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

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

How is my faith that God does exist any more or less reasonable than your evident blind faith that God does not exist?

<>

I have no blind faith - or otherwise - that your god doesn't exist.

Your god only 'exists' because you tell me so.

If you weren't telling me this I would happily be living my life with no knowledge at all of your own personal god belief.

EXCEPT your god is also part and parcel of a huge global political group of organisations that are determined to make people bow under this GOD and HIS WILL. Yeah right. It's all so obviously political that you'd have to be blind or blindly believe . . . oh, oops . . . that such a thing could exist.

Your faith in your own personal god is your own, and I have no issues with that. BUT . . . please don't ever tell me that your god is the only true and right one, that your belief makes you somehow able to tell others that how they live, what they believe in, is wrong. Based on what your personal god says.

Hey, I know this god. I didn't like him. I gave him up once I got enough of a brain in my head to decide for myself (think I was 12 at the time - and I did have a brain before, but it was being manipulated).

You still like him? Okay. But why try to convince others that this god is anything of any importance whatsoever - except to you?


az

Az,
We get told what to do in most aspects of our lives. Politically we have laws, I'm sure you wouldn't argue against most of these. A major aspect of Christianity, and other religions, are similair moral 'laws' (more accuratley guidlines). Western govts try and shape the law of certain middle-eastern countries (whether this is good or not is irrelevant) due to its own national values. Britain is currently trying to advise Europe to alter its laws (CAP for example)as it believes this is the best thing to do.
This is the same as why religions try to persuade others to agree with their moral beliefs, to try and make people behave acceptabley and make the world a better place.

Blub-blub
{I am NOT a theist}

You're ignoring the logic of the situation.

**IF* God does exist *THEN* God exists for everyone. That means what is right isn't just right because I say it is. I could be completely wrong. You and I and everyone else (at least here in the U.S., but not always internationally) have a right to free speech - and that includes the right to say that:
A. God exists.
B. Atheists do/do-not/might/might-not/whatever go to hell.
C. That doing X is wrong.

and another if/then for you:

*IF* you don't believe in God *THEN* what are you doing on a thread whose premise includes "if god turns out to be real" in the first place? I really didn't mean to join an evolution thread.
Nerd42

Well, what are *you* doing on a thread whose premise includes "if god turns out to be real" in the first place? I thought you believed in His existence?

Meanwhile, atheists only exist in the minds of theists.

Otherwise they are just people happily, or however, living their lives.

Not everybody *needs* gods, you know.

And yes, you have a right to free speech - at least to say that you think your god exists. Personal opinion - what's wrong with that?


az

if/then,
*If* I enter a thread whose initiator's first phrase is "I am an atheist, i dont believe in god." *then* I assume it is ok for other people who don't believe in god to join the thread. *If* I "have a right to free speech" *then* I can should be able to offer my opinion.

Lets assume you're right and if god exists he must exist for everybody (this isn't necceserily true, but I recognise we're using the Judeo-Christian model)
Why does it follow that everybody has to recognise this god?
Why does it follow everybody has to recognise god in the same way?
Why does it follow that any ethical codes arising must be the same, even if based on different 'perspectives' on the same god?

blub-blub

<*IF* you don't believe in God *THEN* what are you doing on a thread whose premise includes "if god turns out to be real" in the first place? I really didn't mean to join an evolution thread.>

Well, because the first clause in the sentence is 'If you are an atheist in life'.

Now that is pretty much asking a theoretical question about if 'god turns out to be real' directed at people who do not believe there is a God.

Of course, believers *can* answer the question but it certainly does not preclude athiests.

No wonder you have so much trouble understanding the logic in what people say if you cannot deconstruct what a simple question is asking and to whom.

Ask an atheist a theological question and the answer is always "No."

Nerd42,

Yoou didn't ask a theological question in your last post, so I don't understand how you managed to find an answer in any of the responses.

blub-blub
(I'm NOT atheist)

"Lets assume you're right and if god exists he must exist for everybody (this isn't necceserily true, but I recognise we're using the Judeo-Christian model)
Why does it follow that everybody has to recognise this god?
Why does it follow everybody has to recognise god in the same way?
Why does it follow that any ethical codes arising must be the same, even if based on different 'perspectives' on the same god?"

Because of objective reality. If objective truth exists without reference to humanity's point of view then those things follow the first assumption you've made.

Nerd,

It was a rhetorical question.

"**IF* God does exist *THEN* God exists for everyone. That means what is right isn't just right because I say it is."

I was trying to show that the same basic fundamental religious beliefs can logically lead to a huge variety of moral codes. Even if we assume a god's existence then, really, something IS right because you say it is, therefore probably contradicting what someone else believes/has said is right.
No moral guidelines come directly from a god, firstly they are written down/spoken (by a human), which means the initial guideline is reduced to fit in with the constraints of language. It then may be translated, which means the guideline now must be altered to fit in with the limitations of another language. The guideline is then read/heard by you at which point any reminant of the original meaning may well be lost in your own interpretation; at the end of the day, YOU selectivley pick what is right, leaving little left of the original, godly, fundamental laws.

blub-blub

<<<>

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.>>

azahar, I really wish you'd learn that abuse is no more effective as a debating technique than your friend Noggin's foul-mouthed dismissal of the whole question! God is not anyone's posesssion, your sloganeering about 'personal god concept' notwithstanding!

But it makes a great way to dismiss an argument you don't want to have, doesn't it, accusing someone of trying to offload their own persoanl views on poor wee you! Very California nut-and-flake bar, EST and esalen type-thingy, and it *sounds* oh-so-tolerant, when it's really anything but...

<>

They, (Hoo, especially) likes to turn everything into an evolution thread, it enables him to indulge his skill at ridicule. That's his one real strength - being abusive.)

Della,

"it makes a great way to dismiss an argument you don't want to have, doesn't it, accusing someone of trying to offload their own persoanl views on poor wee you"

It is a perfectly valid point that christians have/do/will try to force other people to share their beliefs and tell them what is wrong. For eg. the Catholic stance on contraception, homosexuality, and women. Az is not dismissing the argument, he is highlighting an important point about the nature of Christianity.

"God is not anyone's posesssion, your sloganeering about 'personal god concept' notwithstanding!"

This view is not "abuse" as you put it, but again another valid point. SoRB earlier mentioned Freud's view of god being our personal deification of our fathers, in other words *our* creation. Another view of god is as a linguistic device we have come to adopt as more to describe our personal idea of a perfect ethical code, or of the thing that is the best of all things, again, our creation. I could go on, there are many such arguments that god is *our* creation.

Obviously these arguments are not infallible, but please don't dismiss these legitimate arguments as mere abuse, just because you don't want to tackle them.

blub-blub

blub-blub

You'll get used to Della.

SoRB

Who is this 'Hoo' Della is constantly metioning in all the threads I come across her in?

I havn't seen him in any of these threads but Della appears to blame EVERYTHING on him.

blub-blub

Hoo is short for Hoovooloo, the name SoRB used to go by.

My epistemological point about the impossibility of answering the question objectively may have seemed dismissive, but the only attempt at answering it (by Nerd) stated that it was answerable objectively because he (Nerd) had an *opinion* as to what the answer might be.

The distinction between an opinion and an objective answer seems to have been missed.

Noggin

"Who is this 'Hoo' Della is constantly metioning in all the threads I come across her in?"

That would be me. I haven't used the name "Hoo" for in excess of six months now.

Like I said - you get used to her.

"Della appears to blame EVERYTHING on him."

Yeah. According to her he's a fifty seven year old American rightwing apologist for big business.

Meanwhile I am a thirty six year old, English, centre left trade union member. It baffles me how a person can be so consistently and incredibly (but entertainingly) wrong about practically everything.

SoRB

"Christians have/do/will try to force other people to share their beliefs and tell them what is wrong."
Just think for a second ...

What are you doing by making that statement?

Forcing other people (Christians) to share your beliefs and tell them that what they're doing is wrong.

You're doing the exact same thing!!

silly "tolerant" folk
Nerd42

Nerd42,

I reitirated a point, notice I said "a point", not "the One True Point", I'm not forcing anyone to agree with it, I'm stating my opinion.

Opening an area of debate is not the same as getting together a group of knights/stealth bombers and going and crusading (ie killing those with different beliefs)

Of course I will try and *convince* others of my beliefs, otherwise it wouldn't be debate, but not by sticking a sword/bomb to your head.

blub-blub