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

Yeah, thanks tons, blu!

I need to get myself a copy of the Jefferson Bible now.

Errr... I doubt Mary was stupid enough not to realise she had lost her virginity - she had already given birth to Jesus' elder brother!!! Now, how likely is it she was a virgin after that? or is the fact that Jesus had an elder brother not significant? Hmmm...

I had never even heard of an elder brother... How could that brother ever exist if Mary was a virgin, as xtian religions always claim?

maybe the elder brother was a half-brother from Joseph's side?

What I don't understand is why she had to be a virgin. What does immaculate conception have to do with divinity?

Nevermind, I'm drunk and down so, I'm not making any sense. None whatsoever.

Sorry.

All of the above questions about specific christian beliefs or the accuracy of historical fact really beg the fundamental point of belief/non-belief.

There are many other mythologies that act as a foundation for religious beliefs in the world today. Examining christianity without doing a parallel evaluation of the other mythologies may only serve to repudiate christian belief. It does not address the total concept of belief/non-belief. I do not think that can be done simply by identifying inconsistancies or inaccuracies in one religion.

christian theology is fulla just as many inconsistancies and convolutions as any other of the religious myths. It is no more [or less] ridiculous. To expect a myth that requires an 'act of faith' as a base to be consistant and logical really expects too much of mythology.

I think that if you want to really understand the logic of various christian theologies it requires that you consider the viewpoint of that theology. But maybe that would be another thread entirely. Or even a completely different article...


}:=8

As far as I understood it, the fact that Mary was a virgin would prove that the conception must have been brought forth by divine intervention. That made Jesus the son of God. Well, at least IF you believe it, ofcourse.

Wow! I've just read this thread through!

I'd just like to add my non-intellectualy, Mrs. Thicky, dumb house-wife, secondary school education bit.

*Climbs onto her battered old soap box*

There is no god.

Life is one very large coincidence and when you realise this, instead of crediting it to an omnipotent being, as many do, it is all the more precious.

What really makes me angry is abuse of human/animal rights and our environment. Much of this is done in the name of religion or for selfish & greedy organisations/individuals.

I hope to spend my time on this wonderful planet doing as little harm as possible, try to help others and hope that there is a planet for future generations, wildlife, flora and fauna to enjoy.

Perhaps you should all stop debating amongst yourselves, just for a moment, go for a walk on a lovely sunny morning and just listen to birds, insects and life going on around you and smell things growing. Take time to look up at the stars on a clear evening and enjoy the night air and appreciate your brief time here and how incredible life is - for a coincidence!

Okay! Rant over! You can all laugh behind your hands and "crucify" me now!

Well, Gwennie - I can only speak for myself, but I don't think anyone here would disagree with those sentiments. I too consider human consciousness to be something of an oddball development, a problem we will probably never really solve whether by means of reference to some great 'Deity' or otherwise. In the end, as you say, it's probably better to focus on matters that we *can* deal with, rather than arguing the toss about things we'll never really answer one way or the other...

But that doesn't blunt the curiosity we all must feel on such subjects, surely. After all, we've been given this (wonderful?) gift of consciousness, and is it not fair to say that ultimately this is the only thing that differentiates us from all the other animals on the planet. Might as well make as much use as we can of it, surely..

Yours, not sniggering at all, just about to go out for a nice long walk,

Lear

I think I'm replying to the wrong message here and totally ignoring many of the sentiments here but if there is no God where do the rights of humans and animals coming in? There is no authority to judge rights if there is no deity and hence its every being for itself, if there is no God.

I don't see what the rights of humans and animals have got to do with God. Democratic notions such as liberty, freedom and equality are ideas that we humans came up with ourselves, relatively recently, and we had to undermine many centuries of religious domination in order to bring them into action. Before that, so I'm told, they used to burn people at the stake if they came up with such stuff...

It is only in the atmosphere of diminishing religious influence that the ideas of personal rights and animal rights have been allowed to develop. When left to their own authority, people can find ways to coexist, but when depending on a religious model for authority, they prefer to hack each other to bits.

"then lobbest thou my Holy Handgrenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being not in my sight, shall snuff it. Amen."

Infinite Traveler aka Plato;

You are confusing a Godless society with an Anarchistic society. God, religion, spirituality; these things are ment to describe that which people have difficulty explaining. It has little to do with the symbiotic and organizational relationship of humans and animals.

True, religion has and continues to play a role in the organization of society. And also, religion was necessary for *our* society to develop to the point it has reached today.

Lack of religion and lack of God, however, do not imply a lack of morality, a lack of stability, nor do they imply a lack of respect for society as a whole. A Godless society does not have to answer to God later, it has to answer to itself now.

-jb

I absolutely agree. I am very cynical and think anarchism is absolutely useless. I am the most atheist person I know (not in h2g2, that is) and I am also the least anarchist (or should that be most anti-anarchist?). Anyway, as I kept pointing out back at the FFFF, anarchy and atheism are independent and should not be confused, even if anarchist lyrics are the best atheist can find as an anthem .

And as I recall back there, we had a disagreement over whether a song denying God and/or calling for revolution was truly anarchistic.

Anarchy cannot exist in human society so long as there are those who would follow others.

-jb

People are going to be forming their own societies and theologies/philosophies alike until the end of time. They fufill two (IMHO) basic human needs, acceptence and understanding.

Hi Traveler,

Like Lear (and probably many others with him) I do not see a connection between the existence of a so-called god on one hand, and the rights of any living being -be it conscious and sentient like ourselves or not- on the other hand.

As stated over and over, I feel convinced that this god our ancestors tell us about in their writings doe not exist at all. But I do the best I can not to harm any being, unless it harms me first. And even *if* attacked first, I still hesitate to inflict even the least bit of harm as a countermeasure.

Sometimes, in self-defence, one can not avoid harming another being, but apart from that, even without a god I feel compelled to minimise the hurt as much as possible. And from what I read in this forum, I get the impression that I'm not quite an anomaly in that respect.

Maybe you're not exactly replying to the wrong message, but you *are* generalising a personal theory, applying it to a lot of people who do not deserve such judgement and thereby inflicting hurt. I'm sure that must bother you, seeing as you appear to be a religious person. If you really worship your god, you must agree that you're not honouring him with your statement here.

I think that that forum entry nicely summarises an inescapeable fact: God has played his part in our society. It is possibly true that the morals you speak of come from something innate in humans, but I think it is more likely that they come from social conditioning. Every society starts off with some religion or other - this fulfills the role of bringing order and control. After all, who's going to mess with a leader who speaks for God??
However, now we have pretty well established order and cooperation, and now that most people in our societies are well informed and enducated enough to realize that we need to cooperate with each other to survive, where does that leave God?

I know where I'd like to leave him...

I don't see that God has had a whole lot to do with the morals of this society. God has changed over the years to reflect our changing morals, not the other way around. Now that humanity has discovered that we can be moral without him, we can be rid of him once and for all. After all, God hasn't adapted much to our current moral scene... if anything, he hampers it.

I suppose that's a fair enough point. Does that mean that morals are innate, or that we learn them for ourselves? I can see an interesting human experiment coming from this...
I imagine that people thought of such great rules as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' long before they had a well established religion. My point was that religion was a means to bring these rules to the masses. Now people have other reasons to be good than the fear of divine retribution.

I think morals are learned, and are one of the few things that seperates us from the rest of the animals. Gods have never really been a source of morality, though. The only purpose they serve is to act as a threat against violating those morals. That's why religious types get scared when you talk about abolishing religion... remove the threat, goes the argument, and you lose the morals. I for one think that people are going to act however they choose, God or none. More than once, people have been able to interpret Christian tenets as divine sanction for the most nefarious acts. People who see the value of morality will act appropriately without the promise of reward, and people who do not will act selfishly in spite of the threat of eternal damnation.