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

SD. This is a particular concern of mine. Such is human idleness that I suspect the police and CPS of prosecuting: first evidence, then individuals and crime only third in order of priority.

I have been on the receiving end of this for over three years, and I'm risking prison (or more of it than would otherwise have been the case) to dispute computer-based evidence as best I can. Much of it frightens the average punter into pleading guilty. I have the prosecution on the back foot - and their second computer expert! I and my own expert witness have found significant holes at best, horrific errors at worst in the report of the second expert too. This could go on and on.

Needless to say, I have never harmed, or intended to harm to, anyone and cannot see that there's any way in which I have encouraged or assisted harm caused by anyone else. Nevertheless, my liberty is on the line. I shall keep up the fight, and I'm already working on the outline of the book - should they decide to lock me up.

toxx

Hi catfish, and welcome to the thread!

I've always wondered why people have to defend themselves against a concept of god(s) existing or not. It seems to me that most atheists are only considered to be so after having been asked if they believe that god(s) exist. If they are never asked this, *then* what are they?

I mean, there are tons of things I don't believe in. And I'm not considered to be an 'a-any-of-these-things'. They simply don't exist for me.

Though of course, while anyone showing up on a discussion thread about whether god(s) exist can reasonably be asked this question, it does seem very presumptuous of religious people to generally consider others who don't share their beliefs as 'a-theist'.

Why can't they just be themselves? Without any reference to a religious 'something' they would never consider as important in their lives, or even consider at all?

Why are religious convictions considered 'the norm'?


az

Hello...

I personally do not understand why religious people believe that having a religion is right. I mean, they carry themselves about as if they will go to heaven and everyone who doesn't believe in god will go to hell. They think that they are superior to others.
I don't really believe in god... though i do pray occasionally just in case there is a god(after all, who knows?). I regard this matter especially to muslims in Malaysia, which is where I live. They think of atheists as weirdos and look at atheists as if they have broken the law or something... Can someone tell me why such people behave in such a manner? Being religious fanatics who only believe in god and nothing else (Theres quite a lot of these in Malaysia) is the only possible anwser to me...

Hi SD

Don't worry about your verbosity, considering my record I would be the last to criticise anyone who takes the time to play out an argument.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it isn't always clear or accurate.

Onto the game... I am not a conspiracy theorist, always preferring to believe in the cock-up theory of governmental practice. However, it is sometimes difficult to avoid coming up with four, once two and two are presented in uch a complicit manner.

Such as the connection of Big Oil, the Afghan pipeline, US economic dependance on imported oil, Texan Oil family taking the presidency twice (and each time attacking the Middle East), US political dependancy on imported oil (high gas prices = no votes), lack of US involvement in other countries that may harbour terrorists and have poor human rights records (pick practically any African country, most of South-East Asia, and South America).

Beslam had me in tears. I found I couldn't listen to radio 4 in the car without having to pull over, and the TV coverage was unbearable. I have three children and have wagged off work today to take the two little ones to school. So much for the big macho druid huh?

There again my wife has to change channels whenever the NSPCC runs an advert, or I leave the room. I cannot understand how anyone could deliberately harm a child.

I have always been like this. When I was in Catholic Sunday School I always fell out with the priests/nuns over the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, and my disgust at God for asking him.

And don't get me started on Paedophiles..... One of the advantages to druidry over christianity is that we have no requirement to forgive those who trespass against us. No siree, come near mine and you will go home with your b*lls in a bag around your neck.

Hmmm, this ranting is contagious! Did you know that the next series of Grumpy Old Men is being aired soon. Brilliant, I can't wait.

Blessings,
Matholwch, the grumpy old druid /|\.

Hi Cadassa

Welcome to the thread

I think you need to narrow your question a bit. Consider that the religions you refer to are the Abrahamic, near eastern death cults - Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Many people who are religious have little or nothing to do with thses. On this thread we have, and have had, Hindu's, Buddhists, Heathens, Witches, Atheists, a Sufi mystic (Alji - you still out there ?), and myself the itinerant druid.

You live is a society where to be an atheist is considered strange, and could be dangerous to their health. I would tread carefully if I were you. Forum's like this are fairly safe havens in which to explore your spirituality - or lack of it. Feel free to challenge us old stick-in-the-muds .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Cadassa. It seems to be depressingly usual for those who accept the prevailing social norms to feel that they are superior to the rest of us. The chances are that they are merely less critical of the conventional 'wisdom' than those whom they denigrate.

The point about religion also applies to faithfulness within sexual relationships. Those who subscribe to it seem to think that this practice is part of the fabric of the universe! In fact, they're no more right that those who think that it doesn't really matter all that much in the great scheme of things.

This latter view is popular among women, I find. Tabloid newspapers also take a perverse delight in describing people as 'love rats'. It's between the couple concerned to decide what is acceptable. Very often more is at least tolerated in practice than that to which lip service is paid.

toxx

cadassa

I Add my greetings and falicitations to those already posted

I agree with the post which advised tread carefully.

I am increasingly of the opinion that Monotheistic religions are the most dangerous in this regard, their purpose seems to be to legitimise power rather than anything else. Marx's ideas about the Opium of the people seems too limited to describe their true purpose.

When you are taught from childhood that there is only one truth, being presented with an aethiest or an Agnostic presents you with a serious challenge to your belief system.

Only a few in ech generation will change their belief system, the rest fear the chaos the deviant represents and condemnation of the Heretic follows. Ignorance is bliss and some people appear willing to do anything to preserve that bliss and remain ignorant.

Matholwch

I only found out about the deaths late in the day reading a paper waiting for an ordered meal. I'm sure the other customers thought I was mad, as I had tears streaming down my face.

I spend a lot of my life working with disturbed children and thinking of ways of helping their families cope with difficulties. But the scale of this was overwhelming. The death of any child grabs my heart strings but I have very few words on this occsion.

Right or wrong I find myself ranting about how idiotic the machinations of the political establishment are. Only a politician could have come up with the Phrase Collateral Damage. I do think the truth depends a good deal on how you look at a given situation, but some language is designed to obscure the truth, not explore it.

Ah Grumpy old men,

I have a great soft spot for that Show. Prehaps because I am getting older myself, but it does seem that the current young generation are a little lacking in rebellious fire, leaving an earlier generation to vent our anger at the injustices of the world, I do hope the next wave of youngsters have a bit more of the revolutionary in their blood.

Hi cadassa.

It seems to be a part of human nature to want other people to subscribe to the same certainties as one does oneself. The question is then about the nature of the certainties, especially those that are seen as essentially non-negotiable. The certainty that other people have the same rights as oneself, that religious beliefs cannot/should not be imposed on others, etc, produces (or possibly justifies) a quite different set of behaviours from the certainty that anyone who is different is inferior and/or dangerous.


Noggin

Toxxin

Ill probably bUy the Book too.

Your post also hints at another aspect of the systems as they stand, The object of the Legal system was originally to discover the truth so that Justice could be done. These days it seems more about clever Lawyers producing the neatest argument which will appeal to the Judge concerned who can then mete out punnishment.

It seems that the Judgement is often made well before a case get's into court, by the CPS, whose task seems to be to ensure that there is a 100% conviction rate once cases get to court.

In most cases as you describe the accused is confronted with a mass of 'evidence' which is likely to overwhelm all but the more tenacious and resilient of people, with a wealth of experteese brought to bear that only wealthy defendants might hope to confront.

All comming down to one law for the rich and another for the poor. (Legal Aid only helps the very poorest and leaves the rest to bancrupt themselves to prove their innocence or fend off the greedy.)

I recently chose to pay my ex landlord £1500 to shut him up basically, because the legal advice I took suggested I would spend 4 or 5 times this much to show he was acting impropperly with no guarantee that I would have the costs awarded (The sum was felt to be too small). So I paid him for a quiet life.

Good Luck Toxxin

Hi strotium out of interest UK landlord,i had that problem, compounded by the building society paying my landlord, despite being told by building society omnibudsman not to do it.

Thanks, SD. I suspect I might need all the luck I can get. Since I am that very unusual combination of one of the very poorest and one of the brightest and most highly educated, clearly it falls to me to go for a legal precedent; even if I have to fight it through the Court of Human Rights.

During the 3+ years my case has been running I have, by research and study, become a remarkably competent lawyer and computer expert; at least in the areas relevant to the case. I'm able to suggest things to my own expert witness which will count in my favour. He has to look them up or do the research in order to check, but I've yet to be wrong on anything.

I also suggest lines of argument to my barrister and he's very good at reading up on the computer issues and liaising with the expert. These guys know how to get you off, but aren't allowed to suggest such measures. If you figure it out for yourself and insist they act accordingly, they have no option but to go along with it - sometimes with a fair chance of enhancing their own reputation. I've insisted that the human rights implications of my case be presented in court. That way I'm guaranteed grounds for appeal if the verdict should go the wrong way.

toxx

Back in the 1970s, I read a science fiction story in Omni (anyone else remember that?) about a man who became obsessed with this question. He travelled back in time to give Isaac Newton a calculator (presumably solar powered) so that I.N. could make up for the time lost "p*ss*ng about"... The joke was, that up to that point, I.N., had been a hard headed scientist, but was so traumatised by the calculator wielding time traveller that he *became* a mystic! Very amusing...

Not that bad at all then! So, that's good...

<>

Absolutely, Matholwch! So right, and so terrible...

Welcome, Cadassa.

<>

Actually, I have to admit I've never quite understood. There are always a few Christians, heathens/pagans/Druids, and atheists/agnostics/rationalists here. But I've never seen a Jew, a Hindu (I'll take your word for it, Matholwch), an animist whose beliefs aren't Northern European in extraction, or anyone else except one Buddhist and one Muslim post here. Any idea why? Or have I just not been around long enough?

Maybe religions are onto something. They may all be an expression of the same thing - the Other, the conciousness of the planet, or whatever it is. It's just that the signal has got a bit confused along the way and religions are now are a mere shadow of the original Mystery.

What do folk thing about the idea of nature having an intelligence and a concsiousness? The idea of a Gaian mind or intelligent biosphere. Maybe this is what we need to connect with and not imagined gods and stories that have been made up.

When I have been very in tune with the natural world I have seen an intelligence. I think it's a very human-centred view of scientists to describe the natural world as bumbling along, randomly, blindly heading nowhere. An awful lot of people intuitively feel there's more to life and seek out religions for the answers that science cannot answer. The only problem is that the religions have lost the plot too.

< I think it's a very human-centred view of scientists to describe the natural world as bumbling along, randomly, blindly heading nowhere.>

Are we really to treat the natural world as a person, Tom? What evidence is there to that effect? It seems to me that you can think of the world as a person if you like - but isn't this a difference that makes no difference?

I still maintain that we mostly perceive the same things, and we just differ in the way we interpret them. Think of the world as a giant gerbil if you like! I'm with Occam, if the gerbil theory explains nothing that can't be explained without it.

toxx

Good luck Toxx. It sounds like you're up against it.

'Are we really to treat the natural world as a person'

The creators of our natural world were 'anaerobic bacteria'. In fact they are still at it. Could it be that bacteria are the gods?



alji