Slashdot Mirror


The Science of Santa

Hugh Pickens writes writes "For decades, mystified scientists have chalked up Santa's power to the inexplicable wonder of magic, but North Carolina State University aerospace engineer Larry Silverberg, team leader on a first-of-its-kind visiting scholars program at Santa's Workshop-North Pole Labs (NPL), says that Santa is, in fact, a scientific genius and that Silverberg looks forward to Christmas each year, so he can ponder the remarkable accomplishments of one of the greatest pioneers in his field. 'Santa is not just a jolly old elf,' says Silverberg. 'He really has an understanding of engineering, technology, science that's far beyond our own.' It all starts at the North Pole where Santa has an elaborate technical setup that rivals the nerve center of the CIA including an underground antenna that listens to children's thoughts. 'He takes those signals and finds out whether the child has been naughty or nice, and ultimately, what present the child wants.' Santa's mastery of nanotechnology allows Santa to grow presents on the spot eschewing the necessity of carrying them on the sleigh which would be prohibitive because of the weight. Then there's Santa's sleigh itself, an advanced aerodynamic structure equipped with laser sensors to find the optimal path, and covered by a nanostructured 'skin' that is porous and contains its own low-pressure system, which holds the air flowing around the airborne sled onto the body, reducing drag by as much as 90 percent. Finally there's Santa's greatest invention, the relativity cloud, that bends time and space to allow for his round-the-world Christmas journey and explains why Santa is so seldom seen. 'Relativity clouds are controllable domains – rips in time – that allow him months to deliver presents while only a few minutes pass on Earth. The presents are truly delivered in a wink of an eye.'"

223 comments

  1. Santa of course is not an effin elf. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Santa Claus derives from St. Nicholas, who was someone lived around early byzantine era in western anatolia. (modern turkey). He used to give presents to the kids.

    In line with the person it was derived from, santa claus is not an elf himself - he is a magic person (human). Elf 'helpers' were added in recent centuries through influence of celtic/anglosakson folklore.

    1. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by King+InuYasha · · Score: 1

      Sinterklaas is an elf. The name and some of his attributes are derived from that folklore.

    2. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by King+InuYasha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oops, I'm stupid. Sinterklaas is a person, St. Nick to be precise. But part of Santa Claus comes from a Nordic legend about a gift-giving elf.

    3. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by joocemann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say that like the tea partiers that havent noticed the new gop2.0 tea party. Tp 2007 != tp 2008.5+.

      Santa in 2011 is a meme to drive materialism and consumerism. Some still apprecate family and friends by proxy, but the santa of old is nothing like the tool for chinese manufactured goods he has become.

    4. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Servaas · · Score: 2

      That was as true in 2001 as it is now. Except then we all thought we were entitled to fast cars, big houses and snorting coke off of dead hookers. Were not. Thats why the world economy crashed and is still looking for a ladder back up.

    5. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odin is not an effin elf too.

    6. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our current concept of Santa and reindeer has a lot to do with the poem "the night before Christmas" written in 1823. The character is referred to as a 'right jolly old elf'. Also the sleigh is miniature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas.

    7. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by chilvence · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Santa knows what you need, a heavy dose of lighten the fuck up

    8. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, beleiving in something with no proof, except maybe that someone older than you said it was true. Who'd do something stupid like that. Oh, wait, every religious person in the world.

      If you want to be picky, some actually believe there is proof - they are the ones who suck at evaluating evidence.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    9. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1.

      *{:) That's a Santa hat smiley. Nobody forced you to read the thread "Anonymous Coward" (if that is your real name).

    10. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Our current concept of Santa and reindeer has a lot to do with the poem "the night before Christmas" written in 1823. The character is referred to as a 'right jolly old elf'. Also the sleigh is miniature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas.

      And current view of how Santa looks was created by Coca Cola for advertising.

      To have a good look into the Santa Mythos, read Terry Pratchett's Hogfather - while a lot of humourous bits wound in, it provides some deep thinking. Crafty bugger, that Pratchett.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    11. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Santa Claus is an archetype established by ancient Nordic shaman who used to gather mushrooms (amanita) in a sack and descend into his "hut" (forget the name of the structure) through the roof to process the mushrooms before handing them out at the yearly celebration that took place around this time. Christmas is an amalgamation of MANY year end (beginning) celebrations that were common over the entire world. This saint you refer to did not descend through the roof of homes in any way and deserves much less credit than the Nordic shaman who were stamped out by the Catholic church (although the tradition is still somewhat alive).

      Any association of Jesus and Christianity with this yearly celebration is a VERY late hijacking of this universal festivity. Like other traditions, the Christianity cult had to subvert these cultures to facilitate conversion. Being highly valued cultural traditions they also had to preserve the festivities to ease the transition. Why are there so many "different" holidays that all occur around this time of year?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      Manditory +1 Insightful Required Here

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    13. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      This celebration that has become Christmas used to be the most anticipated time of the year and had nothing to do with presents in the shape that we know them. What you hate is the modern cultural manifestation of this corrupt and once great tradition. I wish it was just a celebration (party) involving the entire community and not just family. Don't let the shallow meaning of Christmas consumerism blot out your ancient heritage. Maybe one day we will celebrate again.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    14. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It was just as true in 1955, except the toys were made in the US.

      Thats why the world economy crashed and is still looking for a ladder back up.

      The world economy crashed because of greed and incompetence of the rich and powerful.

    15. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by EdIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait......

      Are you saying Santa used to hand out shrooms? No wonder people looked forward to the celebration, saw elves, flying reindeer, live snowmen, etc.

      All we give him is cookies and milk in return.

    16. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you list "greed" and "incompetence" as separate items for some reason. In my experience the two are usually found together.

    17. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Troll

      the Christianity cult

      Posted on the second holiest day for Christians, on Christmas of all days. Damn, you get troll of the year, asshole.

      As to Santa Clause, he's responsible for more atheists than Richard Dawkins is (Richard? Is that you?). The kiddies find they've been lied to about Santa Cause and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and figure the grownups are lying about Jesus.

      I pity you for your ignorance and hate. Now fuck off, troll.

    18. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      read Terry Pratchett's Hogfather - while a lot of humourous bits wound in, it provides some deep thinking.

      That's true of every Pratchett book I've read. And rather than "humorous parts" I'd say "damned hilarious."

    19. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love the vague terminology - God touched you? Explain exactly what that means. I'll believe something to do with gods the same way I'll believe anything else - give me enough proof to make it the most likely explanation. I'm not saying there is no posibility of a God, I'm saying that beleiving in one is like believing there is an elephant in my bathtub - It's highly unlikely, and if someone told me it was true, I wouldn't take them at their word.

      You say there is no proof you can show me, then why should you expect me to believe it? I'm sure you'd think anyone getting an email from nigerian royalty promising lots of money and beleiving it was stupid, but an old book and promising eternal life? It's different how?

      I'm open to the idea - If I'm wrong, you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong, and I'll take that on board. If you expect me to treat it differently because it's religion, or suspend logic for no reason, then no. Logic applies universally, you can't just choose where to apply it or not.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    20. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny
      also reminded of how Dad suggests putting Scotch out for Santa Clause instead of the milk.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    21. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I can see how the early Christians appropriated the timing/rituals for marketing purposes, but perhaps it was also a way to dodge persecutors that would be occupied with their own celebrations? (think of Romans busy with drunken orgies, perhaps)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    22. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by count_zero451 · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't want to eat those shrooms, most amanita are deadly.

    23. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by kayditty · · Score: 0

      not true. it's really only the death cap that is deadly. all Amanitas are toxic, but most of them can be taken safely, and Amanita muscaria will cause delirium, but as any fungus, it's a really tricky issue to judge dosage and get the desired effect. granted, Amanitas aren't "shrooms," though. I hate seeing people make that mistake. they are mushrooms, but shrooms in this context refer to psilocybin mushrooms.

    24. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please show me on this doll where exactly god touched you? And how did you feel?

    25. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Christianity cult

      Posted on the second holiest day for Christians, on Christmas of all days. Damn, you get troll of the year, asshole.

      As to Santa Clause, he's responsible for more atheists than Richard Dawkins is (Richard? Is that you?). The kiddies find they've been lied to about Santa Cause and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and figure the grownups are lying about Jesus.

      I pity you for your ignorance and hate. Now fuck off, troll.

      Damn. Butthurt much, religibot?

    26. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by reboot246 · · Score: 0

      Do you not believe in love? Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt your love for your parents or your children or your spouse. Tough to do, isn't it?

      Now consider - "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." Yep, self-sacrifice is the proof, but it doesn't always mean killing yourself. Most of the time it's just putting the wants and needs of the other person ahead of yours. The philosophy is simple and it works.

      Take that thought to its ultimate conclusion and there you'll find God.

      Oh, you'll ask, why then does God let bad things happen? Easy. Bad things are permitted to happen to bring forth from them a greater good. Watch life, learn how it works, see the way how everything that should be, is.

      Merry Christmas! May you all find the peace that you seek.

    27. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by galluk · · Score: 1

      Epic agree

    28. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Love is an emotion - it's an abstract label we have applied to someone wanting another person's company and caring about them - that's clearly observable in society, and in a product of evolution and natural selection - animals that look after their children do better than those that don't, as they avoid the young animals being killed off. It's observable.

      As to the rest of what you say, it didn't really make too much sense, as far as I can gather you are saying that caring about another person is proof of a god. How is that a logical conclusion? Again, caring for others is a product of society, which is the product of evolution. Animals that have social interaction fare better than those that don't as they help each other out, increasing likelyhood of survival as a species.

      The idea that one can only be a morally good person with the guidance of a higher power is a joke. I'm perfectly capable of being moralistic without needing to believe that God made it so, or I'll go to hell if I don't act in a 'good' way.

      The age old 'prove that god exists' 'well, prove that he doesn't' mantra is inherantly flawed. I don't require proof that God exists, I require enough reasoned evidence that it seems likely - just like anything else. Just because there is some vague chance of something being the case, doesn't mean you beleive it. All I do is treat religion just like anything else - and it fails at that hurdle.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    29. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

          Shhh... You're screwing with the religious zealots. They'll start quoting fire and brimstone passages out of their holy books. Then they'll flip through the peaceful and loving parts, and find reasons to kill you in very uncomfortable ways.

          You and I know perfectly well that there is no invisible friend running the universe, and the only kind of divine intervention that happens is choreographed and executed by a flesh and blood humans.

          Some of these people actually believe it. Most of their holy books say that by doubting them, you are their evil, and you must be punished. ... and you may say you have an elephant in your bathtub, but I have an undetectable transdimensional leprechaun in a box. Don't ever try to open the box, or he'll immediately move to another dimension. Once you believe in him, I'll introduce you to the invisible dragon in the garage. My girlfriend told me that he's there. He sucks the life out of car batteries, and changes my preset radio stations when I'm out of town.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    30. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair to them, I agree with Penn Jillette that if someone does believe in a religion, it's equally insane not to expect them to be verbal about it. The example he gives is that if I'm stood in front of you on train tracks, and you hear a train coming - but I tell you that the train doesn't exist, you are still going to push me off the tracks (presuming that you are not too scared of getting sued, enjoy seeing people die, etc...). If someone believes I am going to burn in hell for eternity because I don't beleive in God, then I can understand them trying to change my viewpoint.

      Doesn't stop them being illogical mind.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    31. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          You're probably right.

          I just have a hard time reconciling the fact that there are over 10,000 religions on this planet, and the cultists in each believe that they are right, and want you to convert to their way. No matter what, it's a lose-lose situation. If you don't believe their way, you're wrong. If you do finally accept their way, that means you are wrong in the minds of the thousands of others groups.

          I guess that's part of why holy wars work. Unless one group manages to gain 100% acceptance, they'll always have someone to fight against.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    32. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least the religibot is not attempting to murder the poster and his associates. Christianity is better than Muslim, at least for that response. Oh, and I just thought of a picture of Mohammed. And Jesus. Sucking each other off. Big fucking deal.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    33. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You're hilarious. "You goddamned physicists can't let us discuss pink unicorns for ONE FUCKING DAY?" Yeah, sure, you can discuss them all you want. Go to your religious site to discuss religious shite. Come here to discuss physics.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    34. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, at least the religibot is not attempting to murder the poster and his associates. Christianity is better than Muslim, at least for that response. Oh, and I just thought of a picture of Mohammed. And Jesus. Sucking each other off. Big fucking deal.

      Yes we have a winner I present the Troll of the year

    35. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree totally.
      Yes Christmas has been pretty much hijacked by commercialism. And yes many times religious people seem at odds with what they profess, their love of God, Jesus (or other prophet/teacher/deity), and all of mankind. As well the current mind set that if I can't see, touch, etc, it means that there's no way something can exist so spiritual belief is highly suspect as is the intelligence of any one that has a spiritual life.
      But all that is moot if you've felt and live in the presence of God. Why is it so hard to say I don't believe what you believe but I respect your belief none the less and won't criticize and demean you for it. Are atheist's world view so fragile that they can't abide with anyone who isn't one?
      Pitiful indeed that all you can see is the short comings of someones convictions and beliefs but not the beauty and grandeur of what they envision and profess.

    36. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Christmas was celebrated in Germany with a Christmas tree in the 1500s, and earlier in other parts. The celebration of Christmas itself goes much further back, with references in the 11th century, and even as far back as the 4th century. You are right that Christmas is a semi-new arrival on the scene-- in the last 1500 years or so-- but you should qualify what you mean when you say "a very late hijacking" when "very late" refers to the "within the last 2 millenia or so".

    37. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im sure youre a riot at family gatherings. Way to celebrate "goodwill towards all men".

    38. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right.

      I just have a hard time reconciling the fact that there are over 10,000 religions on this planet, and the cultists in each believe that they are right, and want you to convert to their way. No matter what, it's a lose-lose situation. If you don't believe their way, you're wrong. If you do finally accept their way, that means you are wrong in the minds of the thousands of others groups.

      I guess that's part of why holy wars work. Unless one group manages to gain 100% acceptance, they'll always have someone to fight against.

      Your falling into the trap laid for those that are scared to even consider something bigger then their are with the ability to change the very base nature of who their are.
      God, belief in God, and attempting to follow a holy path, is not religion, it's faith. The ability to embrace what you don't fully understand and allow it to lead you in your life.
      I explain it this way.
      First you have your base belief the one that everything else is built on. Christians, that Jesus was god made flesh, died for our sins, and rose to lead us to heaven. Jews, that Abraham pleased God with his total devotion and willingness to sacrifice what he loved most in the world to please him. So God made a covenant that the sons of Abraham would be God's "chosen people" and if they kept to the covenant they would enter the kingdom of heaven. And so on.
      Second you have theology. The study of both historical and spiritual writings with the aim of truly understanding the events that the belief is based on. How the base belief functions and how it can be applied to a person's every day life. Theology is very much like philosophy, where you build a house of cards threw logic alone. It can sometimes be hard to grasp without a firm foundation on which to build the house of cards, so to speak.
      Third you have religion. This is where like minded people find a common ground in the theological studies to build a life and mode of worship around. For example the religions of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, and Pentecostal, all have different forms of worship and emphasize different theologies but are all still Christian and thus all have the same belief.
      Lastly you have the Church, which is the community in which different religions come together as a body to participate in worship and spiritual growth.

      Funny thing is it's only in the first portion that you truly have the miraculous. It's the only part that is of God and God alone. All other are of man and thusly are prey to the frailties of man.
      That's why there is such a disconnect between what many profess and what often actually happens. It's extremely easy to lose your way, the world is an ever more complex area where there is often no true black and white. But this doesn't mean that the belief has no merit. In fact as was mentioned earlier when your "touched" by God it's a very hard thing to describe and quantify. It's an intensely personal experience that like many things, the first time you break a bone, have sex, fall in love, lose a loved one, can't be quantified for those who have not gone threw it no matter how hard you try.
      In other words you won't and in fact can't understand till it happens to you and the veil is lifted from your eyes. Sorry but it's just the way it works.

      P.S. To explain what the difference between a cult and a religion is very hard because it's a fine line between them. In fact many cults can grow into a religion, and religions can devolve into a cult just as easily. A cult is often lead by one person or a very small group of people. Demands total control over it's subjects and total reverence from it's subjects to the point where there is little difference from being a slave and being a convert. It does not allow any discord or debate over what is professed by the church. Lastly cults feel a sense of ownership over the subjects, again like slaves, and will do everything to prevent t

    39. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merry Christmas, everyone. Insults and condensation for you and all your friends.

      This is why we can't have nice things.

    40. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Shhh... You're screwing with the religious zealots. They'll start quoting fire and brimstone passages out of their holy books. Then they'll flip through the peaceful and loving parts, and find reasons to kill you in very uncomfortable ways.

      Guess its "Strawman and Ridicule" hour. Gather around folks, this is what it looks like.

    41. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the train there is advance understanding that such an impending doom is easily observable. You can hear and see the train, you can take a picture of it and record it, and every rational person would agree that they can see, hear, touch, smell, and otherwise tangibly and physically experience it. With Jebus the advance understanding is that, short of a miracle (which oddly hasn't happened in thousands of years), only the "believer" is going to experience it by virtue of their belief. Therefore, no, I don't understand why religious people try to change my viewpoint. They know that they are not experiencing any external presence. I know that they know this. They know that I know that they know. At no point is any of their opinion founded on anything short of psychological deficiencies and "gut" (i.e. arbitrary, wishful) feelings. These people need to go away, and our society will be infinitely better when they STFU and die out.

    42. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Aside from my utter bewilderment why parent got a troll moderation (you may think hes crazy and disagree with him, but thats certainly not a troll post), Ill respond, courteously, since you were courteous.

      Believing in God does not require intellectual suicide, nor does it require a suspension of logic. There are, if you cared to read up on it, countless philosophers who came from the church-- for example, one of my favorites, Pascal, was very probably either Protestant or Catholic. He isnt exactly someone you would accuse of being daft in regard to logic, not after reading his Pensees.

      Why then do there seem to be religious people who ask you to "just believe"? I cannot answer for them, but I can point out that probably 80% of people accept scientific "truths" without having the capability or expertise to vet or judge them for reliability. Truths they may be, but for most people they are "unjustified truths". For some people, this includes everything outside of their particular field. Others have a deeper knowledge, but all of us at the end must accept some of what we are told by others to be true, with no other proof than our trust in their reliability.

      As an example, neither I, nor (I would hazard) 90% of slashdot can prove or justify their belief that there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way. I have a "chain of trust" that leads me to accept it as a "tentative fact", but nothing more-- I certainly have not reviewed the evidence in detail, and would be utterly out of my element attempting to do so without hours, days, or months of study.

      Religions can be similar. I personally have a great number of reasons why I accept the claims of christianity. I believe there is an element of "Gods hand" in all of this-- that I believe in part because it was part of his plan-- but my mind is not made so that I can simply leave it at that and quell my curiosity. It demands reasons and justifications for everything I believe-- I sometimes feel like Descartes who wondered how he could justify his belief that he even existed. Yet after all of my questioning, reasoning, and researching, I continually find myself agreeing that my beliefs, for the most part, hold up (and that occasionally, there are parts that are in fact mistaken).

      Regarding "being told", I do ask my preacher, and my elders (both in a "church elder", and in an "older, wiser person" sense) questions often; but I have reasons to trust their sincerity, their knowledge in the topics I ask them, and I can always check their statements (which are based on biblical interpretation) on what the bible actually says, and on what reality seems to say. There is a degree of trust, to be sure-- everything I am told when I ask a question, on any topic, will inevitably shape my thought processes to some degree-- but it is not unfounded, and it is unavoidable on any subject where learning is desirable and time is limited. One asks questions ("what causes gravity") because one does not have time to derive the answers to every question on ones own, but you still use your intellect to vet the answers.

      I think it is a mistake for someone of any belief to assume that because others believe differently, they must be mentally defective or lack logical capabilities. This is called hubris, and is unfounded: There have been brilliant men throughout the ages of various faiths. The truth is independent of what any of us think about these topics, but that does not mean there are not intelligent people who can be wrong; and it does not mean that you yourself cannot accept that you could be mistaken, if not in your conclusion, at least in your arguments.

    43. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I just have a hard time reconciling the fact that there are over 10,000 religions on this planet, and the cultists in each believe that they are right, and want you to convert to their way.

      Then you have a problem, because there are 10,001 different beliefs (one being that all of them are wrong), and no matter what you will have to choose among them. The one thing you cannot choose is not to believe in anything including the correctness or incorrectness of other beliefs (unless you wanted to go all nihilist-- thats belief # 10,002).

      This is a fake argument you have created. Just because Joe says Sally is lying, and Sally says Jeff is lying, and Jeff says Joe is lying, doesnt mean that ONE of them isnt right.

    44. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the Christianity cult

      Posted on the second holiest day for Christians, on Christmas of all days. Damn, you get troll of the year, asshole.

      By any reasonable definition, early Christianity was a cult; they just managed to get some followers in key positions (like Emperors) and it snowballed from there. Then what Christianity morphed into got some money behind it and wanted to expand its influence, and borrowing from existing popular celebrations made it easier to snarf converts. I don't have a lot of respect for a lot of institutional christianity from about the 3rd-20th centuries.

      That said, if Jesus of Nazareth was alive today, he'd be involved in the Occupy movement; take that statement however you like but remember that however you take it is more of a reflection on you that on Jesus, who had no trouble taking on the moneylenders in the temple.

      Jesus was way cool, but some of his followers have been real dicks.

    45. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't create the fantasy day, and I do not intend to operate under its rules. I just returned from an excellent family gathering, at which we exchanged good words, good gifts, and good times. We do not need to deceive ourselves, in order to benefit each other.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    46. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely said!

    47. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Tooke · · Score: 1

      First of all, thank you for that post. It's refreshing to read some thoughtful discussion every now and then. I'll attempt to explain my own thoughts on faith. I might have a bit of overlap with your comment.

      There's an important difference between faith and believing something just for the heck of it (or, as I'd call it, "blind faith"). Faith, to me, means that you have a significantly good reason to believe something is true and can therefore assert that whatever that "something" infers is true. Faith is believing in whatever the original idea infers. For instance, if you have good reason to believe that Christianity is true, then you would have faith that the bible's teachings are true.

      The obvious question is, what is "significantly good reason"? It'll vary from person to person, but for me (and I would think many others), it's because I've put my church's teachings into practice and found that they have improved my quality of life. As an example, I think more clearly, am more productive and am happier in general when I pray and read the scriptures everyday (I say scriptures because I read the bible in addition to other texts). Others can ridicule me all they want and talk about how my belief is "illogical" and "unscientific", but it won't change what I have experienced for myself. Indeed, it's very scientific: I started with an assumption, conducted an experiment, and found that my experience supported the original assumption. My own faith may not be very convincing to others, but that's the beauty of it: In order to truely have faith, you have to get it for yourself. It'll never be satisfying enough to rely on the belief of others.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    48. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      This is a fake argument you have created. Just because Joe says Sally is lying, and Sally says Jeff is lying, and Jeff says Joe is lying, doesnt mean that ONE of them isnt right.

      Well, you're right. Someone could be right. None of them have any solid evidence. There are *over* 10,000, but we'll go with your lowered number of just 10,002. That means, I have a 1 in 10,002 chance of picking the right one, should I decide to do so.

      Lack of evidence does not make a deity real. Evidence would.

      There is no inherent belief in humans that there is a deity of any sort. That is a trained belief. These beliefs are taught to them from day 1. If you took a group of children, and never introduced he idea of a deity to them, one (or some) may make up stories to explain what they don't understand, but the stories will be so separated from any known religion, that they wouldn't be recognizable.

      Or... Every child is born an atheist. Religion is forced upon them after that.

      They are fables; mythology; legends; fictional stories that we have made to comfort ourselves.

      I take comfort in knowledge and exploration. We have the possibility of educating ourselves to such great extents, why do people feel it's necessary to fall back to these works of fiction.

      In that every religion is different should be enough explanation that none are right. If there were a higher power that created humanity and guides us, wouldn't they clearly outline even the basic notions of the deity and belief systems? If I have to pick, I'll chose the Norse gods. And when I die, I'm heading for Valhalla.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    49. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple thoughts for gullible minds

    50. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no doubt that there is wisdom in religions. Religion is a collection of answers to various questions about why we are here, what we should do with ourselves, etc. The problem is that that any religion is a best guess for the time it came about. A 2000 year old religion can be forgiven for thinking that there is a heaven above us where god who made all things resides. 2000 years ago, no one knew what a star was or orbits or DNA. The problem is that now we know these things, and many parts of religions are now just obviously wrong. Worse, those who practice the religion say you will go to hell if you don't believe these things which we now know are simply not true. No, the earth was not made in a week. This is the part that requires lack of logic and reasoning, and there are many, many people all around the world that ask others to not only believe these things, but make life decisions based on this false information. THAT is crazy.

      So, yes, be good to your neighbor, don't be greedy, don't kill, don't steal, etc., etc., still all good and applicable. But heaven/hell, water into wine, homosexuality being an evil choice, earth being the center of the universe and created in a week, that's now all obviously crazy talk. Asking someone else to believe that is doubly crazy.

    51. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your argument isn't valid - you say you beleive in a relgion because it made your life better? What you mean here is that you took the teachings of the religion, followed them, and then had a positive result - fair enough. All you have done there is prove that the teachings are good ideas (in your case). That doesn't mean that the religion is valid.

      If someone came up to the door and told me that there was a flying spaghetti monster that ruled the world, and I should never eat spaghetti ever again because it's offensive to it, by your logic, if I stop eating spaghetti and it makes my life better (say I'm gluten intolerant or something) - it proves that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

      When you say things like 'it may not be convincing to others' - you are admitting that your logic is flawed. What you should do there is re-evaluate your position, look at what you beleive, ask yourself why you beleive it, and whether you were wrong. Logic isn't just about proving yourself right, it's about correcting yourself or others by trying to understand why there is a difference in opinion - and there are only three reasons for a difference of opinion: That someone is arguing the wrong question, That at least one person is wrong, or that it is a matter of personal taste. The argument you gave is flawed - if you want to give another argument now, or tell me why my argument is flawed, feel free - but if there comes a time when all your arguments are gone, look at what you beleive and ask yourself, why?

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    52. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      Easy to prove love, just check oxytocin levels in the body. Humans are nothing but machines, every emotion and feeling can be reduced to simple chemistry and physics. Including sensations of god which are easily induced through transcranial magnetic stimulation.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    53. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      You say that philosiphers beleiving in god proves that a lack of logic isn't required - that's simply not true. Just because a person is smart, says great things, is great in any regard, does not mean that they are perfect, or always think logically. I can think of someone as great, and still think they were wrong. Someone smart beleiving something does not make it true. In fact, Pascal is a terrible example - he was very clearly logically flawed - Pascal's Wager is an argument for religion - that beleiving in a religion is worth it 'just in case' - this argument is terrible. Mainly, it implies there are no downsides at all to living in a religious way. Also, if someone tells me that the flying spaghetti monster will take me to a place better than heaven after dying, then - by his argument - I should beleive in the flying sphagetti monster.

      Again - because some people accept things without investigating for themselves, doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Now clearly, you are right - and we can't investigate everything we learn. We have to take some things on trust of others - however, your argument falls down with regards to comparing the scientific community to the relgious community, compare:

      A person hears that water boils at 100 degrees c. He beleives this because it's a reproducable fact - scientists proposed the theory, tested it, and found it to be true. Other scientists also found it to be true when they tested it. It's a reproducable, observable event. If the person wanted to, they could repeat the experiment.

      A person hears god exists. He beleives this because... why? His parents told him it was true? They are humans and fallable. His priests told him it was true? Again, same argument. The bible tells him it's true? It's a book, it could easily be wrong, as it's written by humans, who could have been wrong, etc... etc... There is no observable event or repeatable experiment to show a God is likely - it's just a well known story without any backing.

      We beleive scientists because there is a system - the scientific method defines science as being logical, repeatable and observable. When something is published in a journal, it's then tested by other scientists and confirmed. Religion doesn't have this, so it's illogical to trust that chain.

      I do believe that those that have faith in a relgion are illogical. I beleive this because no one has ever been able to give me a good argument as to why it is the case. I fully admit I could be wrong, but if I am, show me where my logic is flawed. The possibility that I could be wrong does not mean I shouldn't state my current stance - not only do I want to show my logic to others and hopefully get them to question their flawed logic, but also, if I state my logic and put it out there, if it is flawed, someone can point that out and correct my flawed logic (should it exist) thus, I come closer to the truth. That is the aim of logical thought, but either way, stating what you beleive should never mean you beleive you could not be wrong - not if you are a logical person.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    54. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      It's not trolling, it's a fact. All religions are inherently cults, just disguised. The sooner the world realises this the sooner we can make some real progress.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    55. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Have you applied your own requirements to the belief that "the universe works by following a set coherent rules that can be understood by observation and logic"?

      Not that I think the belief is wrong, just that it's a belief that can't be proven by logic alone; you would know if you had held it to your own standards. You should give more leeway to rational thinkers that happen to be religious.

      Disclaimer - I'm an atheist, who happens to believe that emotion is a deeper motivator of human thought than reason, and that both religious and free-thinking ideals are acquired by emotional attachment to family traditions.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    56. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One +1 Insightful , as ordered. Do you want milk with that ?

    57. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      The difference is that there is evidence of a train; there is none of any gods or hell.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    58. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Santa as a religious figure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gygwppOZwiM

    59. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Linus understands what Christmas is all about. See here: http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=470

    60. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      I believe it because it works - when I observe something, test it, and apply logic, it generally repeats that outcome in future (and if it doesn't, there is always a reason) - yes, when you boil it down, it comes back to 'I think therefore I am' - and that's something that I can't forsee changing any time soon. I have to beleive in something - but again, I'm doing it because there is enough proof and it seems a logical observation.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    61. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      You and I know perfectly well that there is no invisible friend running the universe

      Prove it, then. Is your faith any better than theirs?

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    62. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      St. Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra in the mid 300s.

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11063b.htm

      His best known legend is that there was a young girl in his parish who wanted to marry but had no dowry. One evening while walking by he anonymously tossed a bag of gold through her window. This alleged event is where he derives the "gift-giving" persona from.

      The elf thing only dates back to "Twas the Night before Christmas", which refers to him as "a right jolly old elf". Whether this was meant literally or familiarly is open to interpretation, but in any case the author wasn't an expert on St. Nick, despite single handedly (with a little help from Coca-Cola's marketing department) creating the modern western image of Santa.

      Fun Fact: Before Coke's marketing, Santa most often appeared in cards dressed in green or furs, not red.

    63. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Tooke · · Score: 1

      The unspoken premise was that if the religion is false, the teachings will probably not improve quality of life. The truth of that statement will of course depend on the teachings. For things like "don't kill" and "help your neighbor" you are correct that the premise would be false. However, consider for example something like prayer. Personally, I don't think that praying would have any effect on my life if there wasn't someone to hear it, yet I've noticed a positive effect many times. You could argue that the act of praying can have positive mental effects on its own (e.g. It might relieve stress), or that I'm simply falling for the placebo effect. But based on my own experiences and contemplation, I don't think so IMHO. As for "it may not be convincing to others" -- what I meant is that faith comes as a result of one's own doings and experiences. If I, because of my own experiences, believe a religion is true, that won't make another person believe because they haven't had my experiences. Hearing about them from me won't be nearly as convincing as actually feeling them.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    64. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it better fits the available evidence.

    65. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      My problem with that is that it's simply not the case. If you want to test anything, you do a placebo controlled study, and check for statistical correlation which proves signficant. What you are clearly doing is looking for a result you want, and seeing it. The reason it's not good enough evidence for anyone else is that it shouldn't be enough for you. Just like seeing a mirage doesn't mean it's real, you have to be able to admit that your instinctive thought it not always right - patterns you see are not always there.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    66. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha ha you come here to Slashdot to for nothing but pure physics talk with other Aspergers victims and no chance of people being sociable or jokes, hah hah ha ha hah! FAIL

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    67. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by emilper · · Score: 1

      care to find a quote ?

      gifts used to be given on Saint Nicholas day, Cristmass was a purely religious holy day.

    68. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      2000 years ago, no one knew what a star was or orbits or DNA.

      But they certainly knew what stars werent, and were capable of predicting where they would appear in the skies; and im fairly certain that they had a firm grasp on breeding.

      One of the more shameful errors I have seen is to assume a level of ignorance for people 2000 years ago (or more, or less) that is unfounded. It might astound you what the greeks, romans, egyptians, chinese, and phoenicians knew.

    69. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your comment, one of the greatest things that can happen to one of these conversations is when people can put aside biases for the moment and analyze a statement on its own merits, rather than the baggage our society has associated with it.

      I do of course disagree with your belief that my ideals are acquired by family traditions, from personal evidence :)

    70. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          There is no way to prove a lack of it. I'm not the one who made up any sort of religion. The burden of proof is with the anyone making the assertion that things exist.

          Here's an example that may be easier to understand. You can't prove there is no such things as Big Foot. If someone makes the assertion that Big Foot exists, it is up to them to prove that their assertion is true. If, one day, someone brings forward positive evidence that can be peer reviewed, that shows Big Foot does exist, then I will believe it.

          The best evidence for Big Foot was one that was killed, and frozen in a chest freezer. They insisted it was real. They had a block of ice with something furry inside, which was real. When the evidence was reviewed, it was shown to be a gorilla costume in a block of ice.

          If God were to twinkle his way down to Times Square, announce his presence. Do a few impossible things, and explain even a small part of how the universe got here, sure I'd believe in it. As long as it's just people ranting about some old book ... well ... not so much. The Christian god doesn't have a monopoly (or even majority) on the planet. It would seem to be in his best interest to drop by and say "Hi guys, I'm here. Lets talk."

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    71. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Our society created it, its no more a fantasy day than Thanksgiving. You should tell all your family and friends how Thanksgiving is really a celebration of the subjugation of a native people; im sure that would make you the life of the party.

    72. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You say that philosiphers beleiving in god proves that a lack of logic isn't required - that's simply not true. Just because a person is smart, says great things, is great in any regard, does not mean that they are perfect, or always think logically.

      Once again, lacking logic is not something one would usually blame Descartes, Pascal, Aquinas, Lewis, Kierkegaard, etc of. The first two were mathematical thinkers in their own right, Im sure they are well acquainted with logical thinking and fallacies. They may have made errors in their thought, there is no doubt of that, but their arguments are nevertheless based on logic.

      Pascal is a terrible example - he was very clearly logically flawed - Pascal's Wager is an argument for religion - that beleiving in a religion is worth it 'just in case' - this argument is terrible

      That is a misconception, and is not what his wager states. You would have to read the full wager, which is longer (several pages, I believe), but to summarize quickly he is saying that it is illogical not to give more weight to the issue of God's existence. His reasoning isnt quite that "you should believe just in case". I would recommend you read it for yourself.

      And if you read his other Pensees, you see a man who not only has a firm grasp on logic, but on the sad state of humanity (for example, his Pensee talking about how "it is right that I kill you because you came from that side of the river, rather than mine; if you had come from my side, it would have been a terrible crime"; or his Pensee showing how most of our lives are spent running away from the terrible state of boredom, from the richest of us to the poorest-- how THAT is the prime motivator in our lives).

      Mainly, it implies there are no downsides at all to living in a religious way.

      Which would be an odd claim by Pascal, as the texts he claimed to believe affirm that there is a downside if it is false: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:19) He was saying that there is no downside to considering its claims, IIRC.

      There is no observable event or repeatable experiment to show a God is likely - it's just a well known story without any backing.

      Lewis had an excellent remark on this in his book "miracles". Simply put, there is the historical evidence, which in all cases (religious and secular) is not "reproduceable", but can only be evaluated on the strength of its evidence. I would claim that there is historical evidence for miracles occuring. But if you do not believe in miracles, then no matter what evidence I would show you, you would simply claim either an alternative (even if less likely), or that the evidence I gave is unreliable because miracles are impossible and thus my source is lying.

      You can see this principle in action with the dating of certain books of the bible which make predictive prophesy: there may be evidence that they were written before the event they predict, but very very often you will see them labeled as having been written after the fact, because, as we know, "theres no such thing as predictive prophesy and the author could not have known about an event before it occurred." Look in the wikipedia article on Habakkuk: the implication is that the events predicted must have happened already when the book was written, and that Habakkuk must himself have been aware of the Babylonians cruelty, since obviously the Lord could not have made these statements. There are other examples, such as the dating of Israel's campaign into Canaan, which is again based on the presumption that the Bible's accounts of miracles must not have been accurate simply because miracles are impossible.

      If you are determined not to see a miracle, you never will, I think is how Lewis stated it. He gave this example
      "In all my life I have

    73. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Um, Christmas is far more a fantasy day than Thanksgiving. You are correct that Thanksgiving was about the subjugation of a native people; the fantasy day is about some celestial being whose arrival is timed to the day which gets longer, after three days being the shortest days of the year. It is fictional, and is wish-fulfillment that the day doesn't keep getting shorter, ending us. Colonization was not fictional. And, with your last clause, you're still projecting.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    74. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Once again, lacking logic is not something one would usually blame Descartes, Pascal, Aquinas, Lewis, Kierkegaard, etc of. The first two were mathematical thinkers in their own right, Im sure they are well acquainted with logical thinking and fallacies. They may have made errors in their thought, there is no doubt of that, but their arguments are nevertheless based on logic.

      It is not that I am saying they are impossible of logical thought - I'm saying that the logic that someone uses to give reason for beleiving in God is inevitably flawed. I have never heard an argument for it that isn't.

      That is a misconception, and is not what his wager states. You would have to read the full wager, which is longer (several pages, I believe), but to summarize quickly he is saying that it is illogical not to give more weight to the issue of God's existence. His reasoning isnt quite that "you should believe just in case". I would recommend you read it for yourself.

      And if you read his other Pensees, you see a man who not only has a firm grasp on logic, but on the sad state of humanity (for example, his Pensee talking about how "it is right that I kill you because you came from that side of the river, rather than mine; if you had come from my side, it would have been a terrible crime"; or his Pensee showing how most of our lives are spent running away from the terrible state of boredom, from the richest of us to the poorest-- how THAT is the prime motivator in our lives).

      In which case, their is an easier proof that Pascal's wager is incorrect. One can simply invent a new god, which - as there is no proof for a Christian God's existance - is just as likely to exist, and say that the reward for beleiving in that one would be greater (I get to do extra stuff I want in heaven, I'll be guarenteed riches in life, whatever). Either way, the logical choice, according to his wager, is to follow this new religion.

      Which would be an odd claim by Pascal, as the texts he claimed to believe affirm that there is a downside if it is false: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:19) He was saying that there is no downside to considering its claims, IIRC.

      In which case, my original argument stands and Pascal's wager is false, you would not sacrifice the downsides for the miniscule chance that a God does exist.

      Lewis had an excellent remark on this in his book "miracles". Simply put, there is the historical evidence, which in all cases (religious and secular) is not "reproduceable", but can only be evaluated on the strength of its evidence. I would claim that there is historical evidence for miracles occuring. But if you do not believe in miracles, then no matter what evidence I would show you, you would simply claim either an alternative (even if less likely), or that the evidence I gave is unreliable because miracles are impossible and thus my source is lying.

      You can see this principle in action with the dating of certain books of the bible which make predictive prophesy: there may be evidence that they were written before the event they predict, but very very often you will see them labeled as having been written after the fact, because, as we know, "theres no such thing as predictive prophesy and the author could not have known about an event before it occurred." Look in the wikipedia article on Habakkuk: the implication is that the events predicted must have happened already when the book was written, and that Habakkuk must himself have been aware of the Babylonians cruelty, since obviously the Lord could not have made these statements. There are other examples, such as the dating of Israel's campaign into Canaan, which is again based on the presumption that the Bible's accounts of miracles must not have been accurate simply because miracles are impossible.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    75. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by tepples · · Score: 1

      I thought Santa's current appearance, based on the likeness of Tim Allen, was created by Disney for a film.

    76. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Either way, the logical choice, according to his wager, is to follow this new religion.

      Go read his wager, theres not much point in an argument when you dont understand what he was arguing. Im explaining it badly, and I suspect I have already misrepresented him; its been a while since I read it, so I will not try to do so again.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
      I will note that the wikipedia summary indicates that the thrust is that you should believe; whereas I note that Pascal assumes there is nothing on either side of the coin that can give you a clue to the right answer, which I dispute. I took from this that at the very least, his wager correctly indicates that you MUST wager, and your wager is utmost importance. I rather suggest you read it yourself, without commentary, and make up your own mind what he is saying.

      One beleives in the most likely explanation of a given situation. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, the other options are far more likely.

      A-ha: on what principle do you state this? How are you quantifying the likelyhood of an intrusion by the supernatural into the natural? What principle could you possibly wield in these circumstances to rule out the possibility based on nothing more than the hypothesis ("I have seen a ghost")?
      Mind, I am not saying that evidence to the contrary would not be a determining factor; but you seem to think the hypothesis itself is enough to determine it false.
      (I would also agree in the normal case, it is quite right to be skeptical given the tendency for people to make such a thing up; but that is an example of "evidence to the contrary")

      It's not - the scientific method should be used in all things.

      It cannot. You have a document, by a man claiming to be called Herod, describing a meal he had. The name appears in other literature, the timing is right, but there is no other supporting or contradictory evidence. It is too recent to apply carbon dating. Quick: use the scientific method on this. Wikipedia notes that key to the scientific method are measurement, experimentation, and observation. What methods do you intend to use?

      Or better yet, the existence of multiverses has been hypothesized. How do you intend to go about testing something like that, since you cannot communicate information into or out of our own universe?

      You are right, we must take historical documents and try to gague their reliability, but the Bible gives us no good reason to beleive the religious parts. They don't fit with our model of the world, they are not reproducable.

      Evidences:
      1) The verifiable parts of the bible (have extra-biblical support) have been verified. They tend to be remarkably accurate.
      2) Meticulous geneological records were kept, and these also match up.
      3) They accurately depict how real men would behave in those instances with less extra-biblical support: they are believable. They do not depict OT Israel as some utopia, but rather as a theocracy that, on its people's demand, became a monarchy, which within a generation became corrupt. This fits with exactly the kind of pattern we expect-- you can see the patterns in Rome, the Catholic church, and anywhere else a "benevolent dictator" approach was tried.
      4) Alternative explanations for the history recorded often require a stretch of imagination. Take the disciples after Jesus' crucifixion. They scattered, and denied him on fear of persecution; but then 3 days later they started preaching his "gospel" and claiming that the man had risen from the grave. This in the end resulted in severe persecutions (by Paul, by Rome, etc-- peter himself was crucified for it, and when Paul converted, he too was executed). This leaves the question: what explanation accounts for this behavior? Did they all simultaneously develop a masochist tendency?
      5) I think it is w

    77. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Lack of evidence does not make a deity real.

      Evidence or lack thereof does not make anything real or not real. Something's existence is independent of our ability to discern it. We should get that clear right off the bat.

      There is no inherent belief in humans that there is a deity of any sort. That is a trained belief.

      If you mean that as an absolute statement, it is demonstrably false: Who taught the first person to believe in a deity? And why does belief in a deity exist in every single human culture in existence, both historical and current?

      Men who study this sort of thing-- both athiest and secular-- generally do not deny that there is a human tendency to believe in something outside of the "natural" world, and that it is innate, not trained. I would check that belief of yours, and think about why you believe it-- what evidence do you have for this?

      Or... Every child is born an atheist. Religion is forced upon them after that.

      Thats an ignorant statement, and Im not sure how to respond to it, other than to say I know many many personal examples of where that is just plain wrong (ie, people who grew up in an athiest household who now hold different religious views). Bold statements like that will get you into trouble when you run into someone whose life story contradicts you.

      They are fables; mythology; legends; fictional stories that we have made to comfort ourselves.

      Theres very little comforting about the Old Testament story on the face of it. Once again, these are statements typically made by people who have very little knowledge about these topics.

      In that every religion is different should be enough explanation that none are right.

      That argument only sort of works because you have made a fake classification which excludes YOUR beliefs. Why are your beliefs any more likely to be correct than the other 10,001?

    78. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      If you mean that as an absolute statement, it is demonstrably false: Who taught the first person to believe in a deity? And why does belief in a deity exist in every single human culture in existence, both historical and current?

      It is well recorded throughout history that religion has been used to control the general populace. It allows for the explanation of things they don't understand, which comforts people. It allows for control over the people, with the threat of an unfavorable afterlife, next incarnation, etc. It also allows for the general population, under guidance from their leaders, to believe that non-believers are less moral or less human, because they don't believe.

      That argument only sort of works because you have made a fake classification which excludes YOUR beliefs. Why are your beliefs any more likely to be correct than the other 10,001?

      I'm waiting for documented and tested evidence. I don't fall into *any* of the groups, because I simply don't believe in fairy tales. Once upon a time, I did, because I was raised with it. I was told the wonders of God, Jesus, the holy spirit, and all the stories in the old books. As a young teenager, I started looking for answers to the gaping holes. I looked for the "right" religion. I compared religions. I found none to be based in reality. I could have adopted any of them. I could have become Jewish, Buddhist, or even Scientology. I could have decided to follow Druidism, or even be a follower of Norse Mythology. Greek and Norse mythology definitely have better stories. Druidism and other ancient pagan religions are harder to follow, as much of their history was destroyed when more modern religions moved in. Destroy all those old traditions, the new one is in charge now.

      Some of those traditions have been destroyed, leaving almost nothing. Stonehenge is a great example. We know it's there. A couple hundred years ago, it was a pile of rocks. Now, it's a mostly reconstructed site of some sort of significance. Another is Gobekli Tepe. It's amazingly well preserved because it was buried for millenia. We don't really know anything about their traditions.

      We're lucky we've even figured out what we know about the ancient Egyptian religions. I don't believe a man entombed in a big ass pyramid is god, but plenty of people did when they put him in there. Well, hims, hers, and even royal pets... To the best of my knowledge, they are the oldest "gods" that we have any evidence of. Even then, all we have is evidence that someone was buried in their tombs, and now they're a dessicated bag of skin and bones, wrapped in cloth. Disappearing gods are just a plot device for authors to excuse the fact that they have no evidence.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    79. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It is well recorded throughout history that religion has been used to control the general populace.

      Weasel-words (recorded by whom, when, what, etc), and anecdotal. Just because it HAS been used that way does not mean it always is. I can show you examples of where pride in ones nation is used as a tool of agression, that doesnt mean it always is.

      You didnt address the fact that religions seem to spring up universally, whereas what you are talking about is more specific. In what way is the shinto or buddhist religion used to control its people? Last I checked, the CCP was feverishly trying to stamp out religion.

      I'm waiting for documented and tested evidence. I don't fall into *any* of the groups, because I simply don't believe in fairy tales

      In other words,
      "My belief is correct because its not a fairy tale; QED."
      Sorry, that doesnt hold water. Your belief requires as much evidence as any other, and you are giving it a bye because it happens to be what YOU believe.

      I found none to be based in reality.

      Thats all fine and good, I maintain your study of Christianity must have been shallow indeed if you think it is pleasant stories to make us feel better. I also maintain that, even if that is the conclusion you came to, you are giving way too much slack to your belief in raw secularism and not maintaining the standard of evidence that you are demanding from super-naturalist belief systems.

      Disappearing gods are just a plot device for authors to excuse the fact that they have no evidence.

      Interestingly enough, and unique to christianity and the abrahmic religions (AFAIK), the Old Testament recognizes the existence of other "gods" and mocks them as worthless objects of wood and gold, capable of no action or thought. Im not aware of any other religion that makes that statement.

    80. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      I believe it because it works - when I observe something, test it, and apply logic, it generally repeats that outcome in future (and if it doesn't, there is always a reason)

      Welcome to how a rational religious person thinks. They apply the very same process and arrive to different conclusions that are perfectly coherent.

      They find logical reasons for the things they believe, and they discard ideas that seem illogical to them - like, for example, that everything can be explained by logic and reductionism. They think that some phenomena are big m Misteries, and for things like feelings and social relations their logic is more sound than that of current social sciences. Heck, even the 'I think therefore I am' reasoning you cited was used by Descartes to prove the existence of God!

      If you want to defend atheism, don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's the only self-consistent logical position, nor that rational thinking does inevitably lead to it, because that's not true. Learn and accept the limits of your tools, and learn to respect other people who use the same tools in a different way.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    81. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      I would argue that your personal evidence was colored by what you learn in your infancy ;-) I have had one kind-of mystical experience myself and it wasn't a fall-off-the-horse conversion because of how I rationalized it.

      It's great to debate ideas on their merits alone. If you find another atheist playing the "rational" card on you you have my permission to cite this post by an atheist. I'll ask you in return to not assume that atheists have never had any religious experience and they still need to "see the light". Some of us have had it and are still unconvinced.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    82. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      When you say things like 'it may not be convincing to others' - you are admitting that your logic is flawed.

      Now that you ask for it, this is the failure in your argument. He may have a perfectly sound argument but start from different premises.

      But he recognizes that other people can have different axioms and thus logic will lead them to different conclusions. This is what you have to accept to correct your own reasoning.

      there are only three reasons for a difference of opinion

      Nice fallacy of false dilemma there ;-) Your first assumption (that someone's question can be wrong) is a value judgment, not a logical stance. Value judgements always depend on an ultimate belief, that is taken as an axiom of the logical reasoning that follows it.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    83. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      If you are using different axioms to come to different conclusions, evidently one person (or potentially both) must be incorrect in making those assumptions. Again, if that is the case, we should aim to explore those and see why there is that difference, and correct ourselves.

      When I say 'arguing the wrong question', what I mean is that, during discussion, someone is arguing a different point. For example, if I say 'Is it wrong to kill people.' and someone responds that it is because the Bible says it is, then that would be a flawed argument, as they would be arguing 'Is it wrong for a christian to kill someone.' (or, from a christian's perspective). It's the wrong question, because it's a different question - my apologies for being unclear there. I did not mean that the question was somehow not worth answering - that indeed, would be wrong.

      OK, I was wrong to try to give the reasons for differences of opinion - I was cluttering my main argument anyway. My point here is that convincing to yourself should be the same as convincing to others - otherwise, why are you believing it?

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    84. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Your argument still falls over. Your point is that a logical person takes one of two routes - they take current science and say 'it doesn't answer X, Y, and Z, and either accept that and become and atheist, or reject that, and take up a relgiion?

      My point is that atheism is the only logical position, as you have to suspend logic in order to believe otherwise - God and religion have no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories. To believe in such a thing requires a suspension of logic, making it inherantly illogical. I don't disrespect people who believe in something else - I just don't agree with them, and as I've said, one has to debate those points, otherwise there is no chance of being corrected, if I am wrong.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    85. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      If you mean that as an absolute statement, it is demonstrably false: Who taught the first person to believe in a deity? And why does belief in a deity exist in every single human culture in existence, both historical and current?

      Another person. Come on, if you can't see Religion's potential as a tool for control and keeping order, then you are short-sighted. Creating a religion is something that people would do - it gives them control, it allows them to explain things that they have no explanation for.

      That argument only sort of works because you have made a fake classification which excludes YOUR beliefs. Why are your beliefs any more likely to be correct than the other 10,001?

      Because Atheism isn't believing anything - it's saying "I don't know". Being an atheist does not mean you are saying that God could not possibly exist. It means you are saying there is no reason to believe it.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    86. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Shhh... You're screwing with the religious zealots.

      Of course he is, he's an antireligios zealot. He can't help himself, it's a mental illness.

      They'll start quoting fire and brimstone passages out of their holy books.

      Not me, that's old testament. That was superceded by the new. No fire and brimstone from an angry God, but love and forgiveness from a loving God.

    87. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      If you are using different axioms to come to different conclusions, evidently one person (or potentially both) must be incorrect in making those assumptions.

      There's nothing evident in that. You're still assuming that only one set of beliefs can possibly be correct, which is a wrong assumption. If you learn about formal logic you'll find that your assumption is false - there can be many different interpretations that prove one theory true, and there can be different theories that share most propositions but are otherwise incompatible by just one single axiom.

      There is one point when trying to convince others through logic reaches a dead end by the very nature of logic; this fact is what you still haven understood and I'm trying to explain. This point is reached when:

      1- you begin with a set of axioms,
      2- the other one begins with a different set of axioms,
      3- your theory is consistent with your own set but not the other people's
      4- and viceversa.

      This situation is a dead-end because you can't use logic from your own system to force the other people to change their axioms - adding propositions from your system to the other one will force the other system to contradict itself, so your proposition must be logically rejected.

      You're finding yourself at the other end: propositions from religious systems do contradict the belief system derived by your axioms. This doesn't mean that the other system is not logically valid, only that your own axioms (that the other system doesn't include) are not compatible with that system.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    88. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Go read his wager, theres not much point in an argument when you dont understand what he was arguing. Im explaining it badly, and I suspect I have already misrepresented him; its been a while since I read it, so I will not try to do so again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager I will note that the wikipedia summary indicates that the thrust is that you should believe; whereas I note that Pascal assumes there is nothing on either side of the coin that can give you a clue to the right answer, which I dispute. I took from this that at the very least, his wager correctly indicates that you MUST wager, and your wager is utmost importance. I rather suggest you read it yourself, without commentary, and make up your own mind what he is saying.

      I have read through and can't see how my point doesn't apply.

      A-ha: on what principle do you state this? How are you quantifying the likelyhood of an intrusion by the supernatural into the natural? What principle could you possibly wield in these circumstances to rule out the possibility based on nothing more than the hypothesis ("I have seen a ghost")? Mind, I am not saying that evidence to the contrary would not be a determining factor; but you seem to think the hypothesis itself is enough to determine it false. (I would also agree in the normal case, it is quite right to be skeptical given the tendency for people to make such a thing up; but that is an example of "evidence to the contrary")

      To prove something exists, you need evidence, and reproducable tests. The other options are more likely because we can reproduce them, and produce an effect like that of someone who has seen a ghost. It is illogical to believe that what you see is a ghost when there is no evidence that a ghost is what it is, there is no reproducable 'ghost'.

      It cannot. You have a document, by a man claiming to be called Herod, describing a meal he had. The name appears in other literature, the timing is right, but there is no other supporting or contradictory evidence. It is too recent to apply carbon dating. Quick: use the scientific method on this. Wikipedia notes that key to the scientific method are measurement, experimentation, and observation. What methods do you intend to use?

      Or better yet, the existence of multiverses has been hypothesized. How do you intend to go about testing something like that, since you cannot communicate information into or out of our own universe?

      We don't - we can only say that if the document is true, then that is what happened. Given that the description seems reasonable, we should trust it as far as we can. The scientific method does not allow us to prove or disprove anything - it tells us what is reasonable, likely, and what we simply don't know. Religion simply makes something up to fill the gap, rather than admitting we don't know for sure.

      Evidences: 1) The verifiable parts of the bible (have extra-biblical support) have been verified. They tend to be remarkably accurate. 2) Meticulous geneological records were kept, and these also match up. 3) They accurately depict how real men would behave in those instances with less extra-biblical support: they are believable. They do not depict OT Israel as some utopia, but rather as a theocracy that, on its people's demand, became a monarchy, which within a generation became corrupt. This fits with exactly the kind of pattern we expect-- you can see the patterns in Rome, the Catholic church, and anywhere else a "benevolent dictator" approach was tried. 4) Alternative explanations for the history recorded often require a stretch of imagination. Take the disciples after Jesus' crucifixion. They scattered, and denied him on fear of persecution; but then 3 days later they started preaching his "gospel" and claiming that the man had risen from the grave. This in the end resulted in severe persecutions (by Pa

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    89. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      My point is that atheism is the only logical position, as you have to suspend logic in order to believe otherwise

      Your point is logically flawed, since there exist logical ways to have beliefs different than atheism. See my other post here.

      God and religion have no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories. To believe in such a thing requires a suspension of logic

      This is a non-sequitur. Not logically sound. That argument can be proven false by finding a logical belief system that supports the existence of God.

      One particular way to do that is to assume as evidence of God facts that you wouldn't accept as evidence of God because of your own chosen axioms. But if you start from different axioms the same evidence would make a logically valid belief system.

      as I've said, one has to debate those points, otherwise there is no chance of being corrected, if I am wrong.

      That's a great attitude! I'd only wish that more people would apply it from both sides of the science/religion divide.

      I'm pointing out a logic flaw in your stated assumptions and deductions. I hope you do your homework, young padawan, and reevaluate your beliefs and find which one of them was wrong. Because some arguments that you're using as evident are not logically valid; there is some hidden assumption in them that you should reject, in order to rebuild your otherwise flawless logical castle.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    90. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Axioms are the basic things we hold as obvious - that doesn't mean they are right - if a religious person's axioms don't hold to logic, that means they are wrong.

      I get what you are trying to say, but you are trying to argue that logic from an illogical starting point is still valid logic - it's not.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    91. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I love the vague terminology - God touched you? Explain exactly what that means.

      Assume I've been blind from birth. Explain the color red to me. It's inexplicable; there is no referent, no common ground. This may help explain it.

      If you expect me to treat it differently because it's religion, or suspend logic for no reason, then no.

      No, it's not a matter of religion. If you told me you were at McMurtry Station, I would tend to believe you despite the fact that since so few are there, odds are you aren't either, but since I know of no reason to lie about where you are, I would accept the statement so long as there was no proof to the contrary.

    92. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Of course - but as that relgious person is using logic from a flawed starting point, they believe that gods and hell are as real as that train. I am not saying they are right, just that I can understand why they come to the conclusion they should spread the word.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    93. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      As a warm-up exercise you may want to try a much simpler problem: find at which point you do disagree with Descartes in his perfectly logical proof that God exists, preferably by reading his own Meditations (3 and 5 are the ones about God).

      Now don't be too rude to the old man, we have about 300 more years of philosophy in hindsight. ;-) This particular analysis was specially helpful to me when learning about rationality.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    94. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If God were to twinkle his way down to Times Square, announce his presence. Do a few impossible things, and explain even a small part of how the universe got here, sure I'd believe in it.

      Well, that happened 2000 years ago. It's documented. If you believe that all those people lied, explain what they had to gain by lying, since the establishment at the time would imprison or even execute you for it.

    95. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Assume I've been blind from birth. Explain the color red to me. It's inexplicable; there is no referent, no common ground. This may help explain it.

      I first explain light, eyes, wavelengths, and create a small device with a camera, which vibrates or makes sounds or whatever in accordance with the colour the camera is seeing - this would allow the blind person to identify that Red exists. This would give a reproducable way for them to tell that it exists. Just as I can't see infra-red light I can still test that exists. Give me your test for God.

      No, it's not a matter of religion. If you told me you were at McMurtry Station, I would tend to believe you despite the fact that since so few are there, odds are you aren't either, but since I know of no reason to lie about where you are, I would accept the statement so long as there was no proof to the contrary.

      Religion only exists if you believe in it. Why should it be treated differently? Would you believe me if I told you I was on the moon? How about in a magical land where everything was perfect all the time?

      Religion doesn't just ask you to accept something without adequate proof, it asks you to accept something which contradicts our reality and makes vast claims, all without any proof.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    96. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      No, I'm trying to argue that you are using wrong logic by name-calling religious axioms. You're assuming that every religious axiom is necessarily illogical, which is the Begging the question fallacy.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    97. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they are illogical because they are religious - I'm saying that the religious ones are all illogical - they are not observably true.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    98. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Aside from my utter bewilderment why parent got a troll moderation

      That comment (mine) got the hell moderated out of it. It was modded troll, insightful, and interesting. The mods all cancelled each other out, leaving it at the 1 it started at.

      I found its moderation amusing, although I might not have if I had to worry about karma.

    99. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Well, that's where you are using flawed logic. I already said what part of your reasoning is incorrect, go on and review it.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    100. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Hint: "not observably true" and "illogical" are not synonyms.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    101. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      The idea that because one has an idea of a God means it must be innate to yourself is clearly false - people are taught the idea of a god, not to mention it is an easy thing to imagine - with no answers on 'the big questions' - the simplest answer is to imagine a super-person who did it all. This is transposing an idea you see (people doing things) to a grander scale.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    102. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      One of the more shameful errors I have seen is to assume a level of ignorance for people 2000 years ago (or more, or less) that is unfounded.

      Well, we have learned a lot in 2000 years. We are ignorant compared to our decendants a hundred years from now will be (and you can't know how primitive things are now until you've been around long enough to see game-changing scientific and technological advancements). One of the more humorous errors I have seen is to assume a level of stupidity for people 2000 years ago.

    103. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's not trolling, it's a fact.

      Prove it.

      All religions are inherently cults

      From wikipedia: "The word 'cult' in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre."

      A huge majority of Americans are Christians, only a very small minority are athiests. So who's the cultist, again?

    104. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      We don't - we can only say that if the document is true, then that is what happened.

      Which is why the scientific method is not applicable in every instance.

      Religion simply makes something up to fill the gap, rather than admitting we don't know for sure.

      Not to sound insulting, but that sounds ignorant of what the bible actually says. The Old Testament is largely a narrative, and as I stated before we have very strong external evidence to support big chunks of it. It is generally regarded as an accurate historical document (which parts are accurate are disputed of course). Im not sure what you mean by "make something up to fill the gaps".

      Yes, lots of the bible might be right. That doesn't make it all right.

      The fact that large parts are right are "evidences" for the credibility of the other parts. One trusts the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society because it has a long history and is regarded as credible; that is not "proof", but you cannot apply the scientific method to "are they likely to tell me lies".

      As to why they acted like that, it's possible they didn't, and it's also possible they truly believed he was the son of God, and was raised from the dead. It doesn't make it true. It doesn't make it true.

      Ah, but they claimed on pain of death that they saw this, as did many others. So we either have people who of a sudden decided that they wanted to lie more strongly than they wanted to live; or else we have a group hallucination; or else we have many fabricated accounts of the rise of christianity and it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus; or else they were telling the truth.

      As to the first and second points, those both seem EXCEEDINGLY unlikely (you are aware of the torturous death Peter received, and the banishment John received, right?), and the third is even more unlikely-- there is no doubt that Peter and Paul were killed for preaching the rise of Jesus by the Romans. That leaves either the fourth option, or indecision. The question becomes, how clear would the evidence have to be to convince you? Would ANY amount of evidence suffice, if you are determined that the Biblical account cannot be right? And how does that square with a rational thought process?

      The bible claims that Jesus is the son of a God, with no evidence other than his word and supposed mirracles.

      There are several corroborating accounts. That is all you can EVER have in the majority of historical cases; and here it is being brushed off as hearsay. Why believe that there was a Julius Caesar, by your reasoning, since all we have is the words of men?

      He could have lied, the miracles could have easily been tricks. This is far more likely given these miracles are not reproducable.

      You would need to state more clearly which miracles you think were tricks-- walking on water in a tempest, and then silencing the storm? Thats one heck of a gag. Raising a man from the grave? Good luck getting a Jew to go into a tomb and remain there for a day. Faking his own death? Yea, good luck staying alive after a crucifixion, a scourging, and being impaled in the side; anyone attempting such a stunt would die horribly of blood loss or infection within a day.

      You offer many alternatives to corroborated historical accounts, and yet each of them is far less likely if only you did not have this unfounded refusal to accept that the accounts could be correct. What you are doing is unfair and unscientific: you are discrediting a pile of evidence with no cause whatsoever other than your preconceived assumptions. How then would one EVER convince you?

    105. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I would argue that your personal evidence was colored by what you learn in your infancy ,

      Now, what makes you think I learned what I believe in my infancy?

    106. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I didn't bring religion up, the athiest did; I responded. BTW, over half of all Physicists in North America are Christians (and I'm sure there are some Muslims and Bhuddist physicists as well).

      Come next April the 8th, Bhudda's birthday, are you ok with him badmouthing Bhudda in a thread about some secular aspect of Bhuddism like the little houses the Thais build to keep evil spirits out of their homes?

    107. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      God and religion have no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories.

      Julius Caesar has no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories.
      Guy Fawkes has no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories.
      Abraham Lincoln has no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories.
      The Magna Carta has no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories.

      Hmmm, surely something is amiss here. Possibly your lumping of historical documents into "just old books and stories" is problematic?

    108. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      people are taught the idea of a god,

      This would require the human race to have existed eternally, having always been taught by the previous generation about a deity.

    109. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      By the way, I would never make that assumption; Paul in Romans seems to imply that everyone has some degree of "religious awareness", and each chooses what they do with it. Im well aware of how atheists can get, but then everyone can be irrational in the heat of an argument, and I do not think it is any more fair to blame all atheists for the fallacies of one, any more than it is fair to blame me for the inquisition.

      Often enough people get so into an argument that they let their rigorous grasp on reason and the thread of their thought slip; I do not hold that against what they believe, just against their argument.

    110. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Which is why the scientific method is not applicable in every instance.

      No, that's why it doesn't give you an answer in every situation - but that is fine. Sometimes the best answer is "I don't know" or "We can't tell with current technology". The scientific method is always applicable.

      Not to sound insulting, but that sounds ignorant of what the bible actually says. The Old Testament is largely a narrative, and as I stated before we have very strong external evidence to support big chunks of it. It is generally regarded as an accurate historical document (which parts are accurate are disputed of course). Im not sure what you mean by "make something up to fill the gaps".

      It makes up the part where there is a God.

      The fact that large parts are right are "evidences" for the credibility of the other parts. One trusts the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society because it has a long history and is regarded as credible; that is not "proof", but you cannot apply the scientific method to "are they likely to tell me lies".

      If I write a post saying I have an apple here in front of me, and I also have a magical wand which will create anything I want, does you beleiving that I have an apple make it more likely I have a magical wand?

      Ah, but they claimed on pain of death that they saw this, as did many others. So we either have people who of a sudden decided that they wanted to lie more strongly than they wanted to live; or else we have a group hallucination; or else we have many fabricated accounts of the rise of christianity and it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus; or else they were telling the truth.

      As to the first and second points, those both seem EXCEEDINGLY unlikely (you are aware of the torturous death Peter received, and the banishment John received, right?), and the third is even more unlikely-- there is no doubt that Peter and Paul were killed for preaching the rise of Jesus by the Romans. That leaves either the fourth option, or indecision. The question becomes, how clear would the evidence have to be to convince you? Would ANY amount of evidence suffice, if you are determined that the Biblical account cannot be right? And how does that square with a rational thought process?

      Or they were tricked, and truly believed that what they were saying was true. And you say these options are unlikely, compared to there being a man in the sky which we can't see, hear, interact with, or find any proof of existing?

      Yes, if the Bible didn't claim things that are not possible, or if the things it claims were proven possible, I might believe it, but it doesn't, they are not.

      There are several corroborating accounts. That is all you can EVER have in the majority of historical cases; and here it is being brushed off as hearsay. Why believe that there was a Julius Caesar, by your reasoning, since all we have is the words of men?

      Because Julius Caesar didn't do impossible things. He was not claiming to be the son of a God, and proof that that God exists. We believe the accounts because they make sense.

      You would need to state more clearly which miracles you think were tricks-- walking on water in a tempest, and then silencing the storm? Thats one heck of a gag. Raising a man from the grave? Good luck getting a Jew to go into a tomb and remain there for a day. Faking his own death? Yea, good luck staying alive after a crucifixion, a scourging, and being impaled in the side; anyone attempting such a stunt would die horribly of blood loss or infection within a day.

      You offer many alternatives to corroborated historical accounts, and yet each of them is far less likely if only you did not have this unfounded refusal to accept that the accounts could be correct. What you are doing is unfair and unscientific: you are discrediting a pile of evidence with no ca

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    111. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are right, I have not been clear enough.

      We have reason to believe those records are valid - they do not contradict our model of the universe. This is not true with the Bible. Hence we must assume the Bible is either lying, or written by people who were tricked or misunderstood what was going on.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    112. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      No, all it requires is that someone, at some point, thought it up, which is, as said in the rest of my argument, easy enough. There are a great many reasons someone might think up the idea of a God. It is a primitive way to answer the 'big questions', it's a good way to control other people, etc...

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    113. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      The practises are considered bizarre by anyone who has the intelligence to reason past their brains need to deal with its own mortality. Having a majority doesn't mean its not a cult when the behaviours are deemed illogical by anyone with the capacity to reason and has not been brainwashed into the religion cult. You can graph intelligence and religion and get a trend.

      Keep in mind America is a terrible example, as the country is high religious and hence the cult is ingrained in its culture. How about we look at some European countries for some examples, there's many of them with a majority that don't follow a true religion and only think there's some possible higher power. In 24 of the 38 european countries more than half the people consider religion to not be important. Several of them have 25%+ levels of atheists. With young people these rates are even higher. If I went around asking everyone in the local pub if they believed in the Catholic god id get very few answers. I don't deny the possible existence of a higher level alien intelligence with god like powers, but I do think its ridiculous that every different culture on earth thinks there's some god watching over them and is the one true god. They can't all be right, so the obvious conclusion is that people generate the need for god themselves internally in the brain. If there was such an intelligence they would have as much interest in us as we do with ants. That is, fun to study.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    114. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Or else that scientific models that begin with the assumption that there is nothing aside from the observable, "natural" universe are begging the question?

    115. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I will start with my conclusion, since if you have time for only one more response or to read one more comment, I would prefer it be this, and would be happy to leave it here:

      This whole discussion started off with you stating that people who believe in religion suspend logic, and are in fact illogical. We have gone back and forth for several posts, and I feel you have been courteous enough. At the end, though, I wonder: do you feel that I have shown an inability to reason? Would you say I have been illogical?

      And now on to the wall of text.

      Just as Rainbows were considered signs from the heavens, but now we understand them as a product of refraction

      Non sequitur-- there is no law I am aware of that says each thing can only be one thing at a time. A rainbow could have existed before the flood, and then post-flood been declared a sign of a new covenant; it can simultaneously be the result of water droplets acting as a prism and refracting light into its constituent parts. Likewise, God could have created the universe, and have used methods that are observable to use today (a burst of energy and matter from a single point).

      The scientific method is always applicable.

      Thats just plain not true. Quick: Apply the scientific method to Nihilism, or post-modernism. Guess what, you cant, since it only works with testable hypothesis. You are trying to shoehorn a scientific device for testing into all areas of life, when it is not designed to play that role. You can be rational without trying to find a testable, quantifiable, measurable hypothesis in every single thing.

      It makes up the part where there is a God.

      Begging the question. It would simplify things and make for much shorter posts if we left out the parts where assumptions are made which at the get go rely on my being wrong. Its circular, its not helpful, and it just generates more argument.

      does you beleiving that I have an apple make it more likely I have a magical wand?

      It is a good deal easier if instead of "likely" we use the word "confidence", as statistics and mathematics have nothing to do with whether something is or is not true. We can talk of our level of confidence that it is, and I would say that in your example your truthfulness in one area adds some small degree of confidence to your other claims; but not enough for me to believe them. If on the other hand, having known you for 50 years (as say a brother) I had never known you to be anything other than perfectly honest, and perfectly sane, it would carry a much greater degree of weight. If another friend who had likewise been perfectly honest had witnessed it from afar, and I knew you two had not collaborated, it would shift the balance to me cautiously wanting to see the thing for myself.

      The bible generates a great deal of confidence for me in the way that it self-verifies: parts of the OT and NT agreeing in subtle and not easily noticed ways; predictive prophesy prior to events that end up being remarkably true; measurements and descriptions that are startlingly accurate (such as a vessel's measurement that indicates a working knowledge of pi as 135/43, or 3.1395); dates and names that are accurate; minor details that do not read as a work of fiction or legend, especially given the time period and literary styles; etc.

      To state that it loses your confidence because "it declares a God, and clearly God does not exist, thus the Bible is not reliable and therefore there is no God" is not fair at all.

      Because Julius Caesar didn't do impossible things.

      Once again, begging the question: whether something is impossible or not in this case depends on whether the Bible is true or not.

      All of them. Tricks, coincidences, phonomena we have later explained.

      Im not aware of an exp

    116. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Another person. Come on, if you can't see Religion's potential as a tool for control and keeping order, then you are short-sighted.

      It has been used that way, as has secularism. Curiously enough in China they are currently suppressing religions-- all of them-- and pushing raw humanist secularism to control their population. Neither fact is really all that relevant.

      People who were already adults would never accept such a belief if there were no inclination. You indicate that it is taught at birth, but that it is used as a control mechanism, which leaves the question of who got the parents to go along with it to begin with, if they had no ingrained inclination to religion and the supernatural.

      But really, this isnt my place to argue: People from Dawkins to Lewis would disagree with you; and would say that man does indeed have a predisposition to the supernatural (Dawkins words, actually). I could, if I took the time, pull up a large list of experts who disagree. There is nothing illogical, per say, about you disagreeing, but I personally will err on the side that has the fanatical atheist agreeing with the believer, each experts in their own field.

      Because Atheism isn't believing anything - it's saying "I don't know".

      Atheism is a belief that there is no God, or hairsplittingly near enough. Let us not argue semantics, any statement that indicates that Christianity is wrong is a statement of belief in its own right-- you believe in the falsity of another proposition.

      Wikipedia makes this simple:
      In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
      The term our society uses for the "i dont know" position is "agnosticism", presumably from the greek gnosis, meaning "without knowledge".

    117. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      It's not that. It's that you believe things that agree with your emotions, and your emotions are developed in your infancy.

      I'm not sure how all this works exactly, but this is what recent neuropsychiatry has discovered about rational beliefs, that they're ground on emotion - logic and rationalization is an afterthought of your preexisting beliefs.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    118. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      The idea that because one has an idea of a God means it must be innate to yourself is clearly false

      Well done. This is one of the points were you are having problems with your though: every time that you say "clearly" you've stopped using logic and started using belief (except if you were applying a syllogism, but you're not doing that now).

      This same idea was clearly true to Descartes, in the same way that "I think, therefore I exist" was clearly true to him. Clear ideas were the basis for Descartes rational thought (what we now call 'axioms') from which to apply rational deduction. Given the state of Philosophy at the time, this approach was a radical advance.

      In hindsight we now know that clear ideas are not created in a vacuum but are evolved from the brain's development and learning, but that's independent of the logic of Descartes philosophy. As applied to your expressed beliefs, you can see that if you accept your "clearly false" axiom as a "clearly true" axiom instead, you get a perfectly logical theory that includes religion. And this is only one of the many possible ways to do it; western theology has at least 3000 years of examples.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    119. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Having a majority doesn't mean its not a cult when the behaviours are deemed illogical by anyone with the capacity to reason and has not been brainwashed into the religion cult.

      You refuse to accept the definition in the citation? Then link an authoritive one that suits your own, personal definition of "cult". If you say "cat" when you're referring to a dog, there isn't much communiaction.

      As to logic, how is it logical that something just "came about" (the aformentioned dog/cat) that no engineer on earth can duplicate? The eyeball just happened? Illogical!

      As to the different religions, at the core, most of them are very similar. The Catholic God is the same God as the protestant God, and in fact the Protestants began as Catholics but broke away when the church leadership became corrupted. Christians worship the same God as the Jews and Muslims (Hindus and Bhuddists worship life, Wiccans worship nature, very similar).

      Most people worship the same God I do, they simply interpret him differently. I can't prove he exists, but then you can't prove you're sentient, and I can't prove I am either (and in 1982 I made a primitive chatbot on a TS-1000 that fooled most into thinking it was sentient). The only proof that anyone is sentient is that you are, so everyone else must be. Explain sentience; what is it and where does it come from? Prove its existance!

    120. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      No, I accepted the definition. I really should have stated that having a majority in one place doesn't mean its not a cult, I assumed that was implied. The problem is you are reducing the sphere of influence to one country, where the cult has a strong hold. I showed you lots of examples where people see it as a cult. Theres 730 million europeans, and half of them think religion is not important, thats more people who think religion is a cult than there is people in the whole of america. And theres many more countries outside of europe with similar views as I have already shown.

      I don't know what your statement about just "came about" is referring to. Are you talking about the origin of life. Thats totally outside this discussion as to whether religion is a cult or not. As are your statements about proving the existence of god. These are strawmen. I never asked you to prove the origins of life, or prove god exists. None of this shows me why religion is not a cult. The evidence of the secularization of europe is proof of its cult status and you have done nothing to disprove that.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    121. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      It has been used that way, as has secularism. Curiously enough in China they are currently suppressing religions-- all of them-- and pushing raw humanist secularism to control their population. Neither fact is really all that relevant.

      People who were already adults would never accept such a belief if there were no inclination. You indicate that it is taught at birth, but that it is used as a control mechanism, which leaves the question of who got the parents to go along with it to begin with, if they had no ingrained inclination to religion and the supernatural.

      But really, this isnt my place to argue: People from Dawkins to Lewis would disagree with you; and would say that man does indeed have a predisposition to the supernatural (Dawkins words, actually). I could, if I took the time, pull up a large list of experts who disagree. There is nothing illogical, per say, about you disagreeing, but I personally will err on the side that has the fanatical atheist agreeing with the believer, each experts in their own field.

      Of course it's relevant - your argument is that religion is inherant to us - this is simply not true. A want to find out the cause behind things is inherant in us (inquisitiveness), and this is what drives religion - it offers a very 'easy' answer to all of the big questions. It could have easily been invented by a person, as a method of control, or as an answer to something they didn't know, and then passed on through generations. That is far more likely than believing in something that is full of insane stuff like miracles and gods.

      The 'clever people believed it' argument, is inherantly rubbish. Someone can be brilliant and still be wrong in other matters. Experts are not always right, and are branded experts by other people, who can be wrong themselves.

      Atheism is a belief that there is no God, or hairsplittingly near enough. Let us not argue semantics, any statement that indicates that Christianity is wrong is a statement of belief in its own right-- you believe in the falsity of another proposition.

      Wikipedia makes this simple: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. The term our society uses for the "i dont know" position is "agnosticism", presumably from the greek gnosis, meaning "without knowledge".

      As to your definition of Atheism, No, this is a pure misconception. The very source you quote goes on to say 'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.'

      Religion is the theory that needs to be proven, not believing in an unproven theory is not a stance. By being in an Atheist - I'm not believing in God, but I'm also not believing that a God doesn't exist - I'm just saying there is no evidence to make me want to believe a God exists, so I wouldn't believe that one does. That means there are not any 'odds' of me being correct - because as an Atheist, I'm right either way. If God exists, it was highly unlikely, so believing in it would have been illogical. If a God doesn't exist, I'm still right. It's not a stance, it's just not beleiving in something without proof.

      Agnosticism is something else - Agnosticism is say I don't know what to believe, which is different. Atheists don't know, but go with what is logically most plausible. Agnostics don't know, and go around half-beleiving in God, half not, supposedly.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    122. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by lattyware · · Score: 1

      But I then went on to explain why I beleived it was 'clearly false' - I can break down that 'axiom' and give you my reason for beleiving in it. If I changed it to clearly true, my own argument would be a counter-example.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    123. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The 'clever people believed it' argument, is inherantly rubbish. Someone can be brilliant and still be wrong in other matters. Experts are not always right, and are branded experts by other people, who can be wrong themselves.

      Arguments from Authority are as strong as the authorities they cite. Lewis was a scholar of medieval literature and a professor at Oxford; Dawkins among other things, studies animal (and human) behavior, and is a fellow at Oxford. Both, I think, are more qualified to make statements on what behavior is inherent / natural to humans than either you or I.

      Since neither of us has the resources to do the research ourselves (unless you happen to be an anthropologist by profession), it makes sense to fall back on their work. I found this Wikipedia article which lists a plethora of thinkers on this subject; none seem to espouse the position that religion is taught. For example, Freud described religion as "instinctual", surmising that it comes from childhood neurosis or repressions (not that it is taught). Others describe it as a coping mechanism that people come to ourselves. One suggests that it is a result of some evolutionary left-over.

      You can cry "appeal to authority", but then I would ask to see your credentials, and remind you of the "confidence" principle I discussed in our other thread-- that all these men agree with all their expertise, despite their fundamental disagreements elsewhere, lends a great deal of credibility to their claims; and that it meshes with the reality I see (knowing friends who were raised in atheistic homes, and came to a realization of God independently in their 20s) reinforces it all the more.

      As to your definition of Atheism, No, this is a pure misconception. The very source you quote goes on to say 'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.'

      Denying X is the same as the affirmation of "not X". In a chain of reasoning, if you arrive at "X must be false", it is equivocal to "Not X is true".

    124. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      I can break down that 'axiom' and give you my reason for beleiving in it.

      You are right, you have a logical way to contradict Descartes.

      But note how you needed to introduce additional axioms in order to do it, you couldn't do it by logic alone; for that you have needed to show that a contradiction arises from Descartes axioms, and no one can be found. Descartes axioms where self-consistent and thus logical; there's nothing in logic that forces someone to accept any additional axiom.

      The axiom that you added to the mix in order to refute the old philosopher is that the God idea is generated from observation. First, note that this is not enough on itself to refute the existence of God with logic; there's the possibility that someone imagined God and that God exists at the same time.

      For your argument to work, it relies on your hidden assumption (a second axiom) that ideas are true when supported by observation, and should be discarded when they don't match observation. This idea comes from the natural sciences (physics, primarily). It's not a part of logic itself, so it has to be accepted as a separate belief. As LordLimecat rightly pointed out, you can't assume that everything that exists must observable and then use observation as proof that the assumption is true; that's circular reasoning. As a general rule you can't contradict an axiom on its own with logic alone, logic will work either way if you assume that it's true (admit it) or false (reject it); you must keep throwing new axioms to the mix until one of them generates a logical contradiction with all the previous ones. Every axiom added this way is a new "act of faith", not a logical deduction.

      Religious people usually tend to discard the naturalistic assumption and say that there are things that exist and can't be proven by observation; it's a logical way to articulate their belief in God. The other way is thinking that God's existence can be proven by observation, and then think that the observed good things (feelings like men's goodwill or happiness, or wonders like nature's beauty) are evidence of his existence; that's also a logical and consistent belief system if handled with care.

      Not that I believe all this, I'm working as a "reverse devil's advocate" here. But I wanted to show you how logic works outside of your own moral frame of reference, if you're willing to suspend part of your beliefs as a theoretical exercise.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    125. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      If you say "cat" when you're referring to a dog, there isn't much communiaction.

      Similarly, if you say "wolf" when referring to "pulpits", there isn't much communication.

      The eyeball just happened? Illogical!

      The moon happened; then the dog/cat/eyeball did. All, very logical.

      Most people worship the same God I do [...]

      As they say in wikipedia, "Citation needed". Your deity seems to worship death; at least, as is evidenced by the idolatry (crosses and thorn tiaras).

      As to the different religions, at the core, most of them are very similar. [...] Explain sentience; what is it and where does it come from? Prove its existance!

      Very much similar; they all reject each other. So, at the core, you're going to hell no matter what. Proving existence is simpler than pointing out typos; I can formulate predictions, therefore I am.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    126. Re:Santa of course is not an effin elf. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Similarly, if you say "wolf" when referring to "pulpits", there isn't much communication.

      The "wolf" comes from a parable in the bible. Christ said he was the good shepherd who laid down his life for his flock, and warned of "wolves in sheep's clothing." If we're discussing a book you obviously haven't read, there can be little communication as well.

      The eyeball just happened? Illogical!
      The moon happened; then the dog/cat/eyeball did. All, very logical

      The moon is logical; it's just a big pile of boulders that gravity pulled together. Any three year old can make a snowball. But an eyeball just happening by chance? Pretty unbelievable.

      As they say in wikipedia, "Citation needed".

      As of the early 21st century, Christianity has around 2.2 billion adherents.[1][2][3] The faith represents nearly one-third of the world's population

      Another third are Muslim.

      I overestimated the number of Jews; 13 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the seven billion people alive today. But Muslims, Jews, and Christians share the old testament and worship the same God. A quick google shows that only about a third of the world's population are athiests, agnostics, Hindus, Wiccans, Bhuddists, Confucionists, etc. combined.

      Your deity seems to worship death; at least, as is evidenced by the idolatry (crosses and thorn tiaras).

      The death of that one man, God's own son, resulted in the life of all men. And note that the one man who was executed to save you also healed the sick who would otherwise die, and raised ones who were already dead. And what's more, he didn't stay dead! Also note that death comes to all of us, although people today seem to think they're somehow immune.

      Very much similar; they all reject each other.

      On the contrary, the Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, and he is revered in their religion. The Jews consider him "a Jewish boy who did well" (no citation, a Jew told me that). It isn't the religions that reject each other, it's the people practicing those religions. And even non-Abrahamic religions, such as Bhuddism, hold the same moral values that say stealing, killing, slandering, adultery, are wrong.

      I can formulate predictions

      So can a computer, but a computer isn't sentient. And note that computer predictions are often better than human predictions. Note that the computer in the linked story was a 1952 Univac, and as the text notes, "a musical Hallmark greeting card has more computing power."

  2. slow news day... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ...it must be. Yet, a question occurs to me: who finances Santa's technological wet dreams ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:slow news day... by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 4, Funny

      Google.

      --
      sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
    2. Re:slow news day... by Seumas · · Score: 2

      At least it isn't April 1st. Slashdot turns into a flaming piece of shit for about 48 hours every year at that time. This is not even remotely as stupid as it gets on that day.

    3. Re:slow news day... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      Warehouse 13

    4. Re:slow news day... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I suddenly imagined Santa, his sleigh, reindeer, etc., covered in BETA stickers.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:slow news day... by sempir · · Score: 1

      At least it isn't April 1st. Slashdot turns into a flaming piece of shit for about 48 hours every year at that time. This is not even remotely as stupid as it gets on that day.

      What is it about the word "fool"that you don't understand?

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    6. Re:slow news day... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:slow news day... by Edwin_OS · · Score: 1

      http://goo.gl/TJacj Here is where many things begins. What about a self-driving red nosed reindeer?

    8. Re:slow news day... by Servaas · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis

      Nobody puts baby in the corner!

  3. Obligatory by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientific Inquiry into Santa Claus

    As a result of an overwhelming lack of requests, and with research help
    from that renown scientific journal SPY magazine (January, 1990) - I am
    pleased to present the annual scientific inquiry into Santa Claus.

    1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of
    living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects
    and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only
    Santa has ever seen.

    2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since
    Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist
    children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million
    according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of
    3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's
    at least one good child in each.

    3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different
    time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west
    (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is
    to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has
    1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney,
    fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat
    whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the
    sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8
    million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we
    know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept),
    we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2
    million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least
    once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

    This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000
    times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made
    vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per
    second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

    4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming
    that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds),
    the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably
    described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more
    than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could
    pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even
    nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even
    counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison
    - - - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

    5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air
    resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as
    spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer
    will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short,
    they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer
    behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire
    reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa,
    meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater
    than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be
    pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

    In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's
    dead now.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Obligatory by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - - - this is four times the weight of Queen Elizabeth.

      My gawd, the poor woman !! I now understand why she so sparingly appears in public. Being so overweight must be horrible.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re:Obligatory by tunabomber · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force

      No wonder my stocking had a big diamond in it this morning. It USED to be a hunk of coal.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    3. Re:Obligatory by FairAndHateful · · Score: 1

      ... 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - - - this is four times the weight of Queen Elizabeth.

      My gawd, the poor woman !! I now understand why she so sparingly appears in public. Being so overweight must be horrible.

      This enormous woman will devour us all!!!

    4. Re:Obligatory by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      Dude, RTFA. It clearly explains how he uses relativity clouds to achieve these feets.

    5. Re:Obligatory by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere.

      It's a good thing he got that new pet conditioner. "Protects from heat, drying, and daily damage"!

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    6. Re:Obligatory by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It can all be explained because The Dioctor helped him out!

      This isn't original... Picked it up somewhere...

      The Doctor had some left over TARDIS parts and built St. Nick a sleigh from them! Only it's time locked to Christmas Eve... So Santa behaves. That allows Santa to deliver presents all year round. Because the Sleigh is "bigger on the inside" there is plenty of room for gifts. (sadly, Santa didn't get a library or pool) that also accounts for the flying reindeer... But the might be a special breed from the future?

    7. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

      That's a pretty big presumption. It's enough to presume that Santa has exacting standards year round, not just the kind that require a child be good for a few days before Christmas. To that end, I'd be surprised if there's a thousand "good children".

    8. Re:Obligatory by Synchblade · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY! This the theory I have been spreading ever since I was 12! Except that recently I've been thinking that might be dangerous since he could theoretically create a paradox.

      Santa Claus (the 265th) + TARDIS = presents!

    9. Re:Obligatory by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our, ...oh wait, I don't have to do that nonsense!

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    10. Re:Obligatory by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Dude, RTFA. It clearly explains how he uses relativity clouds to achieve these feets.

      Reindeer don't have feets, they has hoofz. As for relativity, the one at the front is called Rudolf the Red-shift Reindeer.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    11. Re:Obligatory by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      ... 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - - - this is four times the weight of Queen Elizabeth.

      My gawd, the poor woman !! I now understand why she so sparingly appears in public. Being so overweight must be horrible.

      The queen, she came to call on us
      She wanted to see all of us
      I'm glad she didn't fall on us
      She's 57,558,600 stone...
      Apologies to the late George Hodnett.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    12. Re:Obligatory by gratuitous_arp · · Score: 1

      Very good. For anyone else that wanted to find the source of this, this website: http://www.skypoint.com/members/camilian/humor/SantaAnalysis.shtml claims:

      "This was sent via e-mail a couple years ago, circa 1996. Therefore the author's information is unknown."

      If someone has more information on the source I'd like to hear it.

    13. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitch please, santa has a tardis.

    14. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Talk about buzz kill...

    15. Re:Obligatory by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      The paradox would be low. Santa is always delivering between now and the next Christmas Eve. Because he is going to different houses every time he's not crossing his own timeline at all.

    16. Re:Obligatory by Dausha · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with the science in your comment above. It presumes all the boys and girls are Nice. We can scientifically prove that most of them are in fact Naughty. How many parents fake Santa's appearance to mask their children's Naughtiness?

      As a result, Santa is mostly underfed, underworked. He's not as chubby as before since he has few morsels to eat every Christmas. He's home by 9PM PST. His elves were able to participate in this year's Occupy protests without any meaningful dent in productivity.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    17. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple, Rudolf's nose doesn't glow due to some genetic defect, it's the result of areothermal heating. That and fruit cake, you didn't think it was meant for eating did you? It's one of the most effective ablative coatings known to exist, a thin layer protects the sleigh from tremendous heat of high mach travel. The power source is Mr. Fusion, same as Doc Browns DeLorean plain and simple, that's what all the milk and cookies are for.

      Scientific inquiry my ass :)

    18. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooo... You're saying there is a chance...

    19. Re:Obligatory by tepples · · Score: 1

      Or I could apply Occam's razor and say the mall Santas deliver the presents.

    20. Re:Obligatory by antdude · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Santa have the ability to slow down/freeze time to do his work? ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re:Obligatory by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I think the Chameleon chip uses the flying reindeer as camouflage..

    22. Re:Obligatory by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      But Santa is magic, duh!

  4. Meh ... by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kinda late. The Finns already made a documentary on that topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Exports

    1. Re:Meh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. Who would really live at the North Pole anyway? Korvatunturi is THE place to find Santa...

  5. Oh, thank god by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

    For a moment I was worried this would be the old chestnut about Santa bursting into flames a second after he takes off, because of air resistance and the speeds necessary to deliver toys to every child on the planet. This, at least, I can fill a stocking to.

  6. He's got... by tunabomber · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... an O(1) solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem, but he ain't sharing it. Which is a bummer, since that's all I wanted for Christmas.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    1. Re:He's got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is far more clever than TFS. No, I didn't RTFA.

    2. Re:He's got... by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      So basically he is all for Free, but not for Open.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:He's got... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      ... an O(1) solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem, but he ain't sharing it. Which is a bummer, since that's all I wanted for Christmas.

      How presumptuous. Why do you think he comes around once a year?

      Because it takes 365 days to compute the route!

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  7. just say magic and don't milk it. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    enough said.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:just say magic and don't milk it. by Nyder · · Score: 2

      enough said.

      Yes, Milk and Cookies, he needs to refuel his energy between stops.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  8. Obligatory Occupy by FairAndHateful · · Score: 5, Funny

    Santa's mastery of nanotechnology allows Santa to grow presents on the spot

    Thereby depriving all the elves of jobs! They did the right things, they followed the rules, they went to elf school, and got advanced degrees in craftsmanship, but they're getting screwed by Santa, who's just rewarding the children he thinks are "nice". You remember when you were a kid? Did the children who were actually nice get the best presents? No! It was always the kids of some corporate fat cat! We see who Santa's rewarding. Occupy the North Pole!

    1. Re:Obligatory Occupy by pentalive · · Score: 1

      The elf jobs are secure, who do you think maintains the complicated system that delivers raw material to the nano-replicator on the sleigh in flight?

      Those gifts belong to Santa until he gives them. He can give them to whomever he chooses. You are just sour grapes because you only got a lump of non-environmentally friendly coal.

    2. Re:Obligatory Occupy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thereby depriving all the elves of jobs!

      We've all been deprived of Jobs. Let us hold hands on this day when we celebrate crass commercialism coupled closely to conspicious consumption and remember Him...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. This explains everything! by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    "Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second"

    This explains why we've never been able to nail him with anti-aircraft fire...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:This explains everything! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      That's it, I'm leaving him udder butter from now on.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  10. Magic? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    It would appear that the only magic here is the disappearing funding for his department because they spend their government- and taxpayer-funded time doing stupid stuff like this.

    Really? Because we're not in armed conflicts all over the globe and our space travel initiatives aren't completely fucked? Come on guys, serious problems - serious response. Let's dig ourselves out of this intellectual hole we've fallen in and get back to being pioneers of... well, anything but 100% outsourced capitalism.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Magic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you'd rather have all the aerospace engineers leave their university posts so that they can increase their pay x10 by working for military contractors?

      Bah humbug!

  11. Nano tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he's growing presents on the spot would it not make more sense to simply leave a nano seed at every house he visits so he can simply grow new presents next year without the need for a repeat visit? This would allow him to only visit houses where the seed was damaged or where a new seed needs to be placed.

  12. How about Hannukah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the post about the science of the menorah's oil lasting for eight days?

    1. Re:How about Hannukah? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, we're talking about a fork of Judaism. You need to log in to a different project.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  13. Is Santa part of the 1%? :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if he is, good luck to him. He never outsources jobs with the exception of the work he leaves in the hands of mums and dads! :)

  14. The real mystery... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... is why the WTO hasn't gone after Santa for violating import/export & tariff laws, and why the AFL-CIO & the Teamsters haven't shut him down or made him disappear.

    BTW, the house I grew-up in didn't have a fireplace, therefore we also didn't have a chimney. When I was a kid, I believed Santa came down our sewer system vent pipes.
     

  15. tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Silverberg has a very long tradition of "researching Santa science". It has become one of those fun things his students look forward to having a few laughs with him about. He has even made videos on the topic ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ3VWRzk_r4&sns=emb).

    Before you all get the wrong idea, he is actually a very intelligent and respected engineer and teaches dynamic systems controls. He just likes to make things fun every once in a while.

  16. As a parent by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    TFA was written by a non-parent.

    The answer is much simpler. Since he only give presents to children who have been good all year long, Santa only makes a few brief stops in the coma wards of hospitals. The rest is just marketing.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:As a parent by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      including an underground antenna that listens to children's thoughts

      When I read this the first thing I thought of was that it is a good thing kids stop believing in Santa Claus not too long before they figure out how to beat off. Saves a lot on psychiatric treatment later.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  17. This is why the USA is the leader by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    In education and scientific pursuits

    1. Re:This is why the USA is the leader by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      America, fuck yeah! The decorations on this house puts a new spin on what Christmas is all about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YHwa-Iq1Bx4

  18. Wait, next you'll be telling me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that NORAD tracked Santa's sleigh last night too.

  19. Occam's Razor by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    Occam's Razor can be used with sufficient enough certainty to show that there is no Santa and that the gifts are bought by the parents (or somebody else), and the fact that it says "made in China" only confirms this theory.

    1. Re:Occam's Razor by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      Occam's Razor can be used with sufficient enough certainty to show that there is no Santa and that the gifts are bought by the parents (or somebody else), and the fact that it says "made in China" only confirms this theory.

      Oh joy. Scrooge has a Slashdot account.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Occam's Razor by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      An atheist at that. Was Scrooge an atheist?

    3. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly does being an atheist have to do with anything? Honestly where is the connection? Because christians hijacked another religions customs it makes it a holy christian day? What does any of it have to do with santa? Secular santa is far better than the torture and murder of the whole jesus story.

    4. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An atheist at that. Was Scrooge an atheist?

      who is the atheist you are referring to? you sure as fuck are not an atheist - you worship ron paul.

    5. Re:Occam's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're dumb

  20. Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virginia is going to bitch slap you unconscious.

  21. Actually, it's already disproven by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

    If Santa was moving so fast, how come NORAD can track him, and post videos of him at major cities...

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Actually, it's already disproven by chill · · Score: 2

      Because they're the government, so they are lying to you. Duh! That's a given.

      And where is your tin foil hat?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Actually, it's already disproven by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      LOL, yesterday my 27 year old daughter was on NORAD's site tracking Santa on her new notebook all day!

  22. no "scientific explanation" needed by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Santa Claus operates entirely within the realm of natural means known for thousands of years.

    CM: Yeah! And then, when they flied across da sky, they used ta come down to places like, oh, Chicago, L.A., Nueva York and Pacoima and all those places, y'know, and then land on top of people's roofs and then 'ol Santa Claus would make himself real small, y'know, like, a real small guy, and he'd come down da chimney and then he would give you all da stuff that he made, man. And...dig this, man...he did it all in one night, man!

    TC: Hey, just a minute, man. Now, how'd he do that, man?

    CM: Oh, well, man, he took da freeway. How else, man?

    TC: No, man. No, man, how'd he do all that other stuff, man? Like, how'd he make himself small, man. And, how'd he, like, how'd he get the reindeer off the ground, man?

    CM: Oh, well, man, he had some magic dust, man.

    TC: Some magic dust?

    CM: Yeah, magic dust, y'know? He used ta give a little bit to da reindeer, a little bit to Santa Claus, a little bit more for Santa Claus, a little bit more...

    TC: And this would get the reindeer off, man?

    CM: Aw, got 'em off, man? Are you kidding, man? They flew all da way around da world, man!

    TC: Hey, that's far out, man!

  23. citation by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    -- Santa Calus and His Old Lady , Cheech and Chong, 1971

  24. Americans have the facts wrong on santa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Santa doesn't live at north pole, but at Korvatunturi.

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

  25. New movie in the works by DarkIye · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they're gearing up for a gritty reboot.

  26. Sigga, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Santa employs legions of Chinese children at a wuan a day each to make all those presents. That's how he comes up with them, then reverse-crowd sources the distribution by using the world's retail delivery network and the kids' parents to take the presents the "last mile" to the individual subsylvan space to await opening by excited, then inevitably disappointed kids, many of whom will have more fun with the packaging than the toys.

    In other words, Santa is Walmart. Let's stop the charade, people.

    (Anyway, it's high time kids grow up, and graduate from believing in a made-up magic man named Santa to believing in a made-up magic man named "god".)

  27. So, this is what science is up to now? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    What is next, justifying religion?

    Santa is nothing but a training in bullshitting kids. When they are told there is no santa, they fill up that gap with zombie jesus.

    Don't like to your kids. Tell them you love them very much and give them a gift, that's all they need. Fairy tales rot their little minds.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:So, this is what science is up to now? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Fairy tales rot their little minds.

      Yes; yes and no. Teaching the defenseless little expenses that the two people who are tasked with keeping them alive and caring the most about them will lie to them about the basic nature of reality teaches them a good lesson: question authority. Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God is the progression; most people only make it past the first three. And the kicker is, there might be a Protector, but it's not the way that God is described in the holy books. It's more a construct of science. And we can do experiments with it, once we determine the science.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:So, this is what science is up to now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There does seem to be a natural bias as regards some simple rules. "Don't kill members of your own species indiscriminately unless you develop a flawed logical workaround that 'makes it okay' to your society" is one, and one can see why that's a pretty successful propagating ideology. Incest taboos are largely hardwired at this point, again making genetic sense for a species' long-term survival. I saw something once where someone worked out proofs of the success of kin and reciprocal altruism in symbolic logic. I don't honestly follow enough symbolic logic to pick it apart but it looked fairly convincing if their premises were all correct. Some stuff does seem to be built in to things on a profoundly fundamental level, that of logic, and I can see why it inspires magical thinking. I believe in the Great Positive Ethical Feedback Loop in the sky, I simply refuse to waste time speculating on supernatural or natural causes when I have things to tinker with.

  28. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Santa uses string theory. You see there are an infinite number of universes, like on Superman. All Santa has to do is visit n houses, then slip over into the "next" dimension and visit another n houses. Santa visits m dimensions before dawn.

    I have an elegant proof that for n and m greater than 2 everyone gets a present, but it is too big to fit into the margin here.

  29. brane deer by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Already covered by "Nature".

  30. Alcohol... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    Somebody should really quit drinking.

  31. zzz...snort...wha th... by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

    Yawn...zzzzzzzzzz.

  32. Nanotech doesn't create mass by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, TFS is smokin' crack. Nanoassembly doesn't save weight - what does he thing, nanotech converts air into presents?

    It might save space in the bag, if it's just filled with gray goo, but I don't think Santa has Trek replicators yet.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  33. Holiday World by tepples · · Score: 1

    There are several ways. One is a theme park near Evansville, Indiana, in the midwestern United States. Oh yeah, and the big endorsement deals with Coke (wonder why Santa wears red instead of green now?) and Disney (The Santa Clause).

  34. Because Noddy has been naughty by tepples · · Score: 1

    We can scientifically prove that most of them are in fact Naughty. How many parents fake Santa's appearance to mask their children's Naughtiness?

    And this is why Santa doesn't visit Toy Town. For one thing, the viewpoint toy is in fact Noddy, and for another, Big-Ears does a good job of faking (a previous) Santa's appearance.

  35. The end doesn't justify the means by tepples · · Score: 1

    roman_mir likely views the christmas carol as a tragedy and looks up to scrooge's early ideals.

    To followers of at least one rapidly-growing branch of Christianity, A Christmas Carol is in fact a tragedy. Four fallen angels, who self-identify as "Jacob Marley", "Christmas Past", "Christmas Present", and "Christmas Yet to Come", visit notoriously stingy, mean-spirited Ebenezer Scrooge, a loan officer at S&M Bank, and convince him to become more generous. But I've talked to one of Jehovah's Witnesses who sees it as from bad to bad because the end of generosity doesn't justify the means of celebrating a modernized form of Saturnalia.

  36. Arthur Christmas by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

    I just seen the movie Arthur Christmas with my daughter last night. They actually made a very good attempt at explaining how Santa could work and still making it an entertaining kids movie. I would actually recommend anyone interested in the "Science of Santa" to watch it for a laugh.

    But, for those who won't see it, here are some of the highlights. As population has increased, so has the technology involved and the elven work force. Santa himself pretty much only visits one house per town and a crack team of elite ninja elves do all of the rest of the deliveries in the town. Santa is a generational title that has been passed down from father to son with each Santa performing up to 70 missions (Christmases).

    The old sleigh was pulled by 8 reindeer who used a continuous dose of magic elf dust mined from the Aurora Borealis to allow them to fly and had an approximate top speed of 50,000 MpH and had a variety of camouflage devices.

    The new S-1 is a state of the art flying airship capable of anti-gravity hovering and extreme speeds with an advanced cloaking system that can project a starry night sky on its bottom equipped with hundreds of drop holes to allow a veritable army of elves to repel down to houses and enter into them to make their deliveries to a whole town in a matter of minutes.

    --
    Nevermore.