h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The church would say that that little conundrum is one of the "mysteries" that we are not meant to understand. Their pat answer whenever something doesn't make sense....

Much of what we know of the devil is actually folk lore, and not traceable to the Bible in any way. As a matter of fact, the fallen archangel gets very little mention, as I recall... Time to drag the big book back out, I guess.

Any takers on moving the thread? Since it's Gargleblaster's (soon to be know as Colonel Sellers) article, I think he should do the honors.

Ack! Why me? The conversation seems to be moving along fine without my intervention... but if I must, then I must.

It should be pointed out that you could substitute the word "hope" for the word "faith" in your post and have the meaning remain the same.

Hope is one of humanity's greatest strengths... and faith is one of humanity's greatest weaknesses.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Ahem!

This forum has been closed due to its excessive length. Feel free to post in the continuation forum, DNA's Take Part II: http://www.h2g2.com/FLR32234?thread=55747

While the Egyptians didn't treat the Israelites well, they certain treated them better than dirt... which is why the Israelites managed to survive as a culture.

The Old Testaments has all kinds of horrible statements about Babylon, for example, when the Babylonians actually treated the captured Israelites extremely well for a subjugated people. They were allowed to keep their religious beliefs and cultural practices, which was very unusual in those days.

The Israelites made everyone else around them out to be horrible to make themselves look better. They weren't very nice people either...

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

If there is a God, I'll bet he's having a good laugh at us.

What if we are God's laugh?

A sneeze, perhaps?

l use to date a girl that sad she did'nt believe in God. She said it was be cause she could 'nt see him. l said you can't see the wind but you know it is there. l believe in God l don't think l would be breathing if God did'nt exsist. l was in the hospital recovering from shot gun wound at point blank range. l had a high fever one night. My breath felt lick a hearter vent. l did'nt call for the nurses. Heath lack of care. l prayed to God that my fever would break. No sooner than l finish thinking it.
l dont pray out loud peraonal choice. l started sweating. The next morning my temp was below normal 92.6. theres been times since l could have bought the bullet literally. Yet l breath. So l feel compelled to let y'all examine the evidence contrary to your opinion. l realize that my intrusion may not be welcomed.
If so l appologize.

People don't die all the time, and pray to all kinds of things while doing so. And?

Xanthia - "Chance Happens"

There were times that l was on the carpet in fronut of death l was'nt praying at the time there was'nt time for it. l bet if your gut's that is you have any was hanging out you'd be praying to God and crying Mom. l did neither

I do not think Father Christmas exists. First, on logical grounds (his list of absurd attributes). Second, I do not see any reason for Him to exist, I don't see a place for Him. Is this a *belief* of mine? Is it a position of faith -- since, certainly there is no way to disprove the statement, "there is a Father Christmas". No. Simply, why should one want to believe in Father Christmas? Why should one *bother* conceeding the possibility of His existence. He could exist, but *anything* *at* *all* _could_ exist, somewhere, in some way we don't yet understand.

This is my definition of an aSantaClausist.

Absolutely.

There's only one difference between an atheist and an agnostic. It can be devined from the article this thread is based on: an atheist is without religion; an agnostic is without knowledge. Whichever word you decide to call yourself, it matters not. It is simply, as DNA described far better than I can, a refusal to have somebody else's beliefs imposed on oneself.

So here's the one difference: an atheist knows what the word "Atheist" means; an agnostic does not.

I would say

Atheism: Based on current evidence, there is no god. This view can cange with new evidence.

The problem with such sweeping statements is in the semantic intricacies. If I were to point out (as I often do) that the word "God" has its roots in norse gutteral tongue and means literally "loud noise in the sky", should I assume then that you mean the weather is nice where you are?

If you mean something else, then what do you mean, and how can you be sure what you mean when you're sure there's none of it to be had in the first place? Some people's notion of divinity extends to a contemplation of some holistic principle that imminently interpenetrates all natural phenomena, but again, expecting to be able to prove or disprove such a concept experimentally seems like a fool's errand.

To me, debate about "God" or whatever you want to call it seems to be a rather unimaginative approach to a more interesting ontological conundrum about the nature of being and the being of nature and all that stuff. I happen to reject the "giant invisible hominid" view of reality as being not terrible useful... but I do not consider myself an atheist any more than I consider myself a theist. What bugs me is that to 99% of people that makes me an atheist anyways. It's a broad label used to paint a lot of different things one colour.

Perhaps it should be rephrased.

Atheist: Nothing exists unless there is good evidence it exists. Nothing will be accepted on faith alone.

Based on curren evidence, the Juedo/Christian god YHWH does not exist, although more evidence could change this. Based on current evidence, Allah does notexist. Other postulated supernatural beings/forces must be judged independantly. Until good evidence of them is given, they must be assumed to not exist.

That sounds more like agnosticism to me...

Atheism is the conclusion that there is evidence in the other direction... agnosticism is the conclusion that there is no evidence in either direction.

I'm an atheist and my stance is effectively 'all the deities I've heard about are impossible, and therefore do not exist'.

My stance is that all the deities I know anything about are impossible and thus don't exist. But I'm open to the posibility that I might be wrong about something and that my descision on this might change. I highly doubt it, though.

An agnostic would say that one couldn't know whether they exist, or that they didn't know whether they exist.

I say that, based on curent evidence, they doin't exist. I'm merely open to changes in evidence.

Daneel, the comment you make is that of an Agnostic, whether you like it or not.
The definition of an Agnostic is one who lacks knowledge, and can therefor not prove either way that there is no higher deity. You say that based on currect evidence, you have come to the conclusion that there is no higher deity, but you could be swayed in your belief (okay, bad word in this context, but it's still relevant). Agnostics are, by definition of the word, open to suggestions that can prove the existence or non-existance of a higher being and will eventually go either way, while an Atheist categorically states that there is no Higher Deity/Creator/God, or they won't accept it.

As has been stated before, an Atheist 'KNOWS' there is no God, while the Agnostic 'DOESN'T KNOW FOR SURE AS IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVED' that there is or isn't a God.

And just to throw everyone off a bit, I'll state that I'm an Agnostig Christian.

Hmm. I'm definitely an atheist, and yet I could be swayed by evidence...

The key point (in my opinion) is that as an atheist I think that such evidence is impossible, and thus don't expect to be swayed by evidence.

I am however aware that I'm not right *all* the time