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

I personally pointed out the problem this forum faces during testing, and Jim Lynn assured me that, when the new stuff went live, there would be a link to let you skip to the bottom. Guess not. And that means that, unless/until that improvement arrives, I will be forced to abdicate what was my favorite forum.

That improvement should eventually be installed. But as I keep saying, use a link as above for the mean time, Colonel Sellers .

About the "supernova" theory: I'm sorry, but the evidence you're offering simply doesn't make any sense. We detect a supernova when the light from its death reaches us (at the good ol' speed of 186,000 miles per second). Although supernovae throw off massive amounts of material when they explode, this stuff travels more slowly than light does. Much of it is accelerated to relativistic speeds, but it's just not as fast as light. Any substance from a dying star would arrive long after the light from it was seen. Additionally, although a supernova would release massive amounts of elements not normally created in stars, the amount that would reach us would be trivially small. I'd question the sources that you got the "stardust" information from.

Sorry, I'm not trying to offend you. But the evidence that you're presenting in defense of your ideas just doesn't seem valid. I would think that a much better source would be Chinese records: they recorded astronomical events for thousands of years. They'd be the ones who're most likely to have evidence supporting the theory of a supernova.

Additionally: if there were a supernova, why wasn't it recorded by the Romans? They were obsessed with the idea that astronomical events reflected events on Earth, but I've never heard of a new star appearing in Roman histories. They even claimed that the sun went pale and dim for a year after Julius Caesar was assassinated (which no one else has ever reported).

So ...

If I've got this right, we are allowed to doubt Roman sources when they report something but are expected to believe them when they fail to report something.
That the gist?

Maybe I can make this clear. We doubt the dimming of the sun claimed by the romans for the same reason we doubt the supernova claimed by you. No supporting evidence, and a psychological explanation of why such a thing would be claimed, though false.

If, however, there is a supernova reported by both the chinese, AND the romans, then we accept it as something that definately happened.

Nobody is claiming that the Romans are 100% accurate - they're human like everything else. But supernovas don't get missed.

To Twophlag Gargleblap: here are some points that I think you should consider.

1) Although mythology does not need to be literally true to be "true", or meaningful, in another sense, the entire premise of Christianity is that its mythology is in fact literally true. If it were ever proven that the mythos were false (although I doubt that this will ever be possible), the entire religion would be destroyed.

2) You also state that it is possible to be a Christian without being a Christ-worshipper. I'm not a Christian myself, but I would point out that the most basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ was God Incarnate. As such, it would be perfectly justifiable to worship Him, and it would someone would not be Christian without worshipping Him.

Your argument is something like saying that you can believe in a religion without worshipping its God. It doesn't work that way.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

1) I don't think this is true for all versions of christianity. Many versions are happy to admit that the creation stories are not literally true. Ditto for other stories, like the flood. Religions are versatile things, in any case, and gaping holes in logic rarely do them any harm.

2) There was a brief stage in my life when I believed in the Christian God, but thought he was immoral and ever-so-slightly mad. You can believe something is true without worshipping it.

Christians are beginning to get away from literal interpretations of the Bible, on account of the fact that so many facets of it don't stand up to reason. But Christianity *does* depend on a literal interpretation of the ressurection of Jesus. Disprove that, and the whole thing goes away. Or so you would think. Despite the complete lack of reasoning to support a literal ascension, and a multitude of reasons to disbelieve, they cling to their beliefs with the tenacity of a wolverine. Mostly, though, the multitudes choose to believe because they've never heard the reasons why they shouldn't.

1) Although all religions have beliefs which it is possible not to accept and still be a member of that faith, every religion also has things that must be accepted if you're going to be one of its followers. No one who doubts the divinity of Jesus, for example, can be a Christian. There are even some interpretations of what it means to be Christian that would say that if you don't actually live up (or try as hard as you can) to the ethical and moral standards set up by Christ, you're not truly His follower and not a Christian. By that logic, the vast majority of the people on Earth calling themselves Christians actually aren't.

Additionally, I personally would say that the only things that can survive gaping holes in their logic are things that are made up. You can reach your own conclusions.

2) Actually, it is impossible to believe in the Christian God and not worship him. If you believe in the Christian God (which includes accepting all Christian beliefs about Him), then you also believe that he is worthy of being worshipped, and that you must do so (that your entire purpose in life is to do so, in fact). If you believed in a god but didn't worship it, then I'd have to say that technically you didn't believe in the Christian one. It might have been some other god, however.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

1) "No one who doubts the divinity of Jesus, for example, can be a Christian". That's a remarkably cut and dried statement...
1a) Top-level Philosophy and Religion come at a point before we establish logic. It's entirely sensible to form theories of LtUaE where logic is restricted in scope. An arbitrary faith that logic is universal would itself be illogical...

2) The devil believes in God, but does not worship him/her/it. It is entirely possible to believe that God is worthy of worship yet not worship him. In addition, I reject your claim that "If you believe in the Christian God then you also believe that he is worthy of being worshipped". I simply see no reason why this has to be true.

[curtsies]
Xanthia

Caledonian,

"If it were ever proven that the mythos were false (although I doubt that this will ever be possible), the entire religion would be destroyed."
Can't see a problem with that line of reasoning. If you substitute "atheism" for "religion" it still works.

Potholer had this nailed down some postings back. We are all bringing different axes to grind based on our experiences. We are confusing the style and messages of recent messengers to the detriment of the original. We are comparing apples with pears. We are blaming the system for the shortcomings of its "genuine" adherents or "real" charlatans. Adolf Hitler was white, Nelson Mandela is black; but you can't extrapolate anything from that.
The O.T. is not Christian. It is the system which pre-dated (and gave rise to) Christianity with its two commandments (paraphrased):
1 - Love God.
2 - Love everyone as you love yourself.
Now you only need to mention 2 for those who don't fully appreciate the intention of 1.
No disrespect intended to anyone, but my jewish friends (especially the solicitor, and his father - the bookmaker) have / had an eye for detail and precision. I fancy that this is why the O.T. shows so many conflicts, smiting, and convoluted rules ... "but what if my car won't start on a holy day ..." or "lawgiving" instead of the commonsense "don't eat food if it's going bad".

As for the star. Ever had a dream so vivid that you had to go check that the car which had been stolen while you were asleep was still there?

(Discreet declination of head)

1) It may be a cut-and-dried statement, but it's true. One of Christ's teachings is that he literally is God (or a part thereof; I've never understood the Trinity concept [and neither have any of the theologians I've spoken to!]). Not only is it a teaching, but it's the teaching around which the entire religion is based around. If you don't accept that, then you're not a Christian.

If just accepting many of Christ's teachings but not his divinity would make people Christians, then all Moslems would have to be considered Christians, as Islam recognizes Christ as a prophet of Allah.

1) It depends on how you define logic. Yes, there is no reason why the universe should follow human reasoning --- but it does seem to have its own logic. Additionally, Christianity is about things which are either true or false in a literal sense. We can apply logic to the beliefs, therefore.

If you truly believe that philosophy and religion can exist without logic or reason, then that's okay. I'll simply define you as being incorrect and your arguments as wrong: I don't need logic to justify those steps. They're simply true.

2) I'm not so sure about that. Satan wanted to gain power equal to God, but that doesn't mean that he didn't recognize God as perfect --- in fact, that's why Satan wanted to be like Him in the first place!

On the other hand, it's possible to argue that the Devil does not believe that God has certain qualities, or that He is the only one who can have those qualities, so it's uncertain whether he actually believes in God or in his perception of what God is...

Part of the Christian beliefs about God include the concepts that God's attributes makeHim worthy of being worshipped exclusively, and that this is the purpose of human existence. If you don't believe this, then you believe in a God that is similar but not identical to the Christian God. It's part and parcel, m'dear --- if you take one, you take both.

If you claimed to believe in Zeus, but thought that he didn't kill his father Chronos or live on Mt. Olympus, then you don't believe in the Greek Zeus --- you'd believe in a god with the same name but different attributes.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic.

There is a difference!

I'd agree with you about atheism. People who are certain that there is no God have no evidence to cite, no argument that proves their point. It's simply another belief that people cling to irrationally.

Logically, I'd have to say that the existence of, say, the Christian God, is highly improbable and most likely isn't true. However, I don't know that for sure.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Additional:

With all due respect, where are you heading with your statement about the star?

I've asked several theologians about the astrologers who supposedly predicted the birth of the Saviour from patterns in the stars / appearance of a single bright star.

The explanation most commonly given is that astrology is a false religion, but that God caused their beliefs to illustrate the truth in this one particular instance.

Personally, I've always thought that this argument was a bunch of hogwash.

The star, in the Christian mythos, was not merely a vision, but an actual observable physical happening. It was seen (in the Bible, anyway) by many different people, and not in a dream.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

"The star, in the Christian mythos, was not merely a vision, but The star, in the Christian mythos, was not merely a vision, but an actual observable physical happening. It was seen (in the Bible, anyway) by many different people, and not in a dream.
Refresh my memory please how "many different people"?
(Discreet declination of head)

Oops!
(Nod)

Let me see here... it's been a while, but it was seen by (according to the Bible) at least these people:

King Herod
Kind Herod's astrologers
Persian astrologers (probably Zoroastrians)

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

AHEM! Atheism is a very rational standpoint...

1) There is a complete vacuum of evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Atheists interpret lack of evidence as evidence of lack.

2) The burden of proof of a supernatural deity does not lie with the atheist, but with the believer. To wit: if I said I saw a gruesome traffic accident, you would choose to believe me, based on the fact that that sort of thing is somewhat common. However, if I told you that the accident occcurred because one car was being levitated by an alien ship, and something came along which scared the occupants, so they quickly dropped the car in the path of a packed city bus, would you believe me? Absolutely not. It is a highly unlikely occurance, and I would have to show conclusie evidence to support it. Atheists are people who are waiting for that conclusive evidence, but all we see is poor logic and charlatans.

On the alleged "star" - only the Persian astrologers saw it, and only Matthew sees fit to mention it in the NT. The whole astrology episde is rather curious, when you consider that the practice of astrology was considered equivalent to idolatry in Jewish law, and was punished in the usual way (stoning).

1) Technically, I would have to say that you would be justified in saying/believing that Christianity is highly unlikely, and probably false... but not that it is false. You don't really know that --- that just seems like the most reasonable conclusion. Without evidence to prove that you are right, you're limited to using logic and rationality to determine where the truth lies, and both logic and rationality can fail.

Please don't understand --- I agree with most of your reasoning. That's why I'm an agnostic. It's just that atheism requires a certainty that I simply can't justify on rational grounds alone: it must be taken on faith, just like any other religion. I think you're probably correct; I'm just not willing to be certain of it.

2) I'd agree that the whole star business is somewhat dodgy, no matter how you interpret it. The entire concept of God using the beliefs of a different religion (which was considered blasphemy at the least by the Jews, not to mention a form of idolatry, as you mentioned) to convey messages to His followers? Why didn't he just cause the statues of the Roman gods to move and speak --- that'd be just as believable, and would've been better proof.

An agnostic says that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. An atheist reasons that there is nothing to disprove, and furthermore, attempting to prove a negative is a futile exercise. You can't prove a negative, but you can prove a positive... the fact that noone has managed to do that after so long is rather telling, don't you think? I think this qualifies as arriving at a conclusion from the given evidence, which is *NOT* the same thing as a religious leap of faith.