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

docsharp, there is a big misunderstanding here! I was talking to jd-wossname about *your* homework analogy!

Vicky

Vicky,
Misunderstandings are commonplace, cant ave been that big anyway, it was only in my head.

Vicky

"c'mon then what was the jdjdjd all about then?"

jdjdjd is me; I have not posted under any other name.

Quite simply, "doing homework" and "worshipping God" are not equivalent, nor are they analogous. To claim so is to render the words used almost worthless.

Doing homework is something a parent instructs you to do as part of your education. The practice of worship is ritualistic. It is how a particular God is said to want to receive praise. Unless your homework involves intoning special ways of how good your teacher is, you can't equate the two. It really is that simple.

docsharp said that we "did the worship to avoid the curse". I pointed out that this is a bully's religion and Vicky responded with "worship is like homework kinda".

No, it's not. If you value the meaning of words and communication, you would see that this is too far a stretch to be meaningful. It deliberately interprets "worship" in a way that sounds benevolent but actually has little to do with what worship involves or means.

According to the bible and all the Abrahamic Religions, God cursed us all - every human - for the disobedience of Adam and Eve*, and we must worship him (in the manner each religion separately believes) or else be condemned to hell. This is not the same as doing homework which is (again, for emphasis) about your EDUCATION. It's about learning things, whereas worship is (in the phrase of Richard Dawkins) "sucking up to God".

(*if you interpret this as metaphor, you need to account elsewhere for the concept of "original sin" in Abrahamic religion)

jdjdjd,

I got a bit confused when Vicky said that jdjdjd was a metaphor, and with it being halloween I thought that someone was screwing around with names.

I have not read Richard Dawkins book but I have a few friends who have, I have seen a few of his documentaries and they confirm what my friends say about him. I.e. "he's up his own arse"...blows his own trumpet quite a lot of the time. He's probably quite a nice guy really, but personally I have too much evidence to say that there is a God and basically he's telling a large quantity of the population that they are deluded, not a very nice thing to say if you ask me, the only reason he hasn't been sued is because there is no proof, oh and maybe it'd give him creedance. If you could prove it you wouldn't need faith.

He's very well read and doubtlessly well educated but just about as closed minded as anyone that thinks that worship is only about rituals.

Oh and he's probably making a packet too.

Maybe read his book the God delusion, its a really good read. At least you know what his saying then, instead of relying on third hand accounts.

That's a bit like asking an Atheist to read the Bible or Quran. The title puts me off a bit so I am better off waiting a while until that feelings gone or at least died down. Mind you I suppose a lot of propper atheists do read holy books, just so they can knock lumps out of them.

I get the feeling from watching what has been said about the book by Dawkins Himself, that the language would be far beyond me, hence I wouldn't understand it properly so would be wasting my time trying to make an assessmet.

Funny thing that not understanding something properly doesn't stop most people slagging something off. I believe that it's probably Gods will that people don't know he exists, maybe he's facing up to the fact that trying to convince people that he does exist, just causes too many problems and Dawkins is an easy out.

"That's a bit like asking an Atheist to read the Bible or Quran."

There's no reason for an atheist *not* to read the bible or the Quran. I have read the bible - quite a bit, including the really dull lists and laws - and it is one of the reasons I am an atheist. My experience is that many atheists have better knowledge of the bible than many Christians.

I have not yet read the Quran itself, although I have read "popular introduction" books which describe Islam's history and basic beliefs.

You should always read a variety of sources, including those hostile to the postition you hold, if you want to reach a reasoned view.

You've only go to give the Bible a once over to realise that a better knowledge of it doesn't make you a better person or a better Christian come to that. It's all down in Acts somewhere, I read it a few times before I actually cottoned on to that one, at first I couldn't believe what I was reading, basically the gist I got was that I was probably wasting my time reading it in the first place, very puzzling.

I agree that reading views different to your own is a good thing generally it helps you understand the others point of view, but really with all the things that are going on around us that we do have control over, do you think that reading about someones opinions about God is a good use of your time?

Really we have bigger messes to sort out like what we are doing to our kids. Sustainability etc. I'm quite happy to let the likes of Dawkins try to convert the world to atheism. Some will, some won't it's when the guys start getting out the metophoric swords that I despair, i.e. when people say "you'd better read this book or you aren't worth talking to"....."Convert or die", sound similiar!

Damn! I wish there was a clear "quote" function - it would make these discussions much clearer.

"You've only go to give the Bible a once over to realise that a better knowledge of it doesn't make you a better person or a better Christian come to that."

But it's the main source of the claims about who Jesus was and what he did. Without the bible, there is absolutely NO contemporary evidence whatsoever that he even lived (I know about the usual apologetics sources, but these are all either not contemporary or are proven forgeries). The bible is by far the main unifying source of information generally accepted by all branches of Christianity. The remainder of the generally accepted Christian tenets are based on historical decisions made by the Catholic Church, whose authority is rejected by every other branch of Christianity. A Christian without knowledge of the bible is accepting a faith he is ignorant of - surely not a good thing to do?

"I agree that reading views different to your own is a good thing generally it helps you understand the others point of view, but really with all the things that are going on around us that we do have control over, do you think that reading about someones opinions about God is a good use of your time?"

Absolutely! If there is a God, or a correct religion, then getting the right one is the most important question you can ever address in your lifetime - your immortal soul depends on it, so you'd better not pick the wrong one. It is not just atheism you need to consider, but all the other religions. However, if there is no God, isn't it as well for as many people as possible to know so that they don't all fight over their "best imaginary friend"?

"it's when the guys start getting out the metophoric swords that I despair, i.e. when people say "you'd better read this book or you aren't worth talking to"....."Convert or die", sound similiar!"

Metaphoric swords are much less painful than literal ones! I agree that if anyone said such a thing they'd be out of order. I do think that anyone who is religious can benefit from reading Dawkins; even if you decide you disagree, it's a well written basic "primer" on the main arguments for the atheistic view. I would also recommend reading primers on Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and so forth; after all, I am.

>>But it's the main source of the claims about who Jesus was and what he did. Without the bible, there is absolutely NO contemporary evidence whatsoever that he even lived (I know about the usual apologetics sources, but these are all either not contemporary or are proven forgeries). The bible is by far the main unifying source of information generally accepted by all branches of Christianity. The remainder of the generally accepted Christian tenets are based on historical decisions made by the Catholic Church, whose authority is rejected by every other branch of Christianity. A Christian without knowledge of the bible is accepting a faith he is ignorant of - surely not a good thing to do?

I agree to an extent with the logic, however we have got a bit of a paradox in that Christian means follower of Christ yeh! accepted this means Jesus, to most of us if not all. There was no such thing as the Bible when Jesus was around, so he didn't read it. He read the Torah a few times to my recollection, probably had bits of it read to him by his earthly parents too.
Heard a joke once BIBLE stands for Basic Information Before Leaving Earth. It was put together by the same group of people that supposedly killed him, so I think mucho pinch of salt is required!

Many primers on various religions are opinionated, so its just as useful to talk to friends who follow the other religions, at least then you are likely to get the views on someone that was native to that religion. And the views of native followers gives you more insight than the views of someone who is impartial, cause usually the impartiality requires a degree of scepticism. You can form your own opinion then, this view that there is a likelihood of picking the wrong god is a bit of a puzzlement, to me. There is only one God, he's like Optimus Prime i.e. only divisible by himself and one. Don't get funny and say something about imaginary numbers or negatives, we like to keep things real and positive

I started reading the Aquarian Gospel, which isn't in the Bible, it's a lot more recent, some quite interesting ideas in there a lot of which make sense, more sense than some bits of the Bible.

And Ok Ok when I get time I will read the God Dellusion, just before I start my theology course.

Thanks jdjdjd,

I read the God Delusion over the last two weeks, been off work so I could take my time over it. It sounds pretty good, well reasoned arguaments. And yes Richard Dawkins has more knowledge of some of the details in the Bible than I can remember, well it has been almost 30 years. Trouble is his interpretation of it seems a bit shallow as I agree most fundamentalists are too, but he raises damned good questions seemingly expecting them to be retorical and they have simple answers. And some of his points are just wrong an if you say that he's only wrong in my opinion then watch out next time you're crossing the road using a Zebra crossing.

To say "there is only one god" glosses over the fact that the facets claimed about this "one god" are contradictory. Christians claim that Jesus *is* God but this is absolutely denied by Jews and Muslims, who find this claim blasphemous. Jews regard God as *their* God, the God of their people who prefers them above all others, while Christians and Muslims claim God is there for everyone.

If you claim there is some woolley kind of "truth" to all God claims, well this is a claim itself that is at odds with the claims of "fundamentalist" -type believers. *ALL* the various god-claims are made on the basis of the same methodology, and yet all differ and contradict one another, to a greater or lesser degree. This ought to tell you that the methodology is useless. Faith is a terrible way to learn facts about how the world is, because it is as likely to lead someone to Westborough Baptist Church or Jihad as to a nice liberal "God just wants you to be nice to one another".

Until I see some kind of objective evidence for the existance of a creator, I'm going to proceed as if there isn't one and hope that, if I'm wrong, he judges us by intentions rather than ritual and attention to dogma.

I didn't make any claims recently as to what God must be, you suggested what I was going to say. Dawkins makes a good analogy in relating religion to some sort of virus. This is useful in that it explains that when let get out of hand it can kill you, but does he not believe in innoculation, i.e. small doses in a controlled environment I dunno say a couple of hours on Sunday, mixed with a normal ballanced family life, teaches you about the potential evils of beliefs.

Dawkins assertion that God must be complex also answers the question of why there are so many contradictions. Not many people understand complex numbers either, but they have their uses for some people. Others don't even know they exist and lead absolutely normal lives.

Again as Dawkins suggest God isn't worried that people don't believe in him, he can look after himself, I think that any parent would be a bit concerned when stuff started to go wrong for his creation though.

The Westborough Baptist Church and many other fundamentalist groups, take the name of God in vain, that's not blaspheme, but isn't standing round with boards decrying homosexuality a bit of a vain effort to stop people being what they were meant to be. Really it brings the name of God itself into disrepute and prompts action like that of Dawkins, who's work I applaud and think that it's about time someone did something to stop the crazies taking over the world. He should just be mindful not to just turn himself into one too.

read my lips: NO, IT IS NOT EVIL!!!!! You bumbling humbug twit!

Perhaps not evil, but it has contributed to more suffering and caused more deaths than any other book that is not the foundation of a religion.

Its followers have given it credit for inspiring more deaths than the plague and cancer combined. Certainly more than all the serial killers you care to name (not counting the ones like popes who did it for God).

Now, isn't it past your bedtime?

It does not contribute sufferning! There is suffering in the Bible because there is sin in the world. And the only way to get out of sin is prepare & wait until the time comes (according to the Book of Revelation)

It does not contribute suffering! There is suffering in the Bible because there is sin in the world. And the only way to get out of sin is prepare & wait until the time comes (according to the Book of Revelation)

Oh. Okay.

Sorry.

Kelapabesar - "Perhaps not evil, but it has contributed to more suffering and caused more deaths than any other book that is not the foundation of a religion."

Actually, the "Communist Manifesto" must be right up there, and may even be ahead of the Bible, for having caused more suffering and deaths than any other book.