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

[RestlessSoul]

It’s reasonable to be infantile, if one is an infant. Perhaps we can regard a certain kind of atheist as a spiritual infant?

 

[ratiocinator]

I still can't quite get over the fact that so many people on this thread seem to think that the 'comparison' is about the concepts themselves, rather than the evidence available for them.

Has anybody ever said, without some qualification about evidence or believability, that any god(s) is/are like (in their nature) "Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns"?

I'll happily argue that they're wrong (at least for most god-concepts I'm aware of) if they have.

Perhaps the most apt modern comparison regarding the evidence that is often used by theists (personal experience, witnesses, and so on) is alien abductions. However, I don't think anybody would say that god is like a bunch of aliens that have apparently managed interstellar travel but have nothing better to do than draw pretty patterns in fields, mutilate cattle, and abduct people to stick probes up their bottoms...

 

[ratiocinator]

I still can't quite get over the fact that so many people on this thread seem to think that the 'comparison' is about the concepts themselves, rather than the evidence available for them.

Has anybody ever said, without some qualification about evidence or believability, that any god(s) is/are like (in their nature) "Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns"?

Forgot, and just seen elsewhere, can also be used to illustrate the burden of proof.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe al is fair in love , war and debates.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe a lot of the evidence for bigfoot is based on footprints. Lord know the evidence for evolution can be based on less than that but the fact is God has left footprints also in the form of His words and in the form of His incarnation as Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I used to think the unicorn was someone's imagination until I found God mentioning it in Job.

 

[Quintessence]

I still can't quite get over the fact that so many people on this thread seem to think that the 'comparison' is about the concepts themselves, rather than the evidence available for them.

Which isn't any less stupid.

The most worshiped gods throughout history are literally things like the sun and the moon and the earth. Nature was the gods for most of human history (and still is in many places outside of the classical monotheist Abrahamic morass). So claiming there is no evidence for the gods is basically the same thing as saying there's no evidence for all reality as we know it. Which is catastrophically stupid.

Read Karen Armstrong's "Sacred Nature." It's preachy for my taste, but read it. Get it from your library.

 

[ratiocinator]

The most worshiped gods throughout history are literally things like the sun and the moon and the earth. Nature was the gods for most of human history (and still is in many places outside of the classical monotheist Abrahamic morass). So claiming there is no evidence for the gods is basically the same thing as saying there's no evidence for all reality as we know it. Which is catastrophically stupid.

So when has anybody made the comparison with gods in this sense? The comparison, in my experience, is always between the evidence for unseen 'supernatural' god(s) (mostly the classical monotheistic sense) and the evidence for the things mentioned in the op.

If somebody has said there is a comparison between gods in the sense of the sun or moon or things like that and Bigfoot, etc., then that would indeed be stupid.

I've just never seen it done by anybody anywhere.

 

[Quintessence]

So when has anybody made the comparison with gods in this sense? The comparison, in my experience, is always between the evidence for unseen 'supernatural' god(s) (mostly the classical monotheistic sense) and the evidence for the things mentioned in the op.

If somebody has said there is a comparison between gods in the sense of the sun or moon or things like that and Bigfoot, etc., then that would indeed be stupid.

I've just never seen it done by anybody anywhere.

You've been here since 2017 and basically not attended to my posts? Or those of any other animists, polytheists, pantheists, ancestor worshipers, or... well... basically anyone who isn't a classical monotheist? Here or elsewhere?

If so I wouldn't be surprised. @SalixIncendium has been doing a series of threads showcasing the issue of theological ignorance for a while now, this thread being another in that trend. Basically, dialogues about theology and religion are so centered around Protestant Christianity and classical monotheism that everything else is overlooked and ignored. I get it, I grew up in that Abrahamic monotheist cultural hegemony and did it too for a good solid decade and change. But as someone who broke out of that cage two decades ago now I get more than a little frustrated that in this global, multicultural society we're still talking about gods like it only refers to what Christians, Jews, or Muslims have to say about the matter. Or worse, creating strawperson caricatures of even those theological traditions that pretend that mythological literalism is all there is to their theology too.

 

[danieldemol]

The most worshiped gods throughout history are literally things like the sun and the moon and the earth. Nature was the gods for most of human history (and still is in many places outside of the classical monotheist Abrahamic morass). So claiming there is no evidence for the gods is basically the same thing as saying there's no evidence for all reality as we know it. Which is catastrophically stupid.

It depends on what you mean, saying there is no evidence for thunder would be stupid, saying there is no evidence for thunder being the product of Thor swinging his mighty hammer would not be in my view.

 

[joelr]

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.

I hear this about Krishna often. My experience was a GF who claimed similar experiences with Lord Krishna as Christians do with Jesus. I was surprised but there it is. She told me young women sometimes want to marry Krishna. She was in the Us but moved from India and did classical Indian dance.
There is no need for details. It's on Quora as well, similar attitudes.

"Lord Krishna clearly states that we must give up all other so-called conceptions about religion and just surrender unto Him. We simply need to take to this one consciousness. How to practically follow that? This is explained just in the previous verse


man-manā bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru
mām evaiṣyasi satyaṁ te
pratijāne priyo ’si me

“Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.” [BhG 18.65]"

What is True Religion According to Bhagavad Gita?

What is True Religion According to Bhagavad Gita? - What is religion? Is it simply faith? To understand what is true religion, let us talk about what is religion. The English word religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may...

learngitalivegita.com

Quora -
Does Lord Krishna think of me when I think about him?

Hare Krishna! Of course Krishna thinks of you when you think of Him!

(ye yatha mam prapadyante ~ He reciprocates accordingly)

Infact He thinks of you every time. Even when you don't think about Him, He thinks, how to make you happy! How to bring you back to your eternal home! How to make you turn your head towards Him again, so that you and Him can enjoy a beautiful eternal love story together

He is always thinking, how to save you, how to protect you! How to love you, so that you always stay with Him and never leave Him!

Remember Krishna is a very possessive lover! Once you do a little bit of service for Him, even just think of Him lovingly, just once, He becomes so attracted that He is ready to move hell and heaven to get to you! Where can you find such love! Its said that if you take one step towards Krishna, He will take hundreds of steps towards you!

So please keep thinking about Krishna, keep loving Him! And keep getting His love!


I has a friend in Islam and she 100% told me Allah tells her in her heart she is in the correct religion.


Krishna is a personal deity who is believed to grant wishes and do favors, these people are not seeing Krishna as some mystical metaphor or some Western new age version.

What are your best experiences with Lord Krishna? Have you seen them or feel them?

Answer (1 of 9): Well this is my first time writing on quora , please ignore my mistakes As I read the question i felt an unusual throb in my heart , i remember I went to mayapur chandrodaya mandir . I wore jeans and top ( i didn’t know it was restricted) which was against the rule so mandir k...

www.quora.com

Krishna works in miraculous ways, Real life Experience from a devotee

groups.google.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/pigk7t


But aside from all this. The gurus and experts on Hinduism explain Brahman in a different way that Yahweh is explained, quite different. I listen to the NY school of Vedanta, Swami Sarvapriyananda, nice guy, well spoken.

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?

That has nothing to do with the evidence we already have.
The Epistles, Bible, Quran, Mormon Bible, Sai Baba, Bahai, just a few people who claim revelations and even wrote them down in detail.
The authors of the Hindu scriptures as well. There is no deity giving information humans don't already have.
Bahai gave some science in fact, it was all incorrect. He prophecized we will never find the missing link among many failed predictions or obvious predictions like "war is coming".
He said cancer will be found to be communicable and alchemy will become a thing. The Quran has science. Every single thing was discovered by the Greeks centuries earlier. The Arab nation was very interested in Greek knowledge before the Quran was composed. They were taking Greek books from libraries in Catholic Churches, or basements. The church held on to Greek knowledge. So we have a method of transmission.
Every time we get a claim, Conversations With God, he sold books, nothing new there, doesn't matter, pick one? The things I said could have been said by any of those prophets who had a large platform. God would have known it was going to be popular.

Bahai wrote many science claims that we would "find out". He had the perfect chance to say anything? We are all made of atoms. A center particle and an orbit. Exists as a wave until observed and then localizes to a smaller tight wave. The 20 digits at the trillionth decimal place of pi/e/i/......is..........Energy and mass are equivalent.

 

[joelr]

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.

Right. And sound quite similar to the far older Mesopotamian creation/flood stories. And the God is just like all the others nearby, even fights the same sea monster and seems to be a lower deity in a pantheon ruled by EL, which even showed up in the name of the nation?

 

[Quintessence]

It depends on what you mean, saying there is no evidence for thunder would be stupid, saying there is no evidence for thunder being the product of Thor swinging his mighty hammer would not be in my view.

Western culture these days is broadly ignorant or confused about the distinction between mythos and logos. If it wasn't, this would not be an issue. Thor is thunder. The gods are nature. The cleaving of the gods from nature is relatively modern, and not even globally prevalent today.

"We will see that the people in early civilizations did not experience the power that governed the cosmos as a supernatural, distant and distinct "God." It was rather an intrinsic presence that they, like the nineteenth-century shaman, experienced in ritual and contemplation - a force imbuing all things..."​

--- Introduction pp 11 of "Sacred Nature" by Karen Armstrong​

​

This is really hard for modern Western culture to wrap its head around. Some scholars have made the case that divorcing the gods from nature and seeing god as a purely distant phenomena, coupled with the vision of a mechanical and impersonal clockwork universe that was powerfully influential a century or two later, is at the root of our species present environmental crisis. I'm not sure I agree - I think it's more complicated than that - but just speaking personally the fact that I don't deny the divinity of the world around me absolutely changes those relationships. Instead of seeing a world full of "things" I see a world full of gods. A world that is profoundly magical, wonderful, awesome, and greater. A world worth celebrating, enjoying, and respecting.

 

[danieldemol]

Western culture these days is broadly ignorant or confused about the distinction between mythos and logos. If it wasn't, this would not be an issue. Thor is thunder. The gods are nature. The cleaving of the gods from nature is relatively modern, and not even globally prevalent today.

"We will see that the people in early civilizations did not experience the power that governed the cosmos as a supernatural, distant and distinct "God." It was rather an intrinsic presence that they, like the nineteenth-century shaman, experienced in ritual and contemplation - a force imbuing all things..."​

--- Introduction pp 11 of "Sacred Nature" by Karen Armstrong​

Well the Wikipedia article on Thor would seem misleading then.
It states;
'In Norse mythology, he is a hammer-wielding god associated with lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of humankind, hallowing, and fertility.'

So again we have evidence for lightning, not for a hammer weilding male associated with those things who has any influence at all upon fertility as far as I'm aware.


" Instead of seeing a world full of "things" I see a world full of gods. A world that is profoundly magical, wonderful, awesome, and greater. A world worth celebrating, enjoying, and respecting. "

I see a world full of things, and although I dont see those things as magical I still see it as wonderful and awesome, as well as being worth celebrating enjoying and respecting.

 

[ratiocinator]

You've been here since 2017...

On and off.

...and basically not attended to my posts? Or those of any other animists, polytheists, pantheists, ancestor worshipers, or... well... basically anyone who isn't a classical monotheist? Here or elsewhere?

I tend to concentrate on debate posts and on posts I think I have something relevant to add to, which is usually when people make claims of objective evidence and/or about science.

And you didn't actually answer my question as to whether the comparison referred to happens in the context of the sort of gods you referred to.

 

[LuisDantas]

It’s reasonable to be infantile, if one is an infant. Perhaps we can regard a certain kind of atheist as a spiritual infant?

Or rather, as speaking in the form that is understood by those?

 

[ppp]

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...

Are there really such atheists? (At least in the context that you are speaking. Because I acknowledge there are certainly atheists who believe that such beings exist.) However, when I bring such things up, I am not comparing god to fairies. I am comparing human mentation in one circumstance to human mentation in another. And I am pointing out the the lack of reliability in the methods for coming to a conclusion in ancient theisms do not improve for my interlocutor just because they live in the here and the now.

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

I find the the sense of insult to be a tactic to avoid facing and candidly dealing with the apt comparison of reasonings between the different believers. It is special pleading.

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

We are not comparing entities. We are comparing claims and methodologies for knowing.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

When they failed to give any positive " Evidence" for their own ism/s, they used to see Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns or Flying Kettle in the air, but it is a thing of the past, now, they have reformed, right?
It was a sort of their rhetoric, right?

Regards

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are there really such atheists? (At least in the context that you are speaking. Because I acknowledge there are certainly atheists who believe that such beings exist.) However, when I bring such things up, I am not comparing god to fairies. I am comparing human mentation in one circumstance to human mentation in another. And I am pointing out the the lack of reliability in the methods for coming to a conclusion in ancient theisms do not improve for my interlocutor just because they live in the here and the now.

We are not comparing entities. We are comparing claims and methodologies for knowing.

Not all claims are identical. While I get that this tactic might be fair game for someone who claims the existence of a god based solely on what they've read, but there are those who claim to have had experiences of a god first hand. Do you think personal experience is a good methodology for knowing?

I find the the sense of insult to be a tactic to avoid facing and candidly dealing with the apt comparison of reasonings between the different believers. It is special pleading.

What reason would I, one who has not experienced a god nor makes any claims about any gods, perceive such a comment to be insulting to one who has? Is empathy special pleading?

 

[vulcanlogician]

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 theist's conception of God is often well-developed. Whereas an atheist is looking more at the brute force truth-value of a claim. Both approaches are valid.

You can't fault the atheist for bringing in examples of other "mythical" beings (like fairies and such) because they are asking for evidence that such entities exist. The say-so of some tale or legend does not qualify as evidence in their eyes, nor should it. So, the example of fairies or Bigfoot is apt. The problem isn't atheists making misleading metaphors. It's theists claiming that written legend is valid support for a thing.