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

And again we have BB painting all 'faithers' with the same brush :P

What of those who did not seek an 'imaginary friend' but ended up with one anyway? Personally I could quite happily live without them, just like I can cope without cars, mobile phones and the internet. But if they are, to me, demonstrably there, then why should I not interact with them?

Unlike you militant non-faithers I make no demands on what you believe. Nor do I characterize everyone who doesn't experience what I do as unable to cope with a deity, or dumb, or having a childlike yearning for atheism. I also don't blame people who don't think as I do for many of the bad things in the world (a common trait of the more aggressive atheists).

I wouldn't for a moment decide that you non-faithers are delusional (after all you can't see a God that's standing right in front of you), or consider that as you are obviously mentally ill you are a danger to society and should be treated in an institution. Something that atheists on h2g2 have suggested to me more than once.

I believe in a secular society, where personal belief systems get no favouritism, but likewise suffer no penalties unless they break a law. Can we not live and let live?

Matholwch .

The Higg's particle is not about /extra/ mass, it's about /any/ mass

--

Jez - who has never been to mass

Having re-read "brave New World" recently my waivering views on faithers have waivered away from the waste of skin end of the scale (but its still fun to rattle your cages with a few broadsides).

I dont think Id want to livein a de-humanised society where peoples yearnings and feelings had no place or were taken away. That to me wqould be a terrible lossof individula freedom. However still dont think faithers oght to be allowed a lower bar for their arguments simply because they are allegedly handed down by a divine supreme being or because they mysteries revealed by river spirits.


"What of those who did not seek an 'imaginary friend' but ended up with one anyway? Personally I could quite happily live without them, just like I can cope without cars, mobile phones and the internet."

But if they are, to me, demonstrably there, then why should I not interact with them?

I have immense respect for a lot of what you say Math, a good portionof that respect is due tot he fact that you manage such wisdom despite the drag factor of all that stuff you go in for. Its a bit like watching a half cut Alex Higgins make a century break.

However you still converse largely with faithers from the more codified religions as if their impossible big G were real. This to me despite your tent being a different colour puts you firmly in the same camp as them. I dont think you lot are sub-normal in any way if anything I think Im the one sitting out on a limb. Maybe not on this site, but from chest crossing professional sports stars to suicide bombers to clinical psychologist housemate who believes in fairies, its fairly evident to me who global is in the majority.

Im even co-habitingm (happily thus far) with a faither so I bare no over-riding malice toward you lot. I think rationalists would have embarked on wars too and imposed their prejudices on others, we would have had to find other "justifications" than [insert invisible friends name] told me to do it. Stalin managed it.

Your "demonstrable", yet completely undetectable to me, friends are in all likelyhood as far as Ive seen just the random feedback of our imperfect minds.

I am to a degree colour blind this does not mean their is no distinction between certain shades of red and brown, but what I cant see can be reliably demonstrated as real by a combination of reproducable tests and evidence that shows no signs of being skewed by culturally derived preconceptions.

I havent seen anything from any of the faiths big or small, organisedor individual that passes this bench mark. So you are all in the same camp to me.

one love

<>

...


<>


*Please* tell me the irony was intentional?

Hi BB

Having my cage rattled is always useful as it shakes up my complacency and makes me think for a change.

>> Having re-read "brave New World" recently my waivering views on faithers have waivered away from the waste of skin end of the scale (but its still fun to rattle your cages with a few broadsides).

Ah yes, Mr.Huxley's masterpiece, still a favourite of mine.

>> However still dont think faithers oght to be allowed a lower bar for their arguments simply because they are allegedly handed down by a divine supreme being or because they mysteries revealed by river spirits.

A point that I absolutely agree with.

>> However you still converse largely with faithers from the more codified religions as if their impossible big G were real... etc.

And I often converse with you as if the Big G isn't real, because that is your default position, which I respect.

It may seem strange to you but in the British druid community I am often portrayed as the heretic, mischief maker or John Savage. The boy who says when the empress has no clothes on at all. I am an equal opportunity heretic and am happy to tear my own beliefs aparts as any other faither's or atheist's.

>> I'm even co-habiting (happily thus far) with a faither so I bare no over-riding malice toward you lot. I think rationalists would have embarked on wars too and imposed their prejudices on others, we would have had to find other "justifications" than [insert invisible friends name] told me to do it. Stalin managed it.

Rationalist, atheistic states were responsible for more deaths in war than any other type in the 20th century. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were just as venal and vicious as their religious forebears. This is why I continue to argue that it is power, greed and money that really drive wars, not religions or politics or philosophy.

>> Your "demonstrable", yet completely undetectable to me, friends are in all likelyhood as far as Ive seen just the random feedback of our imperfect minds.

And I have never denied that you could be right on this. I am one day going to have aT-shirt printed with the following slogan:

The voices say that I am mad.
Should I listen to them?

>> I haven't seen anything from any of the faiths big or small, organisedor individual that passes this bench mark. So you are all in the same camp to me.

In one way possibly but in other we are poles apart. For instance when monotheists are in charge the first thing to leave is tolerance. Not so with polytheists etc.

Anyhoo, good to cross pens with you again

Matholwch .

Hi Pedro,

"*Please* tell me the irony was intentional?"

No, but it's good anyway

Peccavi.

Matholwch .

Thanks Jez, for correcting me about a supposed "God particle".

I've been at labs too long.

Who needs mass when we've got electricity. That's the real stuff of magic!

Bump

Nice to see you're still around Jez.

alji

Still alive, still posting

Just thought it was time to resurrect this thread

--

So - what's been going on in your patch of the gods' creation ?

has anyone brought this to the attention of kzwg or warner?????


another god thread to shoot them down on is just what we need

i didn't read the 27k backlog

I think the God squad and the atheist squad, the polytheist squads and the various One True Wayists have all shot their full ammo pack on this one already - new blood is needed

Who the heck are kzwg or warner?

alji

resident god botherers on the almighty god thread, dawkins thread and jesus thread

Where are these threads?

alji

Interesting thing to see, that this thread is still so active!

What amazes me the most in these debates is that so many 'faithers' (religious) and 'rationalists' aetheists feel so certain that their positions are mutually exclusive. It even amazes me, more than a bit, that they believe that their arguments are 'better' than those of the other view.

The craziest thing is when we begin to believe that our beliefs and opinions are important enough for vehemence, argument, and - all too often - physical violence. Their barely important enough for civil, polite discussion.

Whatever 'The Truth' is cannot be proved through means of dischord. We'll all know either the truth, or oblivion, soon enough. I hate to see intelligent people spend too much of their very limited life span beating themselves and each other up over beliefs that have no impact on how people actually live their lives.

Prime examples are atheists who seem to live theist lifestyles, just because they see it as the 'right thing to do', both for themselves and for the survival of mankind, and those theists who live anything but the life proscribed by their belief system (the current events example would be the whole Catholic pedophile revelations and scandal).

That's all; just my short rant for a different sort of rationality.

<>

but its a fun way to pass a few hours when you are locked in at work with very little to do

'beliefs that have no impact on how people actually live their lives'

I'll have to mention that to my old parents who arrived in Lower Manhattan for an overnight visit on September 10, 2001. I'll have to mentionit to all my relatives who spent the next several days trying to find out if my parents were still alive.



Wouldn't it be wonderful if these beliefs had no impact on how people lived their lives?

Perhaps my meaning was lost. I was merely pointing out that people often choose how to live their lives despite, not because of, their belief system (if they have one).

Good people live friendly, helpful lives, without or without a set of religious doctrines. Nasty people tend to live mean spirited, self-centered lives, whether or not they have deeply held religious beliefs.

News stories are regulary peppered with respected clergy of all faiths who have turned their previously respectable vocations into a profiteering, personality shriveling business. Likewise, a person or pet is no more likely to be rescued from a burning building by a devout priest than an atheistic passerby.