Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.

[dangerdan]

Ok, you're probably wondering what Santa has to do with Christianity? bear with me here....

The topic of Santa was brought up in the thread "Everyone should be agnostic?, and with it brought some interesting topics to do with belief systems, well worthy of a new thread.

Now why is this in a Christianity forum? I think it has some rich insights into Christian epistemology - why they believe in some things and not others. I was pondering putting this in the philosophy sub-forum, but I feel it’s more relating to pure Christian thought (though if moderators feel otherwise then that's ok).

So, let the debate begin! I do not intend the question to be demeaning or disrespectful, but merely a candid enquiry. So with no further ado - Do Christians believe in Santa? If not, why not.

[bernee51]

"Believing anything to be the only correct answer is arrogance." - this is a belief that you hold, and one believed by you to be the only correct answer. Therefore, on your view, it is arrogant and or you are arrogant.

"Wishing to impose a particular worldview is agrogance." - This is your worldview, and you wish to impose it onto me. Therefore, on your view, it is arrogant and or you are arrogant.

so? what is your point?

[Arch]

Santa is intrinsically linked to Christmas. So if Christians don't believe in Santa why do they celebrate his day?

Any one who can read or watch the History Channel knows that the man they call Jesus was not born on December 25.

The same being applied they would also know that the custom, traditions and celebration of Christmas was done thousands of years before Jesus was even born.

The reason this celebration was done before him is that Santa has always existed and has required of us that we celebrate his existence on this day.
Santa is the reason for the season.

It is blasphemous to contribute his day to another god and in truth really can't be done because even if they are non believers they still worship Santa on that day by keeping his customs and traditions.

Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Non Santa believers try to delude themselves into believing that they worship Jesus on that day. Christmas is the celebration of the existence of Santa, even during the time of ancient Babylon, people believed a spirit would come and put gifts under a tree on December 25 during the winter Solstice. Even Jeremiah 10 of the bible notes the tradition of cutting a tree from the forest and decking it with silver and gold. A CHRISTMAS TREE

History and the bible give emphatic proof that Santa does exist and has always existed. His existence can not be denied his traditions have stood the test of times. For longer than people have worshipped Allah and Jesus people have kept the word of Santa and worshipped him on his day.

Even in 2004, christians and even some muslims and others around the world teach their children of Santa and his works. So you can see you can't get around the awesome power of Santa.

His greatness is the reason he is celebrated all across the world by most religions. His does this without threats of hell or promises of heaven. He is worshipped willingly by those who love him. That is true greatness. His works speak for him and people love him. Called by many different names he cares not for sematics and answers the prayers of all his followers no matter what name they call him by.

Surely you can see the salvation power of Santa, so again I ask why do christians celebrate Christmas if they don't believe in Santa

[The Hungry Atheist]

"Believing anything to be the only correct answer is arrogance." - this is a belief that you hold, and one believed by you to be the only correct answer. Therefore, on your view, it is arrogant and or you are arrogant.

"Wishing to impose a particular worldview is agrogance." - This is your worldview, and you wish to impose it onto me. Therefore, on your view, it is arrogant and or you are arrogant.

so? what is your point?

Playing Devil's advocate (well, somebody's advocate) for a moment, I think Simon's point was that your own statements seem to classify themselves as being arrogant - therefore, either you must acknowledge yourself to be guilty of the very transgression which you are condemning, or admit that arrogance can actually be condoned sometimes, which would rather defeat your point.

There's a quote which sprang to mind at reading this - I can't remember exactly how it goes, and I can't find a correct version or who to attribute it to, but it goes along the lines of, "Arrogance isn't being convinced you're right, it's being unable to imagine that you might be wrong."

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

Are you trying to suggest by this that Santa does not exist?

I know that he exists:

1 Presents appear at Christmas - who brings them if not Santa?

Your mom and your dad or your friends bring them.

Ah but you have misunderstood the allegorical nature of the presents ritual. Ask yourself what are the true presents that Santa brings us during the deepest depths of Winter's chill. Is it our very survival against the elements? Is it the crisp Winter air, the smell of holly, the bubble of children's laughter on a Christmas morning? As jocund sun stands tiptoe on the misty mountain top and the virgin snow stretches far across the landscape is it robin redbreast that makes you smile, or the crackle of Jack Frost's boots across the ice? Or perhaps it is the warmth of an open fire and the smell of dinner on a Christmas day? These are the true presents of Santa, and when I look up through the sharp darkness of a Winter's eve and see a shooting star do I see a comet? No I see santa making his ethereal presents felt upon the velvet blanket of our human consciousness.

And are really sure that the little present that you find each year without a card and which noone can remember was not left by Santa?

2 My parents told me that he exists ergo he exists

If, at an adult age, your parents will not confess that they lied and proceed to tell you the truth - let me talk to your parents.

Quote:

If your parents told you throughout your life that Santa exists you would believe now that he exists. Very similar to other religions really...

3 There are many references to Santa in books so he must exist.

Sure. These books can be found in the fiction section of the library, where as God has his own section that is not called fiction.

There is no evidence that the bible is anything other than a work of fiction.

4 Just because Santa chooses not to show himself to you does not mean he does not exist

Fine. So? This reason is not needed to show that he does not exist.

This is an analogy

5 Santa is benevolent - just because he does not give presents to those in the third world and allows people to starve at Christmas does not disprove his existence

Assuming we are saying that Santa is a man, he cannot be benevolent unless he has faith in God and has accepted Jesus Christ to be his personal savior.

Santa is not a man. I have never said that he is a man. Santa is a god. Pagan yes, but a god nevertheless whose provenance predates Christianity. As I said in a previous reply the concept of Santa was simply hijacked by Christians in order to facilitate the spread of Christianity across Northern Europe.

6 To ensure he is able to deliver all of the presents in just one night there are really three Santas and these three Santas are both the same Santa and different Santas all at the same time

This statement is completely worthless. It is simply making fun of the Trinity, and is not useful in discussion.

I would argue otherwise. The use of substitution is a valid means of testing the logic of a statement. If the concept of a Santa trinity is so illiogical then you need to look very closely at the holy trinity of Christianity. There is little difference in reality - three things that are the same and different is a difficult concept to defend without evidence of which there is as little for a Christian trinity as there is for a Santa trinity.

7 No I have never seen Santa - what a silly question - I do not need to see Santa I simply have faith in his existence

For all Christians, faith in God equates to the knowledge of God in 100% of the circumstances. Since in the case of God, knowledge and faith can be used interchangably - I will assume that you are trying to correlate your belief in Santa with a Christian's belief in God and do the same. So in the case of Santa, you cannot simply have a knowledge of his existance because his existance can be proven false as I have explained in the first set of statments.

Faith in God is not knowledge it is belief. You have not proven Santa's existence to be false - every argument one uses to try to prove that the Santa god does not exist weakens the tenets of an argument for the existence of a Christian god. Both rely on faith not on knowledge and there is as much (if not more) objective evidence for the existence of Santa as there is for your Christian god.

8 Please do not try to persuade me of his nonexistence by using scientific arguments - Santa is Santa and is beyond your understanding...

This is not a Christian argument that is used so I don't know why it's even posted.

In my experience this is a fundamental Christian argument. In the scientific understanding of the physical world there is no room for a god as described by Christians. If there is how do you square the Uncertainty Principle with omniscience? Or relativity with omnipresence? Or omnipotence with the creation enigma?

Most Christians when faced with scientific evidence revert to a position based on the rejection of the science and to statements that god is not subject to scientific principles. Understandable but weak in logical terms.

All of these statments regarding how somebody knows that Santa exists are completely worthless and ridiculous. These arguments are weak and do not equal a Christian's belief reasoning.

All of these statements regarding how someone knows that God exists are completely worthless and ridiculous. These arguments are weak and do not equal a Santaists belief reasoning.

Sorry but in my mind the arguments that support the existence of a god are identical to those that support the existence of any similar being (Santa included). There is no objective evidence.

Santa is the sleigh the roof and the night.

[Osiris Dragonfhain]

Even if the prophets of the bible were here today, they wouldn't be eyewitnesses because they never saw god first hand nor did they talk to him directly.

This is not true.

Adam walked and spoke with God (Genesis 3:8 );
Noah spoke with God (Genesis 7:1);
Moses had visitation from God out of the burning bush (Exodus 3:4) and on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:20);
Aaron was spoken to by God to go and meet Moses (Exodus 4:27);
God called Samuel, who answered 'hear am I' (1 Samuel 3:4);
The word of the Lord came to Nathan (2 Samuel 7:4) and frequently;
God called Joshua and instructed him to bring the children of Israel into the promised land (Jos 1:1-2);
The word of the Lord came to Isaiah (2 Kings 20:4);
The Lord spoke to Job out of a whirlwind (Job 40:6);
The Lord commanded Jeremiah to speak to the people (Jeremiah 26:8 );
The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:3);
After consulting every self-professed profit and soothsayer in the land, Nebuchadnezzar was troubled, unable to understand his dreams, but after seeking counsel from Daniel who spoke with God, "The king answered Daniel, and said, "Truly your God is the God of gods, the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you could reveal this secret." (Daniel 2:47) All this from an unbeliever;
God spoke with Jonah, telling him to go to Nineveh (Jonah 1:1-2);
Jesus, Son of God, walked, talked and ate with his 12 disciples and many thousands of people (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, etc...)

These are but a few examples of when prophets and even the ordinary were spoken to by God Himself (not angels)

Futhermore, I will even assert that if one of the prophets were here now to speak for themselves no somewhat rational christian , no matter how devout to their doctrines, would believe that they were actually prophets.

I think you are right that most would disbelieve. Most religious people disbelieved Jesus was who He claimed to be, and thus He said, "The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:42)

In essence He says, the greatest of prophets- God Himself has presented His face and yet He is despised beyond earlier men of God.

Mine ramble endeth.

How can you quote a book that was written and rewritten by man and interpreted in different languages over and over thru the years. There are so many discrepancies in this book called the Bible. Who is to say that this book is what God or Jesus said or wanted people to know. Not a single Christian alive today can prove any part of the Bible. All they have is what their ancestors told them to believe and most were forced growing up to believe. My opinion is that christianity is an excuse to not have to take responsibility for your own actions and life. Christianity is having some one els to blame when things go wrong.
Again this is my opinion.
Lord Osisris Dragonfhain

[dangerdan]

Oh man, I miss a couple days and we are on page 9! Sorry for the delay Otseng…

dangerdan wrote:

Great. So then it must follow that you don’t think the bible contains terribly valuable information then, as much of what is said is totally unverifiable.

Totally unverifiable? I would disagree. But, I'll leave that discussion for another thread.

How can you verify if, say, the Garden of Eden had a talking snake? I know the bible says it was a talking snake…ok, hold on…yes, best probably taken to another thread.

Quote:

But why do you bother trying to determine a rational basis for Christianity, if at the end of the road, you mealy appeal to supernatural arguments? Surely this would render Christian thought a valueless truism? This I feel is a subject that cuts quite deep into issues of religious thought, these are no insignificant murmurs.

It is not merely simply appealing to supernatural arguments. I would rather describe it as using logic and available evidence to provide arguments that would lead to the supernatural. It is not simply jumping to a supernatural conclusion in one giant step, or rather, a giant leap of faith.

Precisely. I can use science to explain Santa’s average velocity, an accurate approximation of his wind resistance and how much thermal energy he will gain as a result, whether he would create a sonic boom, etc, etc. But he whole point is moot because it’s basis is founded on irrefutable supernatural arguments.

If there are absolutely no rational basis for Christianity, then it would simply be blind faith. And if that was true, this entire forum would be a futile exercise.

Don’t get me wrong, I see some very clever and creative arguments on the board, many Christians are very intelligent, that is not in question. I do not mean to disrespect any Christians, but much (not all) I see is a quest for a rational answer….to a point…until inconsistencies arise, and a supernatural argument is induced. A classic example is the thread questioning what carnivores would eat after the flood.

Surely you cannot prove that the supernatural does not indeed exist.

QED. You cannot also prove that my supernatural Santa, cloaking himself from our senses, does not exist.

And if there is a chance of the supernatural to exist, then how can you isolate it from the rational?

Because it is irrefutable, and only limited by ones imagination.

I think a more realistic example would be more apropos. Let's take the Anthropic Principle. I don't want to get into the details of it here. But in essense, there are only two possible scenarios to explain the universe - either the universe got incredibly lucky or the universe was planned that way. Which is more plausible? It would be up to the reader to decide, but for me, the universe being planned is more plausible.

I still think “plausible” is the wrong word here, to determine the plausibility of either “A” happened, or “B” happened, they need to roughly know details about each option to compare and contrast. How can you compare details on “how God supernaturally made the universe with her infinite power?”. Did she make it yesterday to look like it was 15 billion years old (or 8 thousand, depending on who’s asking ), or did she make it 20000 trillion years ago and made it look 15 billion (or 8 thousand) years old? How can you say? It’s totally unverifiable. How can you contrast the details of this to another option?

One could say, “I don’t know”, but as soon as they say “…perhaps, God (or Santa) did it”, truly rational thought goes out the window. And a word like “plausible” isn’t applicable.

[chrispalasz]

You (everyone) should really stick with the unicorn deal so we can procede with this discussion. Santa is an illogical example.

We know that Santa does not exist because he claims to live in the North Pole, at the very northern-most point on this planet. There is no Santa village there with elves. We have satalites and everything to see that location with.

[chrispalasz]

Sorry, I hope it's okay that I'm posting this.

This is to let everyone know (Osiris Dragonfhain, nikolayevich, Arch, ect.) that I have copied and pasted Osiris Dragonfhain's last posting and responded to it. It is in the Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution thread. You can view it here:

http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... =7828#7828

[Gaunt]

We know that Santa does not exist because he claims to live in the North Pole, at the very northern-most point on this planet. There is no Santa village there with elves. We have satalites and everything to see that location with.

We know God does not exist because he claims to live in the sky, reachable by a tower of mud bricks (a la Tower of Babel) and yet our skyscrappers, satellites, rockets, and frisbees have not discovered it.

Who is to say that Santa couldn't cloak his village from satellite footage anyway? He never claims that you can See his place at the North Pole, after all.

Santa is an illogical example.

Most religions are illogical when they make use of the supernatural.

[chrispalasz]

GreenLight311 wrote:
We know that Santa does not exist because he claims to live in the North Pole, at the very northern-most point on this planet. There is no Santa village there with elves. We have satalites and everything to see that location with.

We know God does not exist because he claims to live in the sky, reachable by a tower of mud bricks (a la Tower of Babel) and yet our skyscrappers, satellites, rockets, and frisbees have not discovered it.

God does not ever claim to live in the sky. God's Kingdom is in Heaven. Not the sky. God's Kingdom is not reachable by a tower of mud and bricks and He never claims that it is. This claim is false. Instead of making such a claim, why don't you ask a Christian? And if a Christian makes that claim, you can proceed to use it against them. As it stands... this is no claim but your own.

Who is to say that Santa couldn't cloak his village from satellite footage anyway? He never claims that you can See his place at the North Pole, after all.

I can find many books that show pictures that were drawn of Santa's village. There are cartoons... there are descriptions. Surely, if these books can serve as evidence according to the 8 points, they can also serve as evidence regarding his village.