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

[1213]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.
...Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

Bible tells God is spirit and love. Those other beings are physical creatures. I think they are very different and therefore not comparable.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[SalixIncendium]

Those other beings are physical creatures.

A slight correction. They're mythological creatures.

That aside, I agree they're different and not compatible.

But a couple in this thread have drawn the parallel of lack of objective evidence of existence. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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 point isn't to say you haven't had an experience with god for me it is pointing out the evidence someone gives me for these experiences with a god or bigfoot is the same. I am not comparing god to bigfoot, I am comparing the evidence given for both claims. They say I have seen god or had some kind of experience with god. Same as someone that says they have seen bigfoot or had an experience with bigfoot. The evidence is the same. That is not saying your experience was not real or that god isn't real or even bigfoot isn't real just the evidence is not sufficient for belief.

 

[McBell]

You demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of "The whole Eye for an eye thing..."

Do tell

 

[Orbit]

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?

Just on the face of it, I'd say what those things have in common is that you can't see them, so yes, there's a basis for comparison. But saying there is a common feature does not imply that the underlying concepts are functionally equivalent. That's how I see it anyway, and I'm not hostile towards religion.

 

[Heyo]

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?

Yes and no. Yes, as have multiple poster already said, there is a superficial similarity in that they all lack evidence, no, as Bigfoot, unicorns, leprechauns and Nessie all have a somewhat consistent definition. "God" doesn't. It is a word with many meanings and by that no meaning.
And for using the comparison as an insult, yes, there are times when that is appropriate but I wouldn't open a debate with it.

 

[danieldemol]

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

The obvious parallel is that there is no reliable evidence that could convince someone who hasn't had the same experience that it is a genuine experience of the entity claimed as opposed to a misinterpretation of the facts underlying the experience in my view.

 

[1213]

A slight correction. They're mythological creatures.

Maybe so, but they are allegedly physical beings, which makes them different and something that should be possible to observe the same ways as any other physical being, if real.

But a couple in this thread have drawn the parallel of lack of objective evidence of existence. What are your thoughts on this?

I think Bible and this world and life are objective evidence for Bible God.

 

[viole]

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?

Since they all have the same evidence, then yes. All those beings are ontologically equivalent. There is no rational reason to believe in gods, and not in leprechauns. Or garden fairies. Or the other way round.

And if that sounds offending, I am sorry. Alas, perceived insult does not magically upgrades the ontological status of beings. The same with their purpose, if any. And it is relative. I have good friends in Iceland that are offended when I compare their belief in trolls and elves (many do believe in those in Iceland) with gods and such. They think I am ridiculing their belief in trolls, when I compare it with belief in God, on account of their alleged experience with trolls.

So, all those beliefs are rationally equivalent. And there is no logical fallacy whatsoever involved in this assessment.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

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

Yes,
Why? Lack of evidence.

 

[Viker]

Bigfoot is real, man.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

No, I do not think it is reasonable because, with the possible exception of Bigfoot, there is no evidence that these exist.
However, there is evidence that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bigfoot is real, man.

So is God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a bit late in coming into this discussion but my answer depends upon the theist and it depends upon the God. If the theist has no problem putting their God in the same category or even worse than Big Foot and other cryptocreatures I would have no problem comparing their version of God to those critters. The serious theists I will usually treat with respect. But if you demand that all of the sciences are wrong to defend your God then you asked for it in my opinion.

 

[joelr]

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?

First some people claim an experience with alien abduction and even big foot.

Second the alien abductions are also having an experience and interpreting it in that way. You have had an experience and you are interpreting it as God. One problem, many people claim experiences with their god told them they were in the one true correct religion. I've heard Hindu, Muslim, Mormon and JW say this. So this raises doubt that you are experiencing something external and simply applying a pre-held belief to a strange experience. Or a mystical experience.

God also has form in stories, he wrestled Jacob and appeared as a human. There are many sightings of Yahweh in the OT describing body parts.

Then, as Greek philosophy becomes popular suddenly God is formless and all these modern concepts. Sounds more like syncretism. If you were in Israel 1000 BCE you would be looking for Yahweh in a chariot over the desert. Now it's a different idea. Cultural.

So this is no different than any supernatural claim and experience. Paul saw a vision, not much different than a fairie sighting in a culture that takes them serious.

If you have an experience of a god ask for some information to bring back with you, something now unknown to humans but will someday be verified. A mystic in the 1800s could have said "light moves at the same speed, time just slows down the faster we move". Or "the universe is expanding, there are billions of other galaxies, it started in a big bang, big suns collapse in an explosion and form gravitational black holes".

That would be a good start. But that never happened. They always say "everyone is one, love is everything". Sounds like endorphins on overload. Which can happen in mystical experiences. Which gave some mystics Brahman and others Allah. Very different concepts of what god is. Not convincing. So you cannot special plead God experiences over ay other mystical or alien encounter.

 

[joelr]

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?

First some people claim an experience with alien abduction and even big foot.

Second the alien abductions are also having an experience and interpreting it in that way. You have had an experience and you are interpreting it as God. One problem, many people claim experiences with their god told them they were in the one true correct religion. I've heard Hindu, Muslim, Mormon and JW say this. So this raises doubt that you are experiencing something external and simply applying a pre-held belief to a strange experience. Or a mystical experience.

God also has form in stories, he wrestled Jacob and appeared as a human. There are many sightings of Yahweh in the OT describing body parts.

Then, as Greek philosophy becomes popular suddenly God is formless and all these modern concepts. Sounds more like syncretism. If you were in Israel 1000 BCE you would be looking for Yahweh in a chariot over the desert. Now it's a different idea. Cultural.

So this is no different than any supernatural claim and experience. Paul saw a vision, not much different than a fairie sighting in a culture that takes them serious.

If you have an experience of a god ask for some information to bring back with you, something now unknown to humans but will someday be verified. A mystic in the 1800s could have said "light moves at the same speed, time just slows down the faster we move". Or "the universe is expanding, there are billions of other galaxies, it started in a big bang, big suns collapse in an explosion and form gravitational black holes".

That would be a good start. But that never happened. They always say "everyone is one, love is everything". Sounds like endorphins on overload. Which can happen in mystical experiences. Which gave some mystics Brahman and others Allah. Very different concepts of what god is. Not convincing. So you cannot special plead God experiences over ay other mystical or alien encounter.

 

[osgart]

The Great Nibbanuhitz is watching, and wrote about love therefore is the author of love. How can we deny the Great Nibbanuhitz? Deny the Great Nibbanuhitz at your own peril. You who knows no love must come to the Great Nibbanuhitz. How can anyone deny this most obvious truth? Search your feelings naysayers, you know it to be true.

Quotes from books are proof positive. The evidence is staring you in the face. Therefore whatever is written thou must conform.

If you can reason with followers of The Great Nibbanuhitz than you have performed a great miracle. Reason is mine, thus saith the Great Nibbanuhitz.

 

[SalixIncendium]

One problem, many people claim experiences with their god told them they were in the one true correct religion. I've heard Hindu, Muslim, Mormon and JW say this.

I'm as skeptical about this claim as you are about the claim of experiences of God. Specifically the part where you claim a you've heard a Hindu say this. Given the vast diversity within the religion itself with regard to beliefs, philosophies, and gods, I'm interested in hearing more about the context of the discussion with the Hindu who did. Please share.

If you have an experience of a god ask for some information to bring back with you, something now unknown to humans but will someday be verified. A mystic in the 1800s could have said "light moves at the same speed, time just slows down the faster we move". Or "the universe is expanding, there are billions of other galaxies, it started in a big bang, big suns collapse in an explosion and form gravitational black holes".

How likely are you to accept information brought back that has not yet been verified? Would the 1800s mystic that made that claim have the claim readily accepted by an 1800s atheist, or would they have been dismissed until 1905 when Einstein deduced the formula time dilation?

 

[Stevicus]

If you have an experience of a god ask for some information to bring back with you, something now unknown to humans but will someday be verified. A mystic in the 1800s could have said "light moves at the same speed, time just slows down the faster we move". Or "the universe is expanding, there are billions of other galaxies, it started in a big bang, big suns collapse in an explosion and form gravitational black holes".

That would be a good start. But that never happened. They always say "everyone is one, love is everything". Sounds like endorphins on overload. Which can happen in mystical experiences. Which gave some mystics Brahman and others Allah. Very different concepts of what god is. Not convincing. So you cannot special plead God experiences over ay other mystical or alien encounter.

This is similar to a point I raised a while back in another discussion. If the Book of Genesis had been written more as a scientific text, with equations, graphs, diagrams, etc. outlining how "God created the Heaven and Earth," then it might be more believable. Especially if it uses words and concepts humans have absolutely no way of knowing about at the time.

"Using a primary heisenfram terminal, God caused a rentrillic trajectory by introducing a bilateral kelilactiral. And God saw that it was good."

But instead, as you mentioned, all we get are trite, meaningless platitudes which sound good but say absolutely nothing.

 

[Quintessence]

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

Nope. In fact, whenever I see it tells me the human is pretty darned ignorant about theism, theology and gods just in general. As well as pretty darned ignorant about folklore, storytelling, and narrative meaningfulness just in general. I could elaborate, but it can be difficult for me to do so using kind and polite language.