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

The problem is that there are too many people of a like mind here. We need some more creationists to bait.

<>

Although Blicky spat the dummy when I said so before most Christians aren't creationists.

But you knew that anyway.

Bait away!

Dr J, have you been keeping a running total? Because votes for God (triple-O if the pagans insist) keep getting "lost". Just saying...

So do the votes for polytheism, of which there are at least three, probably four, counting Brochfael, Heathen Sceptic, me and Math.

Jez

: I'm gonna put down a monotheist vote for myself 'cuz I'm Episcopalean (though I do respect other people of diff. faiths, -that including polytheists & atheists).

Thanks HS

<>

You took the words out of my, uh, fingers

As I've posted before I will no longer try and keep tabs on who votes for what. Additionally there are children running around here unsupervised, and they're obviously in need of a change.

How about if we all agree to start a new thread somewhere *only* for votes. That would make them easier to keep track of.

I understand the principle of extending a civil amount of respect to those who you may disgree with. I respect all those who feel the need to believe.

Where I draw the line is respect for their ideas, that anyone else should take seriously their beliefs without a shred of evidence to back them up.

Now it seems that I have spat my dummy out, Im not sure what that means. It certainly cant mean that I was upset by a lack of biblical literalists here on h2. If I wanted to engage some i could find some fairly easily. The fact that is that as silly as their beliefs are they are not foolhardy enough to come here and answer questions about their beliefs. I respect them even more for recognising the fallacy of their beliefs. So I would REALLY REALLY like to see where and how I spat my dummy out. It's an easy thing to say but then so is saying God had Noah build an Ark for two of every animal and seeing as I must have done what Im accused of THIS CENTURY it shold be a whole lot easier to find evidence to support the view.

Im not one for dummy spitting I asked a certain researcher for some answers about terminations which they refused to answer because answering them would mean using rational thought and the process or thoughts arrived would mean exposing the fallacy of their beliefs.

That same reasearcher will no more answer this question, than she will produce evidence of me doing any dummy spitting.

Then again she might. Time will tell

one love

thornthedruidguy <I'm gonna put down a monotheist vote for myself 'cuz I'm Episcopalean (though I do respect other people of diff. faiths, -that including polytheists & atheists).>

Athiests (if we do have to use the word for people who do not believe in any supernatural beings) do not have a faith. 'Atheism'(ditto) is not 'a faith' and I do not mean that it is knowing 100% etc. You cannot have 'faith' in thinking that supernatural beings do not exist.

...
(<footinmouth: Well you get what it was that I had meant though, no?)

<(

Well, yes I do, but some people actually mean what they say when they say that.

,-?

Debatable, as you know I would probably take the opposite view, that atheists have as much faith in God not-existing as Christians do *for* His existence.

It seems to me that there are two things for which "atheism" is the correct term: the belief that there is no god(s), and the absence of belief in any god(s). There's a difference, see.

Ah, but what is difference? Take away the one side to a dipole, and well... you get the idea. Without the one to compare with & contrast against the other, than an opposite...-is no longer an 'opposite' is it, eh?
(I'm feeling pretty clever about how I worded that .-What, no ?!)

-Thorn

There's a linguistic difference, but is there a practical/philosophical difference to uphold it?

I think so. Someone who not only has no need for a personal god in their life and also doesn't recognise other such gods because they simply don't exist for them, to someone who defies the existence of gods (and mostly because others question their stance on this).

If there were no 'stance' to take, why should someone be considered to be atheist?

Sure, some atheists put up a fight and end up being seen as 'anti-god', or atheists. But people who simply don't have this concept going on in their lives only tend to be called atheists by theists.

Which means many of us could be called 'a-anything' by those with a personal agenda. Am I 'a-Easter Bunny' because it's never occurred to me this Bunny might exist, or am I simply someone who lives without the Easter Bunny in their life?

az

If there is no God, how come you live to think that there is no God?
Evolution wouldn't favour such a thing as religion, right? I can't see any use for religion in terms of survival so I'd say it should come from another scource, a God would seem probable.

I exist, or so I think.
And if I don't exist I can't think, right?

There is the concept of gods. There is the huge influence and control that organised religions and the odd internet pressure group has on what can do, can see, can write and can say. I do not 'live to think that there is no God' (whatever that really means). I live my life but I will speak out against things that directly have an effect on how I live my life when I believe that the people forcing there believes on to the masses has no right to do that.



Wrong, actually the creation of the idea of gods and religion are now thought of as an important part of the evolution of homosapians.

Basically, the idea of gods and religion was required to create a cohesive frame-work for allowing groups of people to start to live and survive as an organised community and lay down ground rules for such a life. Prior to this there was not the need for this type of cohesion as humans did not live in such proximity and within a structured living situation. Without Gods or religion people would have had no framework with which to coexist at such an early time of development.

These days we do not actually need religion to create a social structure – indeed one could argue that due to a number of competing religions these days that religion is holding back the development of the human race. We are at such a cognitively advanced stage in our development now that we can and should take account of our own responsibilities for our actions rather than foist it onto another being.

B/Ben/AgcB knows more detailed stuff about the above than me.



Well, thee is always the probability...a very very small probability of course. And putting the two ideas next to each other: an evolutionary tool or supernatural being. The evolutionary tool is more probable than the supernatural being, imo.

I would say this is actually the fallacy of appeal to popularity dressed up. i.e. something being widely believed doesn't make it true. Nor do I think abstract ideas have anything much to do with evolution. There have been rudimentary studies on faith and life expectancy or surviving stressful situations, this doesn't mean the god concept itself has anything to do with it.