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

I had unsubscribed, but I've just noticed this again. To reply to blub-blub's initial misunderstanding:

"Many people believe they have experienced miracles such as this, there's a little thing called the bible (the world's best-selling book) that's full of such accounts. Why then can you not accept these as proof."

Hmm... let me think.

What was I trying to do? List ways in which an omnipotent god could provide INCONTROVERTIBLE, unarguable, instantaneous proof of its existence.

I listed a number things that would be next to no effort at all for such a creature, but would provide instant proof that he exists.

You, on the other hand, are suggesting that something written in a book by an adherent of a middle-eastern death cult two thousand years ago is something other than a fairy story. Indeed, you're asking why I can't accept them as proof.

I can only say that if you even have to ask that question, you're probably not intellectually equipped to *read* the answer, much less understand it.

Like Dawkins, I made the mistake of massively over estimating the intelligence of the people I was writing for. I assumed that it was obvious that what I meant by the "bring back my uncle" challenge was that the proof should be instant, and personal to me, not some second hand story related by someone else who I can't trust. I further assumed that it was obvious that this challenge should be repeated globally - there's no reason why everyone on the planet could not be visited by a dead relative with a message from god, if such a creature existed.

I repeat again, for the hard of thinking - it would be simplicity itself for any omnipotent god to prove its existence, should it choose to. I hear a lot from Christians and others about how powerful their god is, and all the miraculous things he's done, but he can't spare ten seconds out of eternity to prove to me that he exists, so f**k him.

SoRB

SoRB,
Blasphemer!!!!!!!

"An Italian judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html




az

SoRB,
In all your demands you seem to require first-hand proof, you want a personal experience of a religous miricle to believe in it, this has to be clearly visible, and not a 'second-hand' account.

To return to my previous example of beta-emission, have you ever personally experienced or seen a neutron decay? I assume you believe in gravity, but can you see the exchange particles flying about? Most scientific 'knowledge' is also based on such second-hand evidence.

I'm not necesserily prooving a god's existence, or disprooving science, I'm merely trying to show proof for either is of the same nature.

Many of these conversations about religion Vs. science focus on the critisms and counter-critisms of relgious belief, surely its about time we just as carefully examined the nature of science, and critisised scientific method.

Blub-blub

Scientific knowledge is based on peer reviewed papers based on REPEATABLE experimentation giving sufficient credence to the phenomena described e.g. beta emission.

Miracles are non-repeatable experiences based on unverifiable testimonies.

Hence, the only way you can get any proof of miracles is to experience one yourself. One that cannot be explained by natural phenonema.

And as for people being raised from the dead by God:

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bonnke2.html

"In all your demands you seem to require first-hand proof,"

Yes. And that is a problem because...?

"you want a personal experience of a religous miricle to believe in it,"

Yes. And that is a problem because...?

"this has to be clearly visible,"

Yes. And that is a problem because...?

"and not a 'second-hand' account."

Yes. And that is a problem because...?

You seem to be implying that your god is in some way unable or for some unfathomable reason unwilling to expend the infinitesimal effort required to do these things.

I repeat - I do not require anything difficult or complicated, merely something incontrovertible. And that is a problem because...?

"To return to my previous example of beta-emission, have you ever personally experienced or seen a neutron decay?"

Directly? No, obviously not. You might just as well ask if I have seen my heart beating or seen my stomach digesting food. Merely because I have not perceived it *directly* does not mean I do not have reliable, repeatable, *incontrovertible* evidence that these things are going on.

I have NO evidence worth the name that your god is anything other than a delusion you suffer from that I do not. You can't point to it, you can't heat a room with its power, you can't do ANYTHING to prove to me it exists. If it is what you say it is, it should be able to. That it cannot, or will not, says all I need to know.

"I assume you believe in gravity, but can you see the exchange particles flying about?"

I do not "believe in" gravity, any more than I "believe in" my computer's existence. Gravity is an inescapable fact, and only the most deluded idiot or tedious adolescent pseudo-philosopher would waste time trying to argue otherwise.

"Most scientific 'knowledge' is also based on such second-hand evidence."

Garbage. I could expand on that, but it would be a waste of time. What you say is simply nonsense.

"I'm not necesserily prooving a god's existence, or disprooving science, I'm merely trying to show proof for either is of the same nature."

Then you have failed. Try not to take it too hard.

"Many of these conversations about religion Vs. science focus on the critisms and counter-critisms of relgious belief, surely its about time we just as carefully examined the nature of science, and critisised scientific method."

Religion, belief and faith were all we had for thousands and thousands of years. And what did it offer us? Prayer as a cure for cholera.

The scientific method and its offspring, technology, has, in the space of a scant couple of centuries, made a bigger difference to health, wealth, lifespan and education of the vast majority of people in the world than religion managed in twenty times as long.

Religious belief is what gets criticised because anyone who isn't deluded recognises that science has RESULTS on its side. It demonstrably WORKS. And every day, in every way, religion *doesn't*.

I surely can't have been the only stone-hearted atheist chuckling at those poor benighted saps in Virginia, ringing bells and getting all "thank ye Jayssuss" when they thought their husbands and sons were coming out of that mine alive, then not even stopping for even a second to tell their god where he could stick it when they found out that in fact all their men were dead. Where's Jayssuss now, redneck? Why would them being alive have been a miracle, but them being dead is just a chance to start a lawsuit, and nothing to do with god at all? Gotta love 'em.

SoRB

<>
Nonsense, and you know it. In Mediaeval times, the only hospitals were attached to monasteries and they practised medicine as it was known at the time - and it was effective!

<>

Yeah, results like Agent Orange, ECT and lobotomies for mental health patients, the Tuskegee syphilis 'study', and I could go on. The fruits of scientism are not all good, by any means.

<>

What a hatelfilled response to a tragedy! Do you always rejoice at the death of those you called 'red-necks'? You show your true colours and your true orientation there, Mr Matey Foam-Bath. You are a complete creep - those people were lied to about the survival of their families and all you can do is about it. But then you laughed yourself sick about my brother's death, didn't you?

I can't begin to express my anger at the hatred you spew out of your busy mouth!

<> (SoRB)

Or why, if they had been found alive, would people have praised God for their escape rather than blame Him for the disaster in the first place?

And now that they have all been found dead - why aren't they blaming their god for this? Either it's all God or none of it's God, but people seem to pick and choose what to attribute to their god based on personal preferences and prejudices.


az

"In Mediaeval times, the only hospitals were attached to monasteries and they practised medicine as it was known at the time - and it was effective!"

Please let me know what the "effective" religious cure for cholera is.

Please let me know what the "effective" religious cure for smallpox is.

Please let me know what the "effective" religious cure for bubonic plague is, and while you're at why, if there is one, the plague wiped out half the population of Europe.

I can only assume you are either being deliberately dishonest or astoundingly, unbelievably ignorant. With you, it's always so hard to tell...

"<>
Yeah, results like Agent Orange, ECT and lobotomies for mental health patients, the Tuskegee syphilis 'study', and I could go on. The fruits of scientism are not all good, by any means."

Are you suggesting that Agent Orange does not work as a defoliant? Are you suggesting that ECTs and lobotomies have no effect? Are you suggesting that it is not possible to deliberately infect someone with syphilis?

Only a cretin would try to imply that the fruits of science are exclusively "good" - whatever that loaded term means.

But equally, only a cretin would try to imply that because science WORKS but doesn't produce exclusively good things, it is of no more value to mankind than talking to the fairies.

"What a hatelfilled response to a tragedy! Do you always rejoice at the death of those you called 'red-necks'?"

Again, you miss the point. I did not rejoice in the deaths at all. 12 men are dead, which is a tragedy.

But they were dead all along. Someone made a mistake and said they were alive. But we're not talking about Schrodinger's miners here - they were dead all along, regardless what anyone said. But compare and contrast the responses those people made to the news:

1. News they're alive - ringing bells in the middle of the night, shouting out and thanking god and Jesus etc., singing hymns, claiming "it's a miracle".
2. News that no, actually they've been dead all along AS WE ALWAYS SAID THEY PROBABLY WERE - no mention of god at all, just a promise to take legal action.

That doesn't strike you as funny? I find that strange, given your recorded hatred of Americans and all their ways.

"You show your true colours and your true orientation there, Mr Matey Foam-Bath."

Fantastic! I love it! Where on earth did you get that one from?

"You are a complete creep"

Coming from someone like you, high praise.

"those people were lied to about the survival of their families"

Those people were relayed incorrect information overheard from someone who didn't know the facts. Nobody deliberately lied to them. The worst that happened was that the people who DID know the facts didn't know how to tell them the truth when they realised they were celebrating, and I for one don't blame them. Apart from anything else, people like that could very well be armed - would YOU go and tell them they were celebrating for nothing?

"But then you laughed yourself sick about my brother's death, didn't you?"

If that's what you want to believe, who am I to argue?

You are a nasty, bitter woman, Della, and you have my pity. Your sons even more so. I wish someone could get through to you. I doubt anyone can at your time of life. It's a shame.

"I can't begin to express my anger at the hatred you spew out of your busy mouth!"

I forgive your inarticulacy. Must go, I've got a busy mouth to feed...

SoRB

<<"In Mediaeval times, the only hospitals were attached to monasteries and they practised medicine as it was known at the time - and it was effective!"

Please let me know what the "effective" religious cure for cholera is.

Please let me know what the "effective" religious cure for smallpox is.>.

Once again, you are letting your infinite childishness take over. You know of course, that I meant herbal medicine, not 'religious' medicine, whatever you think that is.

<< Are you suggesting that Agent Orange does not work as a defoliant? Are you suggesting that ECTs and lobotomies have no effect? Are you suggesting that it is not possible to deliberately infect someone with syphilis?>>

So, are you *proud* of these results?



<>
Really? That's not what it looked like!

<>

Funny, no. Why should you expect people to react the way *you* believe they should? Thank God for the infinite diversity of humanity, and that whereas your reaction would be to allow God to exist for a while so you could curse God, their reaction isn't. Their bosses deserve suing at the very least - but you as a right-winger probably don't agree with workers' rights. Funny? No, not in the slightest, and that you think it is, says far more about your psychoses than about them.

<< Nobody deliberately lied to them.>>
Really? We'll wait and see, assuming the truth will come out, but with the power of business in America, I predict it'll be shrouded in legal bulldust for some time to come.
<< Apart from anything else, people like that could very well be armed - would YOU go and tell them they were celebrating for nothing?>>

Armed? Why? Is this one of your stereotypes about working class people, or about what you'd no doubt call 'fundamentalists'?

<>

Given your age, that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

<>

Kind of makes SoRB's point. The religious setting is irrelevant,because any cures achieved would not have been brought about by religious methods.

Noggin

Ah, Noggin, you used to be such a sharp thinker... back in the old God thread days of 2002....


The point was to answer Hoo's absurd accusation about there being no medical provision in mediaeval times, and then to answer his deliberate twisting of my answer. Which I assume you know, but still Hoo/Member/Number has warned me against assuming I know what people know - so maybe you don't.

<.

[...]You know of course, that I meant herbal medicine, not 'religious' medicine, whatever you think that is."

Whatever.

Please let me know what the "effective" herbal cure for cholera is.

Please let me know what the "effective" herbal cure for smallpox is.

Etc.

"<< Are you suggesting that Agent Orange does not work as a defoliant? [...]>> So, are you *proud* of these results?"

Della, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THEY DON'T WORK?

Whether I'm proud of them or not is irrelevant. My point, which you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding for comedy effect, is that science WORKS. So... regardless of whether I'm proud of the results, the question stands:

Are you suggesting science does not work?

"your reaction would be to allow God to exist for a while so you could curse God, their reaction isn't."

Della, do not presume to guess the motives or reactions of people much more intelligent than you.

In particular, do not presume that because YOU and other religious people are hypocritical and inconsistent that that disability affects others.

"allow God to exist" indeed!

"Their bosses deserve suing at the very least"

Quite possibly. But based on the information I've seen they deserved that even if they'd survived - even before the accident.

"- but you as a right-winger probably don't agree with workers' rights."

Wonderful! Don't stop, Della, you're cracking me up! I'm a qualified safety professional and a member of a trade union. I don't expect this information will cause you to apologise for your egregious error - heck, I don't suppose you'll even bother to look up "egregious" - but thanks for the laugh.

"<< Apart from anything else, people like that could very well be armed[...]>> Armed? Why? Is this one of your stereotypes about working class people, or about what you'd no doubt call 'fundamentalists'?"

Della. You hate Americans. You've demonstrated this, over and over again. For quite a while, one of your given reasons for hating ME was that I'm an American. That I've never in my life ventured further west than Tenerife didn't seem to phase you at all.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that it never occurred to you that I meant these people were likely to be armed because they live in the most notoriously, militantly well-armed nation on earth? No, I don't suppose it did...

"Given your age [...]"

How old am I, Della? Older than you?

SoRB

<<"- but you as a right-winger probably don't agree with workers' rights."

rofl Wonderful! Don't stop, Della, you're cracking me up! biggrin I'm a qualified safety professional and a member of a trade union. I don't expect this information will cause you to apologise for your egregious error ->>
As I recall, I've used the word egregious about *your* errors many times, so you're just proving how childish you can be, here. .

<>

No, that I hate Americans has always been one of your pet fantasies, not the truth. You use Americanisms all the time, I am a linguist, I notice such things. I don't even hate you, although you probably wish I did, it would make you feel more important. I pity your problems and your issues, but I don't hate you, much less do I hate Americans. Some of them act vilely, but so do some Australians, Indonesians, Burundians... humans!


<>
When you were being Member, you were griping that as an over 55 year old, you got no respect. So, yeah, you're older than me... that was three or more years back, after all.

Oh, I forgot to add... that you're a trade unionist, cracks me up! Like Ferrettybadger, I suppose? There's a guy on the American board I frequent who's a gun-toting, Zionist, anti-welfare, pro-war freak. Yet he claims to be a card-carrying leftie-liberal because he is pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and smokes dope.

Same thing!

I said: "I don't expect this information will cause you to apologise for your egregious error"

Della's response (paraphrased): "I've called you egregious before".

So, not only no apology (score one for me), but not even an acknowledgement that she's wrong. Two for two. It's like putting a coin in a slot.

"I am a linguist, I notice such things."



Priceless.

"as an over 55 year old, [...] yeah, you're older than me... "

Della, Della, Della. You silly old woman.

How many h2g2 meets have you been to? How many other users of h2g2 (that you're NOT related to) have you met IRL?

I've met DOZENS. Including some of the staff. Want a list? agcBen, BlueShark, Mina, Peta, Mark Moxon, Jimster, Mycroft, Gnomon, Azara, J'auemen (or however the hell you spell it), KerrAvon, GTBacchus, Natalie, the list goes on and on and on.

Try suggesting to any of them that I'm in my late fifties, and see what reaction you get. Try, if you like, looking in az's photo directory. You're in there, and I am too. I know I don't take much of a photo, but do I really look like I'm my late fifties to you? If so, I can only suggest that you stop staring at that monitor and get your eyes tested.

SoRB

<>

The original exchange

<> (SoRB)
<> Della

I think that you misinterpreted the *point* of what SoRB was saying, which was that religion, belief and faith don't cure anything (leaving aside the placebo effect). That there were other forms of medical intervention possible is true, but not really relevant; nor is the fact that hospitals were normally attached to religious institutions - they could have practised herbal medicine with equal effectiveness (however much effectiveness that may actually have been) in secular settings.

Noggin

http://public.fotki.com/azahar/h2g2_friends/icecoldalex_and.html

Lovely photo of SoRB (aka Hoo) and Alex, taken a few months ago. Gee, hope I look that good when I'm 55!


az

I'll be the first to admit that my eyes aren't very good, and also that I don't eagerly check az's album all the time - but you,Alfster, Noggin and Dealer all look pretty much of a muchness to me.

Of course I am not going to ask all those people who'll swear they met and you're young, so there, , big crybaby, I am young! (Stamps foot, pulls on grey beard, shrieks...)

You're being silly, arguing over the word egregious. I was merely pointing out that I'd said it of you back in 2004, so your asinine remark about explaining it to me is just you're rampant ego again. (You paraphrased in the hope that no one would look at what I actually said, a true Hoo trick... )

Okay, bored already. Play your little games, with your panting followers backing you up, I am going to bed.

http://public.fotki.com/six7s/h2g2_cabal/hoo_on_his_high_horse.html

What a smile! Quite athletic looking, for an old man...