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

[PureX]

You can't look everywhere at once - and of course, fairies and leprechauns are magical. You're quibbling rather than facing up to the fact that you don't believe them but cannot disprove them. Hence you have no belief in these things but you cannot know that they don't exist.

Sound familiar?


Just as you are unable to falsify the existence of fairies. And who has claimed that we can falsify the existence of god? Hint: not most atheists.

You've perfectly illustrated agnostic atheism and the validity of the comparison. Thanks!

Once magic becomes part of the description, falsification is no longer possible. Which means exactly nothing in terms of arguing against the proposition. So once again the false equivalence is meaningless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

So your claim was false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You also need to know where and how to look. Did they define that for you, too? Or did you just presume your own bias without ever actually investigating it.

When they claim that anyone who opposes them will go to hell, then yes. They are trying to define it for others.

 

[vijeno]

So why are you fighting so hard to pretend ignorance?

I am in no way saying that the argument is correct, or incorrect. I didn't mention once whether I believe in bigfoot, fairies, or god. All I did, was try and explain what I think the comparison is trying to achieve. Which is the point of this thread. I find that much more interesting, than whether god exists or not.

So all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant.

It is that good at hiding behind trees. ;-)

Joke aside, I actually agree that the comparison is flawed. In that regard, god compares much better to qi or prana in my opinion.

But then again, all comparisons are flawed. One can always point that out and deride the debate that way. There is an element of good-faith to that kind of communication.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

childish and absurd

LOL

except to fools that think their own convictions define the truth

Looking for the heart of your arguments, this is what I find...

 

[ratiocinator]

Once magic becomes part of the description, falsification is no longer possible.

Exactly.

Which means exactly nothing in terms of arguing against the proposition.

That it is unfalsifiable is a significant fact about a proposition and it means that one can't disprove it but also makes it untestable as well.

So once again the false equivalence is meaningless.

But you've just highlighted again that the equivalence is valid. God is (very often, anyway) an unfalsifiable proposition. In that way it is like fairies or leprechauns.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Disagree.
There is much evidence the sun is a giant ball of nuclear fire.
There is no evidence the sun is a sentient being that cares about anything - let alone what we do with our private parts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are your thoughts on theists that have had a personal subjective experience of God? Is it reasonable for an atheist to still compare the subject of that experiences with such "mythical" beings?

That's where the comparisons with bigfoot and aliens comes in.
These things are believed today by people who have had "subjective experience" with such beings. These are claimed alien abductees and bigfoot spotters.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Man often worships that which his imagination conjures up. Some believe a statue is God or a tree and worship it. There is no limit to what man can imagine. But the true God cannot be imagined or comprehended. Anything the human mind can imagine is not God. God is beyond human comprehension or imagination. He is unknowable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The whole point of making these kinds of false equivalents is that they are false. If I can't prove that your God doesn't exist I'll equate it falsely to something that I can prove doesn't exist.

Since the comparison then concerns the unfalsifiability of the claims, how then is that a false equivalence?

The whole point is to create a false equivalence that I can then defeat because I can't defeat the original premise. And if it insults my antagonist, all the better to distract them while I replace their God with my phony equivalent.

Plenty of people here have already pointed out that nobody is comparing gods with fairies. What is being compared is the lack of evidence for both things and the unfalsifiability of these claims.

Feel free to quote any post on the forum where the god concept itself is being compared to the fairy concept.
I have never seen anyone do this.

 

[Eddi]

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 don't think there are people who tell others that if they don't accept Bigfoot as their Lord and Savior then they will go to Hell

 

[PureX]

I am in no way saying that the argument is correct, or incorrect. I didn't mention once whether I believe in bigfoot, fairies, or god. All I did, was try and explain what I think the comparison is trying to achieve. Which is the point of this thread. I find that much more interesting, than whether god exists or not.

Then I stand corrected, and oppologize for jumping to a false conclusion.

It is that good at hiding behind trees. ;-)

And at being the trees, and at being the people looking through the trees, and at ...

Joke aside, I actually agree that the comparison is flawed. In that regard, god compares much better to qi or prana in my opinion.

But then again, all comparisons are flawed. One can always point that out and deride the debate that way. There is an element of good-faith to that kind of communication.

Whenever we see this kind of deliberate displacement in an "argument", it's a good bet that it's being done because the argument is failing. Just a common observation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course we can. And in fact it is assumed already that they don't exist.

This is false.
Bigfoot spotters believe he exists, they don't assume he doesn't exist.
Alien abductees believe such aliens are real and abduct people, they don't assume they don't exist.

Those who don't believe such claims indeed assume they don't exist. This for all practical intents and purposes. And atheists do the same with gods.
This is not a problem. It is a practical necessity.

Don't you assume that all the gods you do not believe in do not exist for all practical intents and purposes?
I submit that you do. Are you, for example, worried at all that you might not go to whalhalla if you don't die on the battlefield with an axe in your hand?
Off course not. Can you prove there's no whalhalla? No, you can't.

The simple fact is that if you are going to "not" assume all unfalsifiable things you don't believe to be real to not be real, you will simply not be able to function properly in reality. You won't even be able to cross the streets because an invisible truck you can't prove doesn't exist might run you over.


All this comes down to one simple thing that all of us do out of practical necessity:
Non-existence is assumed until existence is sufficiently demonstrated / believed

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.

I have just explained above how this is not true.
I view and treat the non-existence of bigfoot and alien abductions in the exact same way as the non-existence of gods.
And I have just explained why.

And I will once more reiterate that you do the exact same thing with all gods you don't believe in also.

We do this, out of practical necessity.

We can't prove anything absolutely. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to win the argument against God existing.

I have no need for such an argument. I just respond to those who claim a god DOES exist.
And if there are no people claiming a god (or bigfoot or alien abductions or....) DOES exist, then I have no reason at all to even talk or think about it.

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.

This is a strawman once again.
I don't think bigfoot or alien abductions have been proven to not exist. In fact, I will flat out state that it is impossible to do that.
The reason I bring them up, is because the person arguing for a god will likely not believe in bigfoots or aliens and thus, for the practical reasons explained above, assume they aren't real either.

And I do this to make them undestand my reasoning. Because the reasons I assume no gods exist / do not believe gods exist are the exact same reasons of why you likely don't believe bigfoots / aliens exist or assume they don't exist.


You don't KNOW they don't exist. You assume they don't. Huge difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Cop-out

Just acknowledge that you can't prove that they don't exist.
Because you can't. We all know it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why should I bother when you already believe it, yourself?

Because you made the claim of it being a false equivalence as well as claimed one can prove the non-existence of these things.

 

[PureX]

Exactly.


That it is unfalsifiable is a significant fact about a proposition and it means that one can't disprove it but also makes it untestable as well.

Which, again, means nothing at all apart from the fact that we humans are quite limited in what we can even try to prove.

But you've just highlighted again that the equivalence is valid.

Only if it is asserted that Bigfoot is a magical being. But I don't see that's ever being asserted. And of course this whole point you pushing is intended to distract from the obvious observation that the people that push these silly equivalents are doing it because they don't believe the equivalent entity exists, and they are trying to impose that presumption on the idea that God exists.

God is (very often, anyway) an unfalsifiable proposition. In that way it is like fairies or leprechauns.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't think there are people who tell others that if they don't accept Bigfoot as their Lord and Savior then they will go to Hell

I don't understand how this is relevant to the OP. Can you expand on this?

 

[MikeF]

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 don't doubt your fondness, but it does misrepresent the intent of the OP. I think it might be considered creating a strawman.

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.

Ahhh, as in "One in a glass house should not throw stones." I can see how that boxes you in. Unfortunately, in practice it manifests itself as sticking one's head in the sand. The inconvenient truth is that the beliefs of others can and do affect our lives. The more widespread and dominant a belief, the greater the impact on societies as a whole. From the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, to the prescription of roles for men and women in society, to race and nationality, abortion, attitudes towards sexual orientations, freedom of thought and speech, these and much more are affected by fictional beliefs that are held to be non-fiction.

In this burgeoning era of "fake news" accusations, where falsehood can be promoted and then accepted as fact, I think it more than appropriate to advocate making clear distinctions between what is fact and what is fiction. We are all affected by what others believe whether or not we wish to admit it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Man often worships that which his imagination conjures up. Some believe a statue is God or a tree and worship it. There is no limit to what man can imagine. But the true God cannot be imagined or comprehended. Anything the human mind can imagine is not God. God is beyond human comprehension or imagination. He is unknowable.

This doesn't address the question in the OP. It's just gratuitous preaching about your "true God."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which, again, means nothing at all apart from the fact that we humans are quite limited in what we can even try to prove.

It also means it can't be distinguished from sheer imagination.
Conversely it also means there is no reason to believe it, as it follows from not having any sufficient evidence to believe it.
That which is untestable, unverifiable and which can't be differentiated from sheer imagination, by definition can not have any evidence.

So that makes it on par with literally any unfalsifiable thing your imagination can produce. Like fairies and leprechauns. See?
That's how that works...

Only if it is asserted that Bigfoot is a magical being.

No, it doesn't need to be magical at all.
For these comparisons to be valid, it only needs to be unfalsifiable.
Off course, adding magic to it makes it unfalsifiable by default, the certainly is correct.
But it does not require magic to be unfalsifiable.

And of course this whole point you pushing is intended to distract from the obvious observation that the people that push these silly equivalents are doing it because they don't believe the equivalent entity exists, and they are trying to impose that presumption on the idea that God exists.

I find it hard to believe that after everything that has been said in this thread, you still haven't understood that the comparison is about the unfalsifiability / lack of evidence part and not about the god-concept / fairy-concept part.