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

Yes, that's true. One in 1,000,000 is too many.... My point was just that it's fewer than many people think - fewer than I thought myself, til I found those figures. (Here, the Salvation Army have suddenly become the target of the same sort of allegations, because they run orpganages, and the letters to the editor columns are running hot with letters from former residents, some with horrible experiences and a slightly larger number in defence of the SA! I just find myself mightily confused, as I have yet to hear any *numbers*!)

I don't want to discuss paedophilia, it's a complete swamp, and I don't want to get bogged down (as we all have before...)
I take your point about forgiveness in this context, but don't think it applies generally. Forgiveness is a vital thing, and must not be thrown out simply because in some cases, it should also be accompanied by strong action - for instance, in the cases you discuss.
There's a cause celebre here in NZ, of a man called Peter Ellis, convicted in 1982 of abusing children at a child care centre where he worked. Despite *many* appeals and rehearings, his conviction has always been upheld. Yet there are constant attempts to have his innocence proved. I personally, think he is guilty as, and his supporters are (many very rich(!) members of mens' rights groups, who are explicitly anti feminist and anti woman, and who believe all children to be either completely malleable and gullible, or little imps of evil who lie like rugs because that's child nature!
The whole Peter Ellis issue has got confused with the paedophile priest issue - people who believe P.E guilty, condemn all priests without looking at numbers, and I find myself, as someone who believes the court found correctly in 1993 and at least four times since, a fellow with people who believe all priests to be dirty old men!
Meanwhile, the people most likely to be charged and convicted here?
School teachers!

Of course my *second* date 1993, is correct, not 1982...

door, I think your tone to Myst is way out of order. Apologising *while* being offensive, does not mitigate the offence, as you may well know. I've been on the receiving end of your not nice demeanour, and I don't like it any better than Myst would.

Myst

"There isn't a single person in history that I would wish Hell upon. Not Hitler, not Stalin, not anyone. No matter how bad they were in life, the suffering they caused will be a candle to the sun compared to what Hell would be.

I hope and wish you feel the same way."

No I'm afraid I don't. There is no hell. I haven't mentioned this for ages (have I Toxx ?) but I have had a death experience , which is more than documented enough in past posts. My experience shows me that there is no hell other than our own making. That those people who believe they are worthy of some kind of punishments ,(or indeed special treatments) invent them for themselves and suffer the invention until they realise that death is about losing the body AND the ego.
We leave our physical bodies here, where they belong, (which is scientifically obvious ) in the physical realm of things. We therefore have no body that can suffer the kinds of pain and turmoil that exists on earth. Heat, flames, cold, none of these await us in the after life...unless we are so convinced that this will happen that our egos will create it for us. that is why it is so important to me that we do not conjour up a hell to experience for a short time, until we let go our ego . Many religions teach that god is everywhere, except in us. That we are seperate from God and we are not. We are part of the everything that God created. As for creatures and plant life, these too are Gods creation and should be respected as such, equal to the human being. since if it is easy to disrespect these things, it becomes easier to disrespect the human.
I won't and can't go with the sinner in everybody when some do not survive long enough to grasp a breath, let alone sin or have a sinful thought.
Jesus, the thief on the cross, hitler, Stalin, Mother Teresa and Judas, play their parts in the world that is all a stage and exist in the same place after their deaths. There is no perceived good or bad in the 'body' of God which we are created from and return to upon death.

Door -

>>I'm afraid your statistics are wrong. I recommend you spend less time reading tabloid newspapers and crackpot puritan pamphlets.<<

Well, I assume you have statistics to counter, then? I will gladly withdraw mine assuming you can give me good reason. Excuse me for not taking your word alone, but I generally like to see some reasoning behind statements like that...

How to put this... I really don't mind you being insulting. If you feel you have to attack me, then attack me. As for my statistics, most tabloids don't ever bother with God beyond the "God enters California Electoral bid," style thing. And for puritans? Perhaps you should actually look at who I am rather than the straw man you seem to like thrashing away at...

But, as you may have noticed, I don't get insulting, yet I am arguing a 180 degree spin of your theories. I know what I say is the truth, just as you know your view is the truth. You do not seem willing to admit that anyone but yourself and people who share your views possess any intelligence at all, which will not win you any favours, in my opinion.

You see, I don't see any proof for your point at all. Oh, true, I see the self replicating molecules, just as I've seen the theories that under certain conditions, matter can come into existence spontaneously, along with antimatter.
I've not, however, seen any statistics or new innovations to make your theory seem at all possible. I just have your assurances that over the entire surface of the Earth, this exceedingly improbable event occurred not once, but several times.
And the stats I gave you? They are for the formation of the very primordial ooze that you speak of. This would be occurring before the self-replicating molecules, which again would take a very large span of time to occur. And from there, they would have to form into single-celled organisms, which, as before, would take an incredibly long time.
All this without /anything/ going wrong. Do you understand why I find that unbelievable?

When you're done trying to insult me, and want to actually debate, let me know. As I've learned in ethics, you're using one of the four main abuses of argument, "Ad Hominem," which translates to "Against the person."
In other words, you ignore my view and attack my credibility instead, in the hopes that if you can discredit me enough, my point will become invalid, which it won't.

(http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html)

Oh, and by the way... as for reading comprehension... I scored a perfect 36 on reading and a 32 in English on the national ACT testing. My reading skills are 99% higher than that of most college students... as in I was reading the "Silmarillion" in fourth grade, and understanding it. Thought you'd like to know!

Go in peace, and give up on your anger. It'll do a world of good.

<(((><

Drat -

If I don't get around to all your posts, folks, my apologies. It's nearing midnight here and now, and I've class in the morning. Anyone I don't get around to tonight, I'll be back tomorrow.

Higgs -

The mentally disabled have free will, as in they can make decisions on their own. God is not telling them what to do. Now, if they commit a crime, and are not aware of it, I don't think they should be punished. But if they know what they do is wrong, then they earn the punishment for the crime that they commit, for in that case, they conciously chose to commit the crime.
Fears, as I know from experiance, can be gotten rid of with a bit of work. Perhaps not all, but if the crime is done under duress, I cannot vouch for punishment there, either.

As for the murderer, I think that he was just that. A murderer. As I've said before, abhor the sin, not the sinner. Killing someone is a horrible, horrible thing. No one is too far gone to be saved, and I would never condone what that fool did. He understood that he was killing someone, and he knew that it was wrong.

As for the sub-programs running in the vast areas of our skulls, Terry Pratchet brought up an interesting idea, which I thought had a little merit. The brain works very hard at making the extrodinary seem ordinary. You know that wide-eyed wonder newborns have with everything? Can you imagine how the world would work if we never got bored, or used to things? Because, in all honesty, there is a lot of amazing stuff we take for granted every day. Heck, I'm looking at a plasma screen right now. That would have people fourty years ago astounded, and I see it as ho-hum...

Interestingly enough, I've heard that you actually act a few picoseconds before you think of what you're going to do, and the mind simply rationalizes. Not sure how that would work out, but it fits in with what you're saying. I can't say I believe it, but that's my opinion.

<(((><

OK, you didn't seriously address any of my points, but I'll put that down to pressures of time.

> Fears, as I know from experiance, can be gotten rid of with a bit of work

True, it is *usually* possible to overcome phobias eventually, but at that point you're no longer phobic. My example concerned someone who was phobic and therefore restricted in their freedom to act compared to a non-phobic person.

> As for the murderer, I think that he was just that. A murderer.
> ... He understood that he was killing someone, and he knew that
> it was wrong.

As I said, different people have different opinions and views. He knew it was *against the law*, but by his moral code he was doing right by saving lives ('doing God's work' - didn't you read his statement?). His apparent lack of guilt or remorse, and his willingness to die happy with his action indicate that he did not believe what he did was wrong.

The same applies to many religious fundamentalists who perform criminal acts in the belief they are doing right. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For a different example, Iraqis who broke Saddam's repressive laws would not necessarily be considered criminals in the West. Christians might consider some aspects of strict Sharia law to be cruel and immoral, whereas Sharia Muslims consider it God's will and law. Who is 'right'? It depends which moral code or religion you follow...

I would be interested if you would seriously address some of the arguments I put forward, but I'll understand if you don't - it can be uncomfortable to rationally examine too closely one's faith or beliefs!

tum-ti-tum

>>As I said, different people have different opinions and views. He knew it was *against the law*, but by his moral code he was doing right by saving lives ('doing God's work' - didn't you read his statement?). His apparent lack of guilt or remorse, and his willingness to die happy with his action indicate that he did not believe what he did was wrong.<<

However, he broke God's law, and man's law. The only law he felt he needed to respect was his own. God makes it clear, "Thou shalt not murder," and murder he did. He wasn't working God's will in this. If anything, it would decrease trust of Christians the world over.



>>The same applies to many religious fundamentalists who perform criminal acts in the belief they are doing right. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For a different example, Iraqis who broke Saddam's repressive laws would not necessarily be considered criminals in the West. Christians might consider some aspects of strict Sharia law to be cruel and immoral, whereas Sharia Muslims consider it God's will and law. Who is 'right'? It depends which moral code or religion you follow...<<

I've found that the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the funding you've got. As for who is right, it depends on what you're talking about. Which crimes? God has made it clear as well that we should follow man's laws, provided none of them contradict His law.

<(((><

Myst
That reply tempts the queston, if 'it' broke god's law to keep man's law would you do 'it.' And vice versa.
Presumably the murderer in question believed the latter and in fact he believed that the abortionist was murdering hundreds (if not thousands) and breaking his own version of Gods law.
Is abortion Gods law or mans law ?

OK I see we will get no further, as you appear blind to the idea that what some people believe are God's laws are not necessarily what you believe are God's laws. Perhaps this just appears to be the case because you are unwilling or unable to address the issue.

However, there is little point continuing what might have been an interesting dialogue if you are not prepared to reciprocate.

> Presumably the murderer in question believed the latter and in fact
> he believed that the abortionist was murdering hundreds (if not
> thousands) and breaking his own version of Gods law.

Exactly the point I was making.

> Is abortion Gods law or mans law ?

Is abortion breaking God's law or man's law? It seems that the answer can be both, one or other, or neither, depending on which legal domain you reside in, and which version of God's law you subscribe to. How can such divergent situations ever be resolved?

I would be interested to hear some religious viewpoints on this beyond the blinkered "My God's law is all there is, so there's nothing to discuss", but it looks like this is asking too much.

Right, one at a time.

Moth -

I would keep God's law above all things.

God is set agains abortion, from what I read.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you prophet of all nations."

Jerimiah 1:5

In essence, we are people before we are born, thus abortion could be considered murder.

/However,/ God also does not want us to murder, like whazzisface did. What he did was wrong, one way or the other. If we all went around solving problems like he did, history would be a bloodbath, full of hate and anarchy. May I make myself clear; I would never, never condone what he did.

Higgs -

I understand that some religions have different laws. I am looking for an example of how one of these religious laws contradicts God's law (and by God, I am referring to the God of Christianity, and by law, I mean what is laid out in the Bible). Otherwise, there isn't anything to talk about. Don't be too hasty to assume I don't want to talk. I just need something to start with.

<(((><

Chance of all proteins forming for a primordial soup:
= chance of one protein forming ^ number of proteins
= (chance of correct amino acid ^ number of amino acids) ^ number of proteins
= ((1 / 40)50) to the 2000th power.
= 1 / (1080) to the 2000th power.
= 1 / 10 to the 160000th power.

According to the amount of time science says the universe has existed, we haven't had enough time for this to happen yet. This is the primordial ooze.

Wow, we're really lucky, then, aren't we?


Yes Myst those numbers are staggeringly immense they inspire awe in me Just like the gothic cathedrals of Europe were meant to inspire awe in people who see them.

Just because the odds are slim does not mean that they are impossible.


*Now, excuse my rampant idiocy, but that seems like a very big number to me. You're suggesting that not only did this happen, that it wound up producing, say, eyes? Or, how about acne? Where does that fit in?*

I would not call it idiocy I think that you are blinded by your faith.

Myst
I admire your stance on the question.
However as you quote the Christian God considers the unborn precious.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you prophet of all nations."

Is it right and proper, do you think, to sit back and watch the slaughter of the unborn. Do you not consider it your task to save this abortionist from the sins of murder and the eventual hell he will be sent to. You would not condone whatsisface you say, but I don't hear the condemnation of the victim for what your god would also consider the 'murder' of thousands OR do you believe that the fate of the unborn child is an individual choice. A decision that can only be made by those involved, based on all sorts of different circumstances, some of them fairly appalling.
and if abortion is acceptable is euthanasia also?
Is there a difference?


note I have deliberatly used emotive language here to stress a point, my apologies if it upsets anyone.

poor myst
standing firm in the storm of criticism with no support. as much as i would love to be your loyal stead, a small problem is in my way: i am convinced there is no god.
i do not blame you for not wavering one bit in your position though.
This is because this is belief (or the absence of it) we are arguing about which is a very important instrument in your thinking process. Because if you go through life serving God and letting your fate be in his hands (this varies with the different sects of christianity), then this is a totally different mindset to somone being their own master in life and who wants to get his own picture of the universe. As most of us here are older intelligent human beings and have had most of their ways of thinking fixed into place, in this arguement you can't get a person to see your opposite view because they would have to reverse their thinking process which would probably turn you mad!
you could turn this argument on myself apart from that there was i time where i did believe (before i understood much of the world around me), but on my own accord reversed that (with a lot of difficulty over a large space of time)
decions decisions. insanity or "Blind faith". if i was of the opposite view i know which one i would choose

Would I be right in thinking you've read "The Celestine Prophecy", Moth?

Erkle makes an interesting point; neither the existence nor nonexistence of God are observable features of the universe; nor are His properties. How would one go about observing omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, or omnipresence? Same goes for free will and determinism, too, while we're about it. None of these things are even *potentially* observable. All of them are interpretations of the world by the human mind.

Myst's probability calculations for life getting started have a serious flaw - the assumption that life *has* to use some specific set of amino acids/proteins etc out of the billions potentially available - on the assumption that humans *have* to be the end product. Life uses what it creates. In fact, no one has any idea how to calculate the odds for life itself in some form or other.

Noggin

Blicky -

I don't really believe in luck, or coincidence.

The big difference is that we can prove that the Gothic cathedrals were built, and who built them, but we still have yet to prove that life arose from that ooze. Lack of evidence against a point does not prove that it is true, just as lack of evidence for a point does not prove that it is false.

I am not blinded. I know that evolution works. There was that butterfly in industrial areas, and wound up only the ones that developed dark spots like soot survived, wiping out the rest. It supports evolution, by natural selection.

However, my mind rebels against the idea of everything coming from nothing. The odds are against it, in a way that staggers any rational belief I could muster in favour. Sorry, but that's simply not something that I could believe, just as you probably couldn't believe that there is a God who got things rolling.

Moth -

My task is no easy one. I would love to stop the abortionist, if not through ministry, then through the law itself. I would also love to have stopped his murderer, which is not possible now. I don't condone with abortion, but I'm not going to condemn anyone. Perhaps the doctor never knew what the Bible had to say. He could be acting out of ignorance, and then it should be our job to show him what is wrong with what he was doing.

Euthanasia, I don't have much an opinion on. It's your choice whether you want yourself to be killed, I suppose. But there is a difference. I'm pretty sure no unborn child would want to die, any more than you or I would want to have died then.

I think it's a shame that mothers go to kill their own children, when there are thousands of infertile mothers and fathers who would care for that child as their own. Beaks my heart, really.

Erklehammerdrat -

Cool name.

Thanks for the support, I suppose, but by no means am I alone… Working with the Holy Spirit here has strengthened my faith more than anything before, and I am grateful for the opportunity to test my devotion.
The reason I don’t waver in my faith, however, is that I’ve yet to see any reason to. I’ve had experiences throughout my life that now, looking back, I can see how blind I was to His work in my life.
I lost my faith a while back, and I am grateful that God showed me the way back, through something that I would have called coincidence a year ago. I won't bore you with the details of that story, though.

But really, He is working. Because of a random mistake on my part in planning, I stumbled in on the leadership meeting of my local Christian Intervarsity group, and was invited in. Now, for the first time in my life, I’m actually in a Bible study. The verse on abortion was one I was told about not more than two days ago. We are studying how the OT law relates to Christ’s law, and how we should go about respecting both.
Oddly enough, each new thing I learn usually I use within a day right here. Coincidence, I think not.

<(((><

One example of a religious law you may feel contradicts the 'law' of the Christian bible, is the strict Sharia law of stoning to death of a woman for sex outside marriage. Isn't that murder in the Christian ethic?

The main problem is not in the origins of these religions, because many of them have very similar underlying principles that are, for the most part, enlightened and liberal. The problem comes partly from the fact that the original texts are ancient, part factual interpretation, part morality tale, part personal opinion, part argument, etc. Written by fallible humans, translated by fallible humans, often contradictory both in the broad view (which is it, the brutal God of the Old Testament or the all merciful God of the New?) and in the narrow view, and potentially open to any number of widely varying interpretations. Whether taken literally or metaphorically, generalised or analysed in pedantic detail, it seems possible for the same text to give rise to multiple divergent and often contradictory religious laws espoused by an equal number of religious sects. Some many differ only in the subtlest interpretations, some may be grossly different.

For example, these are some of the religions in the UK alone:

Anglicanism | Baha'i | Baptists | Buddhism | Charismatic Renewal | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | Church in Wales | Church of Scotland | Hinduism | Islam | Jainism | Jehovah's Witnesses | Judaism | Methodism | Orthodoxy | Paganism | Pentecostalism | Quakers | Rastafarian | Roman Catholicism | Scientology | Scottish Episcopal Church | Seventh-Day Adventist Church | Sikhism | United Reformed Church | Unitarianism | Zoroastrians

Many are based on common texts (e.g. the Bible), but differ on interpretation and/or emphasis, to a greater or lesser extent. Their religious rules or laws are not all identical, but also differ according to interpretation and/or emphasis of the texts on which they are based.

Which set of laws is correct?