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

Very simple, Northern Boy, 'sinners', or 'enemies of God', or 'children of the darkness', or 'children of the devil', which are all God's terms for them. You have a choice.

To be fair though, if you are a sinner and cut off from God by sin, therefore, and you don't know Him, and have never heard Him speak to you, you could conclude intellectually that he is not there. However, when in severe crisis all call out to God. They instinctively know that He is there.

Northern boy,

<>

I should imagine the question only applies when someone asks you to define your beliefs in terms of a god or gods. Otherwise you could just be a human! I don't know what to call myself in this sense either as I don't think I'm actually atheist - the closest term that seems to fit me is pantheist, though in fact I worship no gods. Tricky.

However, I do think that teaching children about religion in a class that also includes philosophy and morality could help give children a clearer view of what is out there without a 'we're-right-they're-wrong' slant to it.

az

There's a difference between believing that God is a possible being who happens not to exist, and believing that God is an impossible being with no place in the understanding of the universe; hence, Member's remarks about the supernatural.

I tend to agree with Otto though, that for better or worse religion is an integral part of current societies, and people need to learn something about them in an informed and neutral way. But evangelising is a definite no in state schools.

Noggin

Justin,

Re-read your own post. That's exactly what you just said.

When I was considering teaching as a career, I spent a day at a local state school. There was a whole school assembly that day, and the head teacher started talking about David and Goliath, which surprised me. But he was using it as a kind of don't-give-up-because-things-look-bad kind of parable, and inserted various "whether you believe in the Bible or not" cavaets, which I thought was quite clever. This would be a problem if all of his examples only every came from the Bible, but not if he used examples from other faiths in a similary creative manner

Otto

None of the above posts address the issue of why it is necessary when every facet of antichrist evil is taught as if it were the truth all over the place. The children cannot escape it anyway. You have media people, Government, pop music, etc., all pushing Satanic values, and 99.5% of the British people are practical atheists anyway. So why bother to 'teach' it?

Justin

Justin you talk of hippocracy.


are you familiar with the Poem Assisi by Norman McCaig, it highlights a great point ...

>>but not if he used examples from other faiths in a similary creative manner<<

It's a good idea, Otto, but there *is* one religion that gets *real upset* if you start changing the words of their book around. And they're not exactly reknowned for tolerance or turning the other cheek, should you do it.

Member, I would say that the word "atheism" covers both meanings of the term, belief in the non-existence of gods, or rejection of the whole thing (your preferred one, and mine incidentally).

My feeling is that religion should be taught as part of a cultural history, in order to help understand how ours and others cultures have evolved, and how they work now. It's difficult to make sense of a great deal of Western art, music and literature without some knowledge of christianity for example. I'm sure the same is true of other cultures.

This way, the state would not be having an influence on anybody's belief directly, which is consistent for a liberal, secular state, but it would be teaching what is required for understanding all those other things (art, music, literature, etc.) which any liberal state ought to be interested in teaching.

<>

That only makes sence if you define atheist as anyone who doesn't follow your definition of Christianity, a definition which 99.5% of Britons probably don't agree with.

What Is

No, I don't know of that poem. (Err..spelling is not a strong point of yours is it? )

Justin

<>

Know instintively, or wish instinctively? Arthur C. Clarke made the interesting suggestion that the belief in a theistic god is a result of mammalian biology. When were young our parents seem all-powerful and fix things for us, so we continue that expectation throughout life. We want a parent figure who'll solve our crises for us--that doesn't mean that such a figure exists.

Ah, Lemon Blossom, you are very nearly right! Very few professing Christians are in the things of God as revealed in the Bible. Most are in 'Christianity' but not in Christ.

Justin

hi Lemon,

*Please* don't feed the troll.

az

<>

What about rape? Or do rapests just get to marry the person they rape without other punishment?




<>

What you forget is that the idea of god exists even if the god does not. Whether your god exists or not, people exist who say that your god does exist and who want to make everyon accept that as a fact. Thus, there is a point in being an atheist (not that I am one; I'm a deist) even if no gods exist.






<>

How would that work, since virtually noone follows "god"'s way, according to you? How do you get people to teach what they don't believe in?

<<*Please* don't feed the troll.>>

"Troll"? Is there something I should know about this Justin person?

Lemon Blossom (again!),

Arthur C. Clarke is in for a surprise then, if he is still alive. If not he has realised that he was completely wrong. There are no unbelievers the other side of death's door.

All this atheism stuff which they hope to teach those who are already in it and practicing it, in schools, is just another expression of the ridiculous notion of 'denial'. Like the wicked science fiction lie of 'evolution' which is just so ridiculous even a five year old can debunk it, 'atheism' is just a mechanism for removing any conciousness of God, and facilitating comfort in sin and wickedness. Men want to be their own gods, deciding what is right and wrong from their own ideas, they don't want to be told by the Maker of Heaven and Earth what is right and what is not. The very idea that all their life's details are recorded, and every wickedness noted, is not something which they want to know about, as that makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to be able to whore/fornicate around, commit adultery, get drunk, etc., without any conciousness that there is a God, and He does know about it.

Justin

Hi lemon a troll is an individual who posts to conversation in order to cause argument upset etc. not that i would say this applies to anyone here but well it's best to try and ignore these things

Lemon Blossom, (yet again! )

I was making hypothetical point. It is not going to happen. The next thing is Christ's return, judgement, and the burning of this world; 'global warming' par excellence. Hang around. You will get to meet Jesus Christ, as Christians already have, only face to face. Everyone does eventually.

Yours, Justin

hi again Lemon,

Yes, he is trolling. Check out the last two-three pages. This person will not debate with you. He will only rant and rave and call you vile names. He will take over and ruin this thead if people continue to repsond to him.

If you really fancy a real Justin the Preacher experience then go and read his latest Sermon. F91415?thread=382608&latest=1

Meanwhile the rest of us antichrists and devilworshippers doomed to burn forever in the flames of hell can - I hope - continue this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I argue with Justin sometimes myself. I just don't think this thread is the place for it.

az