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

hi Fathom,

The latest Justin thread is: F91415?thread=382608

Do feel free to instruct him there - and good luck!

az

Fathom: I'll engage Justin on his own space, but I think polluting what could be a good Askh2g2 thread with his tired, repetitive, pointless rants is a waste of an opportunity for an actual conversation. If you want to take something up with him, may I suggest you do what someone else has done and address him directly on his own space so that his trolling doesn't drag this thread off topic too far? Just a thought.

Where does the Bible say God is a vicious sadist? An embarassment of riches, I think. Straw poll around my friends at lunch plumped for 2Kings2v23-25. I understand that this was EITHER something mentioned in an episode of "Shelley" OR something mentioned in a Bing Hitler standup routine, but nobody could recall.

As for stopping doing RE and just spreading it around other lessons - hmm, don't think that would work. I do think that a legitimate area for study is the various mythologies humans turn to when they have to kid themselves that the world makes some sort of sense. Why do they do it? How do they do it? How many people do they feel they have to kill or persecute to do it properly? And other questions... And all of this comes under a single umbrella.

Personally I think the whole thing should be retitled "Superstitions Studies", which would at least make it entertaining for people whose teachers lisp. (Ever reflected on how cruel it is that the word "lisp" has an "s" in it? Or how difficult it is to spell "Dyslexia"?) The syllabus could include the history of superstitions and fallacies, starting with the worship of the Sun, working through the various superstitions based on "gods" of various descriptions through the ages, and working right up through to things like why 13 is unlucky, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, UFO abductions, yetis, spoon-benders and psychic healers. That way, with any luck, we'd end up with a generation of young adults who could actually THINK, who didn't think astrology was a science, and realised that the X Files is not a documentary.

If anyone from the government is reading this, I'm available at short notice if you need any help drawing up a superstitions studies syllabus - just don't ask me to say it after a couple of pints

Of course, the humourless religionists might object at first to having their sincerely held beliefs placed on a par with belief in the Loch Ness monster and Uri Geller's powers - but I would challenge any of them to demonstrate how their beliefs differ qualitatively from those. I'm not suggesting we disrespect their superstitions - merely label them correctly and teach them as such. If people want to believe the moon is green cheese, we should let them do so, unmolested. Apart from the odd snigger, obviously.

Member, although looking in the dictionary you find the word "atheist" typically defined to mean believing in the absence of gods, think about the word amoral. A person is amoral if morality is simply not an issue for them, they aren't immoral, they don't believe that morality is wrong they just do not have a moral position. By analogy, atheist would mean not having a place for theism in their life.

"I agree that religious education is necessary so that the intelligent can learn to deal with and control these people to their advantage."

Hmm, I'd just like to point out that Member is agreeing with his or herself here, not with me.

Parents can still opt to have thier children kept out of RE and daily collective worship. Which even as a cocksure atheist I dont think Id ask for my kids to do. When I was at primary school there was a friend of mine who had to sit out because he was Jehovas Witness, well he isnt but his dad is so....

I cant remember anyone teasing him but it was a little embarassing for him dealing with the questions about why and he missed a communal experience, he also missed some interesting moral guidance. Solomon giving the baby to the woman who would give up her claim rather than see it cut in half, David and Goliath. On the other hand he also missed out on misguided fanciful nonesense. Even if you dont read the religious stories as fact to them kids can be confused by stories about people being swallowed by whales, living for 900 years and pulling thorns from lions paws.

So we get kids who sing about Jesus giving us the water of life and then going off to learn about the water cycle.
"Manjit how are lakes and seas turned into clouds?
"Jesus, miss"


Many people grow up with the misunderstanding that atheism is the rejection of religion when infact *atheism* is the default setting for many people and it is only the choice and yearning of people to accept faith over and above reason and evidence which creates theism in people.

What we have going on is a situation where religion is not always taught ABOUT so much as taught in an unstructured unthinking way. It is instilled in the fabric of our culture and education system so that people pick it up by osmosis. Whats more most of what people learn about religious type fantasies is never supplied with any warning that it may well not be true.

Yet we do not recognise how this calls into question science. What religion attests is true often runs directly opposite to scientific evidence. So shouldnt we be teaching atheism just as robustly. Saying religion is *wrong*. That at points A to X religion is wrong and that atheists have no views about points Y and Z. Religion does but they are drawn from the same unreliable sources that its flawed assertions about points A to X are drawn from.

I think there is a lot to learn from scripture that can be good for us. Learning about the wisdom of the prophets is just as important as learning anout Newton's discoveries or Gallileo's observations, but is there anyone on this thread who cant see that the concepts such as obedience to kings, manifest destiny, jihad and Karma can have a negative effect on the way in which humans treat each other.

Tony Benn on start the week said "Im a student of the teachings of Jesus but I dont believe he's my lord, I dont believe in any lords"

one love

I understand that "atheist" means a belief in the absence of gods, but that's why I think it's usually the wrong label. My point is not that the word is somehow wrong, but that the way it is used is.

Bizarrely, Justin and I agree on this one. He points out that there are no "a-pinkos", people who don't believe in pink elephants specifically. But then, why would there be? It's not as if there are hordes of idiots singing songs to pink elephants on the radio and television every Sunday, people killing each other in every country over the best way to feed a pink elephant, or an assumption in every court of law that the way to make sure you tell the truth is to get you to swear on a book about pink elephants.

The word "atheist" may well mean "a belief in the non-existence of gods", but it's a word invented as a reaction against a specific pernicious and pervasive threat. In this increasingly secular world, atheism is becoming less and less necessary.

As a parallel - are you for or against, say, slavery? Not just isolated or third world examples, and I don't mean just mere racism, I mean are you for or against the institutionalised industry of slavery - Africans being boxed up, transported abroad, denied all human rights and bought and sold like less than cattle and forced to work for no pay with no rights?

Most people, I suggest, would, if asked, agree they're against it. They'd be a bit baffled by the question, too, I suspect, since they'd regard it as
(a) bleeding obvious that *everyone* should be against it and
(b) ancient history anyway because it's no longer an issue.

I hope there comes a day when humanity is enlightened and grown up enough to regard slavery, the death penalty and religion as relics of their barbarous and undereducated past.

In anticipation of that, I reject the label "atheist". I'm atheist in the same way that I'm anti-slavery, anti-rape, anti-murder-of-children-for-stealing-a-loaf.

I prefer "rationalist", because it is a positive label. I look at the world rationally, therefore I'm a rationalist. I'm not reacting against anything, because there's nothing out there to react against. Sure, there are a lot of people who think there IS something out there - but that's THEIR problem. Don't, please, confuse me with one of them.

I used to be an atheist, you just don't get the holidays

an unforseen problem!

"(b) ancient history anyway because it's no longer an issue."

Regrettably that is not true. According to an investigation by National Geographic there are tens of millions of slaves worldwide, in almost every country including the UK and USA. Many of these are in the sex industry; abductees forced into prostitution. Others are working to pay off impossible debts for things like medicine. Most are children sold into slavery by their parents.



F

Member,

Of course you're right.

Don't you find it puzzling that otherwise intelligent, rational people can suspend logic when it comes to religion?

I enjoy a good movie and I'm prepared to suspend disbelief to get involved in the plot but outside the cinema you have to separate the make-believe from the real. We'd take a dim view of someone using counterfeit money so how come we tolerate those who sell counterfeit services like homeopathy and astrology? If the garage mechanic said a few words over your engine then charged you for a service you'd feel cheated but millions pay their tithes or fill collection plates for effectively the same treatment by their local clergy.

Mediums (media?) are a case in point. They take £millions off gullible punters and are, to all intents and purposes, committing fraud. Fake mediums can be prosecuted so all they need do is claim they are genuine. Since a genuine medium is in the same category as an antique Victorian video cabinet all mediums should instantly face prosecution. They prey on the weakest members of society in the same way that muggers and distraction burglars do. Why do we let them get away with it?

F

We dont put up with muggers, but we do put up with bigger crooks because they're bigger crooks.

Religion is a big scam as such it can exert influence and there are enough people who have a vested interest in it amongst those who should be acting against such fraudulent activities that it can continue to influence many areas of policy despite the continuing errosions of its power.

Fathom,

I did not say I was the only one who is right at all! There are tens of thousands of Christians in the UK who are are not just nominals, and they are right too. There are two camps; God's people (always a minority) who are right, and the rest.

Re: my use of slavery as an example. I know it still goes on. While there are still people with power and others without, it likely always will. Which was why I made a point of distinctly specifying that I meant, and I quote, "the institutionalised industry of slavery", as opposed to the underground criminal slavery currently in existence. I meant slavery endorsed, controlled and taxed by legitimate governments. Is there any government in the world currently raising tax revenue on the sale of slaves? THAT, and that alone, is what I called "ancient history".

Re: holidays - you get all the holidays, you just get to take them whenever it suits you, rather than commemorating the hijacking of one superstition's midwinter feast by another superstition, or the rescue of a man from a torturous death by friends who were clever enough to fake his death to keep him safe into old age. You thus save a large amount of money and inconvenience by going on holiday at a time of your choosing, thus avoiding the inflated prices places charge for going at the same time as all the superstitious people. Isn't that *better*?

I think we let mediums get away with it because those of us who aren't taken in hold those who are in contempt. If you're intelligent enough to get to a position of power, a position where you could DO something positive about mediums, you most likely look down at the morons who use them and think "they deserve everything they get". The observed facts support this supposition. Alternative explanations why provable frauds are allowed to continue to obtain money by deception?

Sorry Member, I didn't mean that to sound as if you thought slavery had ceased; your wording suggested it was a common belief, not your own, which is probably true.

I used the markers to indicate that this was just a point of interest in case anyone believed that slavery had been successfully abolished.

F

I think we let mediums get away with it because those of us who aren't taken in hold those who are in contempt.

Speak for yourself Member.

If you're intelligent enough to get to a position of power,

Take a look at politics and then tell us its intelligence that gets you into positions of power. Low cunning, deceitfulness, arse licking and scheming might be more accurate.

a position where you could DO something positive about mediums,

Like what exactly?

you most likely look down at the morons who use them and think "they deserve everything they get".

Presumably there is no such thing as society either.

The observed facts support this supposition. Alternative explanations why provable frauds are allowed to continue to obtain money by deception?

Yes they are observed facts but we can draw other suppositions from it too. For instance people like going to mediums, its as pointless prohibiting them from doing so as it is prohibiting marijuana. People gamble because they think they will win when we know that overall they will lose, but we also recognise the fun peole have doing it the observable fact is that attempting to ban it would be like eating soup with a fork.

one love

I would consider it naive for someone to go to a medium looking for anything other than entertainment, but that doesn't mean I'd hold that someone in contempt.

I mean mediums aren't a good option really, but people might not have the experience to see a better one, or they might even be only human and make mistakes sometimes, or they might be in a bad way and need something to believe in.

And you know I'm not sure everyone's experiences of life will necessarily suggest mundane rationality as the best framework.

I knew a lady who went to a medium because she thought she'd been some-one in a previous life. Why did she think this? because she'd been to a hypnothearapist who put her into a trance and she started speaking as someone else

<...atheism is a default setting for many people...> I definitely agree with this for two reasons. Firstly my personal experience - I had a religious upbringing which I was able to reject because it never really made any impression on me - it just seemed obviously nonsensical. Secondly, twin and adoption studies show that religiosity and fundamentalism are heritable characteristics (as two separate traits), so it would seem to follow that absence of said traits is heritable, too. It would be interesting to know how superstitiousness as a trait fits into the pattern.

<...it is instilled in the fabric of our culture and education system, so that people pick it up by osmosis...>

But also vice versa; religious practice and belief are not, after all, something separate from culture, however much some of us might wish it was. And given heritability it's likely to remain so. The question is, how should education minimise the most undesirable effects?

Noggin

"The question is, how should education minimise the most undesirable effects?"

One thing eduction should do but doesn't is give people thinking skills. A DeBono type course in rational thought would give students real life skills. Not only would this make them better able to absorb their studies but it would help them sort out reality from hype in this spin-doctored world.

People with a rational approach to life would naturally be less superstitious although they wouldn't automatically be atheist. They would, however, be better armed to recognise the more extremist religious views; especially those with the potential to harm the society in which they live. They should be able to pick out the contradictions in the religious messages and choose a belief system that satisfies the need for faith - that some will inevitably have - without damaging their lives as the more extreme religions would.

F