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

I, (That being the total of my sum) are in Mc Donald’s, therefore “I” must be a 'en nugget.

But,'en nuggets don’t think.

Proof if proof is needed that there must be a universe for 'en nuggets and one for those that eat then and that Mc D’s are really port holes into that said other universe

Did you get fries with that?
Or is it still the early morning hash-brown hour?

~jwf~

So when did God become omnipotent? My impression is that gods are in most religions seen as being very powerful, but not almighty. This seems to have been the case for Judaism too. Somewhere along the line though, the idea seems to have arisen that God isn't just powerful but almighty and all-knowing. When did this change occur?

I think it's a Roman (Catholic) thing, the result of
the political decision by Constantine to centralise
imperial power by bringing all religions into the
Christian tent and usurp its authority for secular
controls.
The Nicean Creed was a huge international compromise
of beliefs to centalise authority.

~jwf~

“So when did God become omnipotent?”, when he took control of all the utility companies and had full control of the Gas, Electric and water. That’s what made him all powerful and he could be called what he liked or he would cut off your gas supply.

Although, the “all knowing” bit is been looked into by the office of fair trading as it smacks of insider trading

PS:

>> In A.D. 312, Constantine won control of the Roman Empire in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Attributing his victory to the intervention of Jesus Christ, he elevated Christianity to favored status in the empire. "One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor" became his motto. <<

>> Nicene Creed or the Creed of Nicaea is used to refer to the original version adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325), to the revised version adopted by the First Council of Constantinople (381)...<<


~jwf~

So what do people make of Esau? Why is he described as being covered in red hair?

My Oxford dictionary doesn’t mention that he had red hair, just that he was stitched up by Jacob

Not red hair as much as red fur. That's the odd thing.

must have been something he ate

My latest little observations on the levels of honesty practised by (far too many of) my local fundie community.

http://giford.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-bath.html

GIf

This rather amusing article reveals and confirms
many of the conclusions we've made in this thread
concerning Atheism's evolution into religiose dogma.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins


~jwf~

I seem to remember Dawkins saying something like "Atheism is a religion like not-stamp-collecting is a hobby"

It's amazing how quickly a not-stamp-collectors' club assembled itself around him. And they're a devout bunch of not-stamp-collectors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18889495

>> 1. Richard Dawkins fish. Having a genus (larger group) named after you is an even greater accolade than having a single species named after you. Dawkins described it as "a great honour". He told the BBC he was in not in the slightest bit offended that the fish, discovered by Sri Lankan scientist Rohan Pethiyagoda, weren't higher up the food chain. "There's no such thing as an evolutionary scale, fish are wonderful creatures, so I am delighted that my name is being attached to four of these species, and very beautiful they are too." <<

The article goes on to say its predominant feather-like fins
make it very attractive to females but vulnerable to predators.


~jwf~

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Orwell, Animal Farm.


'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'

John 8:32

Some people have a fundie personality...it doesn't make an 'appeth of difference whether they be Atheist or Theist. Some people just get off on it. I don't get that. Life is too short for fanaticism of any stripe...there's far too many exciting new things to learn when you're alive than spending your time obsessing about things and people you don't agree with. It's small.

“spending your time obsessing about things and people you don't agree with. It's small.”, from an‘s perspective your closing comment could be deemed offensive

"I seem to remember Dawkins saying something like "Atheism is a religion like not-stamp-collecting is a hobby""


I have heard the following: "Atheism is as to religion as abstinence is as to sexual position"

Of course, as far as I am aware, "atheism" is the belief that no "gods" or "deities" of any description exists. Any doubt whatsoever means they would fall into agnosticism. If they believed in a god(s) or deity(s) of any description then they became theists.

Neo-theists or "militant" theists are those that claim that religion is "evil" and must be opposed and ultimately destroyed. That anyone with faith is deluded, idiotic and should be sent to room 101 for re-education.

There is a difference between the lack of belief and the belief in a lack, Stone Art.

I, for example, don't believe in any gods. I've never been offered evidence of one's existence which I found convincing.

But I do not deny the possibility, however improbable, of the existence of a god or gods (whatever that word might mean).

Do you see?


I'm not sure why this simple bit of logic needs to be explained over and over and over again.


But, now, I'll back to Houseman's Shropshire Lad's better justification to Man than Milton's of God's ways.

I meant of course neo-atheism and militant atheism.

"I'm not sure why this simple bit of logic needs to be explained over and over and over again."

I'm not denying that you believe that the belief that their are no "gods" of any "purport" is not a belief at all. It is like someone living in the 18th century who doesn't believe in aeroplanes or some land locked twenty first century Brazilian tribe that doesn't believe in mechanical devices that move about beneath ocean surface, or that oceans themselves exist. However the fact that you say that you cannot be certain that "god"(s) of any purport exist somewhere or sometime or in some adjacent Brane universe of M-theory suggests to me that you have agnostic tendencies no matter what it might suggest to you.