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

Unfortunately it was the only thing I could think of.

No doubt this one's been done, back in the annals, but: for you, is something good because there is an independent moral standard of good and evil, or is it good because your god(s) say(s) it is?

If the former, how did this standard come into existence and what is its relationship to your god(s)?

Neither.

I think good and evil are illusions.

Ah, Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Since I don't *have* any God(s), that probably deals with two of your three questions. Which leaves "Where do I get my standard from?"

And that's not an easy question to answer. Human nature, personal temperament, family and social conditioning all play their part.

But how did the idea of ethics and ethical discourse get started in the first place?

Noggin

"Ah, Euthyphro's Dilemma."

I wondered who would spot the reference.

" But how did the idea of ethics and ethical discourse get started in the first place?"

Surely it's a form of politics? That is, once a bunch of human being get together to live, some decisions have to be made about the rules they live by, even if it's that force always wins the day. If someone doesn't agree with the rules, there is a clash of values. But who is to say that one value is more valid than another?

Hey presto - ethics are created!

I think the central problem of ethics is deciding what to value - human happiness, freedom, God/gods, the ecology, stability, consensus reality, majority opinion...

I choose the second, specifically free will - at least, when considering the government. Anything that doesn't directly hurt another human being should be OK. Personal ethics are developed on an individual basis.

- Jordan

I had a rather madcap idea for the 10,000th post, as some may recall... I never actually explained it, and I just came across the file I started to store my posting. I was planning to write a brief history of the thread, detailing important topics, notable contributors, and such.

I was, of course, going to condense it wildly, but here's what I was on the way to writing.

The 'God: Fact, or fiction' thread is one of the longest, most diverse and most interesting threads in the whole of h2g2. Nearing 10,000 contributions from individuals holding a range of different worldviews, it's entirely conceivable that at some point, someone stumbled upon the meaning of life only to have it dissected over a chocolate sundae, glossed over and quickly forgotten.

Often, newcomers enter the thread wondering if a particular question has already been asked, an opinion voiced, or to state something that has already been discussed in far more detail in some point. It would be somewhat tedious to go over every single posting in the discussion and so, to make life easier for newcomers (and for veterans with poor memories), this article does just that. It's not a summary, but a description of the flow of the thread, pointing out where to find some of the more prominently expressed views or areas of particularily furious debate.


The Cast

The sheer variety of the thread, along with its antiquity (almost a year now!) means that an incredible number of posters have entered the conversation. This section is ordered according to the number of postings each has contributed, and then in order of their first post.

In the first 100 postings, the most prolific poster is:

Hoovooloo - U114627 - 22 - 15
- Major contributor. Prominent atheist and rationalist. Extremely intelligent and articulate, holds a moderately strong conviction in the ability of rational humans to shape the world in which they live for the betterment of all mankind.

Eight postings:

Pinniped - U183682 - 19 - 8
ThEntity - U199861 - 56 - 8
TheMelvin - U199889 - 59 - 8 (Note 69)

Seven postings:

Semaj - U190787 - 29 - 7 (Note 42)

Five postings:

Uncle Heavy - U129295 - 18 - 5

Four Postings:

orbitsville - U197759 - 8 - 4
Runner - U196576 - 54 - 4

Three postings:

Jake Denotsko - U198449 - 21 - 3
Researcher Eagle 1 - U192726 - 41 - 3
Zagreb - U181271 - 53 - 3
Perium: - U183230 - 79 - 3

Two postings:

Doubting Salmon - U194408 - 1 - 2
- Originator of the conversation.
Kaz - U182246 - 2 - 2
em's - U199547 - 39 - 2
EggsER - U199587 - 43 - 2
Ste - U172039 - 93 - 2

Uniposters:

Mina - U290 (Italic) - 3 - 1
The wag - U197723 - 4 - 1
Abi - U281 (Italic) - 5 - 1
Z-Phantom - U174936 - 6 - 1
Arwen (aka Phoenix) - U195263 - 7 - 1
Bisquick - U198078 - 9 - 1
2.hot.2.handle - U195946 - 10 - 1
unloved - U198684 - 14 - 1
Jam - U198659 - 16 - 1
Researcher 198852 - U198852 - 17 - 1
cactusklaw - U198031 - 30 - 1
Element - U48754 - 36 - 1
kirriea - U199543 - 37 - 1
Beegle - U199526 - 47 - 1
Xaero - U199628 - 58 - 1
Miss quixotic - U198518 - 70 - 1
Shagbark - U170775 - 88 - 1
AlecTrician - U173341 - 89 - 1
Flying Monkeys - U192888 - 92 - 1

100 postings reviewed.


Topic List


Judeo-Pagan Fallacy: - 1, 4

Christian Hell Debate: - 1

Pagan Gods: - 2

Religious Allegories: - 5

Pro-tolerance: - 6

The Science Duet: - 7

Nietski-Dawkins argument: -

Mind control, religion a crutch... (Generally applies to the Judeo-Christian religions.)

21, 22, 25

Argument for Intelligent Atheism: - 21, 22, 24, 25,

Religious Wars Debate (Religion as the Root of All Evil): - 20, 21, 22, 24, 25

Money: Root of All Evil?: - 24, 25



Landmarks

1. First posting.

2. Religion free society.

3. Hoovooloo and Insight cross swords.

etc...


1. Doubting Salmon started it all off with this posting, demanding opinions, speeches, views and, most of all... controversy! - 2

'...[N]on-Christians are actually satan worshippers because [they] don't believe in god.' - henceforth referred to as the 'Judeo-Pagan Fallacy'.

'...[E]ven though God loves us all, if we dont believe in him he sends us (lovingly) to hell to burn.' - henceforth referred to as the 'Christian Hell Debate'.

Incidentally, I believe that the first page consists possibly the most interesting combination of views expressed in this conversation. It's less of a debate than a collection of statements of belief, and it sets the tone for the rest of the conversation by establishing some of the flavours that will colour the debating to come...

2. Enter Kaz.

'Some of us non-Christians are fed up of [the Christian view that] pagan means godless.' - henceforth, this topic is part of 'Pagan Gods'. Pointed out - in the second post - that the debate was already concentrated unhealthily on the Judeo-Christian belief system.

4. Enter Mina, on the Judeo-Pagan Fallacy.

'...[S]atan [is a] Christian invention.'

5. Enter the wag.

'[B]elief in God or Satan is allegorical [for] the good or bad in all of us.' - henceforth part of 'Religious Allegories'.

6. Enter Abi.

'Why can't everyone just accept that everyone is entitled to their own view?' - henceforth 'Pro-tolerance'.

7. Z-Phantom.

'I myself go for the whole big bang/evoloution theory...' - henceforth, this topic will be 'The Science Duet'.

21. Enter Jake Denotsko

'All religions are pathetic crutches.' - henceforth known as the 'Nietski-Dawkins Hypothesis'.

'I'm an atheist and think in terms of today and tomorrow. How will what I do today effect the world my kids inherit tomorrow. Plain and simple. No fear of hell or a plague. Just refusal to fail the future.' - henceforth, the 'Argument for Intelligent Atheism'.

22. Enter Hoovooloo on the Argument for Intelligent Atheism.

'...[W]ouldn't the world be *better*, if NOBODY had religion? I don't know...' - 'Argument for Intelligent Atheism'.

'No fundamentalists. No Creationism. No Northern Ireland problem. In all probability, no September 11th. No astrology. No Holocaust. No Inquisition. No Crusades.' - henceforth the 'Religious Wars Debate'.

40 - Excellent argument on the Science Duet.

...

And I stopped here. Perhaps because of coursework and revision plaguing my life...

- Jordan

Roadkill,

<>

Well, there is really no need to post every one of your thoughts. Perhaps when you can only think of something unpleasant to say you shouldn't say anything at all.

az

Roadkill,

ps

I meant to put a at the end of that last posting. Just so you know I am not angry at all, though perhaps a bit exasperated. But anyhow, we can all say what we like here. I was just offering a suggestion.

So, no hard feelings, okay?

az

az,

I didn't mean for it to come off as unpleasant. I should perhaps have put a at the end, to let you know I was fooling around.

No problem at all, Roadkill.

az

Brilliantly observed. Exactly in line with my thinking but presented far more eloquently than I ever could.
I'm also inclined to Eric Von Daniken's theory that Christ could have been a representative of a benevolent alien race who wanted to teach us some morals at a time when we seemed to need them rather badly.
It's about time he paid us another visit - don't you think?

From post 19

'There almost certainly is a God, in the sense that there is an agency responsible for the workings of the Universe, and that this agency is beyond mankind's understanding.
There almost certainly isn't a God, in the sense of a being who created us in its own image, and with whom we can somehow communicate and ultimately "come to".'

Dentarthurdent you may have noticed that we are up in the 15000's, then again you may not.

Alji

<>

This is true, but it is also true that we are no closer to defining God as fact or fiction than the people who first participated on this thread, or for that matter, than anybody who ever existed.



az

az. As you might imagine, in the friendliest possible way, I disagree with you.

1) You don't define things as true or false; hence the failure of the ontological argument.

2) We have come very close to defining God, and I shall stick by my (well, Swinburne's) definition, thank you.

toxx

Do chimps *make decisions* about the rules they live by?
Perhaps, take a bunch of animals that have already evolved to live together, then give them big brains and language with which to reflect on their social arrangements. and hey presto...

Noggin

Do chimps *make decisions* about the rules they live by?
Perhaps, take a bunch of animals that have already evolved to live together, then give them big brains and language with which to reflect on their social arrangements, and hey presto...

Noggin

Noggin. Chimps certainly live by certain 'rules'. They also cheat by, for example, having sex in combinations other than those sanctioned by the alpha male. There are also 'tribal' loyalties.

I don't know what would count as a test of whether they *make decisions*.

toxx

Couldn't say toxx. I was just trying to get the horse back in front of the cart.

Noggin