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

[Eddi]

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

The OP was about if it is reasonable to compare God/Gods with things like Bigfoot

My reply was a way of saying no

Because believing in a mythical being doesn't require any kind of spiritual commitment or submission

Sure, you can believe in Jesus without following him although many people do. But nobody follows or worships Bigfoot as people do Jesus

Hence Jesus and Bigfoot are in different categories so are not really comparable

 

[SalixIncendium]

The OP was about if it is reasonable to compare God/Gods with things like Bigfoot

My reply was a way of saying no

Because believing in a mythical being doesn't require any kind of spiritual commitment or submission

Sure, you can believe in Jesus without following him although many people do. But nobody follows or worships Bigfoot as people do Jesus

Hence Jesus and Bigfoot are in different categories so are not really comparable

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[McBell]

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.

Seeing as it has been YOU presuming your bias in this thread...
But hey, don't let that stop you.

 

[McBell]

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.

Would that not put Bigfoot and Nessie on firmer ground than god?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Bigfoot is not unfalsifiable. We have defined it sufficiently to identify it if we observed it, and we know where and have access to where to look for it. So all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant. Same goes for any similar proposed entities.

It looks like you don't know how to use "falsifiable" in the science sense. Falsifiable means "able to be proved to be false." All good science must be falsifiable. All that "unfalsifiable" does is render the "science" bad. Bigfoot is indeed unfalsifiable, as you say -- all it takes is an observation. But the fact that there has not yet (and pay attention to that "yet!") been observed does not mean that it doesn't still exist.

You make clear in your own post why you have decided it does not exist -- "all we have to do is look but no find it, and we can know that it is not extant" -- but that is simply your own bias. It is still entirely possible that it does, and is also clever enough to conceal itself from prying eyes.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

And.....?

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

Or that it's too good at hiding, and, of course, the other examples are magical, so this is just quibbling over one example.

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.

The point of the correct equivalence is that fairies (for example) are things that cannot be disproved or tested and that most people do not believe that they exist. Many god-concepts are likewise things that cannot be disproved or tested so agnostic atheists take a consistent approach and don't believe them either.

You haven't shown that there is anything false about that equivalence, quite the opposite.

What you, and other theists, so often fail to do is show any good reason why we should treat one unfalsifiable and untestable proposition any differently from the others.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

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

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.

Yes, I was reminded of this in a response to me by @danieldemol that pointed out how there are people who use the Bible as a weapon and a resource for enacting legislation against gay people, or for the indoctrination of other people's children into their religion. I find this kind of intrusive theism to be generally mixed with politics, in which case I think that it is wholly appropriate to refute the beliefs of such people who do this.

I was under the impression, though, that this thread was about those who mock the religious beliefs of polytheists (the word "gods" is in the topic title and OP). Regardless of whatever sort of theist one happens to be, my initial response was a defense of those who apply their religious beliefs to their own lives, and not to the lives of others.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Still hung up on the notion that gods must be "sentient" huh?

When you're able to let go of that and embrace the broader diversity of theological ideas embraced by different cultures across the world and throughout history, let us know.

 

[MikeF]

I was under the impression, though, that this thread was about those who mock the religious beliefs of polytheists (the word "gods" is in the topic title).

It is my impression that the plural form of the label 'god' was used to include any and all god beliefs, not specifically polytheistic ones.

I would also say that the OP was not about intentional mocking, rather, whether the form of argument described is, or is not, 1) a valid one free from fallacy, and 2) intentionally or inadvertently mocking simply by its use.

I suppose the OP will have to weigh in an make a ruling in this regard.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I was under the impression, though, that this thread was about those who mock the religious beliefs of polytheists (the word "gods" is in the topic title and OP).

That wasn't my intent. The God of Abraham is also a god, so this thread also includes religious beliefs of monotheists.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would also say, that the OP was not about intentional mocking, rather, whether the form of argument described is, or is not, 1) a valid one free from fallacy, and 2) intentionally or inadvertently mocking simply by its use.

This is a fair assessment.

But there are those that do use the terms to intentionally mock those that believe in gods, as has been done on this forum, so can be about either intent to mock or what @MikeF said above.

 

[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

If somebody still mocks at the believers with their rhetoric /rants, I don't mind, as it only exposes the hollowness of their ism/ianity, please, right?

Regards

 

[vulcanlogician]

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?

Whatever the status of God's existence is, I find that a personal experience of something (God or something more mundane) is justification for a person believing in that thing. They are also free to find meaning in it. Such experiences can be extremely valuable.

Where such experiences begin to outlive their usefulness is in convincing others to believe something. If a man wanders out into a field and God appears to him, that's great. It is completely justified for him to (from that point on) believe in God (although, if he ate some wild mushrooms along the way or something, I'd hope he's taken that into account).

But that person has no right to expect others to share his beliefs based on his sayso. After all, HE HIMSELF wasn't convinced until he had the experience. Yet, he wants others to accept the truth second-hand.

When an atheist hears such claims, she usually inquires into what support the claims have. If the only appeal they are given are eyewitness accounts and/or written legends, they are justified in making a comparison to dragons or faires.

Although, in the final analysis, the comparison to fairies and other things is an unfair comparison to God as God is believed to exist. It IS a valid reply to the suggestion an atheist should change their beliefs based on the sayso of a believer and their religious text.

 

[Watchmen]

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?

If I tell you I had an experience with a leprechaun, will you start believing in leprechauns?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If I tell you I had an experience with a leprechaun, will you start believing in leprechauns?

Of course not.

I would build another straw man so yours could have a friend.

 

[Heyo]

Personally, I believe it is a matter of the heart since it “could” be an honest attempt to understand but by and large, it isn’t.

I remember when I said, “Everyone interprets the Bible differently”. It was my “standby and catchall” because I hadn’t really digested the Bible.
I remember when I said, “There are so many different Christian sects” as a “standby and catchall” phrase because I didn’t understand the root causes of why there were differences.

And I wasn’t searching.

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?​

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?

 

[Heyo]

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.

I'm a fellow Agnostic but I'm still on the level that I say that "god" is unknown based on the evidence. I haven't found a satisfying argument that "god" can't be known. Would you care to expand on that? It's a tangent for this thread so I'd open a new one if you'd like to defend that claim.

 

[Watchmen]

Of course not.

I would build another straw man so yours could have a friend.

Hilarious but if you don’t see the similarities that’s on you, bruv. It also seems you don’t k ow what a straw man actually is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hilarious but if you don’t see the similarities that’s on you, bruv. It also seems you don’t k ow what a straw man actually is.

Similarities between what? Your having an experience of a leprechaun has to do with your beliefs, not mine.

The thread is about the reasonability of the analogy between gods and leprechauns/Bigfoot/fairies/unicorns, not whether an atheist is expected to believe in gods. You're refuting an argument that is different from the one being discussed. That's precisely what a straw man actually is.

 

[Snowman]

I think it's reasonable, as the person comparing them is using it as an example of something people have heard about, but have no evidence for. Whether it has form or not is irrelevant surely? If you don't believe in a being, then how others view it manifesting is minor details. I think they are closely related enough to make the point.

As for being insulting...oh well.