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

"Instead of ignoring SoRB's posts as being 'rude' whilst rudely and childishly referring to him as SOB,"
At the time, his nick was just "Son of Blake." Those were the initials. Didn't mean to imply anything. I'll abbreviate as SORB from now on.

"You say you have time for Ste, who is being very polite and patient with you, yet you still ignore most of what he says."
Specifics please?

I'd say I'm the one whose points are being ignored here. Example: The cursed link to the list of scientists that is not being acknowledged despite my clicking on all other links so far.

"There are quite a few people on this thread attempting to teach you something, yet you refute any further knowledge. You seem to just want to believe what you believe and think it's great fun to waste other people's time."
Actually no. I haven't been having much fun on this thread at all (except maybe for that one time when I got to say, "First you quote me, then you agree with me. OK." that was kinda fun I guess ) and have repeatedly considered leaving because of the level of sheer hatred that has been going on. In fact, today I was thinking of posting that either some mutual respect has got to start happening here or I'm just going to leave because nobody's going to learn anything in a flamewar.

"I learned on the PBA thread that there is no point whatsoever trying to debate with you. And eventually the others here will come to the same conclusion. Shame that you can't see it."
See what? That there's no point in your trying to change my mind? I would say that is correct. I am extremely unlikely to change my mind on any important issue based on a rebuttal I read in an online debate forum. From people I don't even know no less.

Assuming your goal in arguing with me is to change my mind, I would say you are all going about it all the wrong way (by insulting me) in the first place.

(will keep typing some more in next post ...)
Nerd42

(Responding to SORB's comment(s) about the judge being an expert.)

If someone is an expert on the Constitution, they ought to know that.

Seriously, if you read something in the newspaper, do you believe it? After all, the reporters who work for the newspapers are trained professionals. They went to journalism school/college so they must know what they're talking about, right?

George Orwell was right.

This post has been removed.

I would post a reply to posting 222, but unfortunately it doesn't make any sense. Anyone surprised?

SoRB

Are you absolutely sure? I distinctly remember talking to a "Son of Blake." Hmm. Anyway for getting your name wrong, for the second time. Do you have anything intelligent to add? If you have, please try to be respectful of other people or else please quit posting.

I joined this thread to answer a question.

"If you are an atheist in life, and when you die god turns out to be real, would you go to hell?"

I only kept talking about the origins debate in public education because Ste wanted to discuss it. I would also be happy to talk to you if you can actually join the conversation instead of trying to obstruct it.

This post has been removed.

<>

And the answer is "How the f**k would I/you/thepope/OBL/uncletomcobblyandall ever be able to answe such a question?"

End of discussion.

Noggin

<>

Not a helpful answer, Noggin!

Edited version of post hidden:

Nerd42 wrote:
"At the time, his nick was just "Son of Blake." Those were the initials. Didn't mean to imply anything."

Liar.

Nerd42, you are either a [not intelligent] (I do not rule this out),
or much more likely you are simply, like [another h2g2 user], an unashamed and unapologetic hypocrite and liar. And worse still, you're not even very good at it.

My name is not now and NEVER has been "Son of Blake". That name makes no sense. "Son of Roj Blake" means something very, very specific to me, as you would know if you had ever read my personal space. "Son of Blake" is meaningless. Your [] attempt to pretend your [] joke was in some way my fault merely exposes you, once again, as the kind of [...]person who simply cannot help themself but [lie...].

Full marks for consistency at least.

"I'd say I'm the one whose points are being ignored here."

[Speculation on why.]

"either some mutual respect has got to start happening here or I'm just going to leave"

Respect must be earned. On that basis, don't slam the door on your way out, eh?




"Are you absolutely sure?"

WHAT??? YOU are asking ME if *I* am sure?

Read what I wrote again, you [person who didn't read what I wrote]. The name you claim to remember makes NO sense. The name I am using has a very specific meaning, a meaning which would be completely lost if it was the name you claim it was. Therefore yes, I am completely, 100% sure that [I am right and you are either lying or incredibly unreliable].

"I distinctly remember talking to a "Son of Blake." Hmm."

Hmm indeed.

I put it to you that since you are [...] unreliable on simple matters of fact like that, how likely are you to be right about anything [...]? [...] it was a rhetorical question. [...]

"Do you have anything intelligent to add?"

I think the question is do YOU have anything intelligent to add, and more importantly, is anything you say worth paying any attention to anyway? Available evidence (this thread and others you have participated in) suggests not.

And if I quit posting it will be when I choose.

SoRB

<>

How so?

If someone could point out how the question could be answered on a basis other than wishful thinking, I'll shake their virtual hand.

If they can't, then the realisation that the question is pointless could be helpful. No?

Noggin

Noggin, your use of language seems to have deteriorated somewhat in the last few years, and the effing and blinding is really especially unhelpful.The person who started the thread had an honest question, that a forgive me, smartass comment like yours doesn't come close to answering.

<>

Take it up with the original questioner, who obviously thought there could *be* an answer, or why did he ask?

The effing (no blinding ) was for comic effect. Of course it doesn't add anything (or indeed detract anything) from the helpfulness of the answer.

<>

But that's the point. Yes it was posted as an honest question. And I gave an honest answer. Namely that the question is unanswerable.

Noggin

Another possible answer to the question is another question: "WHICH god do you mean turns out to be real?".

Because the answer depends pretty heavily on that.

If you mean the hippy-dippy, happy-clappy, big beardy everybody's-dad-lovely-bloke-in-the-sky that many Christians say they believe in, then probably you won't go to hell because it appears THAT god is all-loving and all-forgiving can see the good in *everybody* and is even now probably feeding Hitler peeled grapes.

If, however, you mean the nasty, violent sadistic maniac described in the Bible, you'd better hope he turns out just to be a fairy story because by all accounts if THAT god is real practically EVERYBODY, including babies who died in their cot, is destined to burn in a lake of fire because he didn't like the look of them.

The question of *which* of the many possible gods is crucial to the sensible consideration of the (meaningless) answer.

SoRB

Wait a moment, the question is answerable. It's a theological question - and about one's opinion on theology. My opinion is, as I've said, people who know better and purposefully reject God will have consequences they bring upon themselves. Basically it's sort of like "build-your-own-hell." That is not to say that just because someone is an atheist, they go to hell. That IS to say that every human individual will face the consequences of their decisions/actions/knowledge. While God is just, He also is merciful. Or that's what I was trying to say anyhow.

<>

And of course you are entitled to your opinion but that opinion doesn't constitute an objective answer to the question, unless you can show objectively why your opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's. Otherwise we're just left with a mass of conflicting opinions.

Noggin

<> (Nerd)

And obviously from the viewpoint that YOUR particular personal god exists for everybody.

You must realise that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of gods that supposedly exist in the minds of those who believe in them. So, what makes yours so special?

I have no personal problem with people believing in their various gods - no skin off my nose.

I can even understand why we had to invent gods, or put names and personalities to that WHICH IS. What I have never understood is why there has to be some being *higher* than me. Not that I think I'm any great shakes, but I do know I am *here*. And *now*. And this is the only life I can consciously be aware of. To imagine other lives, ie in heaven, well, that's mostly fear of death innit?

Some people need to imagine that when they die they will go to some other place - personality intact - and continue being themselves elsewhere. Which is a great fantasy, but not one I can really believe in, you know?

My take is that we are all 'god', except most of us don't realise it, nor want to accept the responsibility. Wasn't it written - 'the kingdom of God is all around us, etc'. And yes, it is.

Though most people can't see it.

I reckon most people can't see it because they are either placing too much importance on their material existence or else on their possible spiritual one.

Meanwhile, ALL you or anyone else has is the HERE AND NOW. With no doubt whatsoever.

So it behoves everyone to live as if they were gods, as if every single moment of existence was the most important moment ever - to live as gods! Because this is all we can know for sure - the rest is just fantasy.


az

(about opinion vs objectivity)
I could try to show that my opinion is supported by the KJV Bible - one can disagree with my interpretation of course, but that's about as objective as a theological question gets.

Tough of course, if you want a real objective opinion, I'd suggest following the advice of James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

(Please excuse the typo in the previous post. I thought I was clicking "Preview" )

"And obviously from the viewpoint that YOUR particular personal god exists for everybody."

Yes, if God exists then He must exist for everybody. I've never thought the humanist position made any sense.

<>

Well, neither does your blind faith in a god that many people think only exists in your head make any sense.

It's really not a question of 'right or wrong' - you can believe whatever you like - but more to do with you telling others they are somehow *wrong* because they don't recognise your particular personal god.


az

"I could try to show that my opinion is supported by the KJV Bible "

How is that able to "support" anything you say, except what you say is in it?

Let me explain further with a simple example:

You might say "The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old." Fine. You are right. Reference to the KJV will show you to be right.

However, you *might* say "The earth is only 6000 years old." Fine. You are wrong. Reference to the KJV adds nothing whatever of support to your assertion.

Do you understand the difference?



"if God exists then He must exist for everybody."

Nerd42 - take a long, hard look at the first word in that sentence that you typed. Think on it. I mean it, don't just skim over this and hit "Reply", THINK about that two letter word. Then you might, just might, have the first inkling about what it is we're trying to get across to you here.

"I've never thought the humanist position made any sense."

I'm not sure what you think the humanist "position" is. But consider: as you said - IF your god exists then it must exist for everybody, in precisely the same way that IF the moon exists it exists for everybody. What you're saying is that if your god is a feature of external reality, then that's what he is - not just something inside your head.

BUT - and it's a big but - if it is not, what then? If your god is NOT a feature of external reality, but merely something going on in your head (and the heads of other people who believe in it), then he's not "out there". For anyone. There's just us people. And that, as I understand it, is the humanist position in a nutshell.

It makes precisely the same amount of sense as your position, because it IS your position. It just assumes a different outcome of that hugely important "IF".

And it assumes that different answer because so far ALL the *evidence* you have for your answer is stuff that is going on inside your head or stuff written down in an old book. I've made it clear how your god could unequivocally demonstrate its presence as a feature of external reality. It fails, every day, to do so.

What doesn't make sense to me is why, in the face of this continual failure of reality to demonstrate what you believe to be true, why do you continue to believe it?

SoRB