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

There is another wise saying that contradicts Pascal's Wager: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

You have this life now. You can use it any way you choose. You can spend it in self-inflicted guilt as you try to store up riches for a life whichprobably does not exist, or you can spend this life trying to enjoy it as much as possible. I choose the latter.

Atheism is a Western culture term to describe someone who has no faith in a god, so I would have to say that an atheist is one who rejects the Western ideal of a god. Those ideals would come primarily from xtianity, who propose a sentient, omniscient, omnipresent being who looks rather like us, and created us to be his playthings. I suppose if a giant earwig appeared on the scene, it wouldn't be contrary to atheism... it would be called many things, but not "god."

As for Tao... I'm really rather ignorant on most Eastern religions, so correct me if I make any horrid mistakes. But Taoism as I understand it is a pantheistic belief system, where some force that you might call "God" permeates every living and nonliving thing in the universe. This belief isn't too far removed from the Western concept... all things are god vs. all things are made by god. Substitute the word "tao" for "god," and you have a religion with a deity. The Judeo-Christians have really just given a personification to the tao.

Yes, this is quite true Judaism actually has its roots in a semi-eastern style mysticism (hell I think most religions probably do), but once again what people practice in the name of that religion is quite a far cry from what scholars intend to propose in coming up with these dieties in the first place, usually.

Probably the major difference between eastern and western thought on the matter is that the westerner might ask himself "does god exist, and how do I know", where as the easterner is more likely to ask "do I exist, and how do I know?". I don't know if I would describe taoism as pantheistic; my understanding of it is that it is more monistic in character. There is no seperation of one thing from another in eastern thought; all things are simply aspects of the same process (which is rather the view of the universe proposed by special relativity, actually). Western processes tend towards more mechanistic, linear approaches, whereas eastern thinking is somewhat 'lateral'. This manifests in religious thought in that westerners tend to try to identify a 'god' and then assign it characteristics, whereas easterners would try to identify characteristics and then assign 'gods' to symbolize them.

Coming back around to atheism, you have a point that this forum is a bunch of westerners sitting around discussing the relevancy of western religious practices, so in a sense I suppose it is a no-brainer that a serious western bias is going to emerge. I guess I had just hoped to get the folks who were slinging around dictionary definitions like gospel truths to realize that there are other continents out there teeming with people who have an entirely different perspective on the whole issue. And to the ear of anyone who might have had some exposure to that perspective... suffice to say that statements like 'there is no god' sound a little bit like 'there is no toast'; meaningless unless offered in context.

I was just having a debate the other day with a theologian, re: Bhuddism: religion or philosophy? What's the general opinion here?

Mummy:
Do you think there no justified atheism apart from that grounded in scientific reasoning (I know that this is not what you said, but I am interested in your opinion)? I think that if we say something like this, we run into problems, i.e. in order to effectively reason out the world in scientific terms, you need to have a pretty good grasp of the issues involved. Therefore, surely those without much scientific knowledge or training, if they are atheists, need to have a certain amount of 'faith' in things like evolution. Paradox?

Twophlag:
Don't you think that there is a difference between 'there is no God', and 'I do not believe that there is a god'? Seems to me that most people here are saying the latter. One is dictate, one is opinion.
Also, 'there is no god' requires no context, as I believe the sort of god we are discussing is an absolute, and absolutes, by definition, need no context.

side note: "Note that I'm talking about taoism in its higher forms, as there are many peasants practising rather mundane superstitions on a daily basis in the name of Taoism."

The fact that it doesn't meet your high level theological needs doesn't make it 'mundane'... try not to be sojudgmental; not every one can be enlightened like you

"Mummy: Do you think there no justified atheism apart from that grounded in scientific reasoning (I know that this is not what you said, but I am interested in your opinion)?"

Both what I said and what I meant was this: I'm sure that not all atheists will have the same amount of scientific knowledge or interest to back up their rejection of a god. Some of us will just reject him because they want to stand out from the xtian masses, others don't see a point in religion, and also there are a number of us who have thought real hard about it and then willfully rejected god. Whatever their reason, they reject god. Who is to judge whether any of these reasons are valid? Not me, and hopefully not you either.

IF someone rejects god, THEN they will already have accepted the Darwinistic view to be true, regardless of their understanding of it. Maybe even on a sub-conscious level. Faith? Maybe, but not necessarily.

An example: There was a time when I didn't know about gravity. I only knew that all things must fall down, unless some special arrangements ere made to keep 'em up in the air. Birds and insects just flapped their wings beating the air down so they could stay on top of it, and aircraft had other methods which some smart people had worked very hard to discover and develop. I didn't have 'faith' in gravity, because I had never even heard of the word, but in a sense I *knew* its power and that it could somehow be overcome. That ignorance wasn't wrong in any way, it was just natural at that time.

When I say "there is no god", I do not make any assumptions as to his nature, because there is no point in defining the nature of something that doesn't exist. The only thing I *do* assume, is that a god as the xtians describe it - an allpowerful being that created us in its own image and then gave us some rules to live by - can not exist.

And the reasons that I have for rejecting this 'entity', are:
1. It is said to love us, and care for us, but I don't see ANY proof of that. It ignores the good people, and the horrible s.o.b's like Hitler and Hussein get away with all kind of atrocities.
2. It is said to have imposed a number of rules upon us, but it appears to be quite indifferent whether or not some of us follow these rules.
3. It is said to hear our prayers and assist us, but when I still believed in it, I've prayed to it a lot and it never gave me ANY sign that it seemed to be interested in ANY way.

As far as I understand it, the true Taoist is someone who believes that a power - the Way - is in all things, dead or alive, and that not knowing anything is one of the best ways to reach its power and enlightenment. Taoism does not describe any deity at all and in that way is, at least in *my* opinion, the most sensible religion of all. In several other ways, Taoism makes as little sense to me as any religion. (For the record: I'm *not* a Taoist )

Ofcourse there are more reasons for me to reject the existence of a god:

4. The book that would be Its word, contains so many inconsistencies that it can hardly be true.
5. There's proof lying all around us that the universe is much, *much* older than the book tells us it is. And if even the *beginning* of the book (the age of space, time and universe) is already a lie, then how much truth can there be in the rest of it?

Maybe not, but you can show that it was just created by the founder for monetary reasons.

I'd never heard about _that_. (And don't get started with your "Oh, they're covering it all up so they can keep you" or anything like that. I'm just not very connected.) Where did you hear about it? (This question is not intended to cast doubt on your statement, I'm just curious.)

a. It didn't rain before the flood. Ergo, no rainbow. And prove that evolution's real without using the moths-on-trees thing, which only proves that camouflage works.

b. PTerry is entitled to think whatever he likes. And one of the effects of being a Christian in the first place is not going to hell. And just because I'm picky, Klingon hell is called Grethor.

c. One of the things God asks of his followers is to do good, to earn rewards in heaven. Observe Matthew 19:16-21. He won't keep you out if you convert at the last second, but you certainly won't be too rich.
#1. You can't spread the word if you're dead, can you? One of the responsibilities of a Christian is to spread it around.
#2. Your first quote means, simply, "we and our families will be responsible for his death." It's how they talked back then. And things were a lot harsher in Biblical times, which certainly kept the relatives in line.

d. What, then, is the name of said intellectual, so I can look him up? And how do you know that the Bible isn't eye-witness accounts? (Yes, I know Moses wasn't around at the beginning of time to write Genesis, but what about the New Testament?) And the Egyptians had been masters over the Israelites for 400 years, and treated them like dirt. Assuming you were in the same position, wouldn't you be just a little ticked at them? (And besides, aren't you treating Exodus like an eyewitness account?)

Well sorr-ry. I'm just attempting to clarify that this is merely a choice between no god and the Christian God.

Different people take their faith to different extremes. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to go without modern medicine, but that's just me. If you're a Christian in nothing but word, then you're not a real Christian. And I think you'd have a pretty hard time being juster than God.

"Remedial Hell(tm)"? I suppose he's entitlied to believe what he wants, but it isn't going to modify reality. And prove that the Bible is a lie. Also, I'd predict that the strain of churches you've encountered haven't read Romans 10:9.

Exactly right, nothing. There could be some variations from what I think, but what the Bible says stays the same.

Better revel in your honor while you can.

The question is, have _you_ read Job? Really read it, not just heard what it's about? If you had, you'd know that it was the devil's idea to antagonize Job, and God let him do it to prove Job's righteousness.

Old Covenant? They broke it long ago - see Jeremiah 31:31-32. The New Covenant was made at the last supper (Luke 22:20 - I love this concordance!)

Suit yourself, but the guilt is going to come from other sources anyhow (i.e. your mother. "Little Joey, your father and I have spent years of our life and hundreds of thousands of dollars on raising you right, but now it's like you're taking our gifts and throwing them down the garbage disposal!" and so on.)

Ioreth - you want to talk about justice? How about God doing what He says He'll do, following His own rules? How is that not justice?

Uh, explain to me the logic behind this statement? It would at least seem to me that if there is one true religion, the God who heads it up would want people to follow this one true religion, and not the other, false religions that made up their gods and gave them the worship that is only due the one true God. Intolerance has nothing to do with it - it's a matter of truth and falsehood.

What say you enumerate those inconsistencies?

And there are a number of theories regarding how to mesh Genesis and science, one of the best being that, as the Hebrew word translated as "day" in Genesis can also mean "period of time", of undefined length. Thus, nobody says that the universe can't be a few billion years old. Then again, how do we know that the universe wasn't designed by Slartibartfast and built in the void somehow?

I'm posting all my comments down here, because I find it extremely difficult to follow new conversations that are peppered in with postings that are over a month old. But that's just my addled little brain.

Eastern religions/philosophies: the BIG difference is that Western religion sees man (and, to a much lesser degree, woman) as something set apart from the rest of creation, something made "in God's image" and therefore more sacred than the rest. Man is something of a gatekeeper; God created everything else first, and then made man to lord over it all. And I quote from Genesis: "Be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominiion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Eastern religions see humankind as much more connected to the earth. So do Native Americans, who were not, contrary to popular myth, stupid enough to sell Long Island for a handful of beads. Rather, they did not understand the concept of "selling" a land which they could not claim to own.

Davius, you ask what harm arises from believing? I'm afraid I've just answered that question. The Western world has proven that looking at the earth as something to be dominated is terribly destructive. We see ourselves as something set apart from all else, and therefore see something as basic to life as death itself as something foreign to be feared.

We've done God's bidding. We have filled the Earth (indeed, overfilled her) and subdued her. What good has it done us, or indeed, anything?

On a more personal note, as a woman I find Christianity very confining. The work of Jesus to elevate the status of women has been methodically destroyed by thousands of years of Church teachings. A religion which included "obey" in its wedding vows for such a long time cannot expect us to forget it ever happened in just a few decades. The church has managed to bring guilt to something as basic and necessary as sex. I can tell you that my life has gotten increasingly better since I left the Church behind.

One last point: Christianity teaches us to live for the afterlife. Perhaps we'd all be better off it we did what the Native Americans did, and had to weigh each political decision based on how it would effect our descendents 7 generations down the line. (Not sure where I read that, but it was recently....). Live for the here and now, make this life the most it can be, and the rest will take care of itself.

P.S. Someone stated waaaayyy up there that the ancients made up gods to explain what they couldn't explain. That is a bit of an oversimplification. The ancients worshiped personifications of different life forces. The lives of the gods were meant to be lessons for the people, lessons in morality and life, much as the parables of the Bible were. The difference is there is a separate god for love, for fertility, for death, for wine-making, etc etc etc. The need to have a seperate being to pray to for different parts in our life can be seen in Christianity in the worship of the saints: patron saint of travel, patron saint of child-birth, etc. However, Christians (and Jews and Moslems) still have the one God as a personification of all the forces in the universe.

Of course, our society has become so literal-minded that many of us fail to see the power and importance of myths, both ancient and modern, as tools to teach values.

How would John know what an arcade game was if he saw one?

(I can just imagine it - "And behold, there was a room full of much noise and many squealing children, who stood transfixed in front of large statues, while light played across the surfaces of the statues...)

Just FYI: To my knowledge, only the Catholic Church does the saint-worship thing.

And myths are still fun to read.