Historical proof of the tooth fairy.

[Haakon]

Many children all over the world put their teeth in a glass of water, and the morning after the tooth fairy has swapped the tooth for a coin. The shear amount of people who has experienced this is proof that the tooth fairy exists.

I heard some guy say he saw the tooth fairy ones, when he woke up at night because he had to use the toilet. I know hes not lying and thus I know the tooth fairy exists.

There are evidence of the tooth fairy all over the world.

[Pious Agnost]

Do you think you're making any point what-so-ever? This is nothing more than spam

[Sadreddine]

You better understand another topic before opening a new one mocking it. The risk being looking like an idiot.

[Dayman]

You better understand another topic before opening a new one mocking it. The risk being looking like an idiot.

Quite to the contrary, satire is a good way of putting ideas into perspective.

Regardless, the OP is a heretic, the Tooth Fairy takes teeth from behind pillows, how could it go into a glass of water! HERETIC!

[Sadreddine]

Quite to the contrary, satire is a good way of putting ideas into perspective.

Only if the hypothetical analogy is valid.

[Dayman]

Only if the hypothetical analogy is valid.

Define valid.

The idea of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy can be made analogous to certain beliefs, who's premises are just as fantastical, but because of tradition are considered to have weight.

[Sadreddine]

Define valid.

The idea of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy can be made analogous to certain beliefs, who's premises are just as fantastical, but because of tradition are considered to have weight.

Simply put: the existence of God is not the main point of discussion of these threads.

[Haakon]

You better understand another topic before opening a new one mocking it. The risk being looking like an idiot.

You are just tooth fariry phobic. Your hate towards the tooth fairy is because you dont know the REAL tooth fairy.

[basics]

Haakon,

And there comes a time in the lives of all those children that they are told the truth. The difference in what you are trying to assert is that when a man or a woman discovers God something quite the opposite happens.

To know God, He must first reveal His Son to that person because that person previously had never known Him. Oh, he or she may well have heard of Him but that is quite another matter. To know God is by experience that none but them having it have any right to tell or make assumption.
By trying to be smart is not always the best way to bring down what cannot be brought down.

[Dayman]

And there comes a time in the lives of all those children that they are told the truth. The difference in what you are trying to assert is that when a man or a woman discovers God something quite the opposite happens.

To know God, He must first reveal His Son to that person because that person previously had never known Him. Oh, he or she may well have heard of Him but that is quite another matter. To know God is by experience that none but them having it have any right to tell or make assumption.
By trying to be smart is not always the best way to bring down what cannot be brought down.

It's a shame the only thing you have going is anecdotal evidence.

[Pious Agnost]

It's a shame the only thing you have going is anecdotal evidence.

Why, anecdotes are good for "Putting things in perspective"

[Helm]

You could say that while it is their parents who take the tooth under the pillow and leave the 50p in it's place it is in fact the spirit of the tooth fairy that guides them in this act.

[Chaigidel]

well some people are only defined by what they hate and ridicule; they will learn the mistake of this fixation later in life

[Yosemite]

he just tries to be a smartass by copying that "historical proof of islam" thread

that wasn't comical

[Dayman]

he just tries to be a smartass by copying that "historical proof of islam" thread

that wasn't comical

Thank you for your insightful and necessary commentary, shedding light on things none of us could imagine ourselves!

[Helm]

An athest would view someone claiming that they can prove the existence of God through historical evidence in much the same way as anyone would view this topic. They just won't take any of the facts seriously, because they're not really historical facts, just old tales people believe in for whatever reason.

[Chaigidel]

except for the secular history of josephus mentioning jesus
and the fact that mohammed began an empire

and the tooth fairy did no such things

[Helm]

There was absolutely nothing secular written about Jesus at the time of his life and death as I know, but if there is such a thing I'd be interested to read it.

Someone could also begin an empire in the name of the Tooth Fairy, it wouldn't really prove anything.

[basics]

" There was absolutely nothing secular written about Jesus at the time of his life and death as I know, but if there is such a thing I'd be interested to read it."

Helm,

You see something extraordinary and you tell no-one. Now that's farcical to say the least. Could there be any doubt that were Jesus to do some miracle in front of you that you wouldn't tell anyone even if that meant writing to some faroff friend?

Of course there were things written about Him, things lost to man as a whole but I have no doubt that things were written. Our problem lies probably in the fact that whoever did so never saw any need to preserve for our benefit what they did see and I talk of Joe Bloggs here.

I believe the Vatican has hordes of material written of Jesus and of course we have all of the Bible as our reference so where you get this idea that nothing, because you haven't seen it, that nothing, ever has been written. Now that's presumptious arrogance on your part. From Pentecost at the very least we know that letters were being circulated amongst the new churches, for goodness sake.

[justicar5]

" There was absolutely nothing secular written about Jesus at the time of his life and death as I know, but if there is such a thing I'd be interested to read it."

Helm,

You see something extraordinary and you tell no-one. Now that's farcical to say the least. Could there be any doubt that were Jesus to do some miracle in front of you that you wouldn't tell anyone even if that meant writing to some faroff friend?

Of course there were things written about Him, things lost to man as a whole but I have no doubt that things were written. Our problem lies probably in the fact that whoever did so never saw any need to preserve for our benefit what they did see and I talk of Joe Bloggs here.

I believe the Vatican has hordes of material written of Jesus and of course we have all of the Bible as our reference so where you get this idea that nothing, because you haven't seen it, that nothing, ever has been written. Now that's presumptious arrogance on your part. From Pentecost at the very least we know that letters were being circulated amongst the new churches, for goodness sake.

The other option of course being that he never excisted, never di anything, so there where no written accounts outside the combined fairy-tale and excercise in imperial power that is the new testament. The contents of the bible ofcourse having been decided by Constantine at the concordat of Nicea, Constantine at the time was a devote worshipper of Sol Invictus and just wanted the church as a movement to give him an excuse to invade the rest of the empire.