Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[RoadRunner79]

Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags. I’m sorry but that is truly how I feel. Without even an ounce of shame they ridicule some of the best and brightest thinkers who take up a problem serious and came to serious conclusion. Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, Buber, Kripke, Plantinga, Newton, Leibnitz, Putman, and Godel are/were theists. That list doesn’t even include theologians, like David Bentley Hart, or physicists, like, Francis Collins or Max Planck. All brilliant.

Maybe you don’t realize this but it is possible to be an atheist without acting like an infantile little snark. It’s astonishing to me how such ass-wipes will disrespect the legacies of truly great men and women like Dr. King, Bonhoeffer, and Catherine Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) by pretending that their religious convictions did nothing to motivate and inspire them to change the world.

How can anyone seriously believe that the motivating force to build the very first hospitals is in any way comparable to believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Here in Chicago we have Mount Siani, Rush Presbyterian, Illinois Masonic, Loyola, Mercy, Saints Mary and Elizabeth, Saint Anthony...that’s just a start. They came to be because of religious convictions for which you have no respect.

I do think that this type of claim concerning the tooth fairy is due to a number of deficiencies in thinking, and is a pretty weak comparison.  I find a lot of similarities in discussing with such people, to having a discussion with those involved in a cult organization.   In the end, they will always find a way around reason, if nothing else, then resulting to attacking the source of the reason.  

http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...fairy.html
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...art-2.html
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...-pt-3.html

I do agree, that the Judeo/Christian worldview has contributed a lot to Western culture.  I think it is silly for those who seek to deny it.  However I do think that some caution should be used when discussing that good things followed from a particular motivation or belief.  At best it is a secondary support, and in no way directly follows in support of the belief in question.   I don't think this is what you are saying, but it may be construed that way.

[Faith No More]

It's not that we deny that Christianity contributed to culture(They came up with extremely inventive ways to torture people, after all). It's that we deny that Christians contributed everything they claimed to have contributed, and we hate the fact that they simply dismiss all of the terrible things they contributed. To hear Chad tell it, Christianity is responsible for the Renaissance, the Theory of Relativity and every life-saving surgical procedure ever invented, while things like the mass genocide of the natives in the Americas is barely worth mentioning.

In 100 years Christians will be claiming they were responsible for gay rights, the separation of church and state, and the internet.

[Amarok]

It's not that we deny that Christianity contributed to culture(They came up with extremely inventive ways to torture people, after all).  It's that we deny that Christians contributed everything they claimed to have contributed, and we hate the fact that they simply dismiss all of the terrible things they contributed.  To hear Chad tell it, Christianity is responsible for the Renaissance, the Theory of Relativity and every life-saving surgical procedure ever invented, while things like the mass genocide of the natives in the Americas is barely worth mentioning.

In 100 years Christians will be claiming they were responsible for gay rights, the separation of church and state, and the internet.

And it still doesn't make the belief any less silly

---

Not to mention the fact that there is nothing inherently Christian about most of the stuff Christians take credit for

[Crossless2.0]

To say that a human process was used in determining what would be contained in the bible or what the dominant viewpoint would be is not showing that the result was not inspired by God.  The fact that there was and is disagreement among christians does not show that the bible is not inspired.  It just shows God brought about his plan through the workings of humanity.

It means god is indistinguishable from not existing.  Moron.

@Lek: I really have nothing to add to Anomalocaris's post, except to say, "Enjoy mind fucking yourself."

*shrug*

[chimp3]

The process of some believers becoming atheists is much like a child learning that the tooth fairy is not real. 

"Oh! Mommy and Daddy made that up!" is similar to "Oh! Someone claiming to be Moses made that shit up!"

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a proposed explanation, the tooth fairy is a childish answer to a trivial parental prank. In contrast to this, the existence of a divine being is one answer to profound philosophical questions such as why is there something rather than nothing, why does nature operate lawfully, etc. Even if the atheist thinks that is the wrong conclusion, intelligent minds have considered the existence of divine agency a reasonable answer to serious questions.

And the questions are not merely philosophical. Throughout human history religious sentiment has been motivating force behind many of Mankind’s greatest achievements and many of its darkest moral failures. No hospital was built in honor of the tooth fairy. She inspired no wars. She gave no strength to a missionary nor excuse to a criminal. How do you explain the difference between those beliefs that drive history and fanciful notions that do not? There is a reason.

Religious convictions, whether they are right or wrong, address the most profound questions of human existence and, at least for Christianity in particular, provide reasonable answers to those questions. These questions include who am I, why are we here, what am I obliged to do, etc. Trivializing Christian faith by comparing it to a childish superstition is to mock moral heroes, like Dr. King, whose Christian faith was essential to his life and legacy. Shame on you all.

[Jesster]

So in other words, God is like the Tooth Fairy, but people believe in it a whole lot more. Well duh.

Shame on you for believing in trivial global pranks.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags. I’m sorry but that is truly how I feel. Without even an ounce of shame they ridicule some of the best and brightest thinkers who take up a problem serious and came to serious conclusion. Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, Buber, Kripke, Plantinga, Newton, Leibnitz, Putman, and Godel are/were theists. That list doesn’t even include theologians, like David Bentley Hart, or physicists, like, Francis Collins or Max Planck. All brilliant.

Maybe you don’t realize this but it is possible to be an atheist without acting like an infantile little snark. It’s astonishing to me how such ass-wipes will disrespect the legacies of truly great men and women like Dr. King, Bonhoeffer, and Catherine Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) by pretending that their religious convictions did nothing to motivate and inspire them to change the world.

How can anyone seriously believe that the motivating force to build the very first hospitals is in any way comparable to believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Here in Chicago we have Mount Siani, Rush Presbyterian, Illinois Masonic, Loyola, Mercy, Saints Mary and Elizabeth, Saint Anthony...that’s just a start. They came to be because of religious convictions for which you have no respect.

Why can't you stupid asshats be respectful like me ?

[LastPoet]

As a proposed explanation, the tooth fairy is a childish answer to a trivial parental prank. In contrast to this, the existence of a divine being is one answer to profound philosophical questions such as why is there something rather than nothing, why does nature operate lawfully, etc. Even if the atheist thinks that is the wrong conclusion, intelligent minds have considered the existence of divine agency a reasonable answer to serious questions.

And the questions are not merely philosophical. Throughout human history religious sentiment has been motivating force behind many of Mankind’s greatest achievements and many of its darkest moral failures. No hospital was built in honor of the tooth fairy. She inspired no wars. She gave no strength to a missionary nor excuse to a criminal. How do you explain the difference between those beliefs that drive history and fanciful notions that do not? There is a reason.

Religious convictions, whether they are right or wrong, address the most profound questions of human existence and, at least for Christianity in particular, provide reasonable answers to those questions. These questions include who am I, why are we here, what am I obliged to do, etc. Trivializing Christian faith by comparing it to a childish superstition is to mock moral heroes, like Dr. King, whose Christian faith was essential to his life and legacy. Shame on you all.

You keep answering your questions like you do. I keep anawering as they come. You keep searching for your so vaunted philosofical meaning. I already found my own.

[Autolite]

The process of some believers becoming atheists is much like a child learning that the tooth fairy is not real. 

"Oh! Mommy and Daddy made that up!" is similar to "Oh! Someone claiming to be Moses made that shit up!"

Over time, I discarded The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and god (in that order).  It sometimes takes a while, but it eventually gets to a point for many of us when reality just sinks in.

I think that Theists tend to forget that many, if not most, Atheists were once believers.  When as a little kid I first starting having doubts about the veracity of religion, I wasn't even aware that one was 'allowed' to disbelieve.  Perhaps Theists should consider that many Atheist "douche-bags" were once just like them and then ask themselves 'what made them change their minds'???