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

<>

Jolly good. That means we can ditch most pre-Medieval History *and* all of the science that has yet to be fully proven.

"Religion is a major part of the world"

Only to religious people, not my world.

"Just a month ago, Londoners were killed because of people following their version of a popular religion"

They were killed by fundamentalist nutcases - the religion part is secondary. Personally, I would exterminate any declared fundamentalist be they christian, muslim, buddhist, whatever. The world would be a far happier place.

"....the world is riddled with inter-religious tensions"

Yes, it is. All the more reason to get shot of all religions.

"So saying that we shouldn't teach our children about religion is like refusing to teach them about politics, or (as I said earlier) manners and cultural differences; in the end, it leaves them blind"

I do not recall ever being taught about Politics, or cultural differences when I was at school. Manners is also not a subject for school, but is taught by parents at home. Leaves them blind? To what for (sorry about this) Gods sake? I have found that the two single largest arguments I have ever had in my life have revolved around Religion and Politics. They are subjects that you simply cannot change peoples minds about. I now just let people get on with it. I have removed myself from politics and have not voted since '79. Same goes for religion - you worship your "God" in peace and do not bother me, and I will not bother you. I say again, these issues are simply fluff in the grand scheme of things and nothing more. They are there to be indulged in at your leisure and not inflicted - which is what you are doing when you insist they are taught in schools. Why on earth do religious people feel they have the right to push their views into anyones life? That outrages me - how dare they.


"A majority of British citizens alledge to believe in some sort of religion; while truth is not a function of support, surely that entitles their religious beliefs to inclusion within the normal thought patterns of human beings?"

No it doesnt. If people of whatever race wish to follow a religion, then that in no way means that I or any other person HAS to then have their beliefs inflicted on me. Just because a section of society believe in a god (or whatever) why on earth should I HAVE to learn about it?

Actually, Newton's physics were quite sound. It's just that he was mad as a sackful of buttered badgers and had a wierd obession with the number seven.

There's a huge difference between religion and history I don't really want to get into an argument about it, but I will say - evidence - ie, there is none for religion, and mountains for pre-Medieval history, and what we don't know for sure about medieval history, yes we assume things, that's called having a theory, and when new facts surface thanks to new technologies or discoveries, the ideas we have about the past are changed. That doesn't change the fact that there was history before the time of videocameras. However, I'd like to see one single bit of evidence supporting a world-wide flood or the idea that the earth was made in 6 days. And as a history major, I'm vaguely insulted that you would equate history with religion - one happened, one was invented. And I'd also like to point out the difference between beliefs (which is what I said shouldn't be taught) and theories (which you seem to be saying shouldn't be taught.)

So the Doctor, BY HI OWN ADDMISSION doesnt know much about religion yet he is perfectly happy to announce that religion played a secondary part in the acts of July the seventh.

Right its that kind of debate is it. Oh dear.

Absolutely. Anyone daring to use the word 'Proof' in the context of this argument should be made to sit in a corner and read some Karl Popper before being allowed to comment further.

This is sympomatic of the fact that schools waste valuable time teaching religious twaddle when they should be teaching basic philosophy.

<>

I've said this before and I'll say it again... from the perspective of your average joe from 3,000 years ago how big do you reckon the world was?

A) It was as big as we know it to be now.
B) It was as big as the distance between the sea side and the nearest mountains.

I know enough to recognise a raving loony when I see one - it does not mean that I have to "Study" religion to know that it obviously sent the bombers barking mad enough to go out and needlessly kill.........

As for letting my kids study Rastafarian culture - just how many thousands of religious sub cultures are there Blicky? We should study them all? If not, which ones? If only some, then are the others also not worthy of our attention? Get real. You cannot ever hope to cover a fraction of the sub cultures on the planet, and it would be stupid to even try.

But there's still no archeological evidence of flooding in what is now Palestine.

Well that clears things up... Oh, wait, no it doesn't because there *is* evidence of massive flooding elsewhere in that neck of the woods... although I can't remember where off the top of my head.

Sorry, I've been arguing with evangelicals, tends to send me loopy - I meant a literally world-wide flood, as they insist happened. Not sure about a "world wide" *local* flood, there may be evidence, I don't know, but the fact remains, there is no evidence that would lead me to believe that there is a god controlling the earth. It makes more sense that humans invented the idea. I keep thinking of DNA's puddle analogy ie This world is perfect for me, it must have been made for me, rather than I am perfect for this world, I must have been evolved in a way to take the best advantage of it as possible.

<>

That's where the problem is, when the stories were originally told and written down (cf. Gilgamesh) the world was a much smaller place... unfortunately the stories don't change to compensate for new information (such as the fact that Mt Sinai is a desolate rock while there is plenty of evidence to support pillared altars and other such things on a totally different mountain to the north-north-east).

Nice 'rant' Jordan (post 4024)

Especially for explaining so clearly how ID is *not* a scientific theory and therefore has no place being taught in science classes.

Re: your abortion link

About the only positive thing I saw in that article was the Washington Post referring to 'antiabortion activists' rather than the usual misnomer 'pro-life'.

The rest was pretty scary.


az

Even if there was a flood, it doesn't matter. OK, I lived 3000 years ago, and this huge flood wipes out my village/town and everyone's blaming God. I;m a priest and I want everyone to keep believing in God, so I say, "Hey, this only happened cos you lot didn't pray enough, so just pray harder and give the church some more money and God'll never do it again" and I write it down and 3000 years later, a scientist finds evidence that a flood occurred. Religious folks sasy, "see, this proves there is a god".

Hmm, not sure if that made sense...religion is only founded on words written by people. If you blindly believe the words, without thinking about the context that they are written in, then I don't think that there is any substance to your belief. If you have experienceced something in your life, and upon reading the words written 1000s of years ago (and translated and copied and edited for 1000s of years) you find that your life makes more sense if you believe in god, then good for you, go for it. But that is NO reason to teach it to impressionable children.

<>

That just sounds like the old "Religion was made up specifically as a means of social control" arguement.

And also valid

The argument that we have to study religion in schools in order to understand suicide bombers seems a strange one. To quote Salman Rushdie (last week, R4) '...the answer isn't *more* religion!'

Well, no it isn't. Religions don't start because some guy decides to write a story (well, they didn't used to... some of the newer ones are highly dodgy in that respect), but because a group of people see something and say "bugger me! There must be some higher power behind that!" then more people latch onto the idea and then a few more and *then* after hundreds or maybe thousands of years of oral tradition (during which time things get added, forgotten and corrupted) someone says "hey, we need a proper record of this!".

'course, Christianity *did* start as a scriptural religion - the scriptures largely being written by a particular branch of the various Nazarene sects, long after the time of their mythical founder. There was a lot of editing done when the 'official' scripture was compiled, at a time when Christianity was chosen, for political reasons, as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

In fact - with the possible exception of Judaism - I can't think of a religion off hand whose scriptures arose organically, as opposed to having been written with a particular editorial policy in mind.