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

Again, it is okay. Whether or not God exists, it does seem most likely to me, at least, that we did in fact create him/her/it. The problem with a subject like this is that it really only opens itself to a continuous argument, and that no matter what "evidence" either side brings to the table, the opposite side can always merely respond with the bland old "I believe", or "I don't believe", in which case all arguments are shot down, as all belief requires is blind belief (I know, defining a thing as that thing)--no argument or evidence is required. Personally, unless I am with a group of very good friends and good drink, I would stay away from arguing the existence and/or origins of God unless, of course, I wanted to be subjected to a lynch mob. The subject has no answer, only endless argument. God speed with your effort (just kidding).

The subject dosn't have a conclusive answer, you're right, I think I attempted to say this in the conclusion, prehaps make this more clear?

However, articles already exist in the EG presenting arguments for, and against, theism. There is no answer to this question, and it isn't my purpose in creating this to present one. I'm trying to represent a third way of looking at the theism vs. atheism debate, but one that is of historical importance, having been explored by some of mankind's finest minds (sorry, I think Descartes is a brilliant thinker).

No article concerning religion or philosophy can present conclusive answers, yet articles on these subjects are still worth place in the EG (in my opinion).

What else did you think of the article?

blub-blub

Blind belief is used as an argument because the purporters of that belief have nothing else to put forward. Look at it simply; if a theist with an absolute belief in god were confronted with an alien ship complete with alien in his/her back garden, he/she would not believe it. However, the theist does believe in something that cannot be seen, touched or proved to exist. Odd that. Man in the shape of priests and rulers in ages long gone created god (or gods if you like) as a means of controlling a populace that could not think for itself. The populace can now think for itself, has ever increasing scientific knowledge and is questioning the old order. The old order does not like it but still holds great sway over millions. Sooner or later this will swing the other way. Lets face it organised religion has been the cause of more wars and upset than anything else on this planet and it still continues to this day. Organised religion and a blind adherence to belief in god must dissipate if man is to shake free of a blight on his progression. You are right in that discussing this could cause an outbreak of lynch mob fever and it is, like politics to be avoided at all costs in the pub! Kind regards.

Well, I think the article is a good outline. If you want this article to get through peer review, I think (not ,believe), that you should flesh out your arguments more. It is okay to say that Descartes said this, and St. Anselm said that, but you need more than just the saying of that. A little more in-depth analysis of what these folks said and some positive or negative argument for each would seem appropriate. However, as a starter, you did get people talking. Seems like the existence of god/gods still gets the dander up, and that's a good thing (sorry for the Martha Stewart-ism).

I think that if you put some more meat into this article that it could get itself included in the guide.

By the way, I am a non-theist. The way I look at things it don't matter none whether or not God exists. As members of the species at the top of the food chain, we should act morally and ethically both to others and to the planet in general. I don't think I needed God to reach these conclusions, but it is hard to tell, since I was brought up Catholic. But, that's the subject of other papers and discussions.

Hope this helps.

I think you might want to do something about the first sentence. Myself and two others I showed the article to got very annoyed with the first line and didn't want to read the rest of it.

After reading the article I completely agree with you, but you might want to entice us atheists into reading the article instead of throwing us in at the deep end?

I would agree with the others about doing something other than just saying "so and so said this", that said the article is a bit heavy and I need to read it again to get it into my head properly.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to read my article. If you follow this link to the Peer Review thread... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F48874?thread=1939504 ... you'll see many have had issues with the first sentence at various points. I don't know when you read the article, but its recently been updated. See what you think. "I would agree with the others about doing something other than just saying "so and so said this"" I have been thinking about including more counter-arguments in the article. However, to do so is to move from the factual basis of the article. If you don't mind, please could you respond in the peer review thread (the link above). Thanks blub-blub