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

There have been many different kinds of responses in the conversations about this article, some well-reasoned and others offended. I think some of the more offended researchers missed the point of the article, however. The author of this article is not trying to go around "preaching" on the side of atheism, claiming that God does not exist and giving arguments to prove it. Nor is he trying to offend or make fun of those who do believe in God. As I understand it, the author underwent changes in his thinking because of having been exposed to some of these arguments sometime in the past, and now wishes to make these arguments available to another group of the population. He is trying to make us think about what we read in the Bible and make an informed decision about that leap of faith, instead of following it blindly.
Many people, here and elsewhere, would see an article like this, read it just enough to determine that its intent is to denounce God and cast scorn on all "true believers", and immediately send off an angry reply. To those people, I say again, you have missed the point. If God does exist, then God gave you a brain, not a "yes"-machine. God gave you a brain and the ability to analyze yourself and the world around you, which implies that he wants you to use it before you nod your head "yes" to every word in the Bible and shake your head "no" to every word otherwise. Once you have thought about what you are reading, hearing, saying, or believing, you are perfectly free to go on believing it. I'm sure the author of this article would agree with me here.
I feel that it is an injustice to God when a person refuses to think about his or her religion, and reacts instantly and angrily to anyone who questions his or her faith. Are we so afraid of the weakness of God's words that we have to protect them from any close scrutiny? Any religion that cannot stand a bit of thinking and analysis doesn't deserve our belief.

BRAVO!

hi Muse Susan,

You make an excellent point, but I wonder if the christian God really does want people to think. After all, He threw Adam and Eve out of the garden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Previous to that one assumes that they were ignorant 'yes machines' and it seems like God had wanted to keep them that way, otherwise why punish them for obtaining knowledge?

az

Good point, but God also put the tree of knowledge there. And with no knowledge of right and wrong, how could he expect them to know that it was wrong to disobey him by eating the fruit?

Well, He told them, didn't He? That they should not eat of the fruit of that thar tree. But, since they were both ignorant what did He expect they would do? What do children do when you say to them, 'whatever you do *don't* look in that bag!' So at first He piqued their curiousity and then set them up. I'm quite sure, since He is All-Seeing, that He would have seen what the serpent was up to. And so, perhaps God wanted them to eat the fruit because maybe he was getting bored with total obedience from non-thinking followers and wanted to spice things up a bit.

az

Exactly

Thought you might be interested in a similar conversation going on here:

F58051?thread=90666&skp=80&show=20

It was started in 2000 but was started up again recently in posting 95.



az

Before we go on, let's just get out of the way that I'm an Atheist.

**You make an excellent point, but I wonder if the christian God really does want people to think. After all, He threw Adam and Eve out of the garden for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Previous to that one assumes that they were ignorant 'yes machines' and it seems like God had wanted to keep them that way, otherwise why punish them for obtaining knowledge?**

According to Mormons he planned it that way. The idea being that for some never explained (nor medically possible) reason, they could not reproduce before the fruit. And if they can't reproduce, they can't facilitate the need to bring the others to Earth.

This of course doesn't even begin to explain why he didn't just have them start that way, and don't even get me started on in-breeding, but it's worth noting.

If I mihgt be allowed to pozst in defence of those who have made posts that may be seen as being angry about this Guide Entry.

For me, what bothered me more was not the idea that God does not exist, but some of the arguments put forward to "prove" this. I won't go into them here, as I have already done so in another thread.

But the subject of this thread has intrigued me. Yes, I do believe that God gave each of us a brain. But I believe that we all have the ability - and, indeed, were *intended* to have the ability - to be more than, as was previously suggested, "yes-machines".

For me, I was not brought up within a church-going or religious family. If, as was previously suggested, I would "just believe what I was told", I either would not have become a Christian, or would have done so much sooner. I did not make any decision simply because someone told me that I had to change. I had to think about it, talk to people and ask questions.

I tell you this, not to start an argument, but merely to add to your discussion the perspective of a Christian. You are all intelligent people and can understand that a one-sided argument or discussion is futile.

This article does not prove "God" does not exist. If that's what you took from it, then I think you missed the point. Proving the nonexistence of god is an impossibility, by design.

What this article does prove is that Christian beliefs about the nature of god are based on a motley collection of higly implausible events described in a select and selectively interpreted group of documents fraught with internal inconsistencies, and unsubstantiated by reliable third-party sources.

It does not prove the nonexistence of god, but the foolishness of Christianity. An important distinction.

I could tell that you don't think God's out there. It was just a bit obvious and I don't think anyone could take the rticle as proof of his existence.

What I merely meant was that the fact that you clearly don't belief he exists is not what bothered me so much. What bothered me is your aparent misunderstanding of Christians.

Can I just ask you one thingf, Blatherskite - why are you so hostile? I know others who are atheists, but do not make such an attempt to show why. They simply don't believe. They don't have to make such a show about it.

<< It was just a bit obvious and I don't think anyone could take the rticle as proof of his existence.>>

Again, you've missed the point. This article certainly does not attempt prove his existence.

<>

You're in another thread saying that JWs are not Christians, for some doctrinal reason you have been unable to explain. Based on that, I'd say that I'm not the one having difficulty understanding Christians.

<>

First of all, I don't understand why you assume I'm hostile. That probably says more about you than it does about me.

Secondly, your logic is fallacious in the extreme. "Making a show about" religious beliefs is to be considered a hostile act? If that's true, we'd better start rounding up religious and political leaders.

And third, I don't understand why you're so concerned that I'm explaining why I don't believe. "Why?" is the most important question in the universe. Why should you look both ways before you cross the street? Why should you avoid sticking a penny in the electrical socket? "Because I said so" doesn't work for four year-olds, and it certainly shouldn't work for adults. If you can't explain why you do a certain thing, then you probably shouldn't be doing it.

It's Christianity's greatest failure that it cannot explain why you should believe it. However, this is not unique to Christianity. It's a unifying trait of religions of all varieties.

Like you just said, Blatherskite, if you can't be bothered explaining why you do something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

If you can't be bothered saying why you made such a point in writing a Guide Entry on the inconsistencies you claim to have found in Christians, maybe you shouldn't do it.

Maybe there are people who may be church-goers, but who show behaviours inconsistent to their apparent beliefs. As I'm sure you would agree, why go to church if you don't believe? Though I know of many people who come to church, not because they believe, but to find answers, or because they're made to by parents or other relatives, or simply because it's "the done thing". They don't believe, but they're still there.

I know Christians who smoke. Just by making a proffession as a Christian doesn't make you perfect. there are no perfect people. We're all human. But for Christians, there is a drive and the help to become better than we once were.

As for the JW thing. Yes, they have certain things in common with Christians. But then again, so do Mormons. Jews and Muslims. that doesn't make them all the same or comparable.

<>

There's no need to come off all smug and condemnatory as if I've failed to explain myself despite multiple opportunities. I haven't answered the question because you haven't asked it.

So... why write this article? Because Christianity has some very obvious flaws, but we live in a society where it is apparently a taboo subject. It needs to be discussed. This article discusses it. And when our political leaders are using religious justifications for some highly questionable actions, those justifications need to be reviewed for validity. Again, this article does that. I'm just doing my part to toss some crumbs of knowledge into the intellectual vacuum that has been constructed around religion.

<>

I'm not interested in simple behaviors, and I haven't discussed them at all, so this is a red herring argument. The problem is that Christian beliefs are inconsistent with Christian beliefs, Christian literature is inconsistent with Christian literature, and none of it is consistent with the outside world.

<>

Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and are therefore Christians. Any disagreements they have with other varieties of Christians are mere doctrinal quibbles. Jews and Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and are therefore not Christians.

Christ's divinity is a central point to Christianity, I grant you. It's kinda obvious.

But so is thew fact that Christ is God, and that we are his subjects. For JWs, Christ is below God, and for Mormons, a select few become gods but only find out who when they die. These views are contrary to Christianity. But you've already made up your mind, so why should I bother trying to reason with you?

You claim to have "discussed" Christian "inconsistencies" in your article. To me, a discuission includes two view points. Though from what I can make out, you've only presented one - yours. That's no "discussion".

Anyway, in all honesty, I'm fed up with all this arguing. I'm happy to discuss things further, but I am finding it hard not to get a bit wound up. Can I suggest that if we continue with this, or other threads, that we attempt to do so in a more calm manner?

<>

"Christianity" here defined as "Not panicing yet's own particular subset of beliefs about Christianity." The only "true Christian" is the one you happen to be talking to at any time. Personally, I'd say the JWs have the stronger argument, because the Gospels frequently refer to God as the father of Jesus, Jesus defers to him, and calls out to him at the end. But regardless of your position on this, it's still down to semantic doctrinal quibbling, and hardly enough of a distinction to declare the other side to belong to some strange religion which would be unrecognizable to a Christian.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck.

<>

I'm still wondering if you ever plan to start. The arguments you've offered so far are fatally flawed and cannot be considered "reason."

<>

I don't know who "we" are, unless you have a parrot on your shoulder. Up until this post, I haven't said anything harsher to you than "you missed the point," and highlighted your cheap tactic in post 13 without responding in kind. I said before that your assumption that I am hostile says more about you than about me, and this post confirms it. You're projecting your own feelings onto me.

I'll allow that you're probably also basing this "hostile" interpretation on the previous thread we engaged in, which was actually quite hostile, but all you need to know about the tone of that thread and where it came from is that a key participant was recently suspended from this site, and has been under pre-moderation for some time. That participant isn't me. And that's all I have to say about that.

But as this post clearly shows, my patience has limits, and I'm growing testy. If you'd like to start over and attempt to talk about the subject at hand in a civil manner, I would be happy to indulge. But if you can't discuss this without becoming angry, then I'd just prefer you didn't.

I apologise for any time that I annoyed or aggrivated you in any way. I am only attempting to have a discussion and I am attempting to respond to post which I feel are, perhaps, a little antagoniostic. I apologise if that is not the way you intended them.

I am by no means attempting to enforce my own personal view of Christianity as the only true form it can exist. What I am trying to do is present other interpretations. I am no theologian, but I am trying to learn more.

"Christianity" here defined as "Not panicing yet's own particular subset of beliefs about Christianity."

- Blatherskite the Mugwump


"... being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words."

- 1 Tim. 6:4.






The word /Christian/, like many other words, indeed, most other words, has many defenitions. And different definitions are suitable to different contexts. ReligiousTolerance.org defines a Christian as "a person who considers himself to be a Christian"*. This is an eminently sensible definition to such a website, and also for a government census or anything of that sort. (Also for trustworthy and unbiased textbooks on comparitive theology.)

In other situations, other definitions may be useful. Witness literature sometimes (but, it seems to me, less often than formerly) uses /Christian/ to mean 'one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. (The name Jehovah's Christian Witnesses is occasionally used.) Other religions behave similarly.

Or one might use the word to apply to anyone who holds to certain beliefs considered to be central to Christianity. What these central, core, beliefs are considered to be will vary from individual to individual, so this is actually many definitions and, without a clear context, meaningless. It works only if you have previously defined it explicitly or know your audience very well. NPY was using one of these definitions, but had failed to define terms.

One could say that a Christian is a follower of Christ, one who believes the things Christ taught. Since there is, perhaps, just a tad of disagreement about precisely what Christ taught on certain subjects, this definition is again unhelpful except within certain well-defined contexts where everyone knows what you're talking about.

Jehovah's Witnesses would consider themselves to be Christians because they study the teachings of Jesus (along with the rest of the Bible) and try to follow his moral guidance and to understand and believe his theological statements. (Note the contrast between theology -- Who is Jesus?, Where did we all come from?, What is God's purpose for the world?, What is the meaning of Daniel's vision of the king of the north and the king of the south?, etc. -- and morality -- How should we treat our neighbours?, What rules should we follow in our daily behaviour?, Is it permissible to lie?, etc. One flows from the other, of course. It is because we believe Jesus to be the Son of God that we believe his moral teachings to hold weight. (Though some are intrinsically obvious and would hold weight whoever said them and even if all the theology was untrue.) One without the other won't work, but they are different things.)

*That's from memory, and the wording may be off, but it's close enough.

TRiG.

TRiG, think you've made a very good point. you said yuou could describe or define a Christian as someone who believes the central core beliefs in Christianity, but that these beliefs could be different depending on the person.

Something I've always found a bit worrying is the way we don't just have the Christian church. We have so many different denominations with different views on many aspects of Christianity. The Methodist church doewsn't allow the drinking of alcohol, even in small amounts. the Catholic church employs confession, rosaries, Hail Marys and doesn't allow it's clergy to marry. Many churches differ in infant or adult baptism. And these are just a couple of the differences that exist.

Perhaps if the church was more unified, it would help. But something tells me this won't happen in the near future.

What I meant was that the definition of a Christian as one who holds to the central tenets of Christianity is meaningless unless you also define those tenets. And different people will select different things as central. The Roman Catholic Church defintion includes the Trinity, and yet Jehovah's Witnesses, who also claim to be Christian, do not believe in this doctrine.

If the Church was more unified -- that is, if all Christians (using the word now in its widest meaning) believed more or less the same thing and respected the same authorities and leaders -- the world would be a different (and less confusing) place.

TRiG.