, and there is an enormous mountain of "objective evidence" to prove that they exist. So all of you that are mindlessly repeating the mantra that these entities don't exist because there is no evidence of their existing are completely and objectively wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you are almost certainly going to continue to fight, willfully, to maintain being completely and objectively wrong.

So understanding this, the assertion that using these entities as an equivalent 'stand-in' for God because they don't exist and there is no evidence of them existing is just patently false, and quite stupid. And anyone that continues to do this after reading this is now doing so willfully.

The existence of God is not even a legitimate question. Clearly God exists, and has existed universally for all humanity throughout all of human history. And there is an enormous amount of evidence to prove it. The issue, is in the fact that we do not all conceptualize God in the same ways, and so we do not experience God's 'existence' in the same ways. And that drives some of us to presume that other people's 'God entity' does not exist while the others, of course, experience and understand that it does exist.

The debate is not a debate over the existence of God. That's already a given. It's a debate over how we conceive/perceive, and therefor how we experience and understand the God idea. THAT, we do not all agree on.

 

[Heyo]

Hmmm…. that is an interesting question that gave me pause to think. Wording is important and what is or isn’t OK wasn’t the heart of what I wrote.

Oh, so it was intentionally that you didn't answer the question? And I thought I just didn't get the context.
The thing that brought me to my conclusion was

Of course there is the catchall phrase of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns and Spaghetti Monster

You listed the FSM, which is supposed to be a god, on par with YHVH, together with fairies and unicorns. So it must be OK.

 

[MikeF]

Let's clear a few things us, here. Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns all exist, and there is a mountain of evidence to prove it.

1. They all exist as specific universally recognized ideas. When I post any of the above word-labels on your screen, everyone one of you knows quite precisely what idea the labels are referring to. And the fact that we can discuss in writing them proves it.

2. They all exist as a universally recognized visual image. Not only will the idea of the labeled entity come into all of our minds when I post one of these word-labels, but so will a common image for each of them. As we all know what the entity being referred to looks like.

3. They all exist PHYSICALLY. There are millions of physical objects all around the world that when pointed to and asked "what is that", the reply will be that it's one of the above labeled entities (Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, or leprechauns). In fact, I could go into my local Dollar Store right now and likely find a couple toy or decorative objects bearing these same labels.

ALL of these idealized entities exist, and there is an enormous mountain of "objective evidence" to prove that they exist. So all of you that are mindlessly repeating the mantra that these entities don't exist because there is no evidence of their existing are completely and objectively wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you are almost certainly going to continue to fight, willfully, to maintain being completely and objectively wrong.

So understanding this, the assertion that using these entities as an equivalent 'stand-in' for God because they don't exist and there is no evidence of them existing is just patently false, and quite stupid. And anyone that continues to do this after reading this is now doing so willfully.

The existence of God is not even a legitimate question. Clearly God exists, and has existed universally for all humanity throughout all of human history. And there is an enormous amount of evidence to prove it. The issue, is in the fact that we do not all conceptualize God in the same ways, and so we do not experience God's 'existence' in the same ways. And that drives some of us to presume that other people's 'God entity' does not exist while the others, of course, experience and understand that it does exist.

The debate is not a debate over the existence of God. That's already a given. It's a debate over how we conceive/perceive, and therefor how we experience and understand the God idea. THAT, we do not all agree on.

That is exactly the point. The whole category of entities constitutes myth. They exist in the exact same way Harry Potter, the fictional protagonist of the same titled book series exists, including the physical doll that can be found at your local Dollar Store. All those words and pictures and dolls are abstract representations of a fictional thing, representing and pointing to a fiction. Harry Potter does not exist in the same way that I factually exist in the world. My name, spoken or written, my photograph, or simply pointing to me are all abstractions that are meant to indicate a non-fictional entity, myself, composed of mass/energy with spatio-temporal extension. This is an important distinction that can and should be recognized and acknowledged. If a fiction is said to exist in the same way that I exist, those fictions are categorized as myth.

This, then, is what the debate is about. Is the entity in question a fiction, which we categorize as myth if the fiction is incorrectly held to be real, or is it factually real in the way any phenomena or event involving mass/energy and spatio-temporal extension is said to be real?

 

[Koldo]

Let's clear a few things us, here. Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns all exist, and there is a mountain of evidence to prove it.

1. They all exist as specific universally recognized ideas. When I post any of the above word-labels on your screen, everyone one of you knows quite precisely what idea the labels are referring to. And the fact that we can discuss in writing them proves it.

2. They all exist as a universally recognized visual image. Not only will the idea of the labeled entity come into all of our minds when I post one of these word-labels, but so will a common image for each of them. As we all know what the entity being referred to looks like.

3. They all exist PHYSICALLY. There are millions of physical objects all around the world that when pointed to and asked "what is that", the reply will be that it's one of the above labeled entities (Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, or leprechauns). In fact, I could go into my local Dollar Store right now and likely find a couple toy or decorative objects bearing these same labels.

ALL of these idealized entities exist, and there is an enormous mountain of "objective evidence" to prove that they exist. So all of you that are mindlessly repeating the mantra that these entities don't exist because there is no evidence of their existing are completely and objectively wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you are almost certainly going to continue to fight, willfully, to maintain being completely and objectively wrong.

So understanding this, the assertion that using these entities as an equivalent 'stand-in' for God because they don't exist and there is no evidence of them existing is just patently false, and quite stupid. And anyone that continues to do this after reading this is now doing so willfully.

The existence of God is not even a legitimate question. Clearly God exists, and has existed universally for all humanity throughout all of human history. And there is an enormous amount of evidence to prove it. The issue, is in the fact that we do not all conceptualize God in the same ways, and so we do not experience God's 'existence' in the same ways. And that drives some of us to presume that other people's 'God entity' does not exist while the others, of course, experience and understand that it does exist.

The debate is not a debate over the existence of God. That's already a given. It's a debate over how we conceive/perceive, and therefor how we experience and understand the God idea. THAT, we do not all agree on.

What you are calling existence is what neither theists nor atheists in general are talking about when they use the term. You can't join the debate and expect others to adopt your usage of the terminology just because. That's not how it works. You don't have this authority.

Just accept that fact and move on.

 

[PureX]

That is exactly the point. The whole category of entities constitutes myth.

I am a big fan of Billie Eilish. But she is a "mythic" person, to me, as I don't actually know he at all.

Your assertion, here, I think, is that "myths aren't real". But of course they are real. And the evidence for that is everywhere. And much of what I 'believe' about Billie Eilish might be completely accurate. Or it might not be. And I will probably never know because I will probably never meet Billie Eilish and even if I did, what would that really tell me?

When we try to dismiss the ideas and images that we hold about the things we experience in the world as being "unreal" and therefor of no "real" concequence we are being very stupid and very foolish. Because it's excatly what and how we think about the world that is of the greatest importance, and consequence, to ourselves and each other.

They exist in the exact same way Harry Potter, ...

No, none of them exist in "the exact same way". That's the point. Their importance is in their specific ways of existing. In the specific ideas and images they encompass. And in the fact that these have developed into a universally recognized and cohesive ideal.

This, then, is what the debate is about. Is the entity in question a fiction we categorize as myth or is it factually real?

That is a completely pointless and meaningless "debate" because fiction is reality, too. Why is this so damned hard for so many people to understand???

 

[paarsurrey]

Now Dr James Tabor lectures on youtube who has work explaining the Hellenistic theology and how the NT is 100% adopted from Hellenism (mixed with Judaism) and how we know.

You mean these ones?:

How Paul Created Christianity--His [Mis]Appropriation of Four Hebrew Bible Texts

James Tabor

Dead Messiahs who don't return.

Right?

Regards

 

[ratiocinator]

That is a completely pointless and meaningless "debate" because fiction is reality, too. Why is this so damned hard for so many people to understand???

Because you're being rather silly, perhaps?

Come on, everybody understands the difference between fiction and reality. If you use a fictional CV to get a job and they find out, do you think it would all be okay because 'fiction is real too'? Really?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's clear a few things us, here. Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns all exist, and there is a mountain of evidence to prove it.

1. They all exist as specific universally recognized ideas. When I post any of the above word-labels on your screen, everyone one of you knows quite precisely what idea the labels are referring to. And the fact that we can discuss in writing them proves it.

2. They all exist as a universally recognized visual image. Not only will the idea of the labeled entity come into all of our minds when I post one of these word-labels, but so will a common image for each of them. As we all know what the entity being referred to looks like.

3. They all exist PHYSICALLY. There are millions of physical objects all around the world that when pointed to and asked "what is that", the reply will be that it's one of the above labeled entities (Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, or leprechauns). In fact, I could go into my local Dollar Store right now and likely find a couple toy or decorative objects bearing these same labels.

ALL of these idealized entities exist, and there is an enormous mountain of "objective evidence" to prove that they exist. So all of you that are mindlessly repeating the mantra that these entities don't exist because there is no evidence of their existing are completely and objectively wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you are almost certainly going to continue to fight, willfully, to maintain being completely and objectively wrong.

So understanding this, the assertion that using these entities as an equivalent 'stand-in' for God because they don't exist and there is no evidence of them existing is just patently false, and quite stupid. And anyone that continues to do this after reading this is now doing so willfully.

The existence of God is not even a legitimate question. Clearly God exists, and has existed universally for all humanity throughout all of human history. And there is an enormous amount of evidence to prove it. The issue, is in the fact that we do not all conceptualize God in the same ways, and so we do not experience God's 'existence' in the same ways. And that drives some of us to presume that other people's 'God entity' does not exist while the others, of course, experience and understand that it does exist.

The debate is not a debate over the existence of God. That's already a given. It's a debate over how we conceive/perceive, and therefor how we experience and understand the God idea. THAT, we do not all agree on.

As @MikeF and @Koldo both point out, you are trying to reify fictional characters, and to then pretend that these newly minted "entities" can be compared to God. For many of us, this is simply not so, for we have seen no more of the "evidence" for this God you claim "clearly exists" than for any of the other fictional entities.

 

[PureX]

Because you're being rather silly, perhaps?

Come on, everybody understands the difference between fiction and reality. If you use a fictional CV to get a job and they find out, do you think it would all be okay because 'fiction is real too'? Really?

So you just presume that 'fiction' means 'deception'?

 

[Koldo]

So you just presume that 'fiction' means 'deception'?

If fiction is real, a fictional CV represents reality. And therefore there is no deception.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you just presume that 'fiction' means 'deception'?

If you present fiction as reality, that is deception. That's why saying "fiction is reality, too" is either trite and irrelevant to the point (everybody knows that the stories and concepts exist) or utterly absurd (a fictional entity is not the same as a real one).

Nobody is in the least bit interested in whether the god-concepts or stories exist in as concepts and stories (we all know they do), they are interested in whether or not the stories are about real entities or not.

 

[MikeF]

I am a big fan of Billie Eilish. But she is a "mythic" person, to me, as I don't actually know he at all.

I think you are being purposefully disingenuous here. Didn't we just have a discussion on thinking critically? We can and should make a distinction between the objective reality that constitutes the grouping of atoms labeled "Billie Eilish" and any fiction that may be imagined regarding her.

Your assertion, here, I think, is that "myths aren't real". But of course they are real.

No, that is not what is being asserted. It is a matter of asserting what they are, and consequently what they then are not. An atom of the element carbon exists, but in that configuration of mass/energy it is not an atom of the element boron or lead. It is appropriate and reasonable to make such distinctions. In the same way, it is more than appropriate to distinguish between the manner in which I exist in the real world and the manner in which Harry Potter, the fictional storybook character, exists in the real world.

You are fighting against anyone's attempt to make such distinctions. Why might that be? What purpose does it serve?

When we try to dismiss the ideas and images that we hold about the things we experience in the world as being "unreal" and therefor of no "real" concequence we are being very stupid and very foolish. Because it's excatly what and how we think about the world that is of the greatest importance, and consequence, to ourselves and each other.

Here it is then. The source of your fear and why you vehemently oppose demarcation. You are afraid to loose the effect on behavior that might be achieved when a fiction is held to be real. In essence, you are expressly advocating self-deception.

I am not convinced that self-deception on the nature of pure abstraction is required for pure abstractions to be useful. We can create and use purely abstract constructs and fully acknowledge them as such. Examples would include monetary concepts, political constructs, ethics, laws and regulations, etc.

You will have to prove to me that there are conditions that necessarily require the self-deception of treating an abstraction pointing to a fiction as to instead be pointing to a non-fictional phenomena or event. Not sure how that would be done as it obviously acknowledges the self-deception. Seems like we would be wading deep into "Double Think" territory as described in George Orwell's book "1984".

No, none of them exist in "the exact same way". That's the point. Their importance is in their specific ways of existing. In the specific ideas and images they encompass. And in the fact that these have developed into a universally recognized and cohesive ideal.

<sigh> Doesn't mean we can't recognize and acknowledge that they are purely abstract constructs, and not abstractions referencing phenomena or events independent of or from abstraction.

That is a completely pointless and meaningless "debate" because fiction is reality, too. Why is this so damned hard for so many people to understand???

The debate has purpose and meaning to me and many others, as we are not debating the reality of fiction, simply acknowledging it as fiction and not the ways in which it may be misrepresented.

 

[PureX]

If fiction is real, a fictional CV represents reality. And therefore there is no deception.

But a "representation" of something is not the thing it represents. It's a thing unto itself. Both are real, but they are not equivalent. And if we don't recognize this, and we presume the representation to be the equivalent of the thing it's meant to represent, who's fault is that? We have deceived ourselves.

Religions are full of God 'representations'. But the representations are not the thing they are meant to represent. And if we ignore this difference, we only deceive ourselves. And this happens all the time with both theists AND atheists.

 

[Koldo]

But a "representation" of something is not the thing it represents. It's a thing unto itself. Both are real, but they are not equivalent. And if we don't recognize this, and we presume the representation to be the equivalent of the thing it's meant to represent, who's fault is that? We have deceived ourselves.

Religions are full of God 'representations'. But the representations are not the thing they are meant to represent. And if we ignore this difference, we only deceive ourselves. And this happens all the time with both theists AND atheists.

How does this relate to my former post exactly?

 

[PureX]

If you present fiction as reality, that is deception.

If we can't or won't diffentiate between a representation and the thing it's meant to represent, we deceive ourselves.