If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Hello Salesman,

This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief. Surely you would admit that this is simply not true.

My statement is based on the fact that many religious beliefs and myths have been abandoned in light of strong evidence to the contrary. It is human nature to defend beliefs to which they have an emotional investment. This applies to scientific as well as religious beliefs. I believe (strictly opinion) most people would rather know and subscribe to the truth of a question.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved

In an argument, you should refrain from using tactics like this to gain favor. This is called "Poisoning the Well". Rather than offer an argument for your position, you've implied that one is not sane, lucid, or an adult if they oppose your position. You haven't given any reason to accept your position as the reasonable one. Instead, you implied that there are consequences for those that may object. That is not thinking critically. Let's edit that part out, and search for some substance in your argument.

I think you misread this. Its not belief in my opinion I was referring to, I was referring to belief in Santa. Do you disagree that most sane lucid adults don't think Santa exists?

First, I never described any of Santa's properties, you took those liberties without being prompted. When did I say anything about Santa delivering presents worldwide on Christmas Eve? You assumed that was the Santa I believed in, but it's not. That is just a Caricature of my belief. Aside from that, you didn't present this "preponderance of evidence". You made a baseless assertion that it is available and then claimed that you could use it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your caricature of Santa does not exist. You didn't even refute your own version of Santa.

No you didn't describe properties of Santa but so what? If you type the word 'water' in a response would it be inappropriate for me to think your referring to a clear liquid found all over the earth? If by Santa you mean a mythical being to whom nothing is attributed to then I would agree that would be unfalsifiable but who thinks that when you type the word Santa? If you said tooth fairy would I be unjustified to believe your referring to a mythical creature who is alleged to give money for teeth? If we go down this ridiculous path when you wrote 'This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief.' I could say just to make sure were on the same page what do you mean by statement? Presupposes? Evidence? I could say please clearly and carefully define every word you use so we can make sure were on the same page. What do you mean by caricature? Is the idea that Santa is a mythical person who is alleged to deliver presents world wide on Christmas eve a caricature? Isn't that what you were told about Santa at one time or another? Don't parents offer the existence of presents as evidence that Santa came? I didn't think (talking to a smart guy like yourself) I needed to refute not my version of Santa but the version that been around for a long time.

I don't share your belief, I don't recognize a difference. Don't you see that this begs the very question we set out to answer? If I am of the opinion that not only does your God not exist, but it would be impossible for any sane, lucid, adult to consider it as a possibility, why then ought I take your position seriously? You have to acknowledge that to someone who doesn't believe in mystical supernatural things, I am inclined to have the same attitude toward your God. Instead, I am trying to engage in a rational exchange. I assume you would like me to take you seriously, no? I am sure you do not want me to tell you that it would be a defamation of my character as a rational person to even entertain your position about gods. Do you understand the comparisons yet?

I'll wait for the apparently official definition of Santa which you'll provide. The version of Santa I'm familiar with is easily disproved and is why sane lucid adults who do believe we owe our existence to God don't believe in Santa.

If it's falsifiable, [God hypothesis] then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.

I wouldn't expect to find anything, I wouldn't expect you or I to be alive. I wouldn't expect living sentient beings to emerge from mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence. I wouldn't expect to find a universe governed by seemingly inviolable laws of physics and that those laws would result in stars, galaxies, planets (from second generation stars with the properties to create rocky matter).

I'll ask you the same question. What would you expect to find (if anything) given that mindless forces somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence (or always existed)? Would you expect such forces to produce sentient life?

I'll get to the rest of your post as time permits...