“Analogies are ridiculous fallacies.”

Wow, talk about a blanket statement. I’m glad Mr. A pointed that out for us.
Um, didn’t Jesus often use analogies in his teaching? I guess that makes him a liar? If all analogies are fallacies, that would seem an unescapable fact.

Oh wait!!! “Analogies are ridiculous fallacies” is actually a fallacy! Clever theists.. actually inventing “facts” and lying about things in a vain effort to convince people they are right in their unsupported contentions. Who would have ever thought they’d think of something so clever? If the facts don’t suit you just lie about it.

“Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with. My 6 yr old niece knows the difference and I didn’t need to explain it to her.”

The “huge difference” is that children eventually accept that Santa is imaginary, but most adults never accept that god is, too.

“Analogies are ridiculous fallacies. Let us hit the atheists where it hurts.”

The way to do that is to provide evidence of your imaginary god. But you NEVER, EVER do that – fraud.

…more diversions, hey look, up in the sky! the cloud looks like the virgin mary! heh, heh. not bad english eh, even though it’s my second language.

“Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with”

…let’s nitpick. Who taught you how to write? “really are worth dialoging with”? wtf, ending with a preposition? i don’t recommend it, asshole.

The original theory of evolution supported the theory of “gradualism,” which has supposedly been proven wrong.

Therefore, any new theory associated with evolution on the macro scale must be wrong too. There you go.

Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with. My 6 yr old niece knows the difference and I didn’t need to explain it to her.

alex, I am so impressed with your high brow grasp of the English language. I’m so glad you are an atheist.

Your respect is not high on the lsit of anything worth having, so ok, whatever.

Your analogy is also a fallacy because analogies also are defined to mean:
“that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.”

And your claim is that if two things are shown to be alike in some respects, they they are therefore NOT alike in other respects?

The idea of presenting an analogy is to demonstrate the similarities of two ideas. So yeah, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, Gods… all figments of human imagination. All defined to posses properties that are impossible. All are things for which no proof of existence is offered other than legend.
Now, if you care to dispute this and show that the analogy is incorrect because gods are somehow different… we’re waiting for your evidence. Untill you do so, your claim that the analogy is false is just that, a claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without a second thought. Worthless.
So far all we’ve heard are platitudes and vague allusions to “certainties”, oh and an occasional criticism of someone’s chosen avatar and an scolding for using crude language. When are you going to stop dodging and weaving and tell us what evidence you have that ANY of the claims that you make about the nature of reality are actually true?