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

There don't seem to be enough discussions about religion on this site, so I thought it was about time that Misc Chat had its very own God Thread. No, don't go away, just hear me out, because we are going to have RULES. The Rules are simple: You can only post

"Oh yes it is"

or

"Oh no it isn't"

Obviously, this means it's going to be pretty much the same as every other god thread, but at least we should get through it quicker.

Right, here goes:

"Religion is a load of old nonsense" Discuss.

oh yes it is

you wont get the god squad on this thread because they will not be able to twist the phrase

oh no it isn't

to mean what they want it to

Oh yes it is!

Oh no it isn't...

Ah I forgot about the cult of nighthoover!

Oh, yes, you did
Unlike any other* 'gods', though, we do have actual evidence that nighthoover existed

It's behind you!

Oh no it isn't!

Traditional conceptions of God are generally usually self-contradictory, and they therefore definitely do not represent something that exists. Allowing some latitude in the definition so that these contradictions are eliminated, and the atheist position would be that these sorts of God probably don't exist either. Allow a very great amount of latitude in the definition, and most atheists would say that it or they probably do exist, but then would say the definition has little in common with what is usually meant by the word. An educated person aware of the fraction of the age of the Universe that we have been literate is bound to say that our future selves (if we don't destroy ourselves) will be as godlike as these loose definitions of God are. It then seems that if we are going to accept a loose definition for God, we can aspire to be Gods. If the theist says that is impossible for one or another reason, then you know you have too strict a definition of God to accept as having any bearing on reality so far as any evidence is concerned.

Pardon?

what he said!!

ITS BEHIND YOU!!!!

>>
Traditional conceptions of God are generally usually self-contradictory,
<< RF

Oh not they're not!


>>
and they therefore definitely do not represent something that exists.
<< RF

Oh yes they do!!


>>
Allowing some latitude in the definition so that these contradictions are eliminated, and the atheist position would be that these sorts of God probably don't exist either.
<< RF

Oh not they don't, oh yes they do.


>>
Allow a very great amount of latitude in the definition, and most atheists would say that it or they probably do exist, but then would say the definition has little in common with what is usually meant by the word.
<< RF

Oh no it isn't



<<
An educated person aware of the fraction of the age of the Universe that we have been literate is bound to say that our future selves (if we don't destroy ourselves) will be as godlike as these loose definitions of God are.
<< RF

Oy yes it it.


>>
It then seems that if we are going to accept a loose definition for God, we can aspire to be Gods.
<< RF

Oh yes it is.

>>
If the theist says that is impossible for one or another reason, then you know you have too strict a definition of God to accept as having any bearing on reality so far as any evidence is concerned.
<< RF


On no it isn't.

You cannot argue from a perspective of reason and impiracle evidence, with an individual, or group of individuals, over a concept which they arrived at with no reasoning or imperical evidence. ; It took no evidence or reasoning to arrive at their current position of waht they believe, so no amount of reason and evidence can alter the belief[s] arrived at without these means.

Oh no it isn't.

Or was that Oh yes it is?

hello little children!!!!!

has anyone seen warner or kzwg????

They've gone outside to wait for Jesus...
Oh no they haven't

are you sure they are not behind me????

don't be rude!
Imean...

They're behind you!

OH NO THEYR'E NOT!!!

OH, YES THEY ARE...