If a grown adult believed in Santa Claus, he would get rdiculed right?
Why is believing in a God any different?
They both watch over you to see if you are naughty or nice and at the end of it there is a reward if you're good or not if you're bad.
I dont see any difference. Why are the two treated so differently?
One is for children and the other is for... other children.
You might actually get some Believers to thinking with that one.
Wouldn't the difference be in the intentions involved?
The Santa Claus idea is intentionally told with the already held belief that it is fictitious. And yes, children believe in Santa Claus, but only because the parents (or whoever) create all the condidtions to make it seem he is real. It is an intentional lie.
The Story of Christ is told with the belief that it is actually true. (at least most times) and those who told the story of Christ did so with the utmost belief in his being the Messiah, etc. It is not something told as an intentional lie. If it is a lie, the ones propogating it would be deceived, themselves. They are not.
*They are not telling an intentional lie.
I agree, although wether or not the person teaching about the belief believes it or not, doesnt really bear any relevance on the person who holds the belief.
For example, if you bought your kids up to believe in santa, and they never learned that santa wasnt real, and they grew up believing in santa and taught their kids that santa was real, then it would be a pretty similar situation.
Look at Joseph smith. Im fairly sure that he didnt believe what he was preaching, but look at all his followers, they all teach about him a actually beleive what they are teaching.
That is true; it would not be much different for the person who believes in the the story.
I guess I thought your emphasis was more on the viewpoint of the one doing the ridiculing, as your question was "If a grown adult believed in Santa Claus, he would be ridiculed, right? What is the difference in believing in God?" thereby forcing emphasis on the difference in ridicule, which would take us back to the one doing the ridiculing. To which my response would be, more simply, he would be ridiculed more because there are more people who reject the Santa Claus story as a lie. And the reason that there are more people rejecting the Santa Claus story as a lie is because more people have been told by the very perople who lied to them in the first place, that the story is a lie. Therefore they are ridiucled by the nature of the lie in the first place.
If Joseph Smith didn't believe what he was preaching, he never repealed it later. I'm pretty sure no one teaches their kids to believe in Santa Claus with the intention of letting them believe it their whole lives.
The entire nature of the two scenarios is so different that that causes the difference in ridicule. Santa Claus story is not a religion; it involves figures which are (in the story) actually physical and seeable (and therefore able to be discounted from our own personal experience), and its effects are on a much less broader scale: Santa only shows up on Christmas, and for one purpose. Therefore it can be easily discounted when it is made sure that there is no interference and no Christmas presents show up the next day.
However, I agree with your statement that for the person themselves, there would not be much difference in the experience. They would still see "evidence" (in the form of Christmas presents under the tree, eaten cookies,etc. Except there would be someone present always intentionally creating that "evidence"
Thats where the similarities get stronger. For example, one who did not see santa come down the chimney, didnt recieve any presents, and the cookie was still there, would believe they were on the naughty list thus answering any question as to why santa didnt bring any presents.
Ok, it's not exaclty the same, but if you liken god being everywhere at the same time (but undetectable) to santa visiting all the houses in the world in one night (when you're asleep so you cant see him), theres not as much difference as first thought.
lol I guess so, but that's just it... they were on the naughtly list, wouldn't there have to be coal there too? Being on the naughty list would not only cause santa to NOT give presents, he would GIVE coal. If there was no coal, then...santa didn't do anything
But I do get your point...
Wow I felt pretty geeky saying all that that but anyway...lol..
At first thought yes, and mostly from the view of the person doing the believing. The belief in magic, omnipresence, and miracles (in the form of flying reindeer..and not to mention the miraculous existence at sub-zero temperatures in such apparel, and immortality) are certainly similar.
And my wallet always seems alot lighter after any interaction with either Santa or Religion.
In a nutshell the difference is that the concept of god is all encompassing. The concpet of Santa is not. Therefore people are more likely to try to alter their lives (and the lives of others) in response to the concept of god, than they are to the concept of Santa clause.
It takes as much faith to believe in the Big Bang or Evoluton as propagated by the Atheist Secular Humanists, as it takes to believe in a God.
If not more faith.
Who said anything about evolution or the big bang? You dont have to believe in either to not believe in a god.
A fairy tale is a fairy tale... correct?
I am more than happy and willing to admit my faith is based on faith.
What about your belief in evolution or the big bang? You gonna admit it is a faith based belief?
That is the difference.
Welcome to the wonderful world of faith.
If one believes evolution and the big bang theories are based on faith, then they obviously have no understanding of those theories. Definitely not.
I understand them just fine troub.
And I can tell you most matter of factly you cannot prove evolution of man from ape, you cannot prove either one.
Niether can you prove string theory or so many others.
How the hell would you argue anything else.
The denial... so very extreme.
you are missing the point here. god is only personified by the various portraits that are made of him. these should be considered artist's renditons. not actual physical representations. If focusing on an image helps an individual or sect manifest god, i say good for them.
It might be up for debate whether or not I'm a grown adult, but I believe in Santa. After all, St. Nicholas was born in 280 AD, in Patara. He was a Christian priest, who later became a bishop. He was a rich person, and traveled the country helping people, giving gifts of money and other presents. He did not like to be seen when he gave away presents, so the children of the day were told to go to sleep quickly or he would not come.
Yes I believe in Santa, in the spirit of Santa and the idea of love and generosity and devotion, the spirit of giving to and doing for others. It's a cheap shot to use Santa as a way to ridicule people with religious faith by trying to make their belief system sound ridiculous.
There is nothing rediculous about faith. It is the disemination of flawed thought that is reidculous. If one does not fully understand the path that they have chosen, then everything they say from that point is rediculous. This may only make sense to me or you may find a crumb of truth in it, but it is what I have to say about it.
To clarify for the benefit of everyone, I was referring to Santa Claus. The well known fairytale character and not the person that Santa Claus was based on.
Im not trying to make anything sound ridiculous. I am stating facts. In fact, the very fact that YOU think what I wrote is ridiculous is quite telling as to how you perceive the facts I wrote.
You think they are ridiculous. That is how you percieved what I wrote.
As for it being a cheap shot, I just made a comparison. The fact that YOU think the two are ridiculous says a lot about how you view religious beliefs.
Basically, you are calling their beliefs ridiculous.
I never said that. I said that, what is true to the seeker is true. It may not be my truth and I may see it as a fairytale, none the less, it is a belief and it is either illusion or insanity.
LOL, no mischevious me, his response was to me. Sorry you got caught in the fallout. I only gave my opinion on what this post looked like to me and it looked like a setup if ever I saw one. As for the Thomas Nast Twas the Night Before Christmas Santa, well I don't know about you, but the last time I was at the mall I saw about a dozen guys with long white beards running around in red suits and you know what, they all looked pretty much like Santa to me. LOL. Believe what you want. I say if you want to believe in Santa, or God, or a Three-headed dog, it's your right to and seriously why should it matter to anyone what somebody else believes anyway?
There are many similarities between Santa and God. They are both portrayed as an elderly man with a beard. Both fly across the heavens, Santa on his sleigh or God in his chariot. For good children, Santa rewards them with gifts. For good adults, God rewards them with the gift of eternal life. All adults are grown-up children, so it is natural that we should wish the magic and rewards of Santa to continue for the rest of our lives. Yet there comes a time when belief in Santa must be put to one side, and the one in God taken up instead. Because no one would take seriously an adult who believed in Santa. But belief in God is considered to be perfectly rational, even if it is necessary to suspend rational thought in order to believe in the likes of virgin births, devils, angels and other mythical creatures. But, if people find pleasure in such magical thinking, then good luck to them. Perhaps they are the lucky ones.
If the 9/11 bombers were the lucky ones then why should the rest of us have to put up with it?
I can't see that the 9/11 bombers are lucky at all. They no longer exist, as they took their own lives along with thousands of innocent people. Any God which requires His followers to kill in His name is not a God which can be considered worthy of worship, even if He actually existed. It is the belief of man that he speaks for God, that is the cause of wars, terrorism and hatred. The human ego is the cause of so many of the world's ills.
Any parent with kids when asked if Santa is real, should fire back hell yeah hes real! your friggin talking to him right now.
If one chooses not to believe then neither are real. If however one does choose to believe Santa Claus can’t not save one’s soul.
We can believe in so many things like invisible Gold Fish, Pet Rocks, Zodiac, Demons, The Devil but a God of all things-Impossible.....
I think someone here has been drinking wayyyy too many glasses of NyQuil.
by G3 years ago
Mirriam- Webster's definition of faith is- Allegiance to a duty or person: Loyalty. 2. Belief and trust in God. 3. Complete trust. 4. A system of religious beliefs. The bible calls faith,...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by Ron Karn6 years ago
Faith and trust in God are like the two elements of water - hydrogen and oxygen - you can't have water without both of them together. You can't be a Christian without having faith and trust together. ...
by Cattleprod Media6 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
I think not.Some say that they just aren't sure, but they figure "I'm a good person, so if there is, I'm fine". I'd say that person is actually a theist.Others say they don't know and don't care. They never...
by Tim Mitchell2 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.