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

The Christian Institute are feeling a bit persecuted after John Humphries challenges, sorry, SLATED the gospels on Mastermind.

A womans specialist subject was the Gospels.

They were 'eye-witness' accounts she said...but then she said only Matthew had been there for bits, oh, and Mark was with Peter whne Peter was preaching so Marks Gospels were reminiscences. And Luke, OF COURSE, said he had investigated it very carefully and he's a VERY thorough historian.

I will let you listen to Humphries reply to that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quaKCwYhvGo

So, John Humphries said about 3 things in the whole of that discussion which is seen as an attack on the Gospels when in fact he really just let the woman dig herself into the ground.

This is what Christians always do..ooooo, we are being persecuted someone made statements about the Gospels...that's an attack.

When we get such hysterical language as 'attack' on something so banal as a fair challengiong question it's no wonder people look on Christians as moaners.

Utterly unrelated but does anyone know where the conversation about thread titles appearing together which are strangely appropriate/amusingly inappropriate went?
I went into the conversation about which news story cuaght your attention today and at the top it had "men kissing men" and "favourite Bible verse" which I though was quite good!

Neighbouring Threads with surreal connections: F19585?thread=534826

hi gif,

i feel that sherlock holmes would like gazpacho soup; for evidence i would like to point out the fact he was a cultured member of england's elite which (at that time) looked to europe for all leads on matters of culture and taste, and the louche dissolute nature of the man (cocain/opium habit) which would indicate a taste for cold soup (no chewing or heating required; just open a tin and shovel it back!)

now the fact we are discussing a fictional character as if he existed when in physical 'reality' he didnt exist is a metaphor (but not an exact simile) of any discussion of the existence of God. yes he doesn't exist in the same way as you or i exist; he doesnt have a physical body. but then neither does my grandfather. you don't deny his existence do you? and to claim God is fictional in the sense of being made up by an author is to ignore the culturally universal agreement on the existence of gods and the personal almost universal agreement that there is something (possibly supernatural) 'out there'.

"An American actor, Kirk Cameron, says his commitment to his marriage means he won't take part in scenes where he would be required to kiss a female co-star."

You see no differentiation between fact and fiction etc etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_yeKIdKfvs

>>To claim God is fictional in the sense of being made up by an author is to ignore the culturally universal agreement on the existence of gods and the personal almost universal agreement that there is something (possibly supernatural) 'out there'. << (BCR)

On the contrary; I refer you to the subject of this thread. We're not ignoring it we have a word for it. Delusion. So it's not a deliberate fiction in the same way an author invents a character like Holmes, what it is almost certainly is a relic of a way of seeing the world, a series of self-perpetuating memes which cannot account for their own extraordinary claims.

---------------

Kirk Cameron by the way is one half of 'The Way of The Master' ministry, alongside Ray 'Banana-man' Comfort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4

Rather gives the abusive term 'fruit!' a whole new meaning.

LOL

Hi Mikey, Effers,

Shovel of stars.

What a beautiful image!



Humphries is fairly vocal about his *agnosticism*, is he not? To accuse him of 'unfairly attacking' the Bible for repeating what the majority of Christian scholars believe... bizarre.

Gif

Hi Clive,

Best response I ever saw to the banana thing:

Comfort: It must be designed because it even curves towards your mouth
Blogger: No, it curves away from your mouth - you're just holding it the wrong way round!

Gif

Hi BCR,

You seem to have missed my point. Does my (or your) opinion on whether or not Holmes likes gazpacho *without any supporting reasoning* provide evidence that Holmes is a real person? Actually, does it even *with* your supporting reasoning? Why not just ask Holmes whether he likes gazpacho? If I tell you Holmes didn't like gazpacho, is one of us wrong? How can we tell who?

So - to bring the metaphor back on track - isn't there a clear difference between whether Holmes likes gazpacho (which is a matter of opinion on which we could legitimately disagree) and whether Conan Doyle liked gazpacho (which, assuming he ever tried it, is a matter of fact where if we disagree one of us (at least) is wrong, though we may never know which)? And doesn't God match Holmes a darn sight better than he matches Doyle?

>the culturally universal agreement on the existence of gods

If there were universal agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Holmes got quite a bit of post from fans at one stage. Does the fact that people believed him to be real provide evidence that he was real? If not, why are you trying to use the same argument to bolster your belief in God?

Gif

Hi Gif

Would you be so kind as to responding to my question on the previous page please? I'm just curious to know what you think.

Thanks.

Also I agree I think the Holmes analogy got misused. I wanted to correct that myself but couldn't find a satisfactory formulation to do it, I'm glad you found an eloquent way of addressing that point!

hi gif,

does your opinion that i seem to have missed the point have any bearing on whether i have actually missed the point? why dont you just ask me whether i missed the point? is my grandfather a real person? even though i cant ask him any questions, except through a seance?

does the paranormal exist? do i exist?

do you enjoy being made to feel slightly angry?

What's with this antitheist thing now? It's something I've seen a lot of amongst Evangelicals and related types. The words are 'atheist' (literally without belief) and 'anti-clerical' (opposed to the religious hierarchy, or some aspect of it's influence). They are distinct, but sometimes overlap.

I doubt there are any post-modernists here. It's an approach with perhaps a kernel of usefulness (in its attack on progressive narratives and people claiming to know the truth), but which lost its way and became a meaningless circle-jerk of academics reinterpreting each other a long time ago. Much like theology is, except that theology didn't have an original idea to begin with.

Human suffering is only meaningless in the sense that objective meaning itself is meaningless. Atheism doesn't encompass by itself any sort of moral system, so people's approach will differ.

Some atheists adopt bits of Buddhism, which would mean that for them detachment from suffering is key to becoming truly compassionate (Buddhism gets confusing...). Others subscribe to the humanist movement, which things that suffering is important because people thing it's important. A lot of atheists also make up their own moral philosophy, or simply get on with it. Who knows what they all think.

As for the resurrection as evidence, given that this all comes from the Bible, I would suggest that it is no stronger than the evidence provided by chain letters that I will die/never fall in love/lose my willy if I don't reply to x people in the next y hours. Because, after all, some girl in Utah didn't reply, and her willy shrivelled up and dropped right off.

To clarify: the resurrection cannot be presented as evidence, because the resurrection itself is a ridiculous idea that requires a vast mound of evidence that simply isn't there. Oh, the Bible reports that there were witnesses and no body, but then it's the Bible making the claim in the first place. And as a whole the book hardly demonstrates its trustworthiness (truthiness?).

Even if you could demonstrate that:
Jesus was a real historical person.
Jesus was crucified.
Disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen his resurrection on the third day.
Disciples of Jesus claimed his body was missing.
No body was presented in return.
(None of which you will be able to.)
A missing body is still hardly sufficient evidence for a resurrection. Most magicians perform better tricks in every performance.

>>Human suffering is only meaningless in the sense that objective meaning itself is meaningless. Atheism doesn't encompass by itself any sort of moral system, so people's approach will differ. <<



That's what I was trying to say!

It's just occurred to me that whilst the likes of mikey and WG are whiling away eternity together parroting scriptural sweet nothings to each other to the sweet sounds of heavenly choirs and harps, praising old beardy bealocks, we intellectual bullies will be whiling it away together in the fiery pit. Heated up and writhing.

I feel sorry for all the decent Christians, (yes there are some), having to spend eternity with such 'bedfellows', ( not sure if bedfellows is exactly the right word though for floating around on white puffy duvets....shovelling stars, having a bit of polite sex now and then...


But we'll certainly be warm enough though...

Hi Clive,

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't see a huge amount of difference in our opinions.

I was replying to a post in which Mikey seemed to think that a lack of meaning for suffering (i.e. no good reason for it) was a problem with an atheistic viewpoint. I would say that suffering has no *intrinsic* meaning. Asking "what is the meaning of suffering" is like asking "what is the meaning of an orange?".

On the other hand, we can imbue anything we like with a *subjective* meaning. The purpose and meaning of human life is, as you say, whatever we make it. If you decide that suffering is something that you should struggle against, then that is what it means to you (and good on you). For me, it might be something that happens to other people on TV, and for Fred down the road it might mean his cancer.

Sorry to get all post-modernist on yo' ass, but for abstract things like this I think that's perfectly valid. I seem to be on a bit of a monomania about the difference between emotional truths and physical truths at the moment. 'Meaning' is an emotional truth.

Is that a satisfactory answer?

Gif

>Meaning' is an emotional truth. <

Yes I think I would agree with that Gif. Art is all about 'meaning' fundamentally I think. I find it a huge relief as an outlet for that. But what I really really love is that it is always 'meaning' and not meaning. That is never an absolute like superstition/religion is. Art always deals with the pain of mortality and the void without childishly indulging in mindless 'thumbsucking' to comfort the cowardly who can't look reality full in the face, and celebrate its ultimate meaninglessness with the 'dance macabre'

Actually I wouldn't have repeated it, but I missed that there was another page of posts.

Hell's revolutionaries .

Hi BCR,

>does your opinion that i seem to have missed the point have any bearing on whether i have actually missed the point?

'Missing the point' is an emotional thing, not a physical one. The 'point' exists in my head, and I am trying to transfer it accurately to your head. You have not responded to my point, so either you missed it or you deliberately ignored it.

>why dont you just ask me whether i missed the point?

Because if you have missed it, you wouldn't realise unless I expain again more clearly. Having read my explanation, do you now think you missed my original point, and if so would you care to respond?

>is my grandfather a real person? even though i cant ask him any questions, except through a seance?

Your grandfather *was* a real person. Since I don't believe in life after death, I don't think he exists any more. (Confession: I deliberately avoided answering that one in case of causing offence.)

>does the paranormal exist?

I doubt it.

>do i exist?

Yes, since I'm not a Solipsist.

>do you enjoy being made to feel slightly angry?

No. Fortunately you're not even close (when I get annoyed, I stop saying 'hi' at the start of my posts. Someone once managed it on this thread. It wasn't you. )

From the tone of the question, I assume you are slightly angry yourself. If it's me who's annoyed you, I apologise and this is probably unwelcome advice, so feel free to skip it, but: take a break and think about the points that have been made on this thread. This is a thread for people who have read a very influential book presenting well thought-out arguments in favour of atheism. You're on here arguing the reverse. You were never going to have an easy time, especially if you have decided in advance that you are unwilling to change your mind. Yes, I agree that just at the moment quite a few of the non-theists here are being quite aggressive, but if it's just hearing arguments against Christianity that annoys you, you might want to reconsider your approach.

Gif