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

I can give you my plumber's number if you want to check your toilet for unicorns, but I don't know anyone reliable to scan the heavens for deities. If you find them, perhaps you could recommend them to me.

he he!
where on earth did he get unicorns from anyway?! i think he's probably waiting for us to reply. Do i succumb to temptation?
J

yes, is the answer Clare, if u read my other message earlier!

Firstly i'd like to apologise to hoo about my stupid remark about u taking advantage over me. must have been a rush of blood to the head as my Grandma would say!
As for the answer to your question 'why?'. i'm not sure. can't say the question why was really on my thoughts when i became a Christian (roughly 2 years ago). i was more concerned with 'do i really believe in this'. i'll try and think if u want me to.
You said something a while back about being misled by other people who have been misled. i suppose that might have happened with me, but i don't think it's likely as my parents aren't that religious. i went to a rc primary school, but i don't think i really learned much. all i learnt was that i found mass boring!
J
oh, and pleez pleez pleez don't take this writing quote by quote!

Hello again

Clare first (since all azahar did was admit to stalking me... )

"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'?"

Hmm. Yes, it is. That wasn't what *I* was referring to, but good connection nevertheless. However, John 3:5 states clearly "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So in other words, you can believe all you like in Jesus, do what you like, give to the poor, work all your life for the good of others - but unless you are "reborn", in what I'm sure some people would gleefully refer to as a 'farcical aquatic ceremony', your name's not on the list and you're not coming in.

"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?"

SPOT ON! ...with a caveat.

I wouldn't call the latter a "rationalist", I'd call them a rejectionist. Their philosophy is not a postive one ("I think THIS"), it is a negative one ("I don't believe THAT"). While their skepticism will actually serve them better than the religionists' credulity, it's likely to fail sooner or later because they're not *thinking*, they're just reacting. Reacting works for animals and many people. But thinking is what makes us human - isn't it?

"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."

If something I have said is not clear, call me on it. I'll try to explain more clearly. If something *you* say is unclear, rest assured I'll let you know.

I still think the medium is good, precisely because conveying feelings is difficult. If you care about the conversation at all, it forces you to think about how you express yourself. You simply have to consider carefully what words you use, and precisely what you mean, before you click that "Post Message" button. It's an excellent discipline, and I can think of few other places where you can get the practice.

"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)."

They'd burn because they DIDN'T believe in EVOLUTION???

(Did you know that an anagram of "Presbyterians" is "Britney Spears"?)

"Since then I have been ...[through several things that could be called a] phase. So thinking, if not particularly clearly, is something i have been trying to do for quite a while."

That is good to hear.

"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"

I'll generally take everything you say here literally, unless you give me a clue. Usual clues include , , , and many others, as appropriate. E.g. see my comment about azahar stalking me. If I haven't bunged a smiley on the end, assume I mean it literally. If I HAVE bunged a smiley on the end, don't automatically assume I'm kidding... (and I'll assume the same from you.)

"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."

That's one of the reasons I like it, too. There's physically no way to interrupt someone, either, so you can have your say, in full, without fear of being cut off mid flow.



"I can give you my plumber's number if you want to check your toilet for unicorns"

But the unicorns are invisible. No plumber would be able to *see* one. You just have to have faith that it's there...



"where on earth did he get unicorns from anyway?!"

Where on earth did you get God from, anyway?

It's exactly the same question, when you get right down to it. Which is my point.

"i think he's probably waiting for us to reply. Do i succumb to temptation?"

Well... yes. Isn't that how a conversation normally works? I say something, and then I wait for you to reply. Then you wait for me to reply. And so on. Otherwise I'm just sitting here talking to myself, and I wouldn't do that because I *really* get on my nerves...



"Firstly... "

No problem. Apology accepted.

"As for ...'why?'. i'm not sure."

Interesting. It's pretty central to your existence, and you can't even tell me why. Have a think about that...

"i'll try and think if u want me to."

I'd LOVE that. It's all I'm trying to get you to do. But don't YOU want to? Don't do it for me - do it for YOU. Even if you don't change your beliefs, you'll be happier with them if you know WHY you believe them, won't you?

As for your upbringing - don't underestimated the subliminal effect of going to an RC school, celebrating Christmas and Easter, and all the other religious paraphernalia that are forced on children in school. You may not *think* you were being indoctrinated... but can you recite the Lord's Prayer? What's the next word in the sequence "All things bright and..."? You probably 'learned' more than you realise... The Jesuits say "Give me a boy to the age of seven, and I will give you the man." The RC school most likely had more influence than your parents could have.

"oh, and pleez pleez pleez don't take this writing quote by quote!"

OK... I'll only quote ONE sentence from it in full. And that was it.

Oh... and do "u" *have* to spell "please" that way?

I know, I'm too old...

H.

Hoo,

Ya old word-twister! Did not *admit* to stalking you and you know it!


Clare,

The problem with saying 'Jesus said . . .' is that we have no idea *what* Jesus said, if indeed he ever truly lived. It's all hearsay really, stuff written down by some other guys years after Jesus was supposed to have lived. So I think it's more accurate to say, 'In the Bible, Jesus said . . . ', though maybe this is what you do mean anyhow.

There's a great short story by Trevanian called Easter Story with Pontius Pilatus having to deal with what he calls 'a plague of suicidal messiahs', all of whom claim to be born of a virgin, descended from David, to have taught in the desert and to have performed miracles, etc. etc. - anyhow, it's quite clever and worth a read if you can find it.

Okay, time to go and stalk somebody else . . .

az

btw Hoo - you previously quoted me as saying 'I agree with you, Hoo' and then cut off the continuation of that sentence (that . . .) - cheater!

It's not possible to doublecheck everything that everybody tells you - life's just too short. But we know from experience that some of it will be true - and some won't; so simply believing or disbelieving all of it isn't a viable option. So we have to develop strategies for sorting the wheat from the chaff - basically critical thinking and it's close cousin psychological insight (for want of a better phrase).
Who can be trusted about what? Does it fit with current evidence? Is it important? and so on. Everyone will get it wrong sometimes, of course, but that's one of the ways we learn.

As a sort of rider on the above children have to absorb so much in such a short time, and without the benefit of developed filters, that they inevitably DO believe most of what they're told.

So

Do you have any reason for believing/not believing in God, OTHER than that someone told you? (And why do THEY believe it?)

Do you have any reason for not believing/believing in the toilet unicorn, OTHER than that someone told you (or didn't tell you)?


I like this form of discussion, too. It can be testing, but that's the point. You don't know what you can do unless you stretch yourself.

If you don't understand what someone is saying, ask for clarification. It not only helps you, it's good for them, too.

If you do inadvertently offend someone, apologise. You'll actually go UP several notches in their estimation.

Noggin

Hooray!! I think I'm getting this ! all round! Probably due to reading your posts too fast (late for maths, not done hwk ect) Hoo, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying and thought that you were a rejectionist, though I didn't know what it was called.

OOPs! because they DID believe in evolution - didn't believe in creation I mean!

I like the subjest line of all these posts by the way, thanks Jemima!

ps what's a caveat?

caveat n. a warning.

I see thanks again Noggin

Your friends say things to you like "say salve to the puellae for me", but you don't know what "caveat" means? Odd.

Oh, and another thing (quoting what you meant, not what you said ):

"4 years ago I believed that my parents would go to hell coz they didn't believe in creationism".

Aren't you ANGRY, and I mean really seriously hopping mad, that some adult was allowed to put that horrible lie in the head of a trusting child? Doesn't it make you indignant?

To me, that is nothing other than psychological child abuse. I assume you weren't best pleased by the news that your parents were going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity. What right does anyone have to inflict that stress on you?

I mean, compare and contrast:

Your parents tell you Santa exists. This is a charming story, and most children don't seem to be unduly perturbed by the concept of a large, strange, bearded man coming into their bedroom in the middle of the night with their parents' permission. Eventually your parents tell you that they've been consistently lying to you for the last five years, and everything is fine. You learn an important lesson in life (that *nobody* is to be trusted, least of all the people who are responsible for feeding you), but until you find out that they're lying, you're perfectly happy to have the big guy in the red suit sneaking around the bottom of your bed while you're asleep once a year. You don't have nightmares about it or anything...

In contrast, when you're still an impressionable and trusting child, some bloke in a frock tells you a fairy story about how the world started. You, naturally, mention that your parents don't believe in such nonsense. The tranny's response is to assure you that this is not a problem, because your parents will pay for their disbelief by being burned and tormented for all eternity. You, as a trusting child, believe him - I mean, why would a man in a dress say something that wasn't true? So now you have to live with the knowledge that your parents - who love you, nurture you, and care for you, and haven't yet let on that they're lying about Santa - the parents you love are going to burn for all time. And that knowledge will eat away at you until someone finally lets on to you that God is Santa for grownups. IF they ever do.

We don't tolerate the *sexual* abuse of children by priests (well, most of us don't...). So why do we tolerate this psychological abuse, I wonder?

(Hi Noggin! )

H.

BIG difference here - caveat is English, salve and puellae are LATIN! (and very basic latin at that ). cum Jemima me dicesset, ut 'salve(te)' ad puellis dicerem, scivi quidnam significaret. (I also pride myself on the ability to use the subjunctive for every word in a sentence )

I'd seen the word caveat before, but in contexts where it could have meant anything. I thought for a while it was an alternative spelling of cravat or caviar, and forgot about it. (If I don't tell you this Jemima's bound to; about a year and a half ago I saw Ovid's book of erotic poems in Borders and, confusing erotic with erratic, persuaded my parents to get it for me. As I read the blurb properly it began to dawn on me that maybe I should look up the adjective in the title...ahem! and I had gone around telling people I was reading Ovid, and when they said 'oh which?' and I said 'the erotic poetry, actaully', Nobody thought fit to explain to me!

The puellae are my Latin class (numbering three; my sister and two of her friends), whom I teach once a week and who are really getting quite good. My last birthday party was a Roman themed one, and they came as slaves to help carry the food round!

About the evolution thing, I guess i may have been angry, I can't really remember. I think I had only ever believed with half my mind that my parents would go to hell, and once we moved back to England and I didn't *have* to believe it, I just stopped. I think i was much more relieved than angry really. Also, I had been tauhgt it at school, and had already found out that most of the things we were being taught were completely wrong (I got detention on several occasions for correcting the teachers' spelling!), and that as long as I acted as if I believed them at school, I could think what I liked in my own time.

I do think it was wrong that they ould teach stuff like that, but then the teachers didn't know any better, so they couldn't help it.

hi Clare,

<>

That's awfully generous of you!

az

Sorry, I'm just trying to calm down...



Sorry, you're TEACHING Latin to people? And then...

"caveat is English, salve and puellae are LATIN!"

Yes, of course caveat is English - just like "ergo", "habeas corpus", "mutatis mutandis", "optimum", "ad hoc" and too many others to list are English.

Just like "rendezvous", "schadenfreude", "spaghetti", "nova", "anorak", "bungalow" are English, and not French, German, Italian, Spanish, Inuit or Hindi...

Caveat is LATIN, "let him beware", from "cave". Look it up, and possibly learn some Latin, since you're presuming to teach others...

I'm curious - what do you believe is the point of studying Latin? (My own response to that question would be to better understand the roots of English and other languages, but since you don't seem to recognise a Latin word when you see one in your own language, I'm guessing you have another reason...)

"About the evolution thing, I guess i may have been angry, I can't really remember."

Aren't you angry NOW? I would be. But then I'm an angry person generally, I think. Can you tell?

"I got detention on several occasions for correcting the teachers' spelling!"

Ah, we do have something in common then! Good for you.

"the teachers didn't know any better, so they couldn't help it."

But they were appointed by someone! What about the irresponsible people who allow such ignorant idiots loose on children? Teaching is pretty much the most important profession in the world. EVERYTHING else stands or falls on the quality of the people entrusted to pass on knowledge.

Yet today in the UK and elsewhere, if you can't get a proper job, you can always become a teacher. Everyone knows there's a shortage, so you don't even need to be any good. (by a weird coincidence, RIGHT NOW as I'm typing this the ad banner in my copy of Opera (A685253) is showing the "canteach.gov.uk" advert - how spooky is that?)

Doesn't that make you angry? It sure does me. I'm just glad I've no children, because I'd hate to think I had to abandon them to the attentions of some of the sort of wasters I encountered during my education. And I think I was LUCKY - fully half the teachers I had (after primary) were committed, talented professionals. That's pretty good going, by the standards of other people I've spoken to.

Phew. Another hobby horse. There really should be a smiley, I think, just to let you know when I'm about to go off on one...

H.

Oh gosh I know I just realised that caveat was Latin
Not knowing every single Latin verb *is* a handicap to me as a teacher (<semi-sarcasticsmiley&gt, and the etymology of the word and the full enormity of what I had just posted did not hit me until 5 mins later and then I was in the bath and it was too late to do anything about it! And I knew all those other ones you wrote (except bungalow)!

I learn Latin because I love it and it's really interesting to find out the origins of words (except when you remember when you are in the bath and you already succeeded in making a fool of yourself with them)

I've stopped.

H.

Glad to see you guys are friends again.

I did Latin at school. Hated it. My old Latin master used to say "It doesn't matter if they hate you so long as they fear you." And we did.

When I was 12 my English master stopped me reading "War and Peace" during a reading period, because it wasn't from the school library. I never enjoyed school for some reason.

Reckon I might have made a half decent teacher, though.

Noggin

Latin is cool. i like it too, but Clare loves it.
Hoovooloo, i'll try not to write 'u' or 'pleez'. i don't normally, but as soon as i go onto h2g2 I start!
Anyway... back to the conversation. Liked hoo's 'where did you get God from' bit. Very funny! you've got a point. But I'd say there was probably more support and evidence for God than there is for the toilet unicorn! At any rate, more people believe in Him.
sorry i wasn't on yesterday. i missed Clare's lovely caveat joke! I didn't know it either! I've stopped laughing! Clare's looking over my shoulder to make sure i don't write anything cruel! Yesterday I was out being a Tudor. Best excuse yet.

hi from Clare

hi Jem,

I don't think that just because more people believe in God than in the toilet unicorn makes that concept any more right or true. Also, it doesn't imply any sort of 'evidence', though yes, much more support.

I don't believe in any one particular 'god', though I do know that this thing usually called god exists, without needing proof, evidence or even faith. Hoovooloo says I don't make any sense when I talk like this, and I quite agree. But I also don't try to make anyone else believe what I know is true for me, since it isn't actually a case of 'believing' for me, just knowing. I also don't tell people their beliefs are wrong, well, unless they affect me (or the world in general) in a negative way.

Have you ever read any other religious myths, other than the Bible?

az

"Hoovooloo, i'll try not to write 'u' or 'pleez'."

Thanks!

"Liked hoo's 'where did you get God from' bit. Very funny! you've got a point."

OK...

"But I'd say there was probably more support and evidence for God than there is for the toilet unicorn!"

What evidence? Serious question - what evidence are you talking about?

"At any rate, more people believe in Him."

If more people believed the world was a flat disc on the back of a turtle, would that make it true? I'm not joking here, think about it. You KNOW people in general are gullible and stupid - just look at the number of lottery tickets sold every week. So why do you place value on what a large number "believe"?

Lots of kids believe in Santa. Does that make him real?

"sorry i wasn't on yesterday."

We missed you...

"Clare's looking over my shoulder to make sure i don't write anything cruel!"

As if....

"Yesterday I was out being a Tudor."

Strangely enough, I was out being a three door. Next weekend I'll be out being a five door hatchback with a roofrack...

H.