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

Diver. Yep we know a lot about the planets. From memory, the average density of Saturn is less than that of water. We can therefore infer that it isn't mostly iron! I'm not going to look up the astronomy websites to check on the details. Science doesn't have a fixed evidence base. More evidence is obtained every day.

I happen to have a university qualification in astronomy, so I know how some of the observations are interpreted. I did a lot of work on processing data that was presented to the practical class in order to interpret it.

Oh yep, assumptions aren't based on evidence. They're placeholders when there is no evidence.

Hello Tox





, .

< I've said this before on another MB. It is not wrong or illegal to be a paedophile or a homosexual. Maybe it is wrong to be an adulterer. That implies that the person has actually acted on the motivation. People are not responsible for their motives, whatever we may want to say about their actions.>

This is without Fred and the age of consent argument.

THe last quotation really upset me, how can you possibly mention paedophiles in the same breath as homosexuals and adulterers??? paedophiles are weak, warped, depraved, self-centred, cruel manipulators, preying on innocence and defenselesness, violaters of the basic human rights of children. Children should have the right to expect to be protected, loved and nurtured, not terrified and abused by the very people who should be providing them with the protection they need.

Homosexuals and adulters? well I would assume them to be adults making their own choices.

My intention was not to "insult" you, only to point out that you had been very unfair to Az and as a result she unsubscribed.

If you feel the need to then please do if it makes you feel better, I just felt the need to speak out because Az is a very nice person.

Jane

Ahh, but Math, I have a simple faith, the bible is literally full of contradictions and the old testament seems to speak of a TERRIBLE God!! yet when Jesus came along He claimed that God loves us all, that is why He sent Jesus in the first place.

If God loves me, then He certainly loves you, (big cheesy super-white perfect tooth grin there) I don,t believe in a discrimitary God, (did I spell that right??.)

Goodnight

Jane

Hi Jane. Sure, Az is a nice person. Someone as described in the quotes of mine you provide might well be nice. Nothing there says anything different. Nevertheless, I don't think that any of it is false. I see some descriptive words in what I said, but none that mean anything bad. Many, indeed, are approved of by fellow researchers. 'Subversive' for example.

I'm afraid that you don't understand that being a paedophile doesn't imply any kind of behaviour whatsoever. A person can be a paedophile without ever having gone near a child. It is a psychological state, not a type of behaviour. What you say applies to child molesters not paedophiles. Ah well, possibly a majority of people don't see the difference.

Matholwch, there is as *least* as much in the N.T., suggesting universal salvation as there is suggesting predestination to damnation... which is why I happily believe in universal salvation - although the means is not specified. (I believe the means is reincarnation, but others differ...)
An example: 1 Timothy 4 v 10
"We struggle and work hard because we have placed our hope in the Living God, who is the saviour of all (men) and especially of those who believe."
Yes, that's what it says. Note the "all" - only wilfull misunderstanding of this and other similar verses can enable anyone to preach otherwise!
I'll post some URLs to sites on the subject when I have the info to hand.

>> Putting my cold and rational cap on, if all suffering could be permanently banished then perhaps the right moral choice is to kill the small furry animal. After all, long, painful and gruesome deaths are almost certain to happen in the future without this act, and I've stopped them from occurring. One small furry animal's long gruesome suffering death caused, many small furry animals' long gruesome suffering deaths prevented. It's easier if it can be me rather than the small furry animal undergoing the suffering - if I knew with certainty that my sacrifice could bring an absolute end to the suffering of all sentient beings then I'd go ahead to the torture room...<<
I'm with you here, Bod - I absolutely agree.

In a way Della has given me a thought, with reference to the sacrifice of the one to save the many.
whether it be a jesus figure or a small furry animal.
she says;
"if I knew with certainty that my sacrifice could bring an absolute end to the suffering of all sentient beings then I'd go ahead to the torture room...<<"

We would assume that an all powerful, all seeing God would 'know' that the sacrifice his 'son' made wouldn't and didn't work, all pain , suffering and perceived sinning didn't stop.
Therefore if there is any truth in the tale of a mystical human/demigod (Jesus) come to wash the world clean of perceived evils,as opposed to a very aware human being murdered for his alternative views, then god made an impossible mistake.
the torture of the small furry animal would be just that and not have any observable change other than to add to the violance created by divisions of belief.
One could agree with the idea that God understood that such a sacrifice would actually result in even more sacrifices and persecution that would set man against man and bring a 'sword' to the world..
so in answer to the question I would not torture the one, nor could I even if I said I would, because it isn't in me to do so.
And perhaps that is the 'test' of mankind.
Because to torture or murder anything, has consequences; emotional, psychological, and even physical and completley changes the torturer's nature.
If we can harden our hearts to the cries of the one, we will learn to harden our hearts to the cries of all.

Nice post Insight

Hi Moth .

But good grief! It was just an example of how one man's wine is another man's poison. What you see as evil I see as good and vice versa.

I do know that antibiotics aren't the only factor in population growth. As for you 1700's puberty theory, it's a crock. Only in Western Europe, at the height of the power of the landed aristocracies, did the general nutritional condition of the populace fall so low as to delay puberty to as much as 18 years old.

Indeed prior to the domination of Western Europe by an unenlightened Christian Theocracy, that outlawed scientific and medical endeavour especially if it had a 'pagan' background, general health was remarkably good. Other than during the occasional famine or period of pestilence (the settling in of a new imported disease), the average man (if he survived the first five years of his life) could expect to live to seventy years old, and women a few years older. Girls typically married at 12-13 and began having children at 14-15.

Despite this rude good health the population did not explode. It was held in check by disease and infection. This includes disease amongst livestock and crops.

Only when we managed to beat disease and infection through vaccination and antibiotics did we really upset the natural balance and, hey presto!, here we are now.

I don't look back and wish for a 'golden age', there never was one. But these factors need to be taken into account so we can better manage the earth for our grandchildren.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Moth, again

Small Furry Animal Argument.

Excellent, couldn't agree more.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

To All,

The Matholwch is leaving the building. I am off to my annual Druid Camp and will see you all on Monday. Hoped to see No.10,000 before I went but you lot have been slacking as usual .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Moth,

"Therefore if there is any truth in the tale of a mystical human/demigod (Jesus) come to wash the world clean of perceived evils,as opposed to a very aware human being murdered for his alternative views, then god made an impossible mistake."

My understanding of the Christian viewpoint is that Jesus came not to "wash the world clean of perceived evils", but to save people from the post-death consequences of evil, ie. through grace to save them from hell (or something like that).

I have heard the basis of belief of Christianity described as "Faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour whose atoning sacrifice is the only grounds for salvation".

I disagree with that view, I did even as a Christian, for I think it breaches fundamental principles of justice. But there it is.

So Christians would say that Jesus' mission was a success as he saved all Christians from hell through grace. And you will not be able to prove otherwise. Unless you can disprove the existence of God.

As for the small furry animal,

"Because to torture or murder anything, has consequences; emotional, psychological, and even physical and completley changes the torturer's nature.
If we can harden our hearts to the cries of the one, we will learn to harden our hearts to the cries of all."

I agree that the torture of the animal would be most unlikely to have any positive consequences. Therefore if I am at any stage in my life given the opportunity to torture such an animal I will decline.

But the point of this argument was to establish what is the right thing to do in the highly theoretical circumstance of such torture having as its consequqnce the elimination of all future suffering. And in such a circumstance, I'm arguing that it IS the right thing to do. If you accept that we are responsible for the consequqnces of our omissions as well as our actions then the choice is between being responsible for:

A. The extreme suffering of a small furry animal; or
B. A near infinite amount of future suffering including extreme suffering of small furry animals albeit perhaps different from the one in (A).

A is clearly the preferable choice from a moral perspective, so I would go for it.

But I would not harden my heart and I would no doubt cry all the way through and for a long time afterwards.

Which is why Della and I would prefer to substitute ourselves for said animal.

Bod

Toxx.

"Bod. Too much so. It would amount to coercion if God were to persuade us. That's why he sent a human to do it."

No, it's not coercion - that's "the application of force to control the action of a voluntary agent" (OED). I'm calling for encouragement not enforcement.

There is no free will breach when somebody is PERSUADED of something - that involves not forcing them to act in a way other than they want, but encouraging them to change their minds about a proposed course of action. It is not breaching their free will, it is helping them to freely make different choices.

If God were to explain to people how harmful acts contribute to the creation of circumstances for the actor's own suffering, to make clear the direct and indirect consequqnces of their harmful acts and to suggest unharmful alternatives, it does not seem unreasonable to hypothesise that he could persuade everybody along a "path of good". Remember that he is omnipotent, right?

Bod

The Bribe argument...

Or, since he has creation powers, he could BRIBE everybody contemplating a harmful act to choose a good alternative instead.

That doesn't interfere with free will.

Alji:
Since Jesus believed the Genesis account to be factual, should we not believe it too?<
First you have to prove to me that the Jesus you speak of is real.>
No I don't. Because I wasn't talking to you. I was replying to someone who said they were a Christian and so presumably doesn't need that proving.

Math:

Who requires you to surrender your free will? You may want to be an artist, a scientist, an actor etc. There are thousands of jobs you can do (not to mention hobbies you can do, and people you can befriend) without offending Jehovah, and you're free to choose to do any of them.
Who's an unforgiving God? Jehovah is perfectly willing to grant forgiveness, and has made sacrifice for us in order to be able to do it without breaking his standards of justice. But as you later state, you're unwilling to apologize, to ask forgiveness.
(And to answer your question, just think about the word: UN - GOD - ly . What could be more ungodly than rejecting God?)


Clearly not quite as well as you do, since I wrote an argument against hellfire only a few days ago, and have done several times before that.


You were conceived with sin, born with sin, and you live with sin, just as we all do. Jehovah didn't put it there. Your parents did, as their parents put it in them, and as you put it in your own children. What sense would it make for him to have to make a sacrifice to remove something that he himself put there? He would be cutting off his nose to spite his own face (if I understand that expression correctly).


1. I'M not right to execute anyone.
2. If God actively executed people for original sin, none of us would be here. Original sin is like a disease, it's hereditary, and it kills us itself.


I will, and especially so when that relationship is /fully/ available, after this system of things has passed.
Just remember that while I chose slavery to Jehovah, you chose independence from Him - EXACTLY as Adam and Eve did. You've willfully replicated the very error that created original sin, and by extension all the badness in the world, in the first place. So unless you change your mind someday, you can never claim that you shouldn't pay the penalty for what Adam did - because you've done the same thing yourself.
(And don't forget to consider that if you choose independence from someone, it literally means you choose not to depend on them, not to receive provisions from them. Provisions such as food, protection from diseases and natural disasters, not forgetting an everlasting supply of life. So you can't blame Jehovah for not giving you these things; you've chosen not to receive them.)
And if you consider your own standards to be superior to Jehovah's, I'm nonplussed. Since you see yourself as superior to God, then if your creator Himself were to explain everything to you, it doesn't seem as if He could help you. So it seems pointless for little me to bother talking to you any further.
Though I might try again sometime anyway, if only to defend Jehovah's reputation against your libel.

Hi Insight,

"Original sin is like a disease, it's hereditary"

If God is supremely powerful then he can make it not hereditary.

(Actually I think the concept of Original Sin is a corruption of the concept of Karma, but perhaps that's a discussion point for another time?)

Bod

Bod. I'm enjoying this argument and I think that God's omnipotence is as much part of the problem as of a potential solution. However, I shall have to back up for a moment and define some terms for those who aren't familiar with them. A 'success verb' such as 'see' means that one actually DOES become aware of something by visual means. What I call an 'attempt verb' like 'look' can go either way. Sometimes looking results in seeing but sometime we peer uselessly into the gloom.

Since God is omnipotent, every verb when applied to Him is a success verb. If God looks, He will see. If God persuades, He will convince. Aye, there's the rub! Since God is omniscient, He knows that He will succeed in convincing (success verb) anyone he persuades. Everyone will be convinced, therefore a real choice will not exist. The possibility of choosing evil is ONLY a theoretical one. It never, in fact, happens and God knows this. That means freewill is not allowed to operate.

My preferred term instead of 'freewill' is 'freedom of action' anyway. It would be rather as though we chained someone to the wall and then argued that they were free to run away. Sure they're free to will it, but not to do it, and for me that is crucial.

I would argue that God had released enough persuasive forces into the world to take this as far as He can *without succeeding*. He can't use His omnipotence here for fear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (the freedom of action with the evil actions).

This will apply to bribery too. God can't allow it to work too well or it's baby and bathwater time again!

Bod. God cannot do what is logically impossible. Therefore, He cannot make Origial Sin not to be hereditary. Original sin just IS hereditary sin. If it ceased to be hereditary, it would cease to be original. These are the meanings of the words, not facts about the world that God COULD change.

Bod

I still think we should refuse to torture the small furry thing, because of the changes in ourself having done that.
It's a hard physchological argument for me to make and I may not be doing it right. I know what I mean, but as usual expressing it is proving difficult

To torture anything CHANGES the human peception of what suffering and cruelty is. Therefore it's almost as if the hypthetical questioner (surely a devil figure) DOES indeed 'prevent' suffering in the rest of us BY simply moving the goal posts of what is considered to be suffering and pain, because we have become pain and suffering 'tolerant' by our own acts.
The human that tortures the innocent being is NOT the same human being who chooses not do this act.
The change in a person would be grotesque.
Grotesque enough to move the level of pain and suffering to a new dimension. ie. one that can be rationalised.

Re Jesus I have heard the term to 'wash away *sins of the world' as a reason for the crucifixion ( an act I remind myself which could not have happened without the aid of perceived evil , therefore God required evil to bring perceived good?)
Presumably Christians could not get into their version of heaven with these sins intact.
I presume that I am against the 'act' of sacrifice as only functioning for those who sign up for the whole religiousity thing. HEY do you 'die' for the world for a limited few or for every body.
Would the small furry creature be worth torturing for those only in the club?

* for sins read causal pain and suffering, for what other real sins are there?

"Spiritual traditions differ from one another in their theological formulations; and the history of humankind is blighted by rivalry between different religious communities.
Yet theology is no more than human speculation about truths that are beyond the grasp of the human mind. The writings in these books amply demonstrate that, as men and women actually experience these truths within themselves and others, divisions and rivalries fade, and unity is found. May the third millennium be an era of spiritual unity across the globe."

From The Global Spirit Library, Series Introduction