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

Regarding 'a-' and anti-'

I'm an atheist because I do not think gods exist, not because I'm anti-god.

Equally I am agnomist, aghostist, and atoothfairyist because I don't think gnomes, ghosts or tooth fairies exist.
Whilst I have no problem imagining such entities, I see no evidence that they do exist, and their existence does not need to be postulated to make sense of anything in the observable universe.

Since there is no point opposing that which does not exist, it would obviously be ridiculous for me to be 'anti-gnome', except in the rather weaker sense that I might think it is a good thing that there aren't any gnomes.

Were there to be a large lobby of gnomians who had decided (on the basis of the same apparent lack of evidence) that gnomes *did* exist, and who were telling me how to live my life as a result, I'm prepared to be anti-gnomian to the extent of arguing with them, but all that means is I oppose the concept of ordering life on the basis of a particular superstition. It doesn't reflect my feelings on gnomes, merely on the people who say they exist, and/or their organisations.

In fact it is quite possible for me to simultaneously think that gnomes are non-existent, that it would be *good* if they did exist, and that the people who claim they do exist are misguided or worse.
Thus I could be agnomic, weakly pro-gnomic, and anti-gnomian.

Alternatively, I could take the view that there were no gnomes, that it was a good thing that there weren't, but that the gnomians were really a good bunch of people who (though somewhat misguided) did more good than harm, and I might therefore be agnomic, weakly anti-gnome, but pro-gnomian.

Potholer, "weakly pro-gnomic" - I love it.

Gnomon does exist, I've met him. You can't go round not believing in real people you know

Dogster: 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).

You would say that, and maybe that's what you think it means. I think it's basically wrong, however, since "atheist" contains within itself the word "theist", which I think fundamentally validates the theist position. My own feeling is that that is giving undeserved dignity to nonsense. Atheism does not cover my own thoughts, any more than agnomist does. Gods simply don't enter into my worldview, except as irritating delusions suffered by the herd of morons I encounter daily. I agree that religious education is necessary so that the intelligent can learn to deal with and control these people to their advantage. Actual religious indoctrination should, I believe, be regarded in law as child abuse.

JtP: "when in severe crisis all call out to God. "

The evidence, then, points to your God's name being "SHIT" - this being the word most commonly heard last on black-box flight recorders found in plane wreckage, surely one of the most severe crises a human can knowingly face in life. Time and again this idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been shown to be simply another religionist lie. When people are about to die, their verbalised thoughts are generally despair for themselves, not appeals to some imaginary friend.

Lemon Blossom: Is there something I should know?

You should know Justin is irrational to the point of diagnosable mental illness, and that this makes it pointless attempting to get sense into or out of him. Trust me (and all the others saying the same thing here) on this. Ignore him. If we all simply ignore him, he will go away.

JtP: " English was my strong suit"

Classic. Lies, as usual.

Della: "described ... as 'conservative and ignorant, but actually neither..."

I can provide links to posts on this site that prove unequivocally that you are an ignorant, conservative, racist liar. (not usually all in the same post, admittedly...).

You can either admit you are, in which case I'll drop it, or you can deny it, in which case I'll prove it. Your call.

"do you really think abuse is the way to debate [Justin]?"

There IS no way to debate Justin. He doesn't listen, he just talks. Since abusing him is fun, and palpably makes no difference to him, why not? It's as productive as any other kind of interaction with him.

"I meant, though, more "atheists I have known""..."most atheists and agnostics I have known are grim"

I would suggest, Della, that there is a very good reason that most of the atheists who know you are grim and miserable, and I don't think it's because they're atheists, if you get my drift...

In my experience, atheists are self-selectingly intelligent bunch who may appear slightly more serious to their rather less literate religious colleagues by virtue of the fact that most of the atheists' idea of humour simply goes over their heads. The perfect example of this was the Christians who self-importantly complained that "Life of Brian" was offensive to them, failing spectacularly and amusingly to understand that it wasn't aimed at them - it was aimed at ALL religious types. Religious people, in my experience, like a laugh as much as the next hyena, but then there's no accounting for lack of taste.

Hey. someone fo get Saturnine!!

Hey Justin, long time, no condemning.

I'm confused. You said people instinctively cry out to God in times of severe crisis. This is not true for me. I cry out to my dead husband. I can think of two explanations.

First, my husband was in fact God, in which case, as next-of-kin to the owner of the universe, I should be entitled to much more in social security benefits .

Or Second, something akin to Lemon's point - humans are victims of circumstance. Some hear of Christ, some hear of Gods of other mythologies - some, like me, have only had one beloved die, and as such call out to the closest thing to the supernatural she's experienced. A sort of last ditch effort in times of desperation. There is no god for me, only the acceptance that I am in many ways unconsciously a reflection of my context.

context is everything.

Nyss: I appeal to you (supply your own joke...), don't feed the troll. An yeah, someone get S@

Nyss,

I am sorry to hear that your husband died. Having worked with those in such situations I can understand what you have been through. You have my every sympathy.

I was speaking in generalities, and I think you are over-egging the pudding.

In some ways you are right. Some people can be conditioned to cry out to non-existent gods.

Della the Cat Woman: So I did that thing.

<<- atheist or agnostic, with a sense of humour>>
As an aside, I'd have to say that most atheists and agnostics I have known are grim, deadly earnest and not noted for any appreciable sense of humour!
(From a Christian, described by an atheist (Member) as 'conservative and ignorant, but actually neither.. )

Maybe they are round you love, but heres a clue to the identity of a very funy atheist.

D N A

one love

If God really exists, surely He would prefer to populate His Heaven with rational, sensible people. People who, believers or otherwise, made proper use of the world's resources, including their own intelligence.

The noisy, childish, irrational ones would simply be a nuisance. These are the ones that the Devil would want. The Devil's playthings would have to be recruited of course and he could hardly send his son to do that so what would he do? Voices - that's what. After all, how could you tell it was God and not the Devil that spoke to you? As a mere human you couldn't possibly see through such a cunning trick. The Devil is God's adversary; you think you could tell the difference if the Prince of Darkness wanted to fool you?

He'd lure them in by telling them they were the Chosen Ones. A real God wouldn't just choose a few - that has to be the work of a more evil force - God would save all those who didn't fall prey to the evil voices. The Devil would tell his disciples they were in a tiny select band to make them feel all smug and superior. God would just gather up all those who were left.

See how this fits - God is all-powerful so if He wanted everyone to know He existed that would be easy. Instead He has His reasons to remain undetected. Why, then would He reveal Himself to a select few? This simply doesn't fit with a loving Creator. Why would God sacrifice His own Son for our sins and then only pick a lucky few to be saved? It doesn't add up. God doesn't reveal Himself to the living.

Don't listen to the Voices: they are not the Voice of God.

F

Della you could also check out my personal favourite comedian.
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/drewhicks.htm

Fathom,

There are a couple of others on this site like you. They too do not know God, neither do they know what He says, or reveals, in His Scripture, the Bible. Yet they feel free to instruct someone who does know Him and serves Him.

Fathom: please do not feed the troll.

Yes, Fathom - and others - please! No troll feeding.

The thread is called 'Children to study atheism in school' not 'Let's all listen to Justin rant and rave like a lunatic'.

az

Member, you're a fine one to talk.

What if Justin has been fooled by some evil force? I think he should at least consider the possibility. Where in Scripture does it say that God is a vicious sadist? What else would create six billion human beings and only allow a few hundred thousand into Heaven?

Justin could be risking his soul by listening to the wrong voices.

F

<>

Joke question?

az

We'll have to assume so, az.

Job?

It may be a joke question to some but I don't see how Justin could accept it as such.

I'm merely following a line of reasoning - if God is loving then God is not a vicious sadist. If Justin's description of God, from his knowledge of God's nature, leads to this contradiction then his knowledge is flawed. Justin must ask himself if he's being fooled by some malevolent agency.

And in response to Justin's comment - I'm not trying to instruct him at all, I simply want him to ask himself why he is sure he is right and everyone else is wrong.

F

So anyway back to the topic

A thought has occured to me (mind wondering when i should be working again) someone mentioned earlier how religion can be useful in understanding art etc. So why not take RE away as a seperate subject and introduce into the rest of the curriculum i.e history (quite a lot connected to it, art, science and so forth. This could give some good viewpoints of religions in differing contexts. then the RE lessons could concentrate on other areas i.e. philosophy, sex ed etc rather than lump these important things as a side topic.

Hopefully then you would get people with a better understanding of differing religions and the mental tools to consider them.


So what do you think, questions comments etc (oh and probably a few flames as well i'm sure)

Maybe god is a loving S&M enthusiast who sometimes gets a little carried away?