Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Asmodee]

Perhaps it would help it I gave an example of what would be a fair comparison to God, namely Truth. Consider the following two propositions:

P1: The tooth fairy exists.
P2: Truth exists.

In one trivial respect some smartasses could claim that neither of the proposition’s subject has sufficient empirical evidence to justify belief in it. I challenge these Champions of Reason to justify their self-conceit of being Truthseekers without tangible falsifiable evidence that Truth exists. If there was a tooth fairy, someone could at least, in theory, set a pair of dentures on a mousetrap and catch one. Not so with truth. If truth exists then it isn’t just another thing in a universe full of things. Has anyone seen truth? Distilled it into a test-tube? It’s not even reasonable to suggest that belief in truth is justified only after a sample has been produced under controlled conditions. Truth cannot be isolated. Either it informs everything or it doesn’t. Any comparison between the existence of the tooth fairy and truth is a ludicrous and obvious category error. I question the intellectual integrity of those who deny it.

That is really a horrible example. Where to even begin? First of all, no, you couldn't catch the Tooth Fairy in that way. You don't get money for dentures, just baby teeth. She would see the mouse trap. She's a creepy tooth-collecting weirdo, not a wild, mindless animal. And even if you did devise the perfect physical trap she would just use her magic to avoid it or get out of it.

Or maybe I could put it into magical terms you are more familiar with. The Tooth Fairy is always watching. She knows your mind and whether you're being good or bad. She has a big book, a book of your life, a kind of "Book of Life", you might say, in which she writes down every time you wank it while thinking about your neighbor's boobies. She would see such a trap coming a mile away and easily avoid it.

As for those two propositions being on equal ground, not even close. I CAN justify, WITH tangible, falsifiable evidence that truth exists. I can do so by simply not telling a lie. I can do so repeatedly, at will. Can I prove it to YOU? Not so easily. But I can prove it to ME. It would not take unsubstantiated belief for me to believe in truth. I would not have to make complicated logical arguments to convince myself, or lower the bar for evidence. This is not so with the Tooth Fairy. You're comparing magical beliefs to mundane beliefs. The two are just not on equal footing

I take that back. I don’t question it. They dishonest. Why is it that skeptics compare the existence of God to fairies, unicorns, and other fantastic mythological beasts as opposed to the existence of things like truth or personal identity or Platonic Forms or moral principles? I will tell you why. Because their only intention is to make believers seem ridiculous. Douches.

That is sometimes, perhaps even often the case. It is not always the case. I actually see ALL magical beliefs as being equally ridiculous. Sometimes I'm just expressing that point.

And something a little funny for you, just now YOU were the "douchebag" by your own definition. Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. There are Christians who believe they were actual, real, now extinct creatures. But YOU just lumped that belief in with belief in fairies. YOU just compared the beliefs some Christians hold to belief in fairies without missing a beat. Like I said, sometimes it is intentionally mocking, but not always. I am relatively sure you didn't just intentionally do what you are arguing against for the express purpose of insulting Christians who hold different beliefs as you. If you didn't then the point is soundly proved. It is not always intentional

Now it is fine to say that you don’t accept the various logical demonstrations, cosmological arguments, fine-tuning, or design inferences. Let’s have those discussions, but the tooth fairy comparison is just a rhetorical quip whose only purpose is to infantilize and avoid serious philosophical problems. With respect to the human condition, it doesn’t matter one whit whether the tooth fairy exists. But whether or not God exists (or Truth for that matter) has far and wide ranging implications from the problem of universal to the nature of personal identity to moral values. The slightly more reasonable skeptics will say that God is so vague of a concept is to be meaningless. Really? The Christian God has been defined in exhaustive detail by the Church Doctors - Augustine, Anslem, and Thomas Aquinas for a start. So has its more general predecessor, the so-called God of the Philosophers, more broadly defined by Aristotle, Plotinus, etc. Vague? No, you're just lazy.

The Christian God has been defined to death, yes, but by about 38,000 different Christian faiths along with likely at least several million individual personal beliefs, many of those beliefs in stark opposition to each other. This adds considerable ambiguity to the notion of exactly what God is, which in turn makes the definition once again "vague". Even people within a particular faith often don't agree on the particulars of God. I remember one conversation between two Catholics over whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus or not. One was adamant that she remained "pure" her entire life. The other argued that her "purity" no longer mattered after the fact, she just had to be a pure vessel until the Christ was born.

And those who do go for a more definitive, less vague description are often just making it up. When asked for specifics they spout off personal belief, often (especially among Catholics, in my experience) in opposition to the position of their very religious organization.

There is no universally accepted description of God which is not, by necessity, vague. Hell, people of some faiths don't even accept that people of other, similar faiths are even worshiping the same God as them. You can't point me to a book or definition which lays out a well-defined notion of what God is and is not which is actually accepted by even a majority of the people who believe in him. Even the terms used to describe him are vague. He is "perfect". In what way? In ALL ways. Ways like? And then you start naming off things at odds with things in the Bible. He is a jealous God, for example. How is that perfect? Jealousy is considered one of the pettiest of human emotions. Hell, there's even a logical argument about a "maximally great being" which never actually describes what is and is not "great". It just says, essentially, "Everything which is great, he has the greatest of it." He has jealously by his own words. So me must be the MOST jealous thing in all of existence. How is that "great" in any way?

When you say he is well defined and you name off people who defined him, you're talking explicitly about sources that you, personally, accept. Not all Christians would accept those same sources in their entirety. So once again it is YOU who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not, what God is and what he is not, what is real and what is not. Your argument is essentially, "You can't even prove truth exists, so if you want to know what to believe, just ask me because I am the only one who can tell you as I am the only one who knows, in all circumstances, what is and is not truth." It's a bad argument.

---

It doesn't matter what you intended. What matters it that is is an insult. Both CL and I have explained to you why it is insulting and yet you persist. It's like accidentally saying to an African-Amercian that you are surprised at how well-spoken they are, being informed that it is condescending, but then continuing to say it anyway...because you don't mean it that way. It is your problem.

No. That is your interpretation of what she said.

Learn this if nothing else....

People are only responsible for what they say, not how others choose to understand it.

And this.  Blasphemy laws in other countries give Christians the right to not be offended.  I do not live in such a country.  Here, you have no such right.