All over Utah? Seriously?

They give more and volunteers more but there are fewer of them and they are younger so that leads to less total hospitals and universities. That's not a hard concept to grasp

Aggrad08 said:

---

All over Utah? Seriously?

They give more and volunteers more but there are fewer of them and they are younger so that leads to less total hospitals and universities. That's not a hard concept to grasp

---

Christianity is all over the world as far as universities and hospitals. Not just in Utah. Would you agree?

Yes. Christianity is bigger also. But per capita Mormons give and volunteer more- do you disagree?

If so how do you explain that?

And they do work outside the US, but again, they are smaller. You asked why you don't see them. That's why.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

All over Utah? Seriously?

They give more and volunteers more but there are fewer of them and they are younger so that leads to less total hospitals and universities. That's not a hard concept to grasp

---

Christianity is all over the world as far as universities and hospitals. Not just in Utah. Would you agree?

---

The topic was about how Christianity is unique because of the sepcific way in which Jesus dealt with death, and how every religion's adherents thinks it's unique. I'm going to go back to my original response, which was I don't see how any of this is related. Without tying it back into that conversation somehow, this just comes off as a really weird flex.

I don't care what religion makes the best people, but Mormons are the best people.

Also atheism is not a religion, and atheists don't worship anything.

Dilettante said:

---

atheism is not a religion

---

Dilettante said:

---

I don't care what religion makes the best people, but Mormons are the best people.

Also atheism is not a religion, and atheists don't worship anything.

---

Everybody worships something. It's in your DNA. Porn, the quest for knowledge, your own ego...something. When your honest with yourself you will know the answer.

I don't expect you to admit it here, but deep down inside you know you have set something ideal in your mind that you set your reverence to.

Worship -
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

verb
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

I don't care what religion makes the best people, but Mormons are the best people.

Also atheism is not a religion, and atheists don't worship anything.

---

Everybody worships something. It's in your DNA. Porn, the quest for knowledge, your own ego...something. When your honest with yourself you will know the answer.

I don't expect you to admit it here, but deep down inside you know you have set something ideal in your mind that you set your reverence to.

---

Even if this were true, it wouldn't make atheism a religion.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Also on a note about Christ. Yes there are numerous stories of gods or characters going to the underworld and saving someone the belly of the beast, visiting, and even rising from the dead. Christ's story is different. Christ as God goes to hades when he dies and destroys death for everyone. Every aspect of His story reaches the limit of storytelling which is why Christ is and fills the hierarchy of reality. Everything else is incomplete without Christ.

---

Like I said. Christianity is unique . . . Just like every religion.

---

That's the conclusion you get from my comments?

---

Yes, You look around and see a Christianity shaped hole in the world that only Christianity can complete. The Muslim sees an Islamic shaped hole and the Hindu sees a Hinduism shaped hole.

You talk about Chris fulfilling the hierarchy of reality and going to Hell and destroying death for everyone. These aren't objective facts and they cannot be discussed or debated by people unless they have already pre-decided that there is a hierarchy of reality that can only be fulfilled by Christ, that there is a Hell that Christ can visit, and that death can be destroyed, but only by the Son of God giving his life.

Its like you are saying reality and existence only makes sense if it contains a Christian shaped hole that, fortunately, Christianity can fill.

I respect your position and opinion, but you are discussing with someone (me) that does not look around and see a Christianity shaped hole that can only be made complete through Christianity.

---

It's not a Christian shaped hole. It's a symbolic pattern that is universal. If you think you're outside that pattern then there's probably something wrong with the conclusions that you draw from your experience and beliefs about reality. Typically people who believe there are neutral descriptions of reality are purely materialists. There are striking similarities in stories throughout the world and throughout time. This is not a coincidence. It's how the pattern of reality is revealed to humans. This is so ingrained in you that you take it for granted. This is also why earlier humans had a home compared to modern man who gets their beliefs from one or two early scientific figures who made claims that your experience is just subjective. That assumption made its way all the way to your "these aren't objective facts" comment. I guess my question to you is, why are these stories universal (as you mentioned) and what makes you think you're outside it? Where do you jump off the train?

You're not an outsider giving a neutral description of reality. That is impossible. You wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. Everything you do is symbolic. Out of seemingly infinite amount of facts around you at any given time, you have to choose a path which is an extremely narrow field of view. That's your story. Not saying it's subjective either, it's symbolic and its fractal in the sense that it can scale. I'm taking a guess here but I would assume you believe existence is something physical. For all of human history before materialism, existence meant order and form. Hence why stories like Genesis are not a myth in the modern sense. There's a pattern there found everywhere.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I'm taking a guess here but I would assume you believe existence is something physical.

---

Conversation where you have to clarify that you believe in physical reality are weird.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I'm taking a guess here but I would assume you believe existence is something physical.

---

Conversation where you have to clarify that you believe in physical reality are weird.

---

Probably better stated as existence is only physical.

dargscisyhp said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

All over Utah? Seriously?

They give more and volunteers more but there are fewer of them and they are younger so that leads to less total hospitals and universities. That's not a hard concept to grasp

---

Christianity is all over the world as far as universities and hospitals. Not just in Utah. Would you agree?

---

The topic was about how Christianity is unique because of the sepcific way in which Jesus dealt with death, and how every religion's adherents thinks it's unique. I'm going to go back to my original response, which was I don't see how any of this is related. Without tying it back into that conversation somehow, this just comes off as a really weird flex.

---

Did not mean to have a weird flex. I was arguing for the uniqueness of Christianity due to its effect on history and society in positive ways.

It was in response to the constant questioning of Christianity's uniqueness by atheists on here.

And what put me over the top was an apparent comparison to Scientology.

Carry on.

But that argument failed in two fold ways which you have yet to address. Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous?

If we follow your reasoning through not only is Christianity not unique in this regard, it's not even superior.

Aggrad08 said:

---

But that argument failed in two fold ways which you have yet to address. Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous?

If we follow your reasoning through not only is Christianity not unique in this regard, it's not even superior.

---

All I am saying is Christianity is unique by its fruits. And by fruits meaning it's beneficial effect on the world. More so than any other religion in history.

It is also the only belief system that guarantees eternal life simply by believing. And that makes it unique.

Except you have yet to actually prove that Christianity is "unique by its fruits". Almost every religion encourages charity and doing things to make the world a better place. If you took even a minute to look into you would see that the world is filled with active and productive charities from all religions as well religious hospitals and clinics and other social programs. There are also a lot of secular examples of this as well.

At best your argument is that Christianity beats the others not in the character of those contributions but in the scale of them. But, given Christianity's age, size, and historical wealth and influence is that really a surprise? I honestly don't see what you think this proves.

As for eternal life, lots of religions offer that (or at least claim to). And in many cases you don't have to do anything at all to receive it. Christianity is one of the few I know of that offers eternal torment for non-believers, so you do have that going for you.

Also, I believe I was the one that first mentioned Scientology. I did so not comparing the religions themselves but the strength of devotion that both religions' adherents have and what potential problems arise due to that level of devotion blinding them from seeing the points of view of other people.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

---

It's not a Christian shaped hole. It's a symbolic pattern that is universal. If you think you're outside that pattern then there's probably something wrong with the conclusions that you draw from your experience and beliefs about reality. Typically people who believe there are neutral descriptions of reality are purely materialists. There are striking similarities in stories throughout the world and throughout time. This is not a coincidence. It's how the pattern of reality is revealed to humans. This is so ingrained in you that you take it for granted. This is also why earlier humans had a home compared to modern man who gets their beliefs from one or two early scientific figures who made claims that your experience is just subjective. That assumption made its way all the way to your "these aren't objective facts" comment. I guess my question to you is, why are these stories universal (as you mentioned) and what makes you think you're outside it? Where do you jump off the train?

You're not an outsider giving a neutral description of reality. That is impossible. You wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. Everything you do is symbolic. Out of seemingly infinite amount of facts around you at any given time, you have to choose a path which is an extremely narrow field of view. That's your story. Not saying it's subjective either, it's symbolic and its fractal in the sense that it can scale. I'm taking a guess here but I would assume you believe existence is something physical. For all of human history before materialism, existence meant order and form. Hence why stories like Genesis are not a myth in the modern sense. There's a pattern there found everywhere.

---

Sorry in advance . . . . didn't mean for this to be so long.

To be honest, I don't think I fully understand your question. But, I think that perhaps you are understanding common themes in patterns observed by different peoples as proof that those patterns represent something that is factually true.

All humans seek patterns and we all understand things like causation. We see a tool, and understand there was a tool maker, because that's how we understand how tools come into existence. We see a watch and understand there must be a watchmaker. We see a universe and think there must be a universe-maker. The problem with this step is that we do not understand how universes come into existence. We overlay the pattern of tool --> toolmaker and watch--> watchmaker on top of the question and infer there must be a universe maker. These universal patterns and similar stories could just be what pattern seeking beings come up with. The existence of the 'striking similarities in stories throughout the world and throughout time' is not proof that there is any truth to those stories. We know more today than our ancestors did. I think we should utilize the new information to inform our views rather than simply accepting the story handed down to us.

The pattern that I see is that human beings invent stories, myths and gods to explain things. The next pattern I see is that the the spread or success of those myths is dependent on the political and economic success of the particular human beings that invented those stories. The next pattern I see is that new stories and myths steal from previous myths and build upon them. Another pattern we see is the teaching of relatively similar moralities which promote peace and order necessary for the society to be successful and for the myths and stories to propagate to other regions. Ideas seem to be almost be subject to the same law of natural selection that biology is. A society built on ideas that don't permit it to propagate or that cannot propagate, will not spread. A society built on ideas built to spread and propagate, will try do so. Christianity and Islam have billions of followers because they are the current apex predators of the religious world. Spreading and gobbling up and propagating. Often it spreads by the sword, but sometimes through missionaries and outreach. Either way, these things function like built in biological functions designed to make the organism successful in spreading its genetics. The ability of a religion to propagate has little to do with the truth of the religion. Try looking at religions through this lens of being genetically modified organisms built to spread and dominate the arena of ideas. The mountains of theology and writings by scholars about the holy books and about God serve to give the organism sharper teeth and faster feet and to adapt it to the arms race it is engaged in with its competitors.

And these patterns exist all over and in every region and religion. The existence of the patterns in similarities in stories throughout history seems to me to be evidence that Christianity is just a piece of these patterns which have produced all of the thousands of gods and myths and beliefs that you happen to reject. In this sense, Christianity is not unique. It is part of this pattern. It is part of the same evolutionary process that created Enlil and Osiris.

My comment about objective facts was in response to this:

Quote:

---

Also on a note about Christ. Yes there are numerous stories of gods or characters going to the underworld and saving someone the belly of the beast, visiting, and even rising from the dead. Christ's story is different. Christ as God goes to hades when he dies and destroys death for everyone. Every aspect of His story reaches the limit of storytelling which is why Christ is and fills the hierarchy of reality. Everything else is incomplete without Christ.

---

We do not live in a world where we are all only subjected to one religion or one philosophy. When I consider what it is I believe, I get to consider all the religions and all the philosophies. I would very much like to know what is true. Factually true. Not spiritually true or emotionally true. What is spiritually true to you is different from what is spiritual true to someone of another faith. 'Spiritual true' is truly subjective. My tool for deciding what is true is my own imperfect ability to reason. I read everything you posted above and see that it is all 100% faith based claims. And when I read Islamic apologetics or writings, I see faith claims. And Hinduism and Buddhism and all the rest.

Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe." I think this is bull***** We cannot see, and the result is that the overwhelming majority of people believe only that which is closest at hand. This quote is yet another strategy of the evolved and modified organism that is religion. Religion knows that it has nothing for us to 'see', so believing without seeing is made into a virtue. It is not that I am unwilling to believe. And I am not unwilling to see. But, when I look with an open mind at all religions, I see some religions that are more pleasing than others, but nothing that can stand against reason.

And it is not that I am opposed to something like God existing or the idea that something beyond the physical could exist. I simply have no evidence that such a thing exists. When I have that evidence, I would re-evaluate.

What would happen if I was inclined to believe without evidence and take religion on faith? This isn't even a hypothetical. We need only look at the world to see that just about every person born accepts the religion that is handed down to them on faith. They have doubts and overcome those doubts to make them stronger. Their persecution makes them stronger. And they all look down on the atheist who has no faith. These religions require that we value the spiritual and emotional experience as proof. And I am skeptical of this because it is the strategy that every religion employs.

The last thing I will put into this way too long ramble is this: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect mine is also." It takes enormous arrogance to KNOW your religion is correct. For whatever arrogance I do have, I lack that kind of arrogance. I know that I am wrong about a great many things, but I'm not the one claiming to have the answers.

dermdoc said:

---

It is also the only belief system that guarantees eternal life simply by believing. And that makes it unique.

---

Pastafarianism also promises eternal life . . . with beer. Point for the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

---

It's not a Christian shaped hole. It's a symbolic pattern that is universal. If you think you're outside that pattern then there's probably something wrong with the conclusions that you draw from your experience and beliefs about reality. Typically people who believe there are neutral descriptions of reality are purely materialists. There are striking similarities in stories throughout the world and throughout time. This is not a coincidence. It's how the pattern of reality is revealed to humans. This is so ingrained in you that you take it for granted. This is also why earlier humans had a home compared to modern man who gets their beliefs from one or two early scientific figures who made claims that your experience is just subjective. That assumption made its way all the way to your "these aren't objective facts" comment. I guess my question to you is, why are these stories universal (as you mentioned) and what makes you think you're outside it? Where do you jump off the train?

You're not an outsider giving a neutral description of reality. That is impossible. You wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. Everything you do is symbolic. Out of seemingly infinite amount of facts around you at any given time, you have to choose a path which is an extremely narrow field of view. That's your story. Not saying it's subjective either, it's symbolic and its fractal in the sense that it can scale. I'm taking a guess here but I would assume you believe existence is something physical. For all of human history before materialism, existence meant order and form. Hence why stories like Genesis are not a myth in the modern sense. There's a pattern there found everywhere.

---

Sorry in advance . . . . didn't mean for this to be so long.

To be honest, I don't think I fully understand your question. But, I think that perhaps you are understanding common themes in patterns observed by different peoples as proof that those patterns represent something that is factually true.

All humans seek patterns and we all understand things like causation. We see a tool, and understand there was a tool maker, because that's how we understand how tools come into existence. We see a watch and understand there must be a watchmaker. We see a universe and think there must be a universe-maker. The problem with this step is that we do not understand how universes come into existence. We overlay the pattern of tool --> toolmaker and watch--> watchmaker on top of the question and infer there must be a universe maker. These universal patterns and similar stories could just be what pattern seeking beings come up with. The existence of the 'striking similarities in stories throughout the world and throughout time' is not proof that there is any truth to those stories. We know more today than our ancestors did. I think we should utilize the new information to inform our views rather than simply accepting the story handed down to us.

The pattern that I see is that human beings invent stories, myths and gods to explain things. The next pattern I see is that the the spread or success of those myths is dependent on the political and economic success of the particular human beings that invented those stories. The next pattern I see is that new stories and myths steal from previous myths and build upon them. Another pattern we see is the teaching of relatively similar moralities which promote peace and order necessary for the society to be successful and for the myths and stories to propagate to other regions. Ideas seem to be almost be subject to the same law of natural selection that biology is. A society built on ideas that don't permit it to propagate or that cannot propagate, will not spread. A society built on ideas built to spread and propagate, will try do so. Christianity and Islam have billions of followers because they are the current apex predators of the religious world. Spreading and gobbling up and propagating. Often it spreads by the sword, but sometimes through missionaries and outreach. Either way, these things function like built in biological functions designed to make the organism successful in spreading its genetics. The ability of a religion to propagate has little to do with the truth of the religion. Try looking at religions through this lens of being genetically modified organisms built to spread and dominate the arena of ideas. The mountains of theology and writings by scholars about the holy books and about God serve to give the organism sharper teeth and faster feet and to adapt it to the arms race it is engaged in with its competitors.

And these patterns exist all over and in every region and religion. The existence of the patterns in similarities in stories throughout history seems to me to be evidence that Christianity is just a piece of these patterns which have produced all of the thousands of gods and myths and beliefs that you happen to reject. In this sense, Christianity is not unique. It is part of this pattern. It is part of the same evolutionary process that created Enlil and Osiris.

My comment about objective facts was in response to this:

Quote:

---

Also on a note about Christ. Yes there are numerous stories of gods or characters going to the underworld and saving someone the belly of the beast, visiting, and even rising from the dead. Christ's story is different. Christ as God goes to hades when he dies and destroys death for everyone. Every aspect of His story reaches the limit of storytelling which is why Christ is and fills the hierarchy of reality. Everything else is incomplete without Christ.

---

We do not live in a world where we are all only subjected to one religion or one philosophy. When I consider what it is I believe, I get to consider all the religions and all the philosophies. I would very much like to know what is true. Factually true. Not spiritually true or emotionally true. What is spiritually true to you is different from what is spiritual true to someone of another faith. 'Spiritual true' is truly subjective. My tool for deciding what is true is my own imperfect ability to reason. I read everything you posted above and see that it is all 100% faith based claims. And when I read Islamic apologetics or writings, I see faith claims. And Hinduism and Buddhism and all the rest.

Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe." I think this is bull***** We cannot see, and the result is that the overwhelming majority of people believe only that which is closest at hand. This quote is yet another strategy of the evolved and modified organism that is religion. Religion knows that it has nothing for us to 'see', so believing without seeing is made into a virtue. It is not that I am unwilling to believe. And I am not unwilling to see. But, when I look with an open mind at all religions, I see some religions that are more pleasing than others, but nothing that can stand against reason.

And it is not that I am opposed to something like God existing or the idea that something beyond the physical could exist. I simply have no evidence that such a thing exists. When I have that evidence, I would re-evaluate.

What would happen if I was inclined to believe without evidence and take religion on faith? This isn't even a hypothetical. We need only look at the world to see that just about every person born accepts the religion that is handed down to them on faith. They have doubts and overcome those doubts to make them stronger. Their persecution makes them stronger. And they all look down on the atheist who has no faith. These religions require that we value the spiritual and emotional experience as proof. And I am skeptical of this because it is the strategy that every religion employs.

The last thing I will put into this way too long ramble is this: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect mine is also." It takes enormous arrogance to KNOW your religion is correct. For whatever arrogance I do have, I lack that kind of arrogance. I know that I am wrong about a great many things, but I'm not the one claiming to have the answers.

---

I'll respond to most of this later but just to make a relevant side question, do you think Santa Clause exists? You can explain like you were telling your children or another adult, either way is fine.

Also this meme cracks me up.

pic.twitter.com/IdgyUOGzy4

— Patriarch Prime ☦️🇺🇸 (@PatriarchPrimus) August 11, 2021

It really comes down to that for most materialists and you can see their fear very early on. Pascal- "The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me" Perfect quote to sum up the meaning crisis we are in.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

But that argument failed in two fold ways which you have yet to address. Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous?

If we follow your reasoning through not only is Christianity not unique in this regard, it's not even superior.

---

All I am saying is Christianity is unique by its fruits. And by fruits meaning it's beneficial effect on the world. More so than any other religion in history.

It is also the only belief system that guarantees eternal life simply by believing. And that makes it unique.

---

It's not unique by its fruits. I addressed this already. How do you explain that Mormon fruits are superior per capita?

You have got a great point there.

And it pains me to say but a google search reveals Muslims have surpassed Christians in charitable giving.

We need a revival.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I'll respond to most of this later but just to make a relevant side question, do you think Santa Clause exists? You can explain like you were telling your children or another adult, either way is fine.

---

Oh man. . . . I feel like I'm walking into something. No, I do not think Santa Claus exists.

Here is how I approach it with my kids: Santa Claus is based on a story about someone that lived a long time ago. The story of Santa Claus has changed over years to become the story that is celebrated today. While these modern legends around Santa Claus are not real, it is a fun thing for the kids. We use Santa and Christmas to talk about how and why its nice to give to others.

Wait a second here, so did the question of "Which religion is the most charitable?" suddenly become meaningless because you realized it wasn't Christianity? Surely the fact the some other religion is the most charitable must mean something in regards to its inherent truth and accuracy, right? Because that's what you were asking all of us to believe on the assumption that Christianity was the most charitable. Please explain to me how this question matters when the answer favors your religion but doesn't matter when the answer favors some other religion.

Rocag said:

---

Wait a second here, so did the question of "Which religion is the most charitable?" suddenly become meaningless because you realized it wasn't Christianity? Surely the fact the some other religion is the most charitable must mean something in regards to its inherent truth and accuracy, right? Because that's what you were asking all of us to believe on the assumption that Christianity was the most charitable. Please explain to me how this question matters when the answer favors your religion but doesn't matter when the answer favors some other religion.

---

the fruits seem to indicate that mormonism or islam are the truth. based on fruits, that is.

dermdoc said:

---

You have got a great point there.

And it pains me to say but a google search reveals Muslims have surpassed Christians in charitable giving.

We need a revival.

---

The point of pointing this out isn't to reinforce a competition, only to point out that there are 'fruits' of other religions.

And I don't think anyone here would deny that Christians have made enormous contributions to education, philosophy, science, and on and on. In some ways, I am thankful for Christianity. . . eventhough I think its nonsense.

Rocag said:

---

Wait a second here, so did the question of "Which religion is the most charitable?" suddenly become meaningless because you realized it wasn't Christianity? Surely the fact the some other religion is the most charitable must mean something in regards to its inherent truth and accuracy, right? Because that's what you were asking all of us to believe on the assumption that Christianity was the most charitable. Please explain to me how this question matters when the answer favors your religion but doesn't matter when the answer favors some other religion.

---

So where did I say it was meaningless?

You seemed to believe that Christianity was superior and that we would somehow struggle to address this reality (we wouldn't even if it were true which I noted earlier).

But now we are asking you, since you seem to think this is a worthwhile way to determine a religions veracity how do you explain Christianity being inferior?

Should we all take that as evidence Christianity is false? Should we take it as evidence that Mormonism is true? Or Islam?

This goes back to one of my biggest problems with apologetics. Much of the time the theists rarely believe their own arguments. They only care about an argument so far as they think it supports them-not as an independent metric. They wouldn't allow these same arguments to sway them from their faith and by pushing them forward as arguments for its committing an intellectual fraud.

I don't think you did this deliberately, quite by accident I'm sure. It's true all the same that people don't critique an argument on its own merits when it (at least at first glance) says what they want it to say.

dermdoc said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

All over Utah? Seriously?

They give more and volunteers more but there are fewer of them and they are younger so that leads to less total hospitals and universities. That's not a hard concept to grasp

---

Christianity is all over the world as far as universities and hospitals. Not just in Utah. Would you agree?

---

The topic was about how Christianity is unique because of the sepcific way in which Jesus dealt with death, and how every religion's adherents thinks it's unique. I'm going to go back to my original response, which was I don't see how any of this is related. Without tying it back into that conversation somehow, this just comes off as a really weird flex.

---

Did not mean to have a weird flex. I was arguing for the uniqueness of Christianity due to its effect on history and society in positive ways.

It was in response to the constant questioning of Christianity's uniqueness by atheists on here.

And what put me over the top was an apparent comparison to Scientology.

Carry on.

---

The claim was that just like Christians think their religion is unique because of some defining feature of its theology, so do the Scientologists. In this respect, the two are indeed equivalent.

Calling in some worldly thing that Christians do best is a different kind of statement. Of course it will be unique in some worldly ways. Christians are highly charitable, I know this firsthand, and it's commendable. I believe in many of the same causes, and in fact I actively donate to a few Christian charities. But I don't think this in any way detracts from Rocags original point -- that the adherents of all religion thinks their theology has some unique feature that sets it above and beyond the rest.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I'll respond to most of this later but just to make a relevant side question, do you think Santa Clause exists? You can explain like you were telling your children or another adult, either way is fine.

---

Oh man. . . . I feel like I'm walking into something. No, I do not think Santa Claus exists.

Here is how I approach it with my kids: Santa Claus is based on a story about someone that lived a long time ago. The story of Santa Claus has changed over years to become the story that is celebrated today. While these modern legends around Santa Claus are not real, it is a fun thing for the kids. We use Santa and Christmas to talk about how and why its nice to give to others.

---

I like to use Santa since St. Nicholas of Myra is my Patron Saint. Gotta rep. So yes Santa has a historical background based off an Orthodox Saint and many people know and understand how those concepts work. However things are real on different levels of reality, not just the material. Bodies are much different and bigger than just a typical materialists view of an organism. We follow these patterns deeply and without them reality wouldn't exist. In the case of Santa his body is a lot bigger than ours. All of the stories come together to form his body. This is why he's always watching, how he gets all over the world in one night, how he can fit through a chimneyetc. his body is real and it works because it's a massive network of people participating in the narrative. It works all the way from some guy dressing as Santa and talking to children to you placing a gift under the tree that says From Santa. It's really not different than how a school functions, military, communities, cities, countries, etc. I can also do the same thing to you. It's not you that typed your message on this board, it was your fingers. We can even use some helpful scientific evidence. They say the human body has completely new cells every 7 years or something like that. Materially speaking you are something completely different every 7 years so what makes you you?

It's why Texas is a thing and real. Not just the dirt and rocks that make it Texas. It's everything else that gives shape to its body and reality. My brother had a comment a while back saying "when I look at a beautiful landscape I now understand that it doesn't mean anything. If I get close enough it's just the same stuff that everything else is made of" This is a good example of the meaning crisis. Although he recognizes the reality of a landscape, his materialists mind tried to block beauty and meaning just as Galileo did with secondary properties. The consequences from all of this is a crisis of identity. Reality unfolds through the human experience. By discovering what it means to be truly human is why all of this exists.

We need traditional thinking to come back so we can remedy the absence of meaning. I'm not saying to revert back to the way the world was because that's impossible but to recognize what things are real outside of material properties. It's very dangerous to continue down the path of viewing existence as purely material.

I feel like this post exists on different levels of reality.

Where do you draw the line? Is everything real because we think about it? Is Mikey Mouse a real thing because enough people tell his story? We know when and where Mickey Mouse was created, we know it is fake.
Most of the things you listed about Santa Clause come from the story " Night Before Christmas" written in 1822, and the image you describe comes from the illustrated version in 1881. They have nothing to do with the original Saint Nicholas, but from a children's story. Most of the things you listed about Santa, we know the guy that made them up, his name is Clement Clarke Moore.
Is there a lower limit? If 5 people are telling stories about something, does it make it real? Or does it take more?

The world is more complicated than it seems. You're a bunch of cells. A landscape is a bunch of rocks, and the rocks are a bunch of atoms. We name groups of things we find useful, but those groups are often poorly defined. What you're calling a "crisis of meaning" is just the reality of the world you live in. You can pretend everything is black and white if you want, and that the world makes sense and you understand it all, but I think you're missing some of the best parts of life.

It is much more interesting for humans to be something molecules do than it is for them to be uniquely and wonderfully made.