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

And a warm welcome to our newcomers.

The meaning of "is", eh? Third person singular of the verb to be, or the copula (assertion of equivalence or identity).

The actual thread title is (copula) God: Fact or Fiction. The meaning of three of these words has been debated here and there, but all new viewpoints are more than welcome, no real conclusion having been drawn about any of them.

A well supported argument in .3 seconds? You obviously think a *lot* quicker than I do.

As for reading the backlog - don't even contemplate it. Just dip into it for the flavour.

Noggin

Exaggeration. But not that huge.

What, you mean like quietly confrontational, it's got its good points , am know for it in parts. brings a bit more life live to a place.

Hi Noggin.
thank's

Tell you what, az. I could ask my old buddy Istvn to pay us a visit. He spends most of his time on 'the Oldie' message board. He is a very articulate Jew and a professional entertainer. In fact, he's known to his friends as 'the thief of bad gag'.

toxx

So, how DO bumblebees fly?

"In short, although Christianity contributes, people pick up on this particular 'sin' because of personal objections or it's topical nature, which has nothing to do with how much worse off they are, and the few churches which say otherwise are in the minority and/or in contravention of gospel principles."

IMO Christianity can't cope with sex, period. The logical objection to homosexuality (voiced at one point by Insight, but also heard recently on R4 interviews with African clerics) is that it can't be reproductive. But, as I've saidf previously, if that is the argument, then every Christian Church would have to view any sex which is *not* designed to produce a baby as perverse, which the Anglican Church does not do.

I have a problem with the entire Christian view of sex. This sin appears to take precendence over the sin of usery and other perverse applications of wealth and power, yet, from memory, these were far more heavily condemned by the founder of Christianity. This may be because sex is so uncontrollable (as a generalisation) a drive that it threatens those in power, whether in government or in the Church, as it is ultimately subversive and can (and does) breed rebellion and subversion. Hence the need for control. Those in power, on the other hand, indulge their sexual gratification regardless of their own rules, and cover up thier acts. This can be seen by the unhappy prevalence and history of paedophilia within all branches of the Church.

"I still have to respond to Heathen Sceptic about the 'gods filling parental roles' position!"

I'm patient, Jordan!

"How much do you identify with your religion? Meaning, does being a Christian, Pagan, Muslim, etc feel like it is an integral part of who you are and how you present yourself to the world? Or do you see that as a private part of your life and so you don't discuss it much with other friends?"

(a) completely
(b) yes
(c) no

"Is it fair to say that the conditional statement "God is fact if you say so" is acceptable as some sort of concensus?"

No, no - that's got to be "The gods are a fact if you say so", surely?

I completely fail to see that the existence of God or gods can be conditional upon someone's remark. Have I missed the point or what?

toxx

Hay, Heathen Sceptic Interesting My Space
is a conditional statements acceptable as some sort of consensus?" well looking at the world today I'd say yes, for the majority anyway

Some sort of consensus doesn't make for truth. I seem to remember what is actually the case coming into it somewhere.

Noggin

Watch out for Noggin - he bites.

Noggin. I suspect that 'the truth' and 'the case' are sometimes sadly neglected on this thread. Perhaps a vanishing few of us will continue to defend the fact, and even the factoid.

toxx

Any more slanders like that Malaclypse and I'll take a chunk out of your leg.

Proposition 1. The world is all that is the case.

Noggin

toxxin,

<>

Do you accept that, for example, Math's gods exist? We have never seen them and can only take his word that they exist. Or is it different to say that they exist for him? In which case we do take his word for it. In which case his gods are conditional (for us) upon his remark.

az

Noggin. That proposition is both too much and too little. Some of what is the case is not the world, and the world also contains possibilities which are not, at least yet, the case.

toxx

ok, if there is no god, higher being, energy or whatever, where did dna come from? the physical side of life begining in the "primodial ooze" is consieavable, but the dna is not. it's like, if you took loads of bits of computers, put them in a wind vortex for a few hudread years sooner or later it might fit togeather properly, but who would program it?

What I would say, az, it that a person's beliefs exist 'for' that person. However, gods or gophers do not exist 'for' anyone. They either exist or they don't independently of whether there is a single human on the planet or in the universe!

toxx