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

Ted Turner, the renowned humanist, when asked in an interview with David Frost, if he had any regrets in his successful life, surprisingly displayed great sadness when he said, 'Yes, the way I treated my first wife.'

Why feel such remorse if all we are is DNA?!

The bible says that we are SO MUCH more than just DNA (although, DNA is a very complicated code/language which, it could be argued, must have been written by a highly intelligent being!).

The literal translation of Psalm 8:4 is 'You have made man with just a little of God lacking in him.' Such a noble status...and yet...

Look at the evils in society of racism and prejudice, arrogance and greed. Anger or lust, which begin in the heart, taken to their extremes become actions that show what man is capable of. Yet, for the christian, admitting his or her inherent sinfulness is the way to finding redemption.

An eminent historian of the Holocaust listed, in a seemingly exhaustive article, all possible reasons 'Why?'...Germany's economy, the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty, the rise of a demagogue. These and other reasons were explored for this appalling scar on human history. The one thing he didn't consider was Jesus' assessment of the human heart, which is 'desperately wicked'.

Think of the 'best' person you know, i.e. the one who displays so much goodness and virtue that they stand out in a crowd. Ask them if they're perfect! If they say 'Yes' they're lying!

mikey2

Hey Mikey!

>Why feel such remorse if all we are is DNA?!<
Possibly because as herd animals (witness the tendency for our near relations in the monkey world to form little communities) a tendency to compassion for fellow humans is an evolutionary imperative? Would that be enough to explain why we feel bad when we mistreat someone even though it has no bad consequences for us?

>The literal translation of Psalm 8:4 is 'You have made man with just a little of God lacking in him.' Such a noble status...and yet...<
I like that quote, I've always liked the idea of us as a mix of mortal and divine. It's works on a peotic level if nothing else...

>Look at the evils in society of racism and prejudice, arrogance and greed. Anger or lust, which begin in the heart, taken to their extremes become actions that show what man is capable of.<

This proves that we're capable of acting through selfishness, fear or whatever but does it really say anything about sin as an act against God?

Hi Mikey,

Yes, it's true that there is much pain and suffering in the world, and a not inconsiderable part of it is caused by man's inhumanity to man.

But isn't the Christian viewpoint just a little pessimistic there? Don't we generally get on with each-other quite well? Don't we live in cities of millions and yet - mostly - live our day-to-day lives without conflict? Don't we give millions of pounds a day to charities? Aren't there millions of volunteer workers, and millions more who opt for a lower salary to work in charities? And so on, and on.

It might be true that none of us knows anyone perfect - but then again, none of us knows anyone utterly without redeeming features either. And I would hazard a guess that for most people, they quite like most of the people they know.

People seem to get on quite well with each other with or without religion for the most part. If we didn't, then society would break down, and that would be bad for everyone. It's not just DNA, of course - there are other forms of heredity such as upbringing (including, but not limited to, religion). Does Christianity bring anything other than extreme pessimism to the party? If not, then colour me Humanist any day of the week.

Gif

Oh, and I see that War on Christmas has started early this year. Heard a priest speaking out against the pernicious, capitalist habit of giving gifts to children at Christmas and how un-Biblical it all is on Sunday.

Why won't these religious types get their hands off Christmas and let us atheists enjoy it?

Gif

As the creator and ruler of the universe, God, who made mankind to have a relationship with Him, deserves our praise and worship.

The Bible contains this warning:

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

so much fallacious reasoning as usual it makes my eyes water.

Clearly you don't understand what DNA is or what it's functions are otherwise you wouldn't be trying to suggest that atheists think remorse or other emotions are rooted in genetic inheritance and the one thing it definitely doesn't look like is designed by intelligence.

I assume your speaking of immaterial and /or souls. Concepts which probably owe as much to Greek 'psyche' in the modern conception as of anything found in The Bible but now we've leapt from assuming atheists think emotions reside in DNA to assuming emotions reside in the soul to equally untenable and unsupported assertions.

As for the rest - well this seems to be itinerant nonsense; again: as usual -

"Look at the evils in society" - let's just assume for the moment that we agree about what is evil - what is your point? I find it desperately unclear. And it in no way addresses my earlier point, or what Talesin said that sin or for that matter redemption aren't circular if you don't accept in supernatural divine entities for lack of evidence or good reason.

"An eminent historian" - I assume you are being rhetorical or if not who in particular?
Your point is again bizarre. They all sound like pretty good historical and economic antecedents to war but you want us to think this is bound up to the nonsensical notion of sin, sinners and sinning.

And now I know your begin rhetorical - "displaying goodness and virtue".

Aalright then, let's play.

What if this person is what Aristotle had in mind as achieving Eudaimonia as the highest aspect of human flourishing constituted in reason and virtue? Since this is conceived to cover an entire lifetime and is reckoned as a mean of virtue derived from extremes of vice - in pursuing eudaimonia it is more than likely that imperfect virtue is the result.
Given that 'virtue' is a multi-track disposition, it would obviously be reckless to attribute one to an agent on the basis of a single observed action or even a series of similar actions, especially if you don't know the agent's reasons for doing as they did. Moreover, to possess fully, such a disposition is to possess full or perfect virtue, which is as noted would be rare, as there are a number of ways of falling short of such an ideal.

Possessing a virtue is a matter of degree, for most people who can be truly described as fairly virtuous, and certainly markedly better than those who can be truly described as dishonest, self-centred and greedy; still have their blind spots — little areas where they do not act for the reasons one would expect. So someone honest or kind in most situations, and notably so in demanding ones may nevertheless be trivially tainted by snobbery, inclined to be disingenuous about their forebears and less than kind to strangers with the wrong accent.

So you see I can account for the same problem as a (dys)function of virtue ethics, which has nothing to do with Christian deities so I argue that this doesn't support your case.

Eternal Life. Still not persuaded. I honestly think I'd be bored.

Why do you think you'd be bored?

Wow I miss being on this thread. I see with the return of the bretheren that its intellectual rigour and meaning is getting rachetted right, right up there again.

Don't you just dig all those biblical quotes?

BTW does anyone know if any of *them* have yet bothered reading any of Dawkins? (yes the guy whose book this thread is predicated on).

I wonder any intelligent people still bother responding to these 'people' who show so much contempt for the actual fundamental basis for this thread.

Why don't some 'people' just p*** off and start their own fairy tale based thread with one another? Why the infection here?

Seriously guys why do you bother responding to the them if they show such contempt? Oh yes of course, they are all wicked sinners...no wonder they wallow in their kind of behaviour, they continue to indulge in. The lard will of course forgive'em their trespasses. The rest of us just have to struggle, all too humanly with putting up with their contemptible dispespect for a thread based on rationality.

It's luverly to be back...watching the 'oh so enthralling', 'oh so imaginative' 'oh so intelligent' belly flops and rollypollies again.

I think an infinitely extended existence for and ever and ever would grow quite wearisome after a while. You don't?

I do think a lot of what is valuable about our finite existence is determined in accordance with it's finitude. I find the very idea that death is a comma rather than a full-stop troubling on many levels.

I rather share Mark Twain's view that for the billions of years before my birth I was dead, and upon my return to nothing I shall not be in the slightest bit inconvenienced by it.

I find that prospect far more attractive than infinity.

Eternity is really long, especially near the end

As for good and evil in the world, again a very topical strip here:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/10/08/world/

Has anyone noticed that religon and atheism are so similar that it's impossible to tell which of us Effers is having a go at?

Gif

Yeah that's why I never call myself atheist, Gif

But if I had to chose. I'd distinguish between those who are only capable of doing rolly pollies based on the the bible,(ie being dispespectful and showing utter contempt in their sinning, but being sure the lard will forgive them when they talk to themselves), and those who do rolly pollies based on knowledge from various sources, including a working knowledge of the ideas of Richard Dawkins, and/or a familiarity with even primary school basic biology, on a thread predicated on the ideas of Richard Dawkins, an internationally respected evolutionay biologist.

The above is a big clue on how you tell the difference.

But I have a funny feeling it'll probably be lost on the 'bretheren', (ie lard lovers).

.

>>rolly pollies based on knowledge from various sources, including a working knowledge of the ideas of Richard Dawkins, and/or a familiarity with even primary school basic biology, on a thread predicated on the ideas of Richard Dawkins, an internationally respected evolutionay biologist.<<

Not me, surely?

<>

Do you have amnesia, then? because I told you and you even left a message on my PS.

Great news WG

Yet to see any evidence of the reality though...

Seriously though, why don't you advocates of fairy tales, who are utterly inacapable of understanding even very basic biology, go off and do your own thing somewhere else. You're a complete and utter irrelevence here, with your total ignorance of basic factual knowledge and rationality.

It amuses me though no end that you like to come here, and even keep changing the subject line.

The fact that you feel such a need to come here, shows you people have no place of your own to go to to babble your silly bibble talk together...

Hi WG,

Thanks for that great collection of travel photos. It's a good job I know you well enough to know that the soundtrack of someone wittering on about issues we've thoroughly been through several times on this thread wasn't relevant... right?

I mean, you're certainly not bringing up arguments like "you can't be good without God", "suffering is caused by free will (except when it happens to me, when it's the Heavenly Father testing me)" or "only Christian religious experiences are genuine"... are you? Or my personal favourite, the dig about evolution being promoted by "so-called scientists"?

Perhaps you're impressed by the claim that if you genuinely pray to a Christian God then he will certainly reveal himself to you (something I can personally 'witness' to being incorrect)? Or by your mistaken claim that the guy used to be an atheist?

It's interesting to compare with something like: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/matthies.html (chosen pretty much at random)

Gif

Gif

I'll just take one point of one person to answer...hope the rest don't mind...too much!!

<>

Apologies for that. Yes, I admit that I do feel pessimistic for a society that is unable to recognize its need of redemption. I would feel optimistic for a society that recognized its inherent sickness and sought a cure!

mikey2

Nice to be ignored.