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

it all seems a bit weird doesn't it? i mean, i'm 15 now, and for years i believed in santa. now i don't, but that lie bugs me cause it made me worry whether he existed or not, and whether my parents would give me any pressies in my stocking if i didn't believe in him any more. Materialistic child!

Santa is a lie used by those in authority (parents) to control others whom they cannot control by other means (e.g. physical force, logic and reason).

Be good, and you'll get what you want. (presents)

Fail to be good, and you'll get what you don't want. (no presents).

The agent who delivers the good and the bad is watching you all the time - he know when you've been bad or good.

The agent who delivers the good and the bad requires you to believe in him, even though you never see him.

You see his "helpers" - but strangely, none of them have ever met the man himself.

It depresses me beyond words that you can replace the word "Santa" with the word "God" in the above, and you've got a mechanism of control which works on BILLIONS of alledged adults.

H.
A Grown Up.

i don't get that.
Are you saying people shouldn't believe in God just because we want to recieve presents (eternal life). or are you saying that its sad that people believe because we want a reward, not because we really believe. Are u being pro- or anti- Christianity/Judaism/Islam, whatever religion you're referring to?
J

"God is a lie used by those in authority (priests, rabbis, mullahs, the government, king, whatever) to control others whom they cannot control by other means (e.g. physical force, logic and reason).

Be good, and you'll get what you want. (everlasting life in heaven)

Fail to be good, and you'll get what you don't want. (hell).

The agent who delivers the good and the bad is watching you all the time - he know when you've been bad or good.

The agent who delivers the good and the bad requires you to believe in him, even though you never see him.

You see his "helpers" (priests, rabbis, mullahs, whatever) - but strangely, none of them have ever met the man himself."

You tell me the difference. Then tell me why it's silly and childish to believe in Santa, but not silly and childish to believe in a god, ANY god.

H.

Hoovooloo, I think you're missing the point a bit there about religion. In all the religions that I know of, a pretty big part of it is the idea that, event though we're bad, God will love us and forgive us anyway, rather than automatically sendig us to hell/ not giving us Christmas presents or whatever.

It is true, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion ( the Holocaust, 9/11, all the problems in Northern Ireland etc), but in all these people are missing the main point of religion: love.

Just because we can't see God, does not mean he doesn't exist. (unless you're an empiricist in which cas Jemima and I din't exist either, coz you can't see us, though I can assure you we do!)

And believing in Santa isn't silly or childish; it's natural to believe what you are told, and that goes for adults as well. If it's silly and childish to believe in Santa or religion, just because we haven't experienced them, then the reductio ad absurdam of this is that we should never believe anything we haven't experienced for ourselves, and must find out that fire burns, cyanide is poisonous, and jumping off a 100m cliff will kill you. If you adopt this attitude I am sure you will not last very long

I think the main problem is that parents are deliberatel lying to their kids about Santa. It's alright to tell you're kids there is or isn't a god, whichever way you believe, because you can't know for sure that you're wrong. Telling them that there is a Santa, however, when you know it's not true, is abusing the trust that they have in you, and will aslo made them doubt other things you have said.

Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to convince you that any religion is right, just that they are not inherently evil or wrong. In the words of Cromwell, 'Gentlemen, I beg you to consider the posibility that you may be wrong' Also GK Chesterton who said of Christianity (though it could as well be applied to other religions, 'the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried'

Peace
Clare

"Hoovooloo, I think you're missing the point a bit there about religion."

And I think *you* are missing the point a bit about *lies*.

"In all the religions that I know of, a pretty big part of it is the idea that, event though we're bad, God will love us and forgive us anyway, rather than automatically sendig us to hell/ not giving us Christmas presents or whatever."

Then you don't know much about religion, then, do you? Or rather, specifically the Abrahamic religions of the majority of the world - Islam and Christianity (and of course Judaism, but Jews are a tiny insignificant minority everywhere except Israel - they have a cultural and political influence in the West which far outweighs their numbers. For instance - did you know that in the UK, Jews are outnumbered three to two by Jedi? [2001 census figures]).

Religions are available in a number of flavours, but pretty much all of them hold out the promise of an eternity of torment in a lake of fire for transgression. The actual details of what constitutes transgression vary from one set of superstitions to the next - for some you pretty much need to be Hitler, for others (e.g. non-denominational "free church" Christianity) 99% of humanity goes to hell purely because God didn't choose to save them, and there was literally nothing they could do to change that - newborn babies included.

I don't know where you get the idea that God will love and forgive you anything, but it certainly isn't the Bible. The God of the Bible is a jealous, petty, capricious sadist.

"It is true, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion ( the Holocaust, 9/11, all the problems in Northern Ireland etc), but in all these people are missing the main point of religion: love."

Look at the original title of this thread - "lies". Whatever gives you the impression that the main point of religion is love? The main point - the ONLY point - of religion is CONTROL of the masses by the few. Saying that the main point of it is love is merely one of the mechanisms of control - it's an appealing lie. You WANT to believe it. Which is why it works...

"Just because we can't see God, does not mean he doesn't exist. (unless you're an empiricist in which cas Jemima and I din't exist either, coz you can't see us, though I can assure you we do!)"

And the very act of assuring me you do provides me with evidence that you exist. I don't need to SEE you, because I have other evidence.

But by your logic, just because we can't see fluffy pink magic unicorns in the U bend of our toilets, or for that matter, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, doesn't mean they don't exist.

It DOES mean that anyone with two braincells to rub together should strongly doubt their existence. Do you still believe in Santa? Or the tooth fairy? And if not, why not? The logic is exactly the same.

"And believing in Santa isn't silly or childish; it's natural to believe what you are told, and that goes for adults as well."

Absolute nonsense. Believing in Santa is pretty much definitively childish, and it's certainly silly.

It is natural for *gullible* people to believe what they're told, and as Barnum famously said "There's one born every minute." If you are happy to be considered credulous and easily fooled, then please feel free, but don't think for a second that everyone else, and myself in particular, are in any way similar to you.

My natural instinct is to question what I am told, to seek confirmation from other sources, to seek evidence, to test reasonableness against experience. If you're the sort of person who "naturally" believes everything they're told, then I have a lovely beachfront house in Birmingham I can sell you...

"If it's silly and childish to believe in Santa or religion, just because we haven't experienced them, then the reductio ad absurdam of this is that we should never believe anything we haven't experienced for ourselves, and must find out that fire burns, cyanide is poisonous, and jumping off a 100m cliff will kill you. If you adopt this attitude I am sure you will not last very long"

There are principles at work here of which you are clearly not aware. I'm appalled that you've reached the age you have without apparently having had anyone teach you to think critically.

The concept of cyanide as a poison passes the test of reasonableness. You know some things are poisonous, because you use them to kill things - bleach, for example. You know of people who have been poisoned (e.g. the man who shot Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914), and reliable evidence suggests that cyanide was the poison used. None of this is in any way surprising or odd.

The concept of jumping off a 100m cliff being fatal, passes the test of reasonableness, as well as experience - most people have jumped or fallen off something high and had it hurt, and it's easy to extend that thought.

The concept of god fails the test of reasonableness. It is outside normal experience, and is an extraordinary claim. The general principle is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet there is NO unequivocal evidence for the existence of God - otherwise there'd be no need for the canard of "faith". Proof denies faith and without faith he is nothing? Sound familiar?

"I think the main problem is that parents are deliberatel lying to their kids about Santa."

I think the MAIN problem is that parents are lying to their kids about God, and hardly anybody ever tells them that it's a lie. So they grow up and perpetuate the lie, believing it themselves, in the teeth of the evidence. I think this is a scandal, but there are so many people taken in by this scam it's nigh on pointless trying to get it stopped.

It SHOULD be stopped, because it's the greatest single barrier to critical thinking. It teaches children early that there are some things that you just don't question because there is no good answer. This is an appalling and destructive thing to teach a child about the world, and turns them into gullible people with a distorted view of how the world really works.

"It's alright to tell you're kids there is or isn't a god, whichever way you believe, because you can't know for sure that you're wrong."

NO IT ISN'T. There's no way that you can know for sure that there isn't an invisible pink fluffy magic unicorn at the bottom of your toilet, but that's no reason to tell your kids it's there.

This is my main bugbear with religion - that it is fed to children when they are vulnerable, psychologically, and the fact that it's just a superstition like fairies and goblins is NEVER explained to them, presumably because their parents are too ashamed to admit it to them.

"Telling them that there is a Santa, however, when you know it's not true, is abusing the trust that they have in you, and will aslo made them doubt other things you have said."

But you're abusing that trust by telling them about God, when you have NO positive evidence for it at all. Would you tell your children about the unicorn? And if not, why not? There's precisely as much evidence for the toilet unicorn as there is for god... and the toilet unicorn doesn't threaten your children with an eternity in a lake of fire if they misbehave.

God is a pernicious damaging lie perpetrated by parents who are guilty of the worst form of psychological abuse, but who are *almost* not to be blamed because the same abuse was perpetrated on them.

"Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to convince you that any religion is right, just that they are not inherently evil or wrong."

Perpetuation of ignorance is a crime. Religion (most of the mainstream ones at least) DEMANDS ignorance and uncritical thinking. A731440

"In the words of Cromwell, 'Gentlemen, I beg you to consider the posibility that you may be wrong'."

Practice what you preach - the central tenet of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that they are RIGHT and everyone else is wrong. They have a word for "considering the possibility that they are wrong" - heresy. And the penalty is always the same - death, followed by the lake of fire for all eternity.

"Also GK Chesterton who said of Christianity (though it could as well be applied to other religions, 'the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried'"

Ah - you're not talking about a religion there - you're talking about a lifestyle, a mode of behaviour. That's not a religion. You can behave according to the Christian ideal without ever having heard of Christ, can't you? I'm sure that some people have - and I'd be prepared to bet that the majority of them were Buddhists...

H.

I agree with Clare.
Have you ever actually read the Bible, Hoovooloo? It says very clearly in there that God loves us. ok, so sometimes it seems that God is nasty, but that's only towards sinners, not the people who believe in him. And the end isn't a firey pit if u believe in him.
of course Christianity thinks it's right. surely that's the whole point? There aren't any other gods.
Yours, trying to be restrained and failing,
J

"Have you ever actually read the Bible, Hoovooloo?"

Yes. Have YOU? And I mean read *all* of it, not just the nice bits the liars with a vested interest in keeping you ignorant recommended?

"It says very clearly in there that God loves us."

It says a lot of things very clearly in there. Here's a short list:

Genesis 7:21-23 - god kills every living thing on earth that breathes air, except for one family.

Exodus 7:4 - god makes sure pharoah doesn't listen to Moses, to give him an excuse to attack Egypt.

Deuteronomy 14:7 - very clearly states that hares chew the cud.

1 Kings, 7:23 - very clearly states that the value of pi is exactly three. (see also 2 Chronicle 4:2)

Isaiah 11:12 - very clearly states that the earth has four corners. See also Ezekiel 7:2.

Matthew 9:32 - very clearly states that people who cannot speak are possessed by devils. See also Matthew 17:15-18, which clearly states that epilepsy is caused by devils.

"ok, so sometimes it seems that God is nasty, but that's only towards sinners, not the people who believe in him."

2 Kings, 2:23-25. Forty two CHILDREN, whose "crime" was taking the p**s out of a guy for being bald, are disemboweled by bears. Nice one, God.

There's a LOT of other stuff like that in there, but that one happens to be my personal favourite.

"And the end isn't a firey pit if u believe in him."

Ah... wrong. You not only have to believe in him - you have to be chosen by him. If you ain't one of the chosen, it's the pit for you. And there's nothing you can do about whether you get chosen.

"of course Christianity thinks it's right. surely that's the whole point? There aren't any other gods."

Excellent - you obviously haven't read the Bible at all. Thank you for proving it.

If you're going to tell someone what it says in a book, it helps to read it first.

Now - go and LOOK in an actual Bible.

Deuteronomy 13:6.
Exodus 20:3
Exodus 22:20 (which calls for the execution of approximately two thirds of the current world population...)
Exodus 23:13
Exodus 23:24
Exodus 34:14
Deuteronomy 5:4, 6:15
Joshua 24:19-20
Judges 2:12
Jeremiah 13:10
Jeremiah 16:11

I could go on, but I think I've made my point, or at least I will have done if you can be bothered to go and actually read the verses I've pointed out to you in YOUR Bible.

Presume to tell me something about the Bible and what it means, only AFTER you've read it. Don't, please, parrot the lies you've been told by people who need to keep you ignorant and gullible so that you behave yourself.

H.

hi everyone!

hello Hoovooloo (says azahar as she dons her anti-dragon fireproof protective clothing . . . just in case )

It's not about lies, is it? All of what you are talking about is metaphor, including religions. It's just easier to see it as metaphor when talking about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc.

All religions are based in myth, the stories are there to tell us about the human condition, what we go through, etc. The better stories give us a bit of wisdom to help us not have to need to re-invent the wheel every single day.

I agree with you, Hoo, that most organized religions are about control and have lost whatever connection to god that they ever might have had.

But an intelligent, enquiring person has the choice to look for answers everywhere.

Religions per se are not lying, are not evil. But the books written about religions, all written by humans - not god!- are obviously flawed and full of subjective stuff.

I don't think that god (for want of a better word) is any sort of fantasy, fairy-tale, pie-in-the-sky concept. I think that what we are all trying to do via religion and other means is explain the god we feel within us - the god that we all are.

yeah, it's a big time mystery. But what would life be without a bit of mystery in it?

I don't see anything wrong with calling one's personal god anything one likes. I have my own personal bone to pick with the RC version as I was made to suffer a lot under this as a child. But you know - then I saw it for what it was. Just another story.

Okay, a lot of it comes across as 'lies', but the people telling these lies are those who have not yet found their connection with themselves, with the god who they are.

And well, too bad for them.

az

Hoovooloo
i get your drift.
i probably haven't read all of the bible, but i've read most of the new testement, and know basically what's in the old testament. u seemed to have picked most of the ot for your examples! i WILL read those quotes and let u know what i think.
if u've read the Bible, why are u so against it?
oh, and by the way, what have u got against my 'no gods' bit?
yours, J

Hoovooloo
i get your drift.
i probably haven't read all of the bible, but i've read most of the new testement, and know basically what's in the old testament. u seemed to have picked most of the ot for your examples! i WILL read those quotes and let u know what i think.
if u've read the Bible, why are u so against it?
oh, and by the way, what have u got against my 'no other gods' bit?
yours, J

sorry about the repeat. i made a typo. 'no gods' was meant to read 'no other gods'. sorry
J

Ok hoovooloo, I haven't argued my case there very well I agree. But if I might salvage a few points from the carnage:

"the fact that it's just a superstition like fairies and goblins is NEVER explained to them, presumably because their parents are too ashamed to admit it to them."

The fact that it's just (according to you) a superstition is never explained to them because their parents BELIEVE IT TOO!

You can't KNOW that there is no God, you only believe that there is no God. Other people (not exactly including me; I'm still trying to work it out) believe that there is a God, so they teach that to their children. You don't believe that there is a god, so you would teach that to your children.

'You can behave according to the Christian ideal without ever having heard of Christ, can't you?' well I might think so, but 'the central tenet of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that they are RIGHT and everyone else is wrong.' This doesn't sound to me like the Buddhists, nor does it sound particularly difficult and it has certainly been tried. So either you, or I, or GK Chesterton must be wrong. I know which I'd rather it were.

'I'm appalled that you've reached the age you have without apparently having had anyone teach you to think critically.' If thinking critically is to deny what you previously believed with as little thought as to which is right as you had when you accepted the first stuff - well, I'm not particularly looking forward to it. Also, how do you know how old I am? Also, however old you are, I am appalled that you have lived so long without apparently having had anyone teach you to be polite! I don't mind you dismantling my arguments (very much) so long as you're polite about it

yeah!
Thank you! Hoovooloo, how DO u know how old Clare is? Perhaps u should try being polite, it gets u miles! Better stop here so i don't let on how old Clare is. u already know how old i am, wuss luck.
so don't u dare take advantage over me because i'm a girl and younger than u (assumably). i happen to believe in the God of Christianity.
J

That's 'presumably', perian!
Thanks for the support though!

I think Hoo could probably have got a fair idea of Clare's age by going to her space and seeing the words school and exams.

Jemima said
I think at least part of the point here is that there is no "the" god of christianity (even less of religion in general); there's lots of different versions. Which should make you think - why? Where did all these different ideas of god come from? And if most of them must be wrong, why think yours is right?

Bear in mind that it's not your sense of right and wrong, or your principles that are being questioned (just remember there are people out there who don't share them, and will take advantage of the unrealistically idealistic). It's just that if they're goog ones you don't *need* the superstructure of religion to support them. They'll stand on their own merits (or otherwise, as the case may be.)

Noggin

'goog' should of course read 'good'. Sorry

Lots of lovely replies to answer

Starting with my new stalker, azahar

"It's not about lies, is it? All of what you are talking about is metaphor, including religions. It's just easier to see it as metaphor when talking about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc."

It's also easier to see it as a metaphor when you haven't got the whole apparatus of the church telling you it's the truth. They even refer to it as "Truth", with a capital T, as though it's somehow even TRUER than something like "the sky is blue". Show me a clergyman of any denomination who is prepared to admit that he's peddling a "metaphor", and I'll show you a guy who'll soon be out of a job...

"All religions are based in myth, the stories are there to tell us about the human condition, what we go through, etc."

So are the plays of Shakespeare. Nobody worships him or prays to him though, do they?

"I agree with you, Hoo"

My work here is done... with you at least...

"Religions per se are not lying, are not evil."

I disagree. Any religion which as a basic tenet requires belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is REQUIRING unquestioning ignorance. This is DANGEROUS. People should be encouraged to THINK, not to blindly accept something purely on the word of someone else, and especially not something so central and important as the origin of the universe or the point of our lives.

"I don't think that god (for want of a better word) is any sort of fantasy, fairy-tale, pie-in-the-sky concept. I think that what we are all trying to do via religion and other means is explain the god we feel within us - the god that we all are."

Very nice idea. It doesn't *mean* anything, in itself, however. And if that's what we're trying to do with religion, we're doing a spectacularly bad job of it.

"I don't see anything wrong with calling one's personal god anything one likes."

Neither do I. My problem is that people then use that as a justification for all sorts of atrocities - many of them detailed in the Bible, funnily enough.

"Okay, a lot of it comes across as 'lies', but the people telling these lies are those who have not yet found their connection with themselves, with the god who they are.
And well, too bad for them."

And too bad for the rest of us, too, since we have to share the world with these dangerous loonies.



Jemima:

"i get your drift."

Excellent!

"I probably haven't read all of the bible"

Probably? Don't you remember?

"but i've read most of the new testement, and know basically what's in the old testament."

Um... no, you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have said something so easily demolished as "It says very clearly in there that God loves us."

"u seemed to have picked most of the ot for your examples!"

And the relevance of that is? When I bought my Bible, strangely enough the Old Testament was included in the price. I can only assume from that inclusion that Christianity still places some value on the writings of the Old Testament. Why shouldn't I pick examples from it?

"i WILL read those quotes and let u know what i think."

I look forward to it.

"if u've read the Bible, why are u so against it?"

Tell you what - why don't *you* read it, all of it, and then try to guess why I'm against it.

"oh, and by the way, what have u got against my 'no other gods' bit?"

What I've got against it is that it's a lie. What bothers me is that someone has at some point told you that the God of the Bible is the only god, and that there are no others. You've taken their word for it - DESPITE the fact that if you actually READ the Bible it's clear that the God of the Bible is one among many. You must surely have heard the line "For I your God am a jealous God."? If there are no other gods, who in the universe has God to be jealous of?

In many ways, your repetition of that easily disproven lie is symptomatic of the whole thing I'm talking about - someone, or several someones, have put that idea into your head, and subtly discouraged you from checking it out.

Well, all I'm encouraging you to do is think about it. Read the book. Come to your own conclusion. I don't necessarily expect it to be the same conclusion I came to - but it will be YOURS, and nobody else's. That's all I want anyone to do.



OK, Clare now:

"Ok hoovooloo, I haven't argued my case there very well I agree. But if I might salvage a few points from the carnage:"



"The fact that it's just (according to you) a superstition is never explained to them because their parents BELIEVE IT TOO!"

This does not make if forgiveable, in my view. Sorry.

"You can't KNOW that there is no God, you only believe that there is no God."

You can't KNOW there is no toilet unicorn. You can only believe there is no toilet unicorn. You're still not making a distinction between the big beardy guy in the sky and the pink fluffy horned horse in the U bend...

"Other people (not exactly including me; I'm still trying to work it out) believe that there is a God, so they teach that to their children."

More worryingly, OTHER PEOPLE teach it to their children.

"You don't believe that there is a god, so you would teach that to your children."

*If* I had children (never gonna happen...), I wouldn't teach them that at all. I'd teach them to think, and to make up their own mind. Plenty of people who are capable of critical thought have made a (to them) rational decision to be religious. While I don't agree with their conclusion, I respect their right to it (as long as they make no attempt to convert me...). It's the people who are religious by default, without any thought or consideration, who bother me.

"'You can behave according to the Christian ideal without ever having heard of Christ, can't you?' well I might think so, but 'the central tenet of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that they are RIGHT and everyone else is wrong.' This doesn't sound to me like the Buddhists, nor does it sound particularly difficult and it has certainly been tried. So either you, or I, or GK Chesterton must be wrong. I know which I'd rather it were."

Um... slight confusion here, I think. By "the Christian ideal", I meant a life of poverty and work for others, loving one's neighbour and loving some spiritual ideal, call it what you like. Looking around the world at all the Christians with nice cars, I don't see many living up to the ideal. The only people I see living the way Christ actually suggested - are Buddhists.

The thing about being right and chosen and everyone else being wrong has NOTHING to do with what Christ spoke about, and everything to do with Christianity, the religion. I think you've put two quite different concepts together there which I meant to be separate.

"If thinking critically is to deny what you previously believed with as little thought as to which is right as you had when you accepted the first stuff"



Thinking critically does not mean "denying" anything. It means applying your intelligence to a question. It means seeking confirmatory evidence, testing reasonableness, comparing alternative explanations. Most centrally, it REQUIRES thought. "Thinking critically" - the clue is in that first word...

" - well, I'm not particularly looking forward to it."

Why not? Are you perhaps afraid of what conclusion you might reach if you engage your brain? If you believe there is a god, then you must believe he gave you your brain so that you could use it.

"Also, how do you know how old I am?"

Old enough to use a computer to access the internet. Old enough to write (mostly) literate and coherent English. Old enough to have a desire to defend your opinions, even if you perhaps haven't considered the origins or ramifications of those opinions. I'd say your age could be anywhere from 14 to 130. The number is not important - it's the fact you've got where you are without education in thinking which depresses me.

Schools teach "facts" (yeah, right... see the entry this thread is attached to) - they rarely, it seems teach HOW to think. This, I fear, has much to do with the fact that many people who have power over what schools teach are religious themselves, and recognise the threat that critical thought poses to religious faith. Thus, the lies are self-perpetuating. They are a virus, parasitising human thought, and doing it very efficiently. They're a good "meme", as Richard Dawkins pointed out.

"Also, however old you are, I am appalled that you have lived so long without apparently having had anyone teach you to be polite!"

Ah, once again with the assumptions. People HAVE taught me to be polite. And I often am. But experience shows that a slightly more, shall we say, direct tone, gets a more passionate response. And I'm all for passion in conversation.

"I don't mind you dismantling my arguments (very much) so long as you're polite about it"

Tell you what - if your arguments are good ones, even if I disagree with them, I'll do so politely. But if you make statements like "it's natural to believe what you are told", then expect a rather more abrasive response.



Jemima again:

"Thank you! Hoovooloo, how DO u know how old Clare is?"

No, and like I said above, it doesn't matter a jot. Old enough to know better, as shown by her general apparent level of intelligence, knowledge and literacy.

"Perhaps u should try being polite, it gets u miles!"

Like I say - I'll be polite if you'll be intelligent...

Read back along this thread - I *WAS* polite, until Clare told me I was missing the point, that the point of religion is love, that's it's natural to be gullible, and that anything you can't see might exist. I wasn't polite about that, but it was hilarious nonsense, so why should I be?

"Better stop here so i don't let on how old Clare is."

Like I say - it doesn't matter at all.

"u already know how old i am, wuss luck."

And that doesn't matter at all either. Please note, my comment on Clare's age was NOT a criticism of her personally. Read it again. It was a criticism of an educational system (wherever it may be) which does not encourage people to THINK.

Top tip - read what I actually write. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Clare's actual age, and yours, is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. OK?

"so don't u dare take advantage over me because i'm a girl and younger than u (assumably)."

Bless you for considering the possibility I may be younger than you. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm not, as it happens, but would it matter at all if I was?

And another thing - how could I "take advantage over you"? Young or old, male or female, our entire presence here is our words. For instance - you've no *real* way of knowing if *I* am a girl, have you?

This form of conversation is an excellent leveller, because there's no way I can shout you down, or physically intimidate you, or belittle your appearance or accent or whatever dishonest thing I might try to do to win an argument from a weak position. You can take as long as you like to reply, and polish your arguments to your heart's content.

You, and I, stand or fall in conversations like these on the quality of our words and thoughts - nothing else. Not only do I not *want* to take advantage of you, there's no way I could. All I want is to get you to think a bit harder about some stuff. If, after due consideration, you disagree with me, I'll *still* be happy, because at least you'll have some ammunition the NEXT time someone questions your beliefs. You'll be able to defend your faith from a position of strength, having considered the alternatives. Isn't that better than where you are now?

"i happen to believe in the God of Christianity."

Ask yourself - and I mean REALLY, seriously, ask yourself - why?

That's all I'm trying to get you to do.

H.

'Stalker' indeed!

Hoovooloo

'The thing about being right and chosen and everyone else being wrong has NOTHING to do with what Christ spoke about, and everything to do with Christianity, the religion.'

Right (makes a concerted effort to think intelligently here), but I thought that Jesus says stuff about, 'whoever believes in me will have everlasting life' isn't this 'about being right and everyone else being wrong'?

'Plenty of people who are capable of critical thought have made a (to them) rational decision to be religious. While I don't agree with their conclusion, I respect their right to it (as long as they make no attempt to convert me...). It's the people who are religious by default, without any thought or consideration, who bother me.'

So would you rather that somebody thought long and hard and rationally and came to the conclusion that there was a god, than that they condemned religion out of hand without thinking about it, even though the opinion that they reached was the same as yours?

I'm also not sure I entirely agree with you that this is a good medium for the sort of conversation we are having. I can see that in a way it is a good leveller, but on the other hand it is hard to read peoples feelings from the text on what is often quite a sensitive topic for people, and so misunderstandings are very easy.

And finally.....

4 years ago I believed tat my parents would go to hell coz they didn't believe in evolution (I went to a presbyterian school in Zimbabwe). Since then I have been ultra-christian-without-really-thinking-about-it, very-very-anti-christian-without-really-thinking-about-it, communist-and-therefore-atheist-by-default, and now in the not-really-sure-maybe-maybe-not combined with well-its-all-the-same-really-so-long-as-we're-nice-to-each-other-woolly-liberal phase. So thinking, if not particularly clearly, is something i have been trying to do for quite a while. That my remark about thinking critically, a rather feeble attempt at sarcasm, was taken literally is another example of the unsuitability of this medium for philosophical conversation, although I do think it is good that it prevents you from replying in the heat of the moment (unless you are a very fast typer), and gives you a chance to think what you really mean.