Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Neo-Scholastic]

...I don't feel like wading through the dog pile that is this thread to find it. If you post it again, or a link, I'd actually be interested in reading it.

Here is the full post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-47154-po...pid1491166

Here is a basic summary without the hyperbole:

In propositions taking the form of ‘X exists’, the various entities or agents filling the role of X may fall into different categories of being. Here are some examples:

P1: The Tooth Fairy exists.
P2: Time exists.
P3: Numbers exist.
P4: Truth exists.
P5: Possibilities exist.

In P1, if a tooth fairy exists, it would be a particular concrete substance. Now when some skeptics insist with complete certainty that there is no evidence for X they are specifically asking for a sample of or an isolated observable effect of X. To the extent that any of P2-P5 might exist, not one of them could exist in the same way P1 could. By that skeptic’s criteria for proof, no one could justify belief in any of the subjects of P2-P5. And yet serious scholars regularly debate the ontological status of time, numbers, truth, and possibilities. Moreover, some of those propositions are arguably properly basic, meaning someone is justified in believing they are true in the absence of defeaters.

IF god exists, then he exists in ways similar those kinds of things found in P2-P5 and it is complete nonsense to insist that he exist in the same way as P1. As such it is unreasonable and obnoxious to demand that theists produce such evidence or to make that comparison during a debate with a theist to suggest that belief in God is ridiculous. I could quote example after example of AF members doing just that. And it is dishonest for anyone to pretend that that doesn’t regularly happen on AF.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1491519' dateline='1484964795']

IF god exists, then he exists in ways similar those kinds of things found in P2-P5 and it is complete nonsense to insist that he exist in the same way as P1. As such it is unreasonable and obnoxious to demand that theists produce such evidence or to make that comparison during a debate with a theist to suggest that belief in God is ridiculous. I could quote example after example of AF members doing just that. And it is dishonest for anyone to pretend that that doesn’t regularly happen on AF.

[/quote]


I don't know what you mean.

[Catholic_Lady]

Meh, like I said, I see tooth fairy comparisons here all the time and have never said a word. I came into this thread to confirm for the first time ever that yes, I do find it offensive, and to explain why I do. That's all. I'm not trying to silence anyone, neither do i expect anyone to actually care. Chad and I have just as much right to say we find a particular comment offensive as anyone else does to make the offensive remark in the first place, imho. There are numerous threads here about ppl taking offense to others saying they prayed for them. But somehow me and Chad are the only "sensitive/insecure" ones.

I understand that as a believer you disagree that belief in god is different somehow to belief in the tooth fairy, but to try and limit how we can describe how we view things is a little controlling.

Did you read what I just said? I'm not trying to limit or control anything. By all means, equate my beliefs to those held by 4 year olds all day long lol. Me honestly voicing one time how it makes me feel, isn't me trying to silence you.

[downbeatplumb]

I understand that as a believer you disagree that belief in god is different somehow to belief in the tooth fairy, but to try and limit how we can describe how we view things is a little controlling.

Did you read what I just said? I'm not trying to limit or control anything. By all means, equate my beliefs to those held by 4 year olds all day long lol. Me honestly voicing one time how it makes me feel, isn't me trying to silence you.

Well that is how it comes across. Mainly because I like and wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.

Its like saying "describe this red dress without using the words red or dress".

[Catholic_Lady]

Did you read what I just said? I'm not trying to limit or control anything. By all means, equate my beliefs to those held by 4 year olds all day long lol. Me honestly voicing one time how it makes me feel, isn't me trying to silence you.

Well that is how it comes across. Mainly because I like and wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.

Its like saying "describe this red dress without using the words red or dress".

I appreciate it, but that's kind of silly. You're basically saying I can't say one time how I feel about something bc it will make ppl not want to say them anymore. Tooth fairy comparisons run rampant on this forum. I've never said a word. This is the first time that I'm like "yeah, it is insulting, here's why." I really don't see why anyone would object to me voicing that.

[Pat Mustard]

Oh no, not superiority, just telling you and others that believe in gods, what I think of it. You take it offensive? That is too bad, but if the way I think makes you shake, then it is insecurity. I am going to tell you how I think, not sugar coat it, make it all polite and dandy. I respect that you are free to believe. You should try also to accept critique of your beliefs.

I am perfectly fine with critique of my beliefs. But as I have explained... there's a difference between critiquing a person's belief, and equating that person's belief to a belief that only children hold. When you say the beliefs I hold are equal to those help by children, you're essentially calling me childish/crazy/stupid. So yeah, that's insulting.    

It's like one of your friends telling you you're a childish idiot and then asking if it insults you. You say "yes" and then they accuse you of being insecure.

That's all well and good except for the fact that I've seen you characterise posters as being aggressive and rude simply for asking basic questions about other posters' beliefs. In order to convince others you're all right when others criticise your beliefs (and I'm not talking about my reactions to your mischaracterisation of the anti-abortion movement) you have to act in such a way to show that you are.

As it stands you are very insecure about criticism of your beliefs and it shows.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a category error if you consider a tooth fairy to be non-supernatural and a god to be supernatural.... but considering the very concept of anything supernatural/non-temporal/non-spacial has failed to even be coherent... it doesn't make any difference.

The point is they've both highly improbable and silly.

And, to be honest the fact that God is supernatural when the Tooth Fairy is merely physical just makes God even sillier than the Tooth Fairy. So it's besides the point.

And as I've said before.... God impregnated his mother without actually impregnating her to give birth to himself who is also his son and he can also come in the form of a cracker.... and he does all this whilst being outside space of time which doesn't even make any sense... so I'd say that the Christian God is a many times more silly than the tooth fairy.

[Jesster]

Well yes, the first post here started with NS converting his personal butthurt into that specific insult. While he was intending to insult others though, that's not how I'm seeing my deity comparison. I don't insult people over their religious beliefs and I don't see mocking the belief itself as an insult directed at the believer. If I wanted to insult them, I'd call them names as a result of their beliefs. So far I haven't done that, and yet they are sticking those words in my mouth anyway. You and the theists are welcome to view this as insulting all day long, but I don't see it. Again, not sorry.

I think one difference between you and I, Aroura, is that you seem to care about changing their beliefs (as I understood from your previous post at least). I don't care about converting anyone. I do care about informing others about what I do or do not believe, though. I'm going to keep doing that.

I actually have zero interest in converting, or deconverting people. I spend almost no time on this forums debating theists, and even less IRL, lol.  I have no idea why I phrased it that way.
Let me rephrase to, if you want someone to listen to your ideas and try and understand your point of view (which seems to be what you want), instead of CHANGE to their point of view.  Same thing, same point about how to address them. This applies completely to the OP calling people douchbags or whatever, as well, and is not directed at any single member in this thread,more of a general observation on my part. If he wants us to listen and not just get offended and riles up, then don't call your audience douchebags. 

But whatever, I can see you aren't interested in what I was saying anyway, and that's fine too.

I'm interested in what you're saying. I am just also interested in the truth, so I speak with complete honesty on discussion forums. I'm not interested in insulting them. If people want to be offended by that anyway, then that's their problem. I've said this about ten times, though, so I guess we're just going around in circles at this point. You do you and I'll do me.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm glad we agree that god is even sillier than the tooth fairy, Aroura!

As for offence... the way I look at it is... the truth is not offensive.

Be offended by reality. It's still reality.

[downbeatplumb]

Well that is how it comes across. Mainly because I like and wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.

Its like saying "describe this red dress without using the words red or dress".

I appreciate it, but that's kind of silly. You're basically saying I can't say one time how I feel about something bc it will make ppl not want to say them anymore. Tooth fairy comparisons run rampant on this forum. I've never said a word. This is the first time that I'm like "yeah, it is insulting, here's why." I really don't see why anyone would object to me voicing that.

I can see you are taking this in a way I had not intended.
Just be aware that I was not out to offend you.