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

Ahh I understand better now.

* Don't know who said it, but I think it's pretty accurate: "To those who believe, no proof is needed. To those who don't, nothing is proof".

* It's easy to explain the hard to explain things by waving the god flag... It's harder to list a collection of scientific facts and theories to explain those same things.

* Recently saw the movie "Oh God" with George Burns and John Denver. It made me think... 1. If god is what most believers think he is, we wouldn't need so many churches/godhouses and such big god industry to simply be his creatures. 2. Most people are comfortable with the idea that god left some written and/or unwritten rules and left us alone. If god became a little more real than he is now, most people will have a really hard time with it... Be careful what you wish for...

* We got pretty far for monkeys with opposed thumbs, but there's still a long way to go...

Cheers for those Salmon

"To those who believe, no proof is needed. To those who don't, nothing is proof"

I think this ultimately sums up the situation, because those who believe don't need proof they cannot provide it to those who don't believe. Vice versa, those who don't believe cannot show the lack of proof to those who believe because they don't need it and therefore it is irrelevant.

There have been some interesting points raised about differences between 'creative forces' and 'Deities'(sp?).

Can the two be truly separated, is one not just and anthropomorphic personnification of the other? The fact that humans have invented rules to support this personnification does not detract from what it supposedly was in the first place, a creator. Or by saying that am I likening God to Jack Frost too much? In the same way that I don't believe in the tooth fairy I don't believe in God. I can't remember whether this has been quoted yet but I shall add it now anyway!

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts”

Mel

Here's my take. The reason some people believe in a higher being and others don't is a reflection of each individual's thought processes.

As a cynic, I find it tough to ignore or explain the abuses, violence, and inhumanity that seems overwhelmingly prevalent in the human races interaction with each other. In other words, I see the world for the cess pool it really is. What I have a problem doing is finding an adequate explanation as to why the world is like this, when it is clear that the races of man should and could interact on a basis of merit and community of interest.

In other words, if you feel that there should be a reason for it all, if you feel that there should be something that transcends the mundanity and mendacity of everyday life, you believe in a higher power. If you see the fleeting connections between one human and the next, and know that there has to be something more to it than that, you believe in God.

If a person feels that only perception can tell about the world around you, then you tend toward atheism, or agnosticism. Gods cannot be proven or disproven by any means we now possess. Empiricists (those that only believe empirical evidence) cite this as proof that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, how do you prove a negative? As far as I know, it has been done once using math I didn't fully understand. Thus pure logic tends to result in a draw where higher beings are concerned.

That brings us back to the individual. Like all other aspects of human society, this is where it all begins. Choice and personality determine if a person believes or not. Existence or non-existence notwithstanding, that is what it is all about.

<< As far as I know, it has been done once using math I didn't fully understand.>>
Maths is an (almost complete) mystery to me - but I find this interesting. Was it a proof of a negative, or a proof of God's non-existence?
<< Choice and personality determine if a person believes or not. Existence or non-existence notwithstanding, that is what it is all about.>>
That's an interesting view, and you maybe right, or maybe not! I have known people who became believers (not necessarily willingly) but because they were confronted with what to them, was incontrovertible proof. Therefore, they would have said it wasn't entirely a matter of choice...

The proof was of Fermat's last theorem, that there doesn't exist any three numbers (x, y, and z) such that x^n + y^n = z^n where n > 2. A discussion of the proof can be found here http://cgd.best.vwh.net/home/flt/fltmain.htm. Maybe you'll understand it better than I did. I think he's talking about sides of a triangle, that if you raise Pythagorean's theorem to a higher power that it doesn't work, and they proved his assertion correct.

As to the second part of your message, is it possible that your friends personalities and thought processes allowed them to interpret what they experienced as proof? Perhaps you or I, experiencing the same thing wouldn't see it as proof? That is entirely my point, that religion is (or should be) a personal experience and belief. I am not trying to say all gods are made up, or that your friends are wrong, but that they are right for them, and that is all that is important in the long run.

The first thing I want to say here is that: I'm an atheist!

So here are my arguments:

1. You cannot say God exist just because 'there are things that science can't explain' because science explains everything. (If there something science can't explain, please state!!)

2. Something perfect need not exist.

3. A 'first-mover' need not exist. Energy can jump out of nowwhere as explained by the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. (it's proven.) Besides, evolution is damn sure a reality. As not, would the animals still survive with we filthy and pollutive humans?

4. In every religion, you can see a trace of 'human thoughts'. We can say (no offense) Christianity is male based because the bible states that woman is created out of man's bone or whatever.

5. I daresay (no offense again) the bible is fictitious. Any writer has the capability of writing their own religion's holy book. One guy even suggested the worship of the gods in Tolkien's The Silmarillion!

Janathan,

Once you have the first answer, don't you then wonder, ponder and think?
Are there not little odd details, slightly disconcerting facts, new difficult knowledge and rare occurences?

If you start taking the "creatures" apart, can't you see unique properties, would you not start creating categories of details, etc...?

Then you would surely ask yourself: what are the laws that govern all these facts, what is the history of this and that object, what are the bias and faults in my own judgement and observation?

Once the can of worms is opened, you will always have to postpone the conclusion that God created all of that.
You could use this statement in the conclusion of some work in progress (probably as your best guess so far), but it would not be honest to make it a definitive statement.

Why the human race has become dominant?
I believe it is the need to know, to have a reason, to understand. It is programmed into us all to see the difference and ask questions. Why?
Life becomes easier, that’s why. For example if you can control fire then you can heat things, all sorts of things. Something else in built ‘playing with fire’ how often, as children are we draw to the bonfire throwing things into it to see if it will burn. Perhaps our ancestors found some things, which were only partly burnt and these became editable.

Science has given many explanations, and solved many a riddle.

As the human race evolved we developed our societies, which has enabled us to build shelters, protection and provide food. But this is never enough.

The human race has developed the intelligence to ask the big questions, who am I, why am I here, what is my purposes. With intelligence has come arrogance, we ask these questions of ourselves but not of others, the few people that do we call profits.

It is very difficult to accept there is no reason for our existence other than pure chance. Even if your parents planned you there were no guarantees that they would end up with you.

So where does a god fit in?
Very useful is a god, because you don’t know why you exist but rest assured god does.
If, for example, the leaders of your community think you should go to war on your neighbour because of something he said about his mother, then knowing if you forfeit your, god will take care of you in the afterlife. At which point he will no doubt explain why you were called into existence in the first place.

It is always better to send a solider to war that has a god because he has less to loose than a solider without a god. Let me explain, a solider with a god if killed will gain by going to a better place, probably sponsored by MacDonalds, where as a solider with no god will loss all, and no MacDonalds.

<>

To the best of my knowledge, no religion has anything to say about MacDonalds! In Christinaity at least, there is a long tradition of pacifism and anti-war activism.

Yes Adelaide there is, but once again you like most Christians and religious types are chosing in a slanted way to ignore the facts of history that show religion to be just as much a spur for war, murder, other, violence and oppression in general.

This not only dicredits the people who chose to put their case so one sidedly but infact undermines the credibility of the the very religions, religiously inspired revisionists of history such as your self are trying to propogate.

Once people see that statements such as yours are at best only half the truth or at worst a direct attempt to lie and obsucre the other less favourable half of the truth about your little mystical cults they will run a mile from you, your religions and your easily recognisble propoganda.

In short you do yourself and your religions credibility no favours by lying in such a transparent way.


BTW the line about Mcdonalds was an anology. Clearly from your post you are having trouble graping its meaning if you are interested drop me a line on my PS and I will explain it and what anonlgies are used for in language and their capability for expressing complex ideas.

one love

If god created the Earth etc. Then he created man and woman from man etc.
So where do the dinosaurs fit into this picture?

Just a thought! <SMILEY TYPE="devil"/>

If you pick and choose between different bits of a religious doctrine, you must have some grounds outside the religion for your decisions. But if you already *have* those grounds you don't *need* the doctrines.

And for the definitive argument on why a natural/supernatural dualism is absurd I recommend the first chapter of Spinoza's "Ethics". Available at any decent library. (You don't have a library ticket? Well, stop f**ting about here and go and get one!)

Noggin

Stephen - guideML doesn't work on conversation threads. Just use

Noggin

The simple answer is: you are a liar Stephen. There are no such things as dinosaurs the science is all wrong. Or the bible is both literall and allegorical and as such any new facts about the world fit what it already says but because you are a heathen you just cant understand it only true believers can understand the bible

If you want a good laugh google a few bible science sites

and if you want to do a just miss out the spaces but type in lower case

one love

I have to answer this, StephenWB (at the risk of being jumped on and attacked by the Blickybadger but what the hey, what is life without risk?
Only a small fraction of Christians, and fewer Jews, are creationists, and take the Biblical accounts of creation literally. So your dinosaurs are safe!

<>

This has always been my problem with understanding *what* a Christian is exactly. So many of them do a 'pick&mix' personal choice option and still say they are Christians. So that when people do question them about their own Holy Bible they end up saying - 'oh well, I don't believe in *that* bit'.

It seems to me that 'true Christians' take their Holy Bible as sacred and as being the Word of God. Although I don't agree with how fundamentalist Christians think I do somehow respect them more as 'true believers' than those who personally edit the Bible so as to make it more palatable.

az
part-time pantheist

azahar, as I recall, we've been over this 1000s of times before! The Bible is perfectly well open to a metaphorical interpretation, and always has been. Literal creationism has always been just one view, since the beginning of the Christian era.It's nothing new, strange or heretical to accept evolution. So your insistence that that you don't know what a Christian is (which has been answered many times, and not just by me) seems disingenuous.
What *is* new, is your statement that you prefer fundamentalists because they are honest!

Adelaide dearest I apologise if I have ever attacked you.

I know I have often torn your posts to shreds, which must be painful to see when you put so much store by your confussed belief system that generates so much of your desperately misguided thinking. This I cant do much about as your confrontational style (like my own) calls for robust rebuttals.

I have often enquired about your mental state, these have all been genuine enquiries normally inspired by your inability to remember what you posted on a previous page, or how many log-ins you are currently operating etc...etc...

But I have never once "jumped" on you, have I

az, wants to know, or to put it more accurately, is perpetually perplexed by;

How people with such diverse opinions about so many fundamental issues (ressurection, transubstantiation, the existance of hell, predetermination, celibacy to name just a few) can all call themselves christians. EVEN while some from within that self declaring ilk say they are NOT christians. Eg. you with the Mormons.

You are right though, people have tried to explain it to az 100's of times (well apart from exaggerating as usual). What you fail to say is that no one has answered her to her satisfaction, which is a different thing entirely.

I have told az several times that there is no answer other than its all made up as you lot go along. One day you cant have women preists the next you can, the bigG doesnt like homosexuals the next you've got gay bishops (well openly gay, the clergy has always had its fair share of "friends of Dorothy" You get people to wear dresses and gaudy jewellery of course drag queens are ogoing to apply for the job)

What intrigues myself and others though is just how individuals like yourself who know that the Bible in its earliest collected form was the product of a council who all vested interests and a political agenda to put across, who included and excluded some texts depending on whether those texts supported their ambitions and plans. These texts have since undegone transcriptions and translations. Not to mention being edited by the order of a bi-sexual King (or should that be queen) of England. They then go on to read short passages, although some few people have read it all and then they decide which bits are direct and literal instruction from the bigG and which are little more than fairy stories fit mainly for indoctrinating children in Sunday schools.

What lots of people would like to know is how does anyone know the difference. Jonah in the whale, burning bushes, the garden of eden, walkiing on water, the feeding of the 5,000, the great flood, the tower of bable, the walls of Jehrico, David and Goliath, the ressurection

All these weird things going on in the desert but no one has ever seen their like since!

Have we just stepped through the looking glass?

Let us consider:
A bunch of poweful men bring us a collection of writtings they say are the truth they tell of a terrible evil that may befall us if we dont follow their path, but it all turns out to be hyped up nonsense based on very little truth, but we only find this out after many people have died because of what was contained in those pages.

Im talking about the US and UK dossiers on Iraq, but I could just as easily be talking about the Bible. Funnily enough the two people most keen that we should believe what was in those dossiers are both card carrying christians.

one love

<>

*Always*? I should think that when the Bible was written it was taken as the literal Word of God. And creationism was the only acceptable view.

<>

Since the theory of evolution is relatively new I would have to disagree with this.

Also, I did not say that I 'preferred' fundamentalists. I said I thought they were closer to being 'true believers' of their faith for taking a literal interpretation of their Holy Bible. Once you start with 'metaphorical interpretation' then the Bible tends to lose any meaning as being a book representing God's Word and The Truth, as it was written to be.

As a result, there are all these different groups of people all calling themselves Christians yet who all believe in quite different things. Hence my confusion.

az