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

* returns from terrorising southern Germany and northern Austria *

Fathom: "It appears that the atheists would like some physical proof while the believers prefer to go on faith"

I would argue that I do have physical proof - certainly of the existance of magic. It's not the kind of proof anyone else would place much credence in though, magic tends to have results which very few people would be able to trace back to the original source, just from its very nature.

Of course, you might argue that this is a very convenient way to pretend that magic exists when in actuality it doesn't. To that I stick my tongue out, and let you carry on believing that. After all, nobody else's beliefs are particularly important to the validity of my own.

NAITA:
Jemima:

Not until Jesus put them there, no. From the New International Version, I quote:

Mark 5:

12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
14Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man--and told about the pigs as well. 17Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.


I challenge you to find much positive in that story.

Where was this supposed to have happened? If Jews don't eat pig by-products why the hell keep them in the first place?

Name: Fnord Prefix

Chair title: Uncertain Professor in Regional Disgust, Prodigies, Cliffhangers, and -

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them: Uncertain Agnosticism/Atheism, Liberality... uh, everything, really...

Wow, I'm new. But you didn't warn me...

...about the sharks? , we didn't think you'd go swimming quite so soon after arriving. Welcome, Fnord! "Illuminatus!" fan, perhaps?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

religion *is* one big contradiction, Blatherskite
makes life rather confusing

I think we are aspiring to the same ideal, though. a perfect world, perhaps? it's just that we have different ideas as to what that is. we're all human, though.

I typically prefer to avoid discussing Islam as much as possible because I don't know much about it, except for the historical roots and some of the basic customs. the whole jihad thing is very confusing, and I would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me. I agree with you though, Blatherskite, it does seem rather odd that such a "peaceful" religion would encourage that kind of violence. maybe it's similar to the crusades?

you're asking *me* what I think of Satan, Jemima? well, okay,
for some reason the word itself really bothers me; it took some effort to include it in my post, to tell you the truth. the idea of believing in Satan bothers me too. if you believe in something, especially as a powerful being, doesn't that give it some power over you? i'm also a little uneasy about the whole good vs. evil theme in religion. how do we know good will definitely win in the end?
personally, I prefer to view natural entities (spiritual ones included) as neutral in the whole good vs. evil debate; it's up to *us* to use them responsibly. I think I should mention as well that I'm a Pagan, so although I am familiar with the majority of Christian (Catholic) teachings (having come from that background) I don't necessarily agree with them. you can say I see Jesus as a philosopher; some of the stuff he said was really good, like the "Golden Rule." other stuff is easily misinterpreted, or extremely confusing, or better applicable to his time, region, etc. than to contemporary life in the so-called "civilized" world. the whole thing with the pigs, for example, is just plain old weird, from my perspective.

oh, sorry Jemima, never really answered your question! I don't believe in Satan at all. if you asked me to define the word, however, I would call it "a personification of evil used in Christianity (and other religions?) to encourage adherence to the moral standards of the religion and to facilitate a good vs. evil story, where good wins in the end."

and Blatherskite, I think you should write that lecture as a Guide Entry; I'd definitely read it and support any efforts you made to get it Edited. with anything religious I weed out the stuff I like to incorporate into my own moral code / belief system and leave the rest. "the stuff I like" in regards to Jesus would probably be the Wisdom personality.

Name:azahar

Chair title: part-time pantheist

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them: oh, well, all of them, I should think . . .

oops, shouldda stuck one of these - - at the end of that last line . . .

Thanks for that Santa Claus and for the link, which I will read at leisure later.

As I said, it is a long thread and it is hard sometimes to be sure you are not covering old ground - and of course with the whole theist/atheist/agnostic thing we can only ever cover old ground I appreciate the reply.

Regards

Hello Fathom,

>Albaus: I am entirely in agreement when you say...... But this isn't a definition of agnosticism I'm familiar with.

The words are my own, but I think they define what agnosticism really means. At least what it means to me, and that is the point really, we can't put people in boxes. Agnostic is as good a word as any I reckon.

>Personally I prefer to take the definite stance 'there is no God' despite the challenge it poses to the faithful (and the inevitable debates) because I don't like to come across as if I don't know and I don't care.

Well, there we differ. I don't mind admitting I don't know, in fact I admit that (at least to myself) every day and as the truism goes, the one thing I know as I grow older is that I know nothing. In a universal sense, that's true of everybody.

In addition, there is nothing more galling to the "faithful" than someone who simply denies their position and won't give them anything to argue with. It drives them potty (which is always amusing). Instead of engaging them in any sort of conversation, and thereby giving their delusions an air of respectability, simply saying I don't know, and neither do you in response to silly questions generally cuts them short. And of course, if it doesn't, I am more than equal to debate with them, on the odd occasion I find myself in that position.

I really don't enjoy debating with the "faithful" though, occasionally they irk me enough to engender a reply, but that is fairly rare. On the whole I feel embarrassed for them, sorry for them and irritated by them, not necessarily in that order. It's just tedious - like trying to explain to my six year old *again* - why, everything? At least with a six year old the endless questioning has a point, is eventually rewarding and the questions actually change from month to month.

However, I don't understand why you extrapolate "I don't care" from "I don't know". I don't know if we are going to wipe our species from the planet in the next couple of decades, but I certainly care and hope that we do not. I don't know if my children will grow up healthy and happy but I care about that more than anything. However, these are things I might at least hope to have some input in, I might have some small chance of affecting the outcome. Unlike the existence or non-existence of god. Believing/not believing, being dogmatic or otherwise about it, it's all just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Why fret about something you absolutely cannot change?

>Admittedly I probably come across as arrogant but then that's what I'm usually debating with and a firm viewpoint helps.

I don't think you did come across as arrogant. A little along the lines of protesting too much perhaps, but not arrogant.

>I suspect that, despite his 'outside rationalism' stance he still wasted a lot of his time debating with people who couldn't accept his viewpoint.

Maybe so, though I suspect that not many people would have been able to hold his interest, or hold up their end of an argument against him, for very long.

>I would like to believe some things that would make me feel more secure......was able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, I can't.

And on this we are in complete agreement.

With that, for now,

Regards

I found this too tempting to ignore "Why do rationalists/atheists/humanists only concentrate on the evils that man has done in religion's name, and not the good?"

There is nothing which has been done under the guise of religion which could not have been done without it. A quotation of which I am particularly fond: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion;" Steven Weinberg.

Maybe that's the point. The pig farmers must not be being good Jews, so why shouldn't Jesus ruin their livelyhood? Perhaps it was supposed to teach them to be more respectful of YHWH and his laws.

Hi Albaus, thanks for the detailed reply.

I expect you're right that Asimov could probably hold his own in any debate he did get involved in.

"However, I don't understand why you extrapolate "I don't care" from "I don't know". "
Yes you do - it was to elicit the response I got. Namely "I don't know but I DO care". There are those who don't know and actually don't care but it is more interesting talking with someone who doesn't know but cares enough to want to know. Debating the BIG questions without recourse to scripture (dogma if you like) is part of the freedom FFFF was surely set up to facilitate. People who care enough to think about it are the people I want to converse with.

I like your quotation: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion;" Steven Weinberg.

But I suggest that all you need really is dogma, not necessarily religion. Good people have done evil things in the name of Fascism and Communism to name but two.

F

Hi Fathom,

>But I suggest that all you need really is dogma, not necessarily religion

Well you could certainly replace the word dogma with religion and it would mean much the same thing, call it what you will I think religion and dogma, or religious dogma springs from the same place, a need for control, a desire for answers - whether they be correct or not - and a basic fear of the unknown.

>but it is more interesting talking with someone who doesn't know but cares enough to want to know.

I can't imagine not caring about the universe I live in, and of course it would be pleasing to know the "answers" (aside from 42 of course). However, I don't, and I don't foresee that happening before I die, if even then. I have accepted that I may never know and I am comfortable with that. It is a big leap to let go of any sense of control you have over life, the universe and everything, but it is honestly a very liberating leap - once it is made.

Regards

Hello
'They would be right to be afraid - the realisation that there is no God, that life is meaningless and very, very short is a serious psychological blow. It becomes a bit of a relief after a while - but it can be seriously traumatic at first and not to be taken too lightly. Perhaps one or two fellow unbelievers might agree?'
sorry, but i can't let this one slip. How can you be so sure that there isn't a god. science hasn't disproved God at all as far as i know.

'I challenge you to find much positive in that story'
Thanks for writing out the whole section. There isn't much positive, but He did get rid of the demons.

'how do we know good will definitely win in the end?'
Read Revelation 6 to 8:1. It's basically a history of the world and the end of it. I believe good will win at the end, or at least God will have won the battle agains the world's evil.

Hello Fnord and hello Az. Is everyone joining this thread from the lies thread?!
Jem

hi Jem,

<>

Well, not the most welcoming greeting. But still better than anything I've received from anyone else here, which has been nothing.

az

Sorry about that greeting. I'm glad you've joined this thread because you've been the most open, interesting and friendly person on the lies thread. You don't know what you've got guys!
Aaah isn't that sweet! But it had to be said.
Jem

Yes, absolutely, totally rude of me.

Welcome to FFFF Azahar and Fnord Prefix.

I only joined this forum a few days ago myself and I hope you will find it as fascinating and stimulating as I have.

What's with this 'lies' thread? I'll have to go and have a look.

F

The lies thread is 'lies, damned lies and science lessons'. You'll find it under lies on my homepage. It was a religious debate, then it tailed off, and now we're vaguely back on lies and not my jewelery!
Jem

Hi Albaus.

There are people who don't, or at least don't seem, to care about the universe we all live in. Perhaps it's all too hard to think about?

"But I suggest that all you need really is dogma, not necessarily religion." What I meant was; dogma is not limited to religion, not that religion wasn't dogma itself. This was merely to qualify the quote: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion;" from Steven Weinberg. Since it is not just religion that leads good people to do evil things.

MaW, hi, you said: "Of course, you might argue that this is a very convenient way to pretend that magic exists when in actuality it doesn't. To that I stick my tongue out, and let you carry on believing that. After all, nobody else's beliefs are particularly important to the validity of my own."
And naturally I would argue that. Nonetheless I agree with your view on other people's beliefs, since belief is not the same as reality. What I believe doesn't affect the validity of anything. Validity is dependent on what is true, not on what is believed to be true. In one sense everyone's beliefs are valid, because that is what they believe. Whether they are reasonable, sensible, applaudable or indeed safe depends on the circumstances.