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

"Can you prove to me that your faith makes you a better person than me? "

Better? No. Politer, yes.

How, then, do you explain the creation of the universe? Science can't, and has, in fact, begun convincing itself that it never will. The Planck barrier is pretty damn tall. And "It just Happened." is a sorry-ass kind of explanation. You find an effect, you look for a cause. And that looks like it'll either be God, or some as yet unexplained force that defies most other laws of physics (Including the second law of thermodynamics, which is a BIG one.)

As to the handiwork of God: Geez, I don't know. 10,000 years of accumulated miracles, ghosts, goblins, magic, and phenomanomana? I saw a ghost once. Not a miracle, of course, but pretty damn supernatural anyhow.

Some things can't be proved, but they're still real. Once you admit that, you really can't argue with those who believe in God. Well, actually, you probably could, but making fun of them at that point is sort of tempting fate.

You were the first one to start insulting. And I didn't even pay you back for that. So you are more polite than me?

And why is it that all xtians need to all the time? Getting lost in your own logic?

I don't see a reason to explain the creation of the universe or anything as tall as the Planck Barrier. It's there and it made my existence possible. And since it's so huge, it will probably take another few million years before anyone can explain EVERYTHING. After all, our exact sciences have only been around for a few hundred years, whereas the universe has been doing its thing for a few billion years or so... So what do you expect?

Ghosts, goblins and magic, huh? That sounds more like you've been reading too many comics. Is that perhaps your 'reality'?

And for the love of someone whose name escapes me at the moment (must be rather unimportant), I don't really see where I made fun of anyone. I haven't been spitting on your beliefs like you have been spitting on my non-belief.

Tempting fate? If anyone is tempting fate, then it must be someone who doesn't stop insulting people, and then falsely accuses his victims of the same. Someone like YOU! So YOU are more polite than me? The Hell you are!

I guess Austin Allegro and you will also be categorised as people who make fun of xtians. But don't let that bother you, ok? The so-called xtians who like to insult others, also like to believe that they are the highest of their group, but in fact they are the least xtian of all. In fact, they are mostly harmless

Taco: could you actually describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how it applies to religion, or are you just parroting something someone once told you? You see, I enjoy a good religious debate (by "good" I mean one with a well-educated sparring partner who can avoid name-calling and melodramatic sighing) and I've received references to the 2nd frequently... but never had anyone elucidate.

"Geez, I don't know. 10,000 years of accumulated miracles, ghosts, goblins, magic, and phenomena?" - Despite thousands of claims, all backed up with photographs and other evidence, despite the teams of scientists actively engaged in researching claims, no credible evidence of the existence of ghosts exists. Nothing in the known animal world today resembles a goblin, nor have any been uncovered in the fossil record. Magic has been man's explanation throughout history for the things they don't understand, and David Copperfield has been able to show that it is all chicanerey (you don't REALLY think he made the space shuttle vanish, do you?). Everyone in the world has a healthy disbelief in all these things, with the exception of those who get their facts from the Weekly World News. And it's a good thing, too, or else we'd end up returning to the days of witch trials and bloodletting to cure disease.

I wouldn't say that I like making fun of Xtians, as a general rule. Normally I am happy to have an argument over religion with someone without resorting to being sarcastic and rude. However, i just felt in this instance that Saint Taco-Chako does not understand the situation at all, but thinks that he is obviously right. He was not prepared to accept the actual views of athiests, instead making up some cock-and-bull theory of his own, and then claim that it was the truth.

Normally, people who are this arrogant refuse to listen to reason, and so you have to choose slightly harsher words than you would usually, to try to get your point across.

Incidentally, your theory that goblins are handyworks of god. Well, you know those mushrooms that goblins and elves and gnomes and the like are often associated with. Y'know, those big red mushrooms with white spots on them (the one that the caterpillar was sitting on in Alice in Wonderland). Well, those mushrooms actually exists, and are extremely hallucinogenic. Now, obviously this *could* be a conicidence, but....

-I- make fun of xtians?!

True. But if I'm having a debate, I'll try not to let it cloud things. But if some xtian insists of making a prat of him/herself in front of me, then he/she gets a ribbing. And that applies to everyone else

You've just hit on the reason why I find atheism so difficult- there is so much to "know!" With the basic Christian axioms (which I was going to explain before I accidentally cleared... ouch) nothing is more than about 10 logical steps from explanation, many much simpler than that. If I get around to it, I'll retype those and hopefully we can straighten out a few disagreements.

Few discrepancies which you need to clear up:

1) Believe in the Trinity, no- at least, not the human explanation of it. Resurrection? Some who saw it believed it, but a lot didn't right. (Remember, this was a church with really scattered leadership and no Bible. ) Divinity of Jesus? Dissenters were the Gnostics, and they didn't become a significant group until a little before John wrote 1 John.

2) RTHB. The men of Judah couldn't do it. The men of Judahrepeatedly fail throughout the book of Judges, mostly because they weren't with God the same way he was with them. On a related note, don't you think it's a little weird that the Jews (or at least when they were writing the Bible) ascribe all their victories to God and all their defeats to themselves? No one else did that. Usually, when you lost a battle, it was because Marduk or Ares was angry with you.

3) I'm not sure, mostly because I'm not reading this in full context, but from what I can tell, the idea was to remind the Jews that they already had a deal with God- not because God was unsure about whether or not they were circumcised.

4) Ah, now this one I know about. The Phillistines were trying to appease God the way they appeased their own gods. It was their idea, not God's. Read the passage again.

5) The Philistine foreskins were war bounty, kind of like scalping or cutting off someone's nose. As for paying for Michal with them, there was nothing wrong with that. If Saul had asked for a BMW Z8 instead, David would have given him that because he loved Michal. And the many wives? Bathsheba was David's first infidelity, and if I'm getting it right, his only one, and that certainly was not sanctioned by God. You're probably thinking of Solomon (whose infidelities were based on a lack of trust in God, not some kind of special permission.)

Warmed up? Give me a verse and I'll explain it to you like I did with these. Just don't ask me to explain a verse like 1 Chron 1:28.

You haven't even explained the ones you're referring to, so why should I give you more? "The idea was to remind the Jews that they already had a deal with God." - You remind them by circumcising them twice? What do they cut off when the foreskin is already gone? Your stement doesn't even begin to explain it.

Dissenters were the Gnostics, and they didn't become a significant group until a little before John wrote 1 John." - The Gnostics were the original Christians... the Pauline Christians came later. Your history is completely backwards.

"don't you think it's a little weird that the Jews (or at least when they were writing the Bible) ascribe all their victories to God and all their defeats to themselves?" - Not at all. First of all, god is supposed to be riding with them when he gets whipped by iron chariots. Secondly, it fits perfectly with other religions. When the rains didn't come and the crops failed, people assumed they made the local earth goddess angry, and offered contrition. The Jews were no different to their war god.

I cannot believe you would compare human genitalia to a BMW... what the hell is wrong with you?

David was married to one Michal, one Abigail, and one Ahinoam, on top of bonking Bathsheba

More on David's wives...

2 Samuel 3:2-5 gives the names of his newborn sons in Hebron, and the women who bore them. The women are Ahinoam and Abigail, whom we already know, and Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah.

2 Samuel 5:13: "David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem after he had come from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to him in Jerusalem."

Bathsheba marries David in 2 Samuel 11:27

"You haven't even explained the ones you're referring to, so why should I give you more? "The idea was to remind the Jews that they already had a deal with God." - You remind them by circumcising them twice? What do they cut off when the foreskin is already gone? Your stement doesn't even begin to explain it. "

Yes, it does seem nonsensical. Perhaps we're missing something significantabout circumcision rituals. No matter howw you slice it, it's got to make some sense- the historians who wrote this probably had a good idea what happened. After all, they managed to carry out the act twice.

My history is backwards... wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. At least one primary historical source would seem to dispute that.

Perhaps I was a little confused. The point I was trying to make is that the Jews don't accept glory when a contemporary culture would embrace it, and didn't blame their God when he would normally be blamed.

Okay, so that was a bit whacked. But the point stands entirely. The war bounty of two hundred dead male fighting-age Philistines was quite a nice gift. But yeah...

Thanks, I wasn't sure about the wife stuff. What nationality were they?

"With the basic Christian axioms nothing is more than about 10 logical steps from explanation."

Let's cut it short right at the roots: where is there any logic in the christian axioms? I've had discussions with Jehova's Witnesses. These guys carry "The Book" as if they are naked without it. And I must give them credit: whatever question you "axe" them, regardless the subject, they NEVER fail to open the book somewhere and quote a passage from it which in their opinion is the logical answer. Even if that answer bears absolutely no significance in relation to the question.

Sample question: Why do we find Saurian remains, but no human reamins of the same age?

Answer: God created the heaven and earth, light and darkness, etc... until he came to creating animals and ultimately man and woman. He did so in seven days, bla bla bla...

That reply is much, much more than 10 logical steps from an explanation, and possibly a few illogical steps as well.

If we take the book on face value, then this world can not be much older than 10.000 years. But we find remains of creatures that lived long before that. And if the dino's *were* also part of creation, then they must have become extinct within 6 days, because when man first arrived, they were already gone. After all, we find no human remains of the same age as the dino's, and we find no reference of huge man-eating lizards in the bible either.

In my opinion atheism is much simpler, because it isn't built on inconsistencies. But who am I to judge?

"No matter howw you slice it, it's got to make some sense-" - No, it doesn't have to make sense. It has to make sense if the Christian interpretation of God and the Bible were true... but since they aren't, the Bible is free to have as much nonsense as it wants... and it has a lot of it. The double circumcision is just one of many examples.

"At least one primary historical source would seem to dispute that." - I have a few historical sources here to back up my claim, but I look forward to reading a quote from your source that contradicts this.

There aren't any real details about the wives, but we are led to believe they are at least mostly Jewish. It's not important, anyway... what is important is that he was every bit as much the lecher his son Solomon was.

1) Religion deals with "How". It really does.

EG - "How does lightning form" - Zeus creates it to smite the evil.
- "Where did the rainbow come from" - Yahweh created it to show his covenant.

Oh, and I am a Scientist. Btw, Scientist also deals with "why" issues.
"Why do apples fall to earth when you release them?"
"Why do virtual particles come into existance?"

2) You can tell us about your personal experiences, but don't expect anyone to care. If God's so great, then why are NONE of his modern miracles non-personal?

3) 40% of American Scientists call themselves christian. 90% of Americans call themselves christian. There is at least a correlation.

4) Christian is normally defined as "those who believe in Christ". Do you think that not one of the crusaders believed in Christ? Why else would they travel out to the Holy Land, and die in great droves (many long before they got there). Do you believe that not one of the KKK believe in Christ?

The bible can be used to prove many things, from the evil of homosexuality, to the goodness of Slavery, and the necessity to kill your children if they curse you.

5) There are plenty of flaws in the Bible. Here's one - the flood. If God created the world, and saw that it was 'good', why does he need to destroy the whole thing again only a few pages later. So much for Omnipotence. Of course, if you are not a literalist, then i have no argument with you, but if you accept that the bible is flawed, then you might want to query why you believe ANY of it...

Oh Mummy, you just don't understand biblical logic, do you?

First, you accept a load of bizarre stories such as the Creation, the Trinity, Noah's Ark, then you're free to start using them to explain and justify each other.

For example, all the fossils which aren't actually the work of the devil, or of God taking the piss, are obviously a relic of the Great Flood.
The fact that these fossils have been concentrated together into kilometer-thick bands (by the flood), rapidly compacted to rock (by the flood), carved into mountain ranges (by the flood), subsequently eroded into complex multilayered systems of caverns (by the flood), which are then filled with silt and animal bones (by the same flood) just goes to show how mighty and powerful the flood must have been.

Obviously, the best kind of logic for us poor mortals to use is *circular* logic - that way, we don't run the risk of actually finding out anything new, and can draw great comfort from the fact that our conclusions will always coincide with our convictions.

Biblical logic? Is that another synonym for 'creative truths'? Sure, I *understand* biblical logic, but I just won't accept it to prove anything.

Even if the fossils were the result of the flood, then the animals from which these fossils came, must have existed before the flood.
However, if Creation makes the world no older than 10.000 years, then the flood must also have taken place somewhere *during* the last 10.000 years. A lot of the fossils are much, VERY MUCH, older than that, so they can never have been the result of a so recent disaster. They could only have existed *before* Creation, and that is most illogical because, as 'The Book' tells us, "before Creation there was *nothing*".

As I said before: if we accept the tale of Creation, we cannot believe the world to be much older than 10.000 years. But these fossils are often so much older.

Ofcourse, one can try to introduce even a Devil to be responsible for part of it, but that would mean that there are at least TWO of such powerful beings. And if there are two, then why wouldn't there be three, or a thousand, or several billions of them? And if there are, then why would we be restricted to believing in only one, as this particular one demands of his 'children'?

Circular logic: can you give me an example of how it would prove *anything*?

Oh, Circular Logic can be used to prove ANYTHING... it really can...

For example, take the statement "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything".
now, clearly this statement is anything.
therefore, because "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything", the statement can be proved.
therefore "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything".

There's an alternative version which runs like this.

Let's look at the statement "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything".
Now, clearly this is either true or false.
If it is false, then the whole point is moot, so we might as well ignore that.
If it's true, then "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything".
Therefore "Circular Logic can be used to prove anything".

Hey, calm down, you're preaching to the converted.
I guess I should have added a few s

I think Bill Hicks came up with the best 'Fundamentalist' explanation of Dinosaur bones and the likes. We have a prankster god!! He placed the bones there himself as a joke, and then ran away saying "We shall see who believes in me now...!"

Apparently, though, this isn't a million miles away from what Fundamentalists believe anyway. They truly believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by God to test our faith. I mean, how small-minded is it possible for people to be?!?!? I'm sure they have come up with similar explanations for all the other religions, and (god forbid) athiests Surely, if god really does exists, he'd have enough power to *force* everyone to believe in him, whether they wanted to or not. Does that mean that us atheists are more powerful than god, then?

That's exactly how their circular logic works. Anything good on this earth is a gift from god, thus proving god exists. Anything bad on this earth is a test of our faith, thus proving god exists. It's when you corner xtians in a debate of true logic that they begin to get uncomfortable, which is why I try to bring them down from generalities to specific points.