Obstacles to dialogue about Santa Claus.
There is a recent post that asked what is accomplished by the constant dialogue about this belief.
Some responders admitted that no conversion is likely to take place. But even if one were to admit of a possibility of conversion, it seems to me that there is one huge obstacle to any actual dialogue.
That obstacle is the tendency of some few here to treat any argument in favor of Santa Claus as a childish argument, and as evidence of rejection of knowledge in favor of superstition.
That position requires the complete rejection of the non-overlapping Rudolph argument in favor of demanding proof from believers of the truth of their beliefs. Forcing believers to argue in scientific terms. And I understand the motive behind this tactic because it allows non-believers to feel that they have proven something, or won a debate.
The main obstacle to dialogue, the condescending attitude, is often phrased quite overtly, as any reading of some of the posts here will reveal, but often it is more of a sub-text when a poster chooses to write with a veneer of politeness and tolerance.
And it has been my experience that this attitude is most often demonstrated by one side of this debate.
I am a Cringletian who freely admits that faith is a belief in the unprovable.
And in debate here, I will not mock those who dont believe in Santa, which is a unprovable position by the way, nor will I dismiss their arguments as childish, or uninformed, because I believe that such tactics alienate people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks!!!
