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

Ah... That makes much more sense, thank you.

Antichristduck I refer to the thought processes of faithers as immature because they are so obviously petulant, fearful and contrary.

Im not saying that those who do not believe are immune from such things but the whole character of religious types can best be described in these terms.


Petulant:adj : easily irritated or annoyed; "an incorrigibly fractious young man"; "not the least nettlesome of his countrymen".

This can be seen in religiously inspired stonings, burnings, wars, acts of terror you name it you upset a god botherer at your peril.



Fearful: Feeling reverence, dread, or awe.

How can feeling awe be bad you might ask. Well its not so much bad as silly and childish. Someone mentioned the feeling they get when looking at nature or a sunset. They somehow manage to overlay some weird meaning onto such random events and dread that our behaviour will effect them. This leads to silly but also dreadful things like blood sacrifices or punishements who dont observe festivals, for instance, to ensure a good harvest.


Contrary: Opposed, as in character or purpose: contrary opinions; acts that are contrary to our code of ethics. Given to recalcitrant behavior; willful or perverse.

Fundamentalist muslims totally deny the truth of evolution, fundamentalist christians even try to stop it being taught in schools. Despite the continuing revelation of scietifc facts which have undermined so many recorded cornerstones of their differing faiths they continue to sidestip or ignore these truths or simply cling onto the remaining grey areas witha fingers in their ears mentality to reasoned argument and empirical evidence. We are not talking particle physics here been but widely understood and easily repeatable scietiifc method. Anyone can measuer the stars and see that they are not fixed in the heavens. Anyone can see that some snakes live in the sea or in trees and kil their prey by constriction despite religious texts claiming otherwise. Yet still the religious brigade go to these books lookiing for truth.


I dont set out to be insulting but it's hardly what Id call sophisticated thinking.

one love

All this would be so much easier if Joesph had run out of the stable shouting "ITS A GIRL".........

Have you read the backlog, and my personal understanding of God? Mind you, this thread is not about religion, but only the consept of a creator.

If you have managed to find my thoughts\attitude as petulant, fearful or contradictory; i'll be interested to know. I'm a peaceful person, i've become more peaceful the more i thought about God. That makes me one white crow at the very least

I'm bothered by expressions like 'the religios-types'. Same goes for 'Godless communists'. Same attitude really. Generalization. Pointless.

Reverence and dread are not only not similar things; they're polar opposite of each other. If i have dread of somebody, i do not respect him in the least. It's not remotely possible for me to show reverence to him. I can only show reverence if i'm free of dread.

It'll be a personal thing to say, but i don't have the slightest fear of hell. I refrain from nothing for fear of hell. I trust hell, if you get my meaning. I do not want to be disrecpectful to my creator, that's why i do not sin when i can help it.

I'm a believer, and there's nothing in science that bothers me. I'm moved by what science provides us with, i'm moved by how science explains nature. If anybody throw tantrums at science, like fighting the idea of evolution, they're simple ignorant. I don't think 'i believe' covers subjects that evidence is available for\against.

All the points you make are about orginised religion, which's something i'm mad at. And fundamentalists. Which i have no patience with.

We do not even disagree on how things should be carried out in society, we only differ on a point that can't be established to be right or wrong. The only difference is that i'm not looking down on your disbelief, and you look down on my belief. This i and you are meant as representing a group of people, btw. Not literally. But i sure do look down on surity concering matters that're fated to be uncertain. You can't disprove it so it exists is no better or worse than you haven't\can't prove it exists so it sure doesn't. I do not call that sophisticated thinking either.

blicky "multi-award-winning" badger: You must surely concede that your use of phrases like 'religious types' means your point is at best a generalisation and at worst tarring all people of faith with the same brush, which seems rather harsh. Some religious people do think and act as you describe, but not all.

Anarchistduck: I'm not sure I agree that my refusal to accept something on the grounds that I can't prove it's existence is as foolish as being certain something exists until convinced otherwise. An assertion that God may exists, I can't dismiss because I have no proof, but to accept an assertion that God definitely does exist, for that I would want proof.

On that point, since it seems that anarchistduck is happy to stick to a position where he does not claim to have proof of God's existence (fair enough) and nobody else seems to want to offer any, can anyone disprove?
Yes, I know most will argue that no proof at all is good enough. But let's consider the bible. I would argue, in general terms, that any story in the bible could probably be explained my better understanding of the science- but can anyone prove it? Can anyone explain away the fishes and loaves, or the walking on water, or water into wine, or any other miracle they care to name, using science?

<>

I never said to disbelieve is foolish- only to be sure of it. And i did not think you fall into that catergory- do you? Actually i never said 'foolish', either, which's plain name calling. I also never made an assertion that God does definitely exist, if i had, of course you'd want proof.

Speaking of miracles, is there really a stone in [how's it spelled?] Kaaba? that just sits in the air without any support whatsoever?

Hey, didnt David Copperfield make a jumbo jet disappear, explain that, i didnt see it on telly, i read it in the paper.

Of course he didnt really make it disappear, like those things you mentioned in the bible, they didnt really happen

What I keep coming back to, is what is this thing called God? Everyone seems to have a different idea and concept. As it's impossible to define what God is because it's an act of faith. What's the point in discussing it because you will never know if the person you're discussing it with has the same concept as you. It's a bloody pointless, waste of time!

Me thinks thats why the thread is called "Is there a god" not "There is a god"

I am not religious at all, but i must admit there are some good stories in the bible, i must stress again 'stories'

Why should 'Is there a God?' be any more meaningful?

Like one could say, 'Is there this thing which we have no idea what it is, because it's an intangible act of faith.' Like I said a bloody pointless discussion.

, very good

I like that more

I don't mean to be rude here (well, I do a bit) but if it's such a pointless discussion- why are you participating? I think you're getting too bogged down with a definition of God- I said 'a' god not 'the' God- indefinite article, one of many (potentially) no fixed definition.

Oh dear excuse me for getting bogged down in wondering what the thing is we're discussing which may exist!

Re: post 127, ... Has anyone yet proven that these happenings described in the bible did NOT happen? Or could not happen? If definitive proof has been found and documented, I'd certainly like to see it somewhere.

Otherwise, I'd guess that it is your 'opinion' that they are all tales and fabrication. An opinion which really carries no more weight than the opinion of others that their God exists.

Fanny- are you hoping to have a sensible conversation or just be cantancerous and difficult? I'm not going to offer my idea of a definition of God because I don't want it to rule out anybody else's idea of a defintion of God. Does anything that people think of as being God exist? Do you have anything to contribute to that discussion?

Rev Nick- I'm sorry, what you've said isn't really accurate. The idea that the stories in the bible are fabrication is based on the understanding that the are, according to our understanding of science, not possible. You can't just heal someone of lepracy or turn water into wine. The burden of proof therefore rests on the person who has claimed they have, otherwise why on earth should we believe them?

Rev Nick - The Judeo-Christian/Catholic bible is the only religious book I *can* comment on with any , albeit slight, authority and as a historical document it is hogwash - it has been edited (many times), mistranslated (likewise), parts suppressed (depending on where you look the amount varies, but thered is enough evidence to suggest at least *some has occured),cobbled together (Several Old Testament stories are up to 2000 years older than the time in whic they are presented) and generally spun to fit the prevailing political structure (The suppresion of the role of women, to fit the emergent patriarchial society) and as such cannot be considered a source of reliable evidence on anything; least of all the existence, or otherwise, of 'Miracles'.

In general, religious behaviour in humanity can be traced back to approx 75,000 years ago (When the last supervolcanic eruption occured in the indian sub-continent, incidentally reducing the population of H. Sapiens to around 10,000) - the reason for this is obscured in time, but a rational inferrence is that this was an event inexplicable to those that survived and therefore must have some external explanation.

Personally I don't believe in religion, as to wether there is an ulimate creatot of existance my mind is open, tho' I *do not* believe in the omnipotent / omnipresent model as presented by religions or that the creator requires my devotions. I am, however, comfortable with the concept that the creator is a the universe and, as such, we are all in a way, god (for want of a better word).

<> And the key bit there is 'to our understanding'. Not all the answers that science can provide are in yet. Until they are, I'd suggest that it is still a 'theory' that the healings, the 'miracles', etc are probably false.

<> That much does seem to be well supported, and I don't disagree there. Just as I understand that with many other tales passed down through the generations by word of mouth usually bear atleast a kernel or two of truth. As has been said in so many other threads before, anyone who wrote the original missives and passages are long since dead. And cannot be held to open account, to prove or be disproved. As I understand science, anything that has not yet been proven or disproven, but has a strong likelihood, is a 'theory'. So again, using this historical re-telling or mistranslations as justification that so many things are false is a 'theory'. NOT a given or proven fact.

You see, I have no answers either. And so I won't outright discount either side of the debate. All I can see fairly clearly is that anyone who firmly declares the healings, miracles, what-evers as proven fact, or proven lies, are equally tunnel-visioned and equally wrong.

Let me just say that i do not think God .requires. anybody's devotions. He doesn't need to be praised or anything. People who praise and pray to and worship God do it because .they. need to be close to him. It's a shallow approach to jeer 'Your God is arrogant.' Not that that's what .you. did, tho.

The healings bit is shakey ground - there are a number, unsure of how many tho', of documented cases of spontaneous remission in incurable cancers & such - the power of the mind (?) the intervention of deity (?) - personally I'm more with the former, but a persons belief in deity *may* be the focus their mind needs to perform the self-repair, so deity cannot be removed from the equation, if only as a catalytic agent in the process.

I generally side with the humanist argument that *you* are your own judge and jury - and afterlife is a question that will get answered soon enough (existance / non-existance / something different entirely...)

About biblical miracles- i will not say i'm sure nothing described there has never happened, not really possible to know for sure. But, for something to be a theory, it must be disprovable. So this subject is actually outside the scope of science. Those things are not disprovable. Point is, if something is a miracle, it is for the precise reason that science fails to explain it.

As an aside, there's nothing called a 'fact' in science, and anywhere else. The surest thing one gets is a theory.

History, even from the most 'reliable' sources, is fiction with grains of truth in it anyway.