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

hi Pattern-chaser,

I agree with you that I think Member is just trying to goad Della now, though his initial question was a fair one.

I hope the questions I presented in posting 4567 will not be seen in the same light. I was trying to question the concept of 'what a Christian is' because I honestly still do not understand what makes someone a Christian since they all seem to believe and behave very differently. I especially don't understand Christian morality as being something superior when often the actions taken by Christians are anything but. As I stated in that posting, I wasn't trying to single Della out, but used the 'death threat' thing as only *one* example of inconsistency.

az

Hi Matholwch,

I have as you say been brought up in under the shadow of the near eastern death cults, however I have picked up a little about other systems of gods and the "supernatural".

What at first seems enchanting and convincing about other religions (no offence meant to those who dont see themselves as being in a religion its just for brevity) is that the spirits involved are more tangible and accessible. In lots of ways relate to local factors and seem to have a place and purpose.

All this I think is reverse engineering, stories attached to the real. The stories make the natural events and innner sensations no less real, you are not mad Matholwch, but the real events do not make the stories or explanations true or real. That pidgeons can navigate great distances is completely true that they are guided by an invisible flying is untrue, but impossible to prove as untrue.

one love

I, for one, recognise that I am either blessed or mad. Until you atheists can prove that I am wrong in my experiences I will tend to favour the former. I am quite happy for you to believe the latter, but to be fair, I suggest that you examine the foundations of that belief in my madness in the face of the evidence of my sanity that I have offered up by my contributions to h2g2 over the last couple of years

Your contributions do attest to your sanity and wisdom, the fact that your still here is evidence for the opposite

" Everyone knows that conduct such as you describe is not 'christian'"

And yet self-described Christians continue to behave that way. Additionally, and similarly, the conservative "Christian" right wing in the USA continue to vote for judicial execution, and the extremists kill doctors. All these people believe themselves to be "Christians", just as Death-threat Della does. I'd just like to hear, either from Death-threat Della herself or any other self-described Christian, how they can square these apparently contradictory positions.

I don't hold out much hope of an answer, because when asked questions like this most Christians take the Justin-the-Preacher route of saying "you, an unbeliever, wouldn't understand", or similar. Doesn't invalidate the question though.

I'm reminded of a routine by a comedian called Bill Hicks. He told a tale of being pushed around after a gig by a gaggle of good-old-boys who said "Hey, Mr. Comedian, we're Christians, and we don't like what you bin sayin' 'bout the Lord." And he said "Yeah? So forgive me."

blickybadger: "What at first seems enchanting and convincing about other religions (no offence meant to those who dont see themselves as being in a religion its just for brevity) is that the spirits involved are more tangible and accessible. In lots of ways relate to local factors and seem to have a place and purpose.

All this I think is reverse engineering, stories attached to the real. The stories make the natural events and innner sensations no less real, you are not mad Matholwch, but the real events do not make the stories or explanations true or real. That pidgeons can navigate great distances is completely true that they are guided by an invisible flying is untrue, but impossible to prove as untrue."

I think that fits my view of the world pretty well. Stories and lore and what other people tell you don't matter a jot next to what you know and feel yourself. Although they can provide a handy framework of common language with which to discuss such things with other people, which is always helpful.

PC:<"Everyone knows that conduct such as you describe is not 'christian'>

M:

Which only goes to show that they're human, and fallible, like the rest of us. They cannot always meet the standards that they promote. This is the answer to your soi-disant 'questions', Member. It's common knowledge. And you're taking the p*** in your continuing insistence that you're only 'trying to understand' (or whatever phraseology you care to adopt).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<That pidgeons can navigate great distances is completely true that they are guided by an invisible flying is untrue...>

If I advance a theory that describes how pixies manage this, and it accounts for all the facts that we can observe, then it's no worse than any other 'explanation' you might suggest.

But yes, if my pixie theory proved *not* to adequately explain what pigeons can do, then it would be shown to be inadequate, and I would be quite rash if I stuck with it.

But if we return to god(s) and the like, I think it becomes clear that the religious explanations work in practice (to understand/explain real-world observations) as well as alternatives (scientific?). As long as this is so, there is no intellectual justification for condemning one explanation while rejecting another. Except for personal preference/taste, that is.

My preference is for a pantheist God. I have yet to encounter any inconsistencies that science (for example) does not also suffer from....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<...condemning one explanation while rejecting another.>

I think "condemning one explanation while accepting another" might make more sense.

<>

Can you explain what you mean by that, Pattern-maker?

az
part-time pantheist

I recognise a God that arises out of all life contained within space-time. The God I believe in is an emergent property of the Universe itself. [Thus, for example, I do not believe in a God who was extant before the Universe, who then went on to create that Universe.] There is no proof (that I know of) of the (non)existence of such a God, but I believe it nonetheless. I think this is called faith.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

We can insert or you like as the pidgeon guidance system. It made sense to people smart enough to build pyramids that a giant dung bettle pushed the sun across the sky and that ech night the sun had to be transported across the underworld. Not only did it make sense they had no way to prove that this was just a story reverse engineered to fit natural phenomena.

When you watch a conjouror, you can believe its majik or say its very clever how she does that. Then when the trick is revealed you can be left feeling very silly or saying wow that is very clever how she did that. Admitedly one approach has less of a sense of mystery but being sceptical does not detract from wonder and awe at the feats of nature or Paul Daniels (how did he keep the toupe on during those escapologist routines?).

There is still stuf we dont know and our species may never grasp, but how many of the supernatural reverse engineered stories about the workings of the universe that were accepted as true have been debunked by knowledge gained through science? To be breif for a change. Lots.

Infact none of them have been shown to be true. Ragnarok, rain dances, dream time, voodoo zombies and mermaids all have elements of truth in them. Yet they are not true, like a Haynes work shop manual is true account of how to fix a car. They all stem from glimpses of the universe and human misunderstanding, so not surprisingly there greatest benefit to humanity today is not in understanding the thing they claim to be about, but in shedding light upon the nature of the workings of our minds.

one love

Hi BB!

I think what you're missing is that we have no way of knowing what reality *is*. We have theories, some scientific, some not, that work a lot of the time, so we use them until we encounter problems. Then we (try to) come up with something better. Any correspondence between our theories and reality is coincidental.

When seeen from this perspective, science is no different from any other attempted explanation of reality. All of them stand or fall on their ability to help us understand the world we think we see. The ones that work are OK, and the ones that don't, aren't.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Heard that perfectly understandable argument a few times on the :God fact or fiction thread.

What for the most part seperates science form "religion" is understaning and application. We dont need undestanding to breed pigs, but it might make us feel better if we think we understand what happens when pigs breed. We might even make a special hat for the pigs to wear to ensure the gods of fertility smile down on them. However accurate understanding is critical to the application of genetic engineering techniques if they are used to breed pigs.

Religion can say whatever it likes as long as it appears to fit reality, but planes have to fly, oxygen tanks have to work and the linning on reactors has to be the right thickness. We cant just make up since, although we do, but after it has to be tested.

Has to be.

Religion goes on until the people in charge change their minds or the mobs outside change thier minds or just change the people in charge altogether. One day that wafer in your mouth turns to the body of christ the next it doesnt.

Science isnt about what we think, it is what we can understand. Religion on the other hand is all about what we think.

one love

Pattern-chaser,

<>

Well, I tend to call myself a pantheist for lack of a better term when it comes to god stuff, but I always thought that a pantheist did not believe in any specific god, but rather in the possiblity of all gods existing. Somehow.

My personal take on that is that all gods that exist (so to speak) were created by man to fulfill various needs. And these gods exist because man created them and then have chosen to believe in them. In this sense I can see and accept that all gods exist.

As for a God that 'arises out of all life . . . an emergent property of the Universe ' . . . well, that is just *us* as far as I can see. That we are all 'god' in this sense. It is nothing separate from what and who we are.

We exist. And many people say that a God exists. I say that it is all one and the same. That we *are* this thing that people keep wanting to call 'God'. And even atheists are this 'thing' because it doesn't have to be called 'God'. Does this make any sense at all? It seems to make perfect sense to me.

az

And cows? Grass? Stones (as in 'the Buddha is in the stone')?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I know it's not in the least bit original, but science is the best method we have for finding out about those things to which science properly applies. We also have a pretty good idea of where the boundaries of science lie (though these can change as our theories become more sophisticated.) But the boundaries for religion are less clear cut. Does religion embrace ethics, for example, or is that an entirely separate domain? What do the mental representations we call god(s) actually represent? And so forth..

Noggin

<>

I was quoting you there, Pattern-chaser. Did you mean cows and grass and stones?

az

Pattern-chaser: I absolutely am NOT just taking the p**s.

"[Christians' endorsement of judicial execution] only goes to show that they're human, and fallible, like the rest of us. They cannot always meet the standards that they promote."

Hang on, though. I'm prepared to believe that of someone like Death-threat Della. Explaining away her massive inconsistencies by pointing out that she's just an irrational female and literally unable to control herself is perfectly believeable. But that only works as an explanation for *her* rather sad, violent outbursts.

What bothers me, and what is not so easily explained away in these terms, is the *considered policy* of right-wing Christians who support judicial execution. I simply cannot see how one can call oneself a Christian - as George Dubya does - and yet sign death warrants.

I don't think the answer to that one is "common knowledge", other than to say these people are all massive hypocrites. That's not just being "human and fallible". That's being evil. Isn't it?

Member: baiting is not welcome at the FFFF. As adminsistrator of this thread, I request that you indulge in the courtesy, while here, of calling other participants by their preferred names, as indicated at the top of their posts, and that you otherwise follow commonly accepted standards of nettiquette.

I cannot *make* you refrain from calling Della anything you want to, or from making rude references to her gender in juvenile asides. I can request that you take it elsewhere, if you must behave that way, and I can note, if you continue to do so, that it is against the repeatedly expressed wishes of the regular participants of this thread.

I hope nothing more need be said on the subject. Member, you are perfectly welcome to participate here as long as you follow our one rule, spelled out on the FFFF homepage: Be Excellent to Each Other.


GTBacchus

In full recognition that the subject of this post is an entirely SUBjective claim...

... I hereby officially announce, recognize, affirm, condone, and get-out-the-way-fer the ascencion of Chantel to the FFFF chair of "p'zhalstuheespuhseebuh"!

Zdrastvootyeh, and welcome, Chantel. You may note that you have been added to the illustrious roster.




GTB