Is it?

[jond]

They just are different.

Jetleg, you have learned nothing. I am sad for you. See, I'm not a cold emotionless person, though I am a rational thinker. You've been shown repeatedly through these eight pages the flaws in your arguments, and now you come up with this doozy. Sorry, and good luck with HH the DL.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Don't you think that it is arrogant of you to say so?

No, I honestly don't think it is.

Was the boy who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes arrogant to disagree with everybody else?

If I just dismissed religion as delusion out of hand, then that would be very arrogant. But I've been talking to religious people about religion for twenty years now. I've talked to literally thousands of them. And I've asked most of them for reasons to believe.

I've never yet had a rational, sensible answer to that question. Not ever. In every single case the believer has responded either with evidence that doesn't prove at ALL what he or she thinks it does... or with logical proofs that are full of holes you could fly an A-380 through... or, by far the most common, with some variant of "it feels nice to believe, so it must be true" - essentially your own argument.

None of them hold water. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Bri]

They just are different.

No they're not.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

The idea of gnomes makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, gnomes must exist? If you don't believe in gnomes, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

The idea of unicorns makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, unicorns must exist? If you don't believe in unicorns, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

The idea of elves makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of Klingons makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of Kzinti makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of hobbits makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of the Loch Ness Monster makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

Need I go through the entire bestiary?

 

[JetLeg]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

 

[Seismosaurus]

The idea of Klingons makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

Oh man, you have issues!

 

[Bri]

Need I go through the entire bestiary?

No, if any of those brings meaning to your life, it does not mean that they exist. It just means that you are deluded if you think it does.

But it is not so with faeries!

 

[Bri]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

We've already discussed that this statement is a fallacy. Not only would it be a fallacy if it were true, but it's not true!

While it's true that the majority of the human population believes in gods, the majority of humanity does not believe in any particular god.

I assume you're Christian, so to be specific, the majority of human beings do not believe in the Christian God.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

And if most of the world believes that "malaria" is caused by bad air or that there are nuclear weapons in Iraq, those beliefs magically become true?

That's a fallacy. It's formally called "argumentum ad populam," but you don't need to know the Latin to know that it's wrong. Your mother knew it. ("And if all the other kids wanted to jump off a cliff, would you do that?")

(And, for that matter, until less than three hundred years ago, most of the population of the world believed in faeries and witches. Perhaps they still do. Does this mean that faeries ceased to exist around 1700?)

 

[JetLeg]

the majority of human beings do not believe in the Christian God.

-Bri

I don't understand what you mean by that. The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being. So they believe in the same god.

 

[JetLeg]

Besides, if fairies and harry potter exist, they are material, so one should give physical evidence for them.

If immaterial beings exist, they are not material.

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem, but still, thinking of immaterial beings that give meaning to one's life is better than thinking of material ones that you need physical evidence for them.

 

[slingblade]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

She means exactly what she said.

The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being.

Who told you that?


(the word is "omnipotent." The word you used isn't a word, and gives me a disturbing image of a bifurcated penis. And before lunch, too. Dang.)

So they believe in the same god.

No.

 

[Bri]

I don't understand what you mean by that. The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being. So they believe in the same god.

The Christian God is different in many significant ways from other gods that other religions believe in, wouldn't you agree?

For example, a deist believes that God never intervenes with the world (similar to your inconsequential being). Pantheism holds that the Universe itself is god. Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that god contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. Substance monotheism, found in some indigenous African religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single underlying substance. Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature.

Monotheism in Hinduism is known as "Ekanyana" and God Almighty is Ekam (One.) Many Hindus, including Smartas, believe in God having three aspects as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, the Trimurti (also called the Hindu trinity.) and these different aspects are part of the one and the same God.

Most of those gods are entirely incompatible with the Christian concept of God, and if they existed would likely preclude the Christian God from existing.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Besides, if fairies and harry potter exist, they are material, so one should give physical evidence for them.

Why? They're magic and can make themselves invisible! Why would there be any evidence?

If immaterial beings exist, they are not material.

Say, didn't God once come to earth in the form of his own son? How can you say God is immaterial?

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem, but still, thinking of immaterial beings that give meaning to one's life is better than thinking of material ones that you need physical evidence for them.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Can you elaborate?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Bri,

Harry Potter and faeries have mass - unlike god.

 

[Bri]

JetLeg,

Are you saying that Jesus didn't have mass?

Do you know what the difference between a material magical unicorn and an immaterial magical unicorn is? One is material by default and must make himself invisible. The other is invisible by default and must make himself visible. Luckily, invisibility for the material magical unicorn is effortless, as is visibility for the immaterial magical unicorn. While invisible, neither have mass.

In other words, they are exactly the same.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Harry Potter and faeries have mass - unlike god.

Two problems.

First, Jesus Christ, who was God, also had mass.

And second, Harry Potter and faeries are magical and can make themselves massless. (We've even see HP do that to his Aunt in, I think, book three....)

 

[JetLeg]

What do you mean by an immaterial harry potter? What makes him Harry Potter at all, if he is immaterial? And what makes a fairy a fairy, if she is immaterial - and therefore is not a small human with wings?

 

[drkitten]

What do you mean by an immaterial harry potter?

Harry Potter after he casts the little-known Ecco Immaterialis spell. Not to be confused with Eco Immaterialis, which causes the temporary disappearance of a well-known Italian author. Or Ecko Immaterialis, which causes trendy clothing to vanish. Useful at parties, that last variant is....

 

[Bri]

A small human with wings is just a faerie's chosen non-immaterial form. Just like God appeared in the form of a white dude with long hair and blue eyes.

-Bri