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

Pardon if this has been mentioned, but why not:

"Freedom From Religion"

?

Freedom of religion must also include
freedom *from* religion
                   --George Orwell

Hrm? Oh! No, thank you... I won't be needing a chair. If you don't mind, I'd just prefer to be, as always, The Mouse in the Corner.

Probably the wisest course, Mousy, since it affords you the most protection from the antics of our Assistant Chairman. We're assembling a veritable menagerie over here!

Welcome!

'Nonnie!! Nice to see you here. Surprised you made it all the way over, after eating all that cake!!! I've been absent from the Court recently. Last I checked, Greebo was about to pounce on the Royal Seal.

(erm, Gargleblaster, she goes by 'Nonnie rather than "Mousy".)

Just wanted to ask something, though: is our goal to bring about the demise of Christianity, or is it to bring about understanding and enlightenment to members of all faiths, as long as they don't force-feed their religion to us? Because a truly free society would allow everyone to worship (or not) as they wish.

Well, we could start by banning religion from being taught as fact in state schools......

My autistic son is being taught "creationism" at his special school at the moment - how do you teach this to a bunch of special needs kids and not have them think it's real??? Needless to say hubby and I are both rather unimpressed, to say the least...

The school board I do janitorial work for is a Catholic Education Board school (quite common in Ontario). Kind of scary. Dead jew on a stick nailed to the wall of every classroom. These kids are taught a subject called 'religion' as part of their curriculum. The material taught has nothing to do with 'religion' actually, and would be better called 'orthodox indoctrination'. Ah well.

I wrote a piece once for a newspaper making fun of Creationists. There are two points where they are really vulnerable; 1> They offer creationism as a 'science', but in fact science interprets observations and uses them as a foundation to build models from. What creationists are doing is the opposite; beginning with a model and trying to craft observations to support them. Not even remotely a science, by definition. 2> Without sinking into pointless debate about the carbon dating of fossils and what not, I would like a creationist to explain how, if the universe was indeed creatd 6 thousand years ago (as most of them claim), it is possible to see stars rather more than fifteen billion years away from us. It seems that none of them can offer an answer, except that 'god is tricking us'. Or maybe they might try to claim that the stars are pinholes in the curtain of night. And that the earth is flat. Morons.

Oh, yah. I think parenting should be liscensed so that weak-minded morons are kept from reproducing; but failing that, or at least in the short term, I think it would be best for one who considers him or herself to be enlightened, to focus not so much specifically on the destruction of Christianity, but to oppose unabashed ignorance in all its various forms. This is not to say that there are many things of which I myself am ignorant. But I consider it a personal strength that I can evaluate an idea on its own merits and not on my personal prejudices (although this sometimes takes quite an effort). I think this is a skill that can be learned, and taught. Indeed, the unitarian church (which I happen to kind of like, although I am not a member of one), the so called 'church of the open mind', adheres to this idea quite closely. They feel that religious instruction involves giving a child the tools to decide for him or herself what path they will follow later in life. Creed and dogma are unimportant, but community service and an empathic appreciation of life are understood to be the easiest paths to inner well-being.

So, infer what you will. I think that by ramming atheism down a Christian's throat you wind up being just another evangelist. Giving people the tools to understand the world in which we all find ourselves is what will make the most difference (and do the most good) in the long run.

The purpose of this Network, as I see it, is this:

A) Debunk the xtianity myth, and show it for the myth it is, in order to bring enlightenment to those who believe it as fact.

B) Offer alternative mythologies, to show the xtian world that fine, upstanding morality is NOT unique to their mythos.

I strongly support eliminating idiocy in all its forms. However, idiocy is a hydra, with thousands of heads. Each must be conquered in its own way. This is my way of conquering this one, the one which I consider the most dangerous.

Just want to take my chair. I have Taoist leanings (which is a bit weird for a man from Yorkshire, now living near London) but I'm a bit of an Asimov buff. Isaac Asimov used to be chairperson of the Humanist Society (a position now held by Kurt Vonnegut, I believe) so I would like to be known as Shawn The Uncarved Block, Humanist Advancement.

Going back to sport and religion being linked, did Holyfield and Tyson really believe they had Allah and God on their sides or were they making up for the human condition of uncertainness (a sportsman's greatest enemy is his or her own psyche) by conveniently having 'faith'.

At least SuperBowl XXXIV was on too late over here in Britain for us to give a care, although it'd be nice for a team of heathens to win it.

Hmmm. As far as "Creationists", I worked with a group of Baptists once who said that, if God could create the universe and everything in it in 6 days, surely he could make some rocks look older than they really are....

Well, while it all seems silly to you and me, the fact is that you simply can't fault the logic in that, because it IS true that a being who could create something from nothing would have also created the laws of the universe, and therefore could make them as screwy as he wanted to.

Of course, I don't believe it all, but the fact is that once someone has "faith", reason just won't budge them

Interestingly enough, I went to a Catholic university. Let me change that; it was a JESUIT university. Now, for those of you who don't know about the Jesuits, they are an ancient sect of Christianity. A hard-drinking, philosophy-studying group of scholars who have nearly been excommunicated several times. I was required to take 2 courses in theology, 2 in philosophy, and a fifth in either of my choosing. And I had, as a professor for one of my theology classes, one Dr. Steele, who was rumored to be an atheist, and who proceeded to explain away all the miracles in the Old Testament with simple scientific explanations. So that was my experience with Catholic School.

The fact is, though, that evolution as an explanation for change WITHIN a species works, but evolution as an explanation for the development of whole new species has almost as many holes in it as Creationism. The teaching of scientific theories as "facts" in the public schools bothers me nearly as much (and may be even more dangerous) as the teaching of one religion's point of view. For example, the long-held assumption that males of all species are more likely to have many mates, while females sit home and take care of young, has recently been disproven when DNA tests show that many offspring of so called "monogamous" species are NOT fathered by the mate of the mother. And yet (predominately male) scientists have taught the faithlessness of male animals and the stay-at-home nature of females as "fact" for so long that it has become imbedded in our culture, and used as an excuse for behavior of our own species.

Science, faith, and religion are ALL best taught for what they are; our feeble attempts to explain a world that is beyond our comprehension. Our own "big bang" theory no more explains the beginnings of our universe than does Creationism, for both theories imply that there was something there in the beginning, and our limited undestanding cannot grasp the concept that perhaps things ALWAYS were, that just because we have a beginning and an end does not mean that everything has a beginning and an end.

Christianity has its place, as do all faiths. Forcing anyone to believe or not believe a certain philosophy is a dangerous thing.

(P.S. I am replying to a bunch of postings all at once; I just sort of stuck this in the middle of all the ones I was replying to.)

The time for this thing to go public is drawing at hand, as my Atheism article will appear on the homepage any day now, so it's time to bring the name debate to a conclusion. I've been thinking about what this group's intent ought to be, and we've been discussing it a bit here, and I've been discussing it elsewhere, as well. While "Anti-Christ" and "Jehovah's Victims" allow us to snicker under our hands, I don't think that's the message we want to send to the rest of the community. If this is going to be an open forum, we need to eliminate the same sort of zeal and intolerance so often shown by those who caused us to band together in the first place. We don't want to be "forcing anyone to believe or not believe a certain philosophy," as billypilgrim so succintly put it. What we're really about (unless I've been misled here) is simply offering criticism, discussion, and alternatives to the popular mythology. I think Nonnie was on the right track here (see, I got it right ), so I'm offering the "Freedom From Faith Foundation." Scopes will be passing out the ballots, feel free to vote for your favorite, or write in another.

You get my vote (two, if I can vote twice) for the name change, GargleBlaster. I see you've been talking to bluDragon. She is very wise, I must say, and I consider myself fortunate to have met her here.

I was just about to come back here and post something along the lines of this: the horrors of the Middle Ages came about because (in part) Christians believed THEIRS was the true way, and so forced people to either convert or die. And so forcing people to NOT believe in Christianity would be just more of the same.

My goal, personally, is to show others that other ways of looking at the world have valid points, too. I don't condemn Christianity. I only condemn intolerance. And if, in condemning intolerance, I cease to tolerate others, that makes me a bit of a hypocrite, and worse.

Your title is fine by me, and I agree with your principles in general, but would also like to see the "tone" set for discussions along the lines of debate rather than personal belief which becomes too emotive and rarely makes a point.

I would hope anyone is welcome to join our discussions with that objective concept in mind.

Speaking of which I wrote an article(not very well, but I'm neither a Biblical Scholar not a Christian adherent) in response to the initial one on "The Failure of Christianity to Stand Up to Reason".
I would like some critical feedback if anyone has the time or inclination.

"A Religious Rant" http://www.h2g2.com/A253153

Yes. The "Freedom From Faith Foundation" sounds good to me and has my vote also. Well done for getting your articl published GargleBlaster. Congratulations!!!

Zev: ummm, if you'd bothered to look, you'd have noticed that I responded to it shortly after you alerted me to its existence in the "Failure of..." forum.

I don't think we'll have too much trouble with the "tone" of the arguments. I've already participated in the same sort of thing all over the site, and generally, people are able to keep their heads. People on both sides of the argument realize it's sensitive stuff, and tend to tread carefully. And if people do get out of hand, I'm sure getting flamed by a dozen people all at once will be sufficient to see the error of their ways.

Just remember, it requires good behavior by BOTH sides. I advise all of you (unneceessarily, I'm sure) to also keep your cool, and to let anyone who steps over the line, regardless of their philosophy, know that their behavior is inappropriate.

Sorry Gargle Blaster you did respond a few days ago. Thank you. I'm still not very adept at finding my way around this new den. The threads of the related subjects are confusing my sense of smell.

May I be so bold as to re-post something I said at the beginning of the Christians on H2G2 forum?


So welcome, welcome. Bring a friend if you like. Or come alone. We take everyone. Only two rules. First, bring your mind as well as your soul. And second, we respect all opinions around here (even if we vehemently disagree with them.) Nazis and egg-throwers need not apply.



I think (as an atheist) that it's important for all of us to remember that Christianity as myth doesn't do such a bad job of explaining the world. As fact, it gives me trouble. But if you compare the Creation story to what we know of the origins of life on this planet, you'll see that if you replace "day" with "billion years", it's not so far off. First came light and dark, then the land and the seas, then the creatures of the earth, then man, rather near the end (6th day in the Bible, recent history in terms of evolution).

It's easy enough for us to try to attack it, since it's been sort of forced on all of us. But, if we want Christians to respect our beliefs, then it's important to respect theirs as well.

Actually, I have huge problems with the Genesis myth, especially if you replace "days' with "billions of years": plants (day 3) exist before the sun (day 4). He also made Adam on the third day, before the plants: "At the time when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, while as yet there was no field shrub on the earth and no grass of the field had sprouted...the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground..."

Oops...shouldn't I be saving this stuff for the discussion forum?

*nods* providing they do so on their own time and don't muck with any governing bodies while they're at it.

Oh, and don't worry about the "Mousy" part.. I sign myself "'Nonnie" but I've been referred to as ... erm.. other things.

I too have problems with the Genesis story. As fact it's laughable, but as a myth... it doesn't even have the integrity of a Terry Pratchett story. I can see 'parallels' between the Sumerian creation epic, and the Genesis story, right down to the plural use of the term Gods. Of course, when I say parallel I mean complete rip-off.

How are these forums going to work? Are we going to have say, one for a Genesis discussion, one for Revelations, and so on? Gargleblaster, I think as our CEO I think this calls for you to sort this out.