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

[MikeF]

I can't jive with a violent, jealous, impulsive and vindictive deity, so I will choose the positive messages over the often contradictory negative ones.

Got it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Got it.

I don't want to chuck it all.

 

[MikeF]

I don't want to chuck it all.

Understood. I don't think you are alone in that.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

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

[respectfully snipped some of this quote to emphasize the question below]

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

No, I don't think it's reasonable to compare other people's sacred deities to the Lucky Charms Leprechaun, Keebler Cookie Elves, Tinkerbell, etc.

An accepted definition of "reasonable" is: "sensible and fair." While it may seem sensible to some atheists to view the sacred deities of others as being on the same level as droll creatures popularized in our culture, one should ask oneself whether doing so is also fair.

And what does it mean to be "fair"? If you are among those who believe that treating others with fairness means treating them with respect and without discrimination, then you won't be inclined to offend their religious beliefs (provided, of course, that their beliefs don't call for them to do you any harm).

I believe in one God, which is of course just one god more than an atheist believes in. But even though it is not in my nature to believe in the existence of multiple gods, it is also not in my nature to mock the beliefs of adherents of Hinduism, or adherents of traditional (pre-European) African and Polynesian religions, or adherents of any other polytheist religion that share this world in which we live together.

I gain nothing by treating people of other religions with disrespect. Additionally, by treating others with the same respect with which I would hope to be treated, I may gain a few friends. That, to me, is sensible and fair, and therefore highly reasonable.

 

[MikeF]

No, I don't think it's reasonable to compare other people's sacred deities to the Lucky Charms Leprechaun, Keebler Cookie Elves, Tinkerbell, etc.

Ahh. You've made some changes here. You have switched out Leprechaun's and fairies of folklore with their coopted caricatures used in advertising or kids movies. I think that was intentional on your part to make the comparisons absurd in a way not present in the OP's comparison.

An accepted definition of "reasonable" is: "sensible and fair." While it may seem sensible to some atheists to view the sacred deities of others as being on the same level as droll creatures popularized in our culture, one should ask oneself whether doing so is also fair.

And what does it mean to be "fair"? If you are among those who believe that treating others with fairness means treating them with respect and without discrimination, then you won't be inclined to offend their religious beliefs (provided, of course, that their beliefs don't call for them to do you any harm).

I believe in one God, which is of course just one god more than an atheist believes in. But even though it is not in my nature to believe in the existence of multiple gods, it is also not in my nature to mock the beliefs of adherents of Hinduism, or adherents of traditional (pre-European) African and Polynesian religions, or adherents of any other polytheist religion that share this world in which we live together.

I gain nothing by treating people of other religions with disrespect. Additionally, by treating others with the same respect with which I would hope to be treated, I may gain a few friends. That, to me, is sensible and fair, and therefore highly reasonable.

I will ask for your advice. In a free and voluntary academic discussion between two philosophy professors, one arguing the case that the entity depicted in the Christian Bible actually exists and the other arguing the opposite view, that it does not exist, how should the one arguing against the existence of the entity make the case so as not to offend the one who is advocating the entity's existence? Which analogies demonstrating fictional things believed in but acknowledged as fictional by both professors would be appropriate so as to not come across as offensive?

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Ahh. You've made some changes here. You have switched out Leprechaun's and fairies of folklore with their coopted caricatures used in advertising or kids movies. I think that was intentional on your part to make the comparisons absurd in a way not present in the OP's comparison.

Busted! LOL

I made the changes because I have a fondness for the Lucky Charms Leprechaun, the Keebler Cookie Elves, and Tinkerbell as being iconic representations of our modern society.

I will ask for your advice. In a free and voluntary academic discussion between two philosophy professors, one arguing the case that the entity depicted in the Christian Bible actually exists and the other arguing the opposite view, that it does not exist, how should the one arguing against the existence of the entity make the case so as not to offend the one who is advocating the entity's existence? Which analogies demonstrating fictional things believed in but acknowledged as fictional by both professors would be appropriate so as to not come across as offensive?

I'm neither an academic philosopher nor someone invested in either proving or disproving "the existence of the entity depicted in the Christian Bible," so I have no need or interest in using any such analogies. I barely understand this need that's present in some other people.

How the entity is depicted in the Christian Bible bears no significance in my own life (I am Jewish). And, if I were atheist, I should think that how the entity is depicted in the Christian Bible would still bear no significance in my own life.

 

[McBell]

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

Do tell

Yeah, I did not expect it to happen...

 

[Koldo]

It's hard not to cherry pick when there are many different messages in it.

As in contradictory messages? If you can't find a reasonable way to concile them, all the more reason to put away the whole thing.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As in contradictory messages? If you can't find a reasonable way to concile them, all the more reason to put away the whole thing.

I know.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm neither an academic philosopher nor someone invested in either proving or disproving "the existence of the entity depicted in the Christian Bible," so I have no need or interest in using any such analogies. I barely understand this need that's present in some other people.

Well I believe in a God, but I can understand why people feel the need to disprove the God of the Bible. Imagine if you were gay and people were arguing for laws which would decree you should either be put to death or at the very least be forbidden to marry your lover.

Or imagine being a straight person who has compassion for gays and hearing of people arguing for such laws.

If one sees the Biblical God as false it isn't hard to imagine motives for pointing out the obvious falseness of it in my view.

It also depends on the regard one has for honesty I suppose. If someone came and told you an obvious falsehood would you not point out that it was false? How about if they endeavoured to indoctrinate your children with that false belief as evangelical Christians have been known to do?

 

[PureX]

Nope. You cannot, in fact, prove the non-existence of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie and so on.

Of course we can. And in fact it is assumed already that they don't exist. Which is exactly why they are being used as a false equivalent.

You can point to the fact that you have no evidence except the unverified claims of those who say they have encountered these creatures, and use that to suppose that, for that reason they do not exist.

We can point to the fact that they do not exist within the description and field of inquiry proposed. We can't do that with "God", which is why those who want to argue that God does not to exist like to replace it with these false equivalents.

But that is not proving they don't exist. They may be, for example, much better at hiding than most other critters -- it's possible.

We can't prove anything absolutely. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to win the argument against God existing. And when the atheist can't do that directly, he likes to replace God with a false equivalent that he believes has already been proven not to exist.

And for many of us, we make the same (false equavelent) argument for gods: we have no evidence except the unverified claims of those who say they have encountered gods, and use that to suppose that for that reason, they do not exist. The arguments are identical, not false equivalencies at all.

Thank you for proving my point.

But what you believe doesn't win any arguments. And you can't win the argument that God doesn't exist by claiming no evidence because you can't even define what evidence to look for or where or how to look for it. Which is why you have to then switch God out for one of these other falsely equivalent 'entities' that you can do that with, to make it appear that your argument is valid when it's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope, no footprints. Those are only empty claims. Footprints are physical objects. You have a book. Much of it is mythical. Some of it is historical, but there are clear errors in parts of it when it comes to its "history".

Have you ever thought of trying to find at least a little reliable evidence for your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course we can. And in fact it is assumed already that they don't exist. Which is exactly why they are being used as a false equivalent.

We can point to the fact that they do not exist within the description and field of inquiry proposed. We can't do that with "God", which is why those who want to argue that God does not to exist like to replace it with these false equivalents.

We can't prove anything absolutely. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to win the argument against God existing. And when the atheist can't do that directly, he likes to replace God with a false equivalent that he believes has already been proven not to exist.

Thank you for proving my point.

But what you believe doesn't win any arguments. And you can't win the argument that God doesn't exist by claiming no evidence because you can't even define what evidence to look for or where or how to look for it. Which is why you have to then switch God out for one of these other falsely equivalent 'entities' that you can do that with, to make it appear that your argument is valid when it's not.

How can you refute fairies, Bigfoot or leprechauns?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Reformed? There is no need for it when dealing with creationists. I will respect most theists. But for those that go out of their way to earn disrespect I will at times give them what they ask for.

 

[vijeno]

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

Comparisons don't exist on their own. They only make sense "in some regard".

Let's use an example. "Men are like apples!" Well - in what regard? Men are like apples insofar as they are living beings on planet earth, they have chromosomes... Men are NOT like apples insofar as they are not fruit, don't taste sweet, cannot be used to make a good pie.

As a sidenote, if you proceed with something that's obviously NOT correct, on the literal level, but makes some sense on the metaphorical level, you potentially got yourself a joke. If you stack a few of them with some twist, it might actually be a good joke. "Men are like apples. They taste great, have thin skin, and there's a tiny stick on them by which they hang from trees." (Or something like that... I won't claim this one as a very good example, lol.)

And just like that, you learned how comedians do it. ;-)

"God is like bigfoot etc" is often used to say that god does not exist, god is ridiculous, or god is unfalsifiable. You may think of these as true or false, my point is that the comparison only makes sense in some regard. "God is like bigfoot, he has a fur and large teeth, and likes to hide behind trees" makes no sense at all.

I think the philosophical term for this is "tertium comparationis", but I'd have to look it up.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And just like that, you learned how comedians do it. ;-)

Thank you for the lesson. I'm probably known on this forum for lacking in a sense of humor...

"God is like bigfoot, he has a fur and large teeth, and likes to hide behind trees" makes no sense at all.

It certainly would explain why we haven't see him.

Clever monkey walking the earth disguised as Bigfoot.

 

[vijeno]

Clever monkey walking the earth disguised as Bigfoot.

If that's not an example of humor, I don't know what it is, lol.

 

[PureX]

How can you refute fairies, Bigfoot or leprechauns?

I don't have to because you and everyone else already believes they don't really exist. That's the whole point of trying to pass them off as an equivalent to God.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't have to because you and everyone else already believes they don't really exist.

Not everybody, clearly. And you do have to refute (falsify) the claims if you want to be certain. Looks like you're the direct equivalent of an agnostic atheist with respect to Bigfoot et al.

 

[McBell]

I don't have to because you and everyone else already believes they don't really exist. That's the whole point of trying to pass them off as an equivalent to God.

I must say, I seriously doubt that anyone is surprised that you flat out refuse to support your claim.