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

There are rules researchers agree to. Although the group of those with any sort of religious faith is a large one, 'You agree not to use the forum to transmit material that - promotes bigotry, racism, hatred, or harm of any kind against any group or individual' must be adhered to. There is no caveat to exclude groups which are themselves bigoted, or groups with some members that terrify you.
Religion, Atheism is surely a 'leap of faith' type of scanario, is it not? Agnosticism, yes. There are some people who could have a discussion forum.
One might say that religious faith provides courage and strength otherwise lost to people who face death, or the death of loved ones, or genuine hardship. And that many religions are the same in their set-up, a construct of good intentions.
Ofcourse one would be showing themselves to believe themselves brighter and wiser than every worshipper of any 1 to 500 headed deity that has lived since humanity began. One may choose to disbelieve,
fair enough. But how can one argue logically that there is not only one true religion?
For example the lesser tree-frog of deepest, darkest Milton Keynes may be the one true God, and all those who choose different Paths may be Damned.
It could be true. You can disbelieve it, but you cannot disprove it. It is assumption.

I would hardly say that anything that goes on here promotes bigotry or hatred. That's exactly the kind of thing we're fighting against. If you take a look at the Foundation's page, you'll see that we freely invite Christians to join us in reasonable debates, and there's a forum down below called "A Christian speaks," where we had a very nice and sociable chat. Many of our members serve this site as Sub-editors and Aces (I'm an Ace, myself), and we're all very familiar with the Terms and Conditions, and we're held to a higher standard on them because we represent the site itself. I'm sure that if you spent some time looking around in the forums and the articles, you'd see that openness and toleration are what we're really all about. We don't like intolerance, though, and although there are many who are very tolerant, it is the small percentage of Christians who promote bigotry, hatred, and intolerance that we formed together to combat. There are times we use satire and sarcasm in our writings, but who doesn't? The day those things are outlawed is the day I hand in my membership card in the human race, and go climb trees in the jungle with a bunch of gorillas. Maybe start a new species of man or something.

As for all your other points, they are all highly debateable, and many of us have already spent hour after entertaining hour debating them. For instance, your "Atheism is surely a 'leap of faith' type of scanario, is it not?" - I wrote an article on Atheism stating just that view, and it stirred up a spirited debate that ran on for weeks.

"One might say that religious faith provides courage and strength otherwise lost to people who face death, or the death
of loved ones, or genuine hardship. And that many religions are the same in their set-up, a construct of good
intentions." - One could also conjure up a horde of detriments to humanity brought about through religion from the mists of history. And then there's a famous quote from a religious dude, whose name escapes me at the moment: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

"But how can one argue logically that there is not only one true religion?" - One simply examines each religion in its minute details. If it fails to stand up to reason, it cannot be true. That's not to say there might be some sort of deity out there... indeed, our agnostic members hold just this view, and our Taoist and Hermetic members believe that there is something which people might call "God." I think the mistake you're making is assuming that everyone here is an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth. I myself am an atheist, and there are many others, but there are just as many agnostics, and an unknown quantity of Wiccans, Taoists, Hermetics, Humanists, and others.

"You can disbelieve it, but you cannot disprove it. It is assumption." - I would be careful of making this statement in such proximity to so many atheists... you are guaranteeing yourself a lengthy debate on this one. If that is your intent, I will be happy to invite them in here.

Colonel Sellers, who knows better than to make declarative statements on a whim.

As far as the 'Atheism is surely a leap of faith?' discussion goes, I think the basic consensus arrived at the other month (correct me if I'm wrong, somebody) was along the lines of the following...

While Atheism *does* require a leap of faith in the sense that it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever disprove once and for all the existence of God, the Atheist position is a more rational one than that of the believer because the latter insists on the certainty of the existence of God - they stake their whole argument on this - whereas, generally, an Atheist will make no such absolute claim for God's non-existence - they will simply say 'Until such time as someone actually *proves* that God exists I will continue to remain sceptical'.

Therefore, an Atheist needs a certain commitment to the spirit of rationalism and sceptical inquiry, and yes there is a degree of 'faith' involved there; however, because a rationalist sees knowledge as something which is always provisional and open to question, they have no dogma and therefore nothing is 'written in stone' as it is with the religious believer. When a scientific theory is proved wrong, there may be a little hand-wringing but no spiritual crisis - folks just shrug their shoulders and try to come up with a better theory...

I tend towards an agnostic position myself, but as a result of the aforementioned (highly interesting and well-informed, not bigoted at all) debates, I was able to see that the 'strong' agnostic claim (ie, 'it is absolutely impossible to know anything for certain one way or the other') is actually indefensible on its own grounds, because - well, how can the agnostic be *certain* of this? So where does that leave us? Less sure of ourselves than ever, I suppose...

And on and on and round and and round round...

There was a concensus? I'm glad you were there to take notes, then... I got the impression that particular debate was a ride on the ferris wheel... it mostly went around in circles, but it was a lot of fun while it lasted.

Maybe I was optimistic when I said 'consensus', but I suppose all debates turn back on themselves eventually... I keep trying to write those notes up into a Guide article (subject : Agnosticism for Beginners), but somehow the topic evades my attempts at coherent exposition. The more I learn the less I seem to know about it, having said which I suppose that's in keeping with the nature of the subject...

Just a small note about the claim of "One True Religion"

The simple way to disprove that idea is to realize that more than one path makes this claim. More than one claiming to be THE ONE, at LEAST all but one must be false, and probably all if there is even such a thing as THE ONE. BUT perhaps the only fallacy here is each claiming that they are the only true game in town, when they all could be valid and true paths.

I think the confusion arises when the ASSUMPTION is made that the afterlife one is after is the same goal for everyone else.

Jesus the Christ said, "No one comes to the Father but through me." Christians have used this as justification for going to extreme measures to assure conversion of souls so as to save them the fate of not getting to "the Father". But tell me, how small minded do you have to believe that the Christian concepts of Heaven & Hell (and sometimes purgatory) are the ONLY destinations available for a discorpeal soul?

I subscribe to the irrational belief of the Afterlife. But I don't think its a "OUR CLUB, NO GIRLS ALLOWED" type afterlife. I think there is enough room for everyone. The Christian Heaven (and Hell) could be realities, as well as Islamic paradise, Buddhist Nirvana, Norse Valhalla, Celtic Tir Na Nog (my destination of choice), and perhaps even oblivion for the souls who want that.

We all have different plans for the Afterlife, even reincarnations. I think the afterlife could be accomodating. I'm not to worried about it.

-- ZenMondo

Worship me! I am God!

How about "It's impossible to be certain of anything other than uncertainty."?

"... and even that's a bit iffy at times" ?

I was an atheist before I joined h2g2 but now I'm not so sure. I keep losing my connection to h2g2. I think some malevolent intelligence is trying to torment me. What other explanation could there possibly be?

Let us determine the probable cause by a comparison of the two available theories on the origins of your H2G2 difficulties, and decide which one is more probable:

1) An amorphous entity with massive powers and boundless love is exercising that love by tormenting you.

2) H2G2's equipment and programming still can't quite handle the demands of tens of thousands of researchers and visitors.

Oh boy, do I feel silly! When you put it like that, the amorphous entity theory does sound a little far-fetched. I think the balance of my mind must have been temporarily on the blink there for a while. Panic over. I'm ok now. Normal service and brain function have been restored. So h2g2 has insufficient resources to offer a perfect service - I know how it feels.

Thanks for the info Colonel. If anyone spotting me (small yellow bird) or one of my messages has a minute or 2 to spare, I'd appreciate a little contact from time to time. I'm feeling a bit neglected. You see, I keep getting cut off, which makes it hard to establish communication.