Millions of people truly believe in Santa Claus.

[CarbonDate]

Is their belief any less valid than Christians' belief in Jesus simply because of their age? It's all about faith, baby.

[Az]

1. We don't walk up to them and tell them Santa is a fake though

I consider Santa and others to be the skeptic starter kit. Once they catch on to that they have a chance of finding other such stories in our culture.

[arwalden]

2. So When I Was In First Grade One Of The Classroom Troublemakers...

... took it upon himself to tell me the truth about Santa Claus. "Your *daddy* is Santa Claus" he told me. I didn't believe him, but he was insistent that this was the case.

When I got home, my mother asked the standard "what did you learn in school today?" --- and I replied... "I found out that Daddy is not REALLY my daddy... SANTA CLAUS is *MY* Daddy!!"

She decided to just say nothing and NOT correct me and NOT try to explain what the other fellow was actually trying to tell me.

For the mind and maturity of a 6-year-old... it was easier for me to rationalize and deny the TRUTH of who my daddy really was, than it was to accept the FACT that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

True story. A family favorite that gets told once a year, at least.

[trotsky]

3. LOL

That's hilarious! No wonder it's a family favorite. Did you ever tell your dad that he wasn't your real dad, or did the "secret" just stay with mom?

[CarbonDate]

7. I'm surprised more people don't make that extrapolation.

Their parents clearly lied to them about Santa Claus, is it such a great stretch to conclude that their parents lied to them about God?

[Dervill Crow]

26. That is exactly what I thought.

My parents were not churchgoers, and I thought people who went to church were just pretending, the same way I played "pretend" games. I went to church occasionally with friends, but it never occurred to me that all that stuff was real. Strangely enough, I DID believe in magic, vampires, and ghosts, and my older brother did nothing to dissuade me in that.

[raccoon]

37. I concluded that.

I really felt betrayed when I found out I'd been lied to by not only my parents, but the society in general, about Santa Claus.

And, as people often think when they find out they've been lied to, I thought, "What other lies was I told?" The obvious response was God.

IMO, teaching children to believe in Santa Claus is a disservice to them. Why? Because it's a lie.

[Old Mouse]

10. That's one of the things that worries me

Once you start mythbusting...
Religion is the EASY one to start with. Then history. Society. Conciousness... there's no end to the rationalizing onion-layers we have shielding us. If you expand your search for truth too far it becomes a total perspective vortex.

[arwalden]

11. Woe are we? Slippery slope? Stop now before it's too late?

:eyes:

[Az]

13. So what happend?

I found out what a really cool dude I am. - Zaphod Beeblebrox after being thrown into the total perspective void

[Old Mouse]

15. di du ba ga

melatonin, vasopressin, oxytocin... the true effect of the survival instinct on the illusion of conscious will. There's no one to reset the machine for us - there is destruction of ego.

[beam me up scottie]

14. You never stop begging the question, do you?

Selective thinking making you think you can get atheists to acknowledge your fantasy?

History is not a myth.
Society is not a myth.
Consciousness is not a myth.

But you were correct when you said "Religion is the EASY one to start with".

No kidding.

Busting that myth is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Wow! When did Linus van Pelt's teacher join DU ?

Here's another Atheists Factoid for your collection:

We don't have any "version(s)" of religious memes.

That's why we call them "myths".

[Old Mouse]

18. its a religion called "neuroscience"

and I'm afraid the implications escape unscathed. I suspect you to be at capacity. Oh well.

by your statements, I can now assume, contrary to many other atheist's posts, you are stating atheists CAN have factors that identify them as an affiliated group?

[beam me up scottie]

19. Neuroscience is a religion?

Really??

Post a listing of the churches, the proselytizers, the bible, the dogma and the IRS classification for tax exemption purposes, please.

[Old Mouse]

21. that is a purposeful misinterpretation

you are not interested in discussion. I find your motive suspect.

[beam me up scottie]

23. You said " its a religion called "neuroscience" "

Explain.

[Dervill Crow]

27. Not all religions proselytize.

Guys with ties on bikes come through my neighborhood pretty regularly, but they're not from the Church of Satan.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

28. We almost kicked out the Geek Squad when

they tried to come into our office.

The young faces, black ties and books in hand almost did them in.

Good thing they had their squad car with them and it was sighted by a coworker before things could get ugly.

They said they get that a lot.

I suggested they consider putting their logo on their shirts before someone turns their dogs loose on them.

[Dervill Crow]

30. ROFL n/t

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

20. This guy really does love to lecture.

I guess that since he has all the answers, that makes him god, and we can no longer be atheists because god is now among us. What a disappointment.

[beam me up scottie]

22. This is true.

He makes a claim.

I repeat said claim and ask for evidence.

He then claims I'm "misrepresenting" it.

[onager]

4. You're just bashing...er...uh...well, Santa or somebody!

Pre-emptive strike!

:hi:

My mother has a pretty funny story about having to deal with a little Fundie girl who told her entire pre-school class that Santa wasn't real.

My mom teaches at a pre-school attached to a Southern Baptist church. However, the school takes any kids, not just Baptists. I think the reasons for that are more financial than ecumenical, though.

[Az]

5. No fair!!

You can't tell us of a funny story and not follow through! Give!

[onager]

8. HA! Thanks, Az...

But I'm not sure I can make it that funny with mere black letters on white background.

You'd have to hear my Mom telling it in her completely outraged Southern accent.

And you'd need to understand that my Mom is one of those CHRISTMAS PEOPLE. Man, she REALLY gets into Xmas! From Thanksgiving to New Year's, you can't turn around in her house without knocking over a Dickens Village house or giant candy cane or some damn thing.

This may explain why I grew up thinking Scrooge was an excellent role model, until he wimped out in the end. As Harlan Ellsion once observed: sometimes I think if I hear one more "God bless us every one," I could happily beat that fucking Tiny Tim to death with his own crutch.

Anyway, the trouble started with this kid's mother. She barged in and said she didn't want her kid getting Xmas presents or even bringing home a chocolate Santa or Xmas card from the other kids. According to her, all that stuff corrupted "the real meaning of Xmas."

I don't think she meant the Winter Equinox.

And apparently, it was the mother who thought it would be a GREAT idea for her kid to tell a whole room full of 4-year-olds that Santa wasn't real.

My Mom suddenly had to answer a bunch of tearful questions about whether or not Santa would be coming that year.

She finessed the whole thing by saying something like, "Santa will come to see everybody who believes in him."

When she told me this story, I bit my tongue to avoid comparisons to certain other fictional characters...

[manic expression]

12. Funny....

you think you are above those stories, yet you believe in the most ridiculous myth of all: the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Please....

[onager]

24. Good grief! Are you still harping on the AIT?

BTW, saying I "believe in it" seems to put it on the same level as relgious belief. Not even close.

I have an open mind on the Aryan Invasion Theory, and so do a lot of other people...including Indians without a vested interest in defending the odious caste system or Hindu uber-nationalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion_theory

Note that the opponents of the AIT simultaneously blast their enemies as "Nazis" AND "Communists."

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

25. Where the hell did THAT come from?

I had no idea you were a true believer, O.

I must say, I'm disappointed.

:evilgrin:

[manic expression]

29. Yes, I AM harping on it

because it is as much a myth as Santa is. You did not seem to have an "open mind" when you parroted it before.

Note that the AIT is based on a Biblical view of history. Note that such claims are not unreasonable, considering it is quite a racist theory. Note that the theory is one of the most debunked and wrong views in recent history, and note that ALL the evidence points to the contrary of the AIT.

"The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:"
(click the link to see why)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

The fact is that the AIT is wrong. Hinduism never had anything to do with foreign invaders, and it was NEVER used to "placate a subjugated people" (or whatever you said before). Furthermore, the caste system is not unique to India at all...look at the people who cut White America's lawns, thanks.

(By the way, if you want to start a conversation on the caste system itself, please do)

[onager]

31. Thanks, but I'll stick with the real experts...

...who say the AIT is still controversial.

Nice try on the caste system, though. Maybe you'd like to defend this bit o' news, from the tsunamis earlier this year:

International press and aid agency reports indicate that Dalits have been forced out of relief camps by higher caste people, barred from drinking water from tanks, and expected to dispose of dead bodies because higher-caste people feared pollution if they handled them. Also statutory government compensation paid to victims of the tsunami has not got through to them and appears to have been withheld by officials also influenced by caste-prejudice.

http://www.karuna.org/tsunami2.htm

[manic expression]

32. Too bad...

the AIT is the most blatantly wrong historical theories. The fact that you give it any shred of credibility is laughable, especially since the AIT is based on the Biblical premise that the Earth was created in 4004 BC, a number determined by experts...and by experts I mean Christian clergy in 1650. :rofl: I also hope you take comfort in the fact that you have an "open mind" on not only the most debunked theory in recent history, but a theory which is popular with Christian fundamentalists (as well as bigots). Please, you are making a mockery of history itself.

Read up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

I would like to remark on that bit of news. This was a case of a more powerful group trying to consolidate resources after a disaster...do you think this does not happen anywhere else? A group was faced with a disaster, and tried to help themselves at the expense of another group, which is not an unheard of reaction. I would like to remind you that after these reports were heard of, the Indian people and their government gathered a great amount of aid for those who had been subject to prejudice. Furthermore, you can find such abuses done to Brahmins, who are the highest level on the caste system:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1505920,00.html

If you look at the link, you will see that the most "elite" groups are oppressed, which should tell you something (to be specific, it should tell you that you're wrong). In conclusion, caste oppression is the result of certain conditions, which cause groups to consolidate power and use it for gain (again, know that this happens to those on the HIGHEST level of the caste system).

Another thing that should clue you in to reality is that virtually all of this discrimination occurs in very rural areas, and even then in especially reactionary rural areas. These are very rare and isolated occurences which are very much exceptions. You're using a terribly broad brush, and besides that you have absolutely no grasp of what you should be painting (refer to my arguments above). All this contributes to the fact that you are woefully incorrect.

I would also like to remind you of what is happening in NOLA right now, where more powerful groups are consolidating resources from other groups. India reacted in a similar way (although those reports were not very numerous when you look at the size of the catastrophe) as those in America have, although Hurricane Katrina cannot be seriously compared to the far worse tsunami.

Most importantly, Hinduism has nothing to do with the caste system. It is a social structure, not a religious one. I challenge you to find a single shred of real justification for the caste system in Hindu teachings...you will not find any.

[onager]

33. Right, whatever you say...

Strangely enough, I find most of the anti-AIT babbling on such tremendously objective sites as hindunet...which has a vested interest in marketing its own account of history.

Next you'll be trying to convince me that Hinduism had nothing to do with the partition of India.

There's a real shining moment in the history of the religion. But I'm sure you have reams of True Facts to prove it was all the Muslims' fault.

[manic expression]

34. Whatever I say....

along with the accepted historical facts. Give me one sliver of evidence that remotely points to the AIT. YOU CAN'T.

You mean, tremendously objective sites as BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

along with the entire historical community. Just keep to your theory that is based on the Bible.

........

The Partition of India has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Care to make another attempt of shifting the argument? Care to try another insignificant cheap shot?

Oh, and just in case there wasn't enough ACTUAL evidence to prove REALITY, here's just a bit of info (does it seem familiar?):

The Aryan Invasion Theory is completely wrong and has been debunked. (a lot of this is taken out of other sources) The theory's inventor, Frederick Max Muller made it because he wanted to fit it into the Biblical story of the creation of Earth. He believed that the world had been created in 4004 BCE, and he also believed the Great Flood ended in 2448 BCE. Therefore, he reasoned that immigration and population of India would have taken until 1200 BCE. With the discovery of the Indus Valley civilizations, people came up with the Aryan Invasion Theory. Obviously, both Muller and these scholars were woefully incorrect.

The Northern people of India have no recollection of invading, and the Southern people of India (supposedly the invaded and subjugated race...which is wrong) have no recollection of ever being driven out of anywhere, or living in Northern India at all. There is much evidence to show this:

The Vedas themselves describe the landscape of northern India and Pakistan. There is no trace of any reference to anything besides the subcontinent (scholars then reasoned that the Aryans must have been fantasizing of what they wished their homeland was!).
The Vedas repeatedly mention a river called the Sarasvati, a place where Aryan communities thrived. There is no such river in India today, but satellite images have revealed the dry bed of a river in the Punjab (northwestern India/Pakistan). This was actually the Sarasvati River that the Vedas had mentioned. Geologists established the river dried up around 1900 BCE...700 years AFTER Muller said the Vedas had been composed.

Archaeologists have not found any evidence of any invasion.
There was no abrupt break of culture, as would happen if there was an invasion of a foreign culture (supposedly made up of nomadic warriors, no less).

There have been many discoveries of Shiva and other deities popular in India today in the ancient Indus Valley ruins. Also, fire pits meant for Vedic rituals were also found in abundance. However, these rites were not supposed to have been in India for another 1,500 years.
No Dravidian-like culture has ever been found in Northern India, and DNA evidence shows almost no difference whatsoever between northern and southern Indians.

All this points to the conclusion that the Aryan Invasion Theory is false.

[onager]

35. Yawn...

Give me one sliver of evidence that remotely points to the AIT. YOU CAN'T.

It took all of 30 seconds to find a lot more than "one sliver." And here's the root of the matter, from Wikipedia.

In contrast, the proponents of a continuous, ancient, and sophisticated Vedic civilization are seen by some as Hindu nationalists who wish to dispense with the foreign origins of the Aryan for the sake of national pride or religious dogma.

Enjoy your personal obsession with this topic, but since you keep posting the same tedious religious propaganda over and over, I really don't see any use in responding further.

[manic expression]

36. Pathetic....

Too bad the AIT is not accepted at all, excepting closet bigots, of course.

The BBC is "tedious religious propaganda"??? :rofl: Get a grip. All the evidence points to a non-foreign origin of Vedic culture/religion. How do you explain the Sarasvati River in the Vedas, when the river dried up well before the invasions supposedly happened? How do you explain the fact that there was no abrupt break in culture, which would occur after an invasion? How do you explain the fact that there are very little DNA differences between Dravidians and Aryans? How do you explain the fact that the Vedas describe the area of northern India/Pakistan, when they were supposedly composed outside of the area and then used to "subjugate a conquered people"? How do you explain the excavations of fire pits which are used for Vedic rituals, as well as Hindu deities in the Indus Valley civilizations, when those practices were not supposed to be in India at the time? Can you explain ANY of these facts? Oh, I thought so.... The bottom line is that the AIT is beyond wrong, and so are you. Seriously, you have absolutely nothing supporting your silly claims, and you actually failed to provide a sliver of evidence (perhaps because your "evidence" would never hold up, being completely ridiculous and all :eyes:).
:rofl:

Finally, it perplexes me that you, of all people, would so foolishly believe a theory which depends on the Biblical notion that Earth was created in 4004 BC. That number was calculated by Christian clerics in 1650...are you really going to go by that view of the world? If so, that is positively laughable.

You haven't really responded at all, besides some idiotic rants which show no logic or understanding of the facts whatsoever. Enjoy your complete ignorance on history and reality.
:rofl:

-on edit-

From the home of "tedious religious propaganada"...the BBC:

"...There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong....

Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today....

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

Sorry, you are simply terribly wrong. Again, enjoy your complete ignorance on history and reality.

[manic expression]

38. And also...

You have not addressed my points at all so far. I have made many arguments, and you have chosen to ignore them and make further foolish claims with no evidence (why didn't you post all the evidence that you found in 30 seconds? Not even a link? Why?) whatsoever.

All the facts prove that the AIT is patently wrong. I have put forth many arguments (backed up by actual evidence) that clearly show this, and you have failed to address them. That's the truth.

[manic expression]

39. I just noticed that you have failed to provide me

with any evidence that the caste system has any justification or basis in Hindu teachings. You have not, and you cannot.

Hinduism had something to do with the partition, that is obvious because Hinduism was a part of the continent and conflict in question :dunce:. That's like saying Buddhism had something to do with the Chinese occupation of Tibet. What you fail to recognize is that the Muslim League's demand, for instance, that Urdu become the national language instead of the Devenagari script (which is used for not only Hindi but Marathi as well) and other such expectations were unrealistic and unreasonable. Congress fought against the partition, while the League pushed for it. Oh, and by the way, the British outlawed the Congress but not the Muslim League.

"By 1940, under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, it had gained such power that, for the first time, it demanded the establishment of a Muslim state (Pakistan), despite the opposition of the Indian National Congress. During World War II the Congress was banned, but the League, which supported the British war effort, was allowed to function and gained strength."

http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/MuslimLe.html

Once again...the truth proves you wrong.

Yet again, you show your incredible idiocy and ignorance. Has it no end?

[FM Arouet666]

6. What do you mean there is no Santa !?!?!?

I must admit I began to doubt religious belief when I realized that Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy were all the same person.

Yeah, dad was a fat gay rabbit, what of it! :evilgrin:

[Old Mouse]

9. LOL n/t

[DanCa]

40. well we can scare the fundies by saying if you scramble santa it spells

satan