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

Allways glad to be of service....
I'm not a religious person, in fact, I would go as far to say that I loath organised relligion of any form, but the various religious texts seem to function as guides to life in a bygone age...
e.g. the Jewish 'Kosher' food thing... many of the original kosher food ethics were not laid down for religious reasons, but having a spearate dairy kitchen made a lot of sense in the middle-east, where dairy produce would go off very quickly and possible contaminate other foodstuff leading to illness...
I tend to stay true to various judao-christian ethics (thous shalt not kill, etc) but I don't feel that I needed to read about that or be taught that in a church/synagogue etc...
Religion provides a set of values to live by, many of which cannot be faulted, but unfortunately, this can be taken too far, as we have seen with the talibhan extremists blowing up religious monuments in asia...
This is the ugly side to relligion, and why I personally find extemist/fundamentalist religions both offensive and scary...

"Religion provides a set of values to live by, many of which cannot be faulted, but unfortunately, this can be taken too far, as we have seen with the talibhan extremists blowing up religious monuments in asia..."

But don't forget that there are plenty of non-religious examples of that. How many beautiful buildings have been demolished to make way for 'better' modern ones.

I reiterate my earlier point - the consistently bad behaviour of people is no reason to trash religion.

"This is the ugly side to relligion, and why I personally find extremist/fundamentalist religions both offensive and scary."

Me too, but then I also find extremist politicians offensive and scary. Actually, just make that *all* extremists of whatever ilk.

Maybe it just depends who you know. I know a lot of people who would be considered very religious (of various hues) and they're all very pleasant people. If you don't actually know many religious people, then it's the loons you're more likely to notice.

And I'm sure God is just as offended by them as you are.

Fair enough...
All the religious people I know (and I admitt that's not many) are extremely nice people, and that Is (to my mind at least) a very major plus point for the adoption of a religion.
I also know many extremly nice people who aren't in the least bit religious.

But it seems that some religious folk, can twist the teachings of their religious texts to attack and bad-mouth people of other religons/races/colours/countries/etc.
This mindless phobia toward people who, either by birth or teaching, happen to be different to you and your relligion seems to be absolutely absurd.

The american-deep-south bible thumpers that outlaw the teaching of evolution (for example) are trying to force their children to adopt creationism. This demonstrates extreme intolerance towards new(!?) ideas

Many religions teach tolerance and forgiveness, but their followers often do the exact opposite merely because is suits them...


The point about extremist politicans is a damn good one, the unfortunate fact is that these people have a manadate from the people that they represent... this is very very scary!

O/T: When you talk about extremist politicians, who do you mean?
One thing that is great about British society is that extremism always fails to get a foothold, even if it seems politicians are talking the same language as 'the people'. Take for example, the asylum 'problem' that is currently exercising the mind of both the labour and tory party (F&M notwithstanding). Most British people (or at least a vocal minority over-represented by the press) seem to think we're being flooded with illegal immigrants. William Hague talks tough, says his government would stick 'em all in prison etc, etc. And no one votes for him.
I'd say from the people I know, the religious ones are split fairly evenly between nice and not nice people. Their belief in God doesn't necessarily translate into tolerance and enlightenment.

Extremists are usually on the far right or left of the political spectrum - a spectrum which wraps around, meaning that you often can't tell the difference between them.

I find all extremists irritating. Like people who believe that their operating system is better than all the others, and won't consider the alternatives at all. Perhaps these irritate me more because I used to be one of them (I used to be a RISC OS zealot)

But come on RISC was great

One of the maine problems I think the religious comunity has is that the only press coveradge they get is the extremests. I think I stated before I am not athest but I dont really fully beleve in the god thatloves us all eather but there has to be somthing. peopele wether they are black wite green yellow religious pollitical or whatever els really have alot of consious choises to makeand I feel that some times balefe is an easy skape goat.

Let's not get started on the my OS is better than yours, we'll upset the Amiga/Mac owners out there.

I'm interested in the idea of definitive proof. If God were to come down off his mythic cloud tomorrow and declare his love for mankind, would church attendance rise or fall?

I went through a stage (at the age of about 12 - before discovering girls) where I really believed in God. Then I started thinking about it: how parts of the Bible didn't make sense, or contradicted other parts; how the whole of Genesis appeared to be a lie from start to finish (and if the beginning's wrong, why would everything else be right?); and, what really turned me away, a long talk with a recently converted Jehovah's Witness. This talk had a big effect on me because it hinged on the JW's belief that blood transfusions are wrong. As a baby, I'd been on the receiving end of far too many blood transfusions so in effect, this woman was saying I should have died (This is not taking into account the long-running argument that if there was a God and he wanted me dead, I probably wouldn't be here now - what with him being omnipotent and all).

So, my other question is: is it ever right to withold medical intervention on a child because of its parents beliefs?

This is really a reply to the whole conversation but this was the most convenient place to put it so sorry to break up the flow a little.

The first thing I want to say is if one believes that a good god/The God exists then in most religions there is also a devil or Shiva or some entity working against these ideals. Therefore, to state that God can't exsist because bad things happen to good people is an argument that will never hold water with me.

The second thing I want to say really needs to be ringed with a highlighter pen but you'll just have to use your imagination.
AMBIGUITY AND FALIBILITY OF LANGUAGE

Lots of the points that have been argued about earlier in this conversation and in real life arise due to language. For example: does 'maiden' mean Virgin or does it mean young woman?

The whole debate about science and philosophy etc. and where astrology falls is partly caused by the change in meaning of words.
If you look back in history to the founding of western universities and their early centuries then things were very different. People like Sir Christopher Wren and all those other famous people whosenames temporarily escape me all studied a multitude of subjects which we percieve now as beiong unrelated. Wren studied under a physician for three years, then he studied arthmetic, geometry and astronomy and invented a wether clock. Wren was eventually chair of astronomy at Oxford university and also considered by Newton "to be one of the three best geometricians of the time". He also invented many instruments for calculating rainfall, recording tekmperature, telescopes, the mechanica of rowing, and designed water works. Eventually the bulk of his time was taken up by architecture leading to St. Pauls cathedral etc. The point is that science then was a study of pretty much anything you could investigate and term was barely distinct from philosophy, To switch between chemistry and physics couldnt happen because they were so closely related. The study of the world from a theological point of veiw was barely separated from this. Wren investigated what happens when you bang two objects together. In his next breath he might well have decided this would explain the parting of the red sea. The point is that science and religion are not separate. They are ways of looking at the world. In modern terms science means very particular things but going back to basics it is simply the study of the world through observation and experimentation. This has lead us in the modern world to conclude certain things, many of which lead some people to the belief there is no God/s. Religion similarly has its routes in an explanation of how and why the world works. Much of the confusion results, I feel, from the fact that religion then extends those theories to a code of behavior whih science is not exactly famous for doing.

Which leads me to another poinht: the difference between knowledge and belief.

I believe the world is round.
I believe the world is flat.
I know the world is round.
I know the world is flat.

Well the flat theory has been pretty much disprooved. I believe. But do I really know that the world is round? We I guess there are a lot of calculations which would proove this to me. If I could understand them. But wouldnt it still have to some down to the belief that those calculations and suppositions were true? I'm sure in the thirteenth century someone could hve come up with a pretty convincing argument for not sailing toward the horizon!

My final point (if you're lucky). Why can't God and science both exsist?
So maybe bits in the bible about the world being 6000 years old (and wasn't that Bishop Usher being unable to count the generations up right anyway?) and so on are crap. But the idea of things which humans canot percieve due to the limitaion of the five senses is not such an alien one. Thre are lots of things which science cannot explain. One of them may be an all powerful being or two.


I've finished now. you can relax.
I wish to appologise for this lengthy post and especially if I read this tomorrow and realise it makes no sense.

FABT

in case you were wondering......I'm agnostic

And another thing:

have NONE of you read Douglas Adams' take on this?

DArnt quote it here but I'm sure you know what I mean. Its the bit were god vanishes and man is run over on the next zebra crossing.

FABT

I come from Denmark, and I find the whole talk about religious fanatics stupid. Most people in Denmark are Christians, according to themselves. You just have to look apart from the fact that they´ve never read the Bible, never goes to Church, believes in evolution, have sex before marriage etc. Now there are starting to come muslims into the country, and people are afraid because they are religious fanatics. Meaning they read the Bible/Koran, go to church/moske, believes in Adam & Eve, and think women who have sex before marriage should be killed. Now this basically means they are religious fanatics because they do what their religion tell them to do. And they don´t abuse it and interpret it. They do what it clearly states. So how can you claim it is only the fanatics that are the problem, when what distuingishes fanatics from the rest, is that they follow their religion? The Taleban people only did what their religion told them to do. Now Jehova´s Witnesses is another matter, that blood thing is completely interpreted.

Religion and science has trouble co-existing because they say different things. The Bible says the Earth was created 6000 years ago. Science says it was created billions of years ago. If we went by them both, they would contradict. And religion tells you that it is right, so it would be science that would have to bow. Religion has dogma pretty much by definition, science can´t be used if there is dogma. Science can´t explain everything. If a scientist one day believed it could, he would quit and work as an ice-cream salesman instead because there would be nothing left to do. But we can´t just say that everything it can´t explain is because of God. Or aliens, as it is today.

Fabt: About proving the Earth is round, I can do that if you tell me what you will accept as proof. That is all it boils down to, what we will accept as proof. We have no way of knowing if the world is like we think it is, as Taoism says. We have just all agreed on something to begin with, which is also quite stupid. But we don´t really have another choice. We can´t know if what we percieve with our senses is "reality", but if it isn´t then the Bible doesn´t exist either.

God is almighty, he can therefore look into the future. He knew Lucifer was going to fall, so he could have prevented it. There is no need for a devil, so why did God allow him to exist? He is partly responsible for evil things done to good people then.

An agnostic? Imagine if you have a kid one day, and he asks you to look under the bed for monsters. Will you then tell him that you can´t see anyone, but since you cannot disprove their existence you won´t say they aren´t there? Being an agnostic, doesn´t that basically mean you can´t say about anything that it doesn´t exist? Fairies, trolls, pink elephants. I feel an agnostic must have a troubled view on the world.

I don't think that the Taleban *are* just doing what the Koran says. As far as I'm aware, real Islam is a religion tolerant of other religions, and that doesn't include destroying images made by non-muslims. I don't think Islam outlaws the education of women, at least not according to how it's applied in most other Islamic countries.

sorry for the lateness; just follow the "replying to this post" button for this to make sense.

let me clarify. i *meant* that since they aren't beleivers in the same religion as some one who beleives only people of their religion are good, then according to their beliefs those three people are somehow evil. i didn't mean that they weren't all beleivers in *a* relgion.