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

Not been following this too closely but there are two choices:-

1) don't yikes and let the stuff stand - the italics will do nothing unless it is seen to be definitely against site policy etc and this sort of thing does seems to stand.
2) yikes everything considered unacceptable and make notes of everything yiksed (and left up)to build up a record of the unacceptable things being said and hope some sort of warning is given.

Catch 22 situation is that 'we' tend to let unacceptable things stay up and challenge but that can make 'us' look like bullies or we yikes and let this sort of thing be said but then hidden but 'we' know people are still unchallenged about it.

Personally, with the trouble this sort of thing can cause on the site the best thing to do is yikes it as 'we' are the ones who tend to get p1ssed off and leave.

Hmm Effer's has reminded me that I am essentially against censorship, and usually protest mightily when things are obliterated from public consumption.

So in that respect I feel I've reacted in a way contrary to my typical instincts.

I was though, genuinely quite perturbed by the material that |KZWG thought was substantive to their religion.

This does, therefore, present a problem for me. I think on reflection I am more conciliatory. and think it might have been better left up and used to demonstrate - as often as possible - why, we protest so loudly when religion and the acolytes of religion use their faith to impose onto others their world view without reason and how, when faith is used to belittle, discriminate and encourage hatred of others because of the personal revelation steeped in their private madness, that religions become despicably wicked.

Clive

Thank you for 13667...a well reasoned response which had listened to what I said without misinterpretation. Sorry if that sounds patronizing...praise where praise is due, I say!

<><>

O yes but, my comment on 'healings can't happen so they don't' etc pointed out the antitheist's starting point. My own starting point was, 25 years ago, I had a couple of wierd experiences which convinced me of God's existence, since which time I've tried to make sense of them. My investigations have led me to believe that there is a God. And that believing in him takes you 'beyond' rational thought while not into 'irrational' thought. Hence my engaging in conversation. And hence my recent list of 'evidences' which though not hard evidences individually, taken together encourage me to believe in a 'spiritual' realm of existence, and to believe that Jesus Christ is THE objective truth that postmodern culture rejects as unknowable.

mikey2

Gif

Thanks for posting 13669.

I've printed it off here and am going to read it through a few times before replying. It will take time to get my head round all of your thoughts and to think through those points where you perhaps didn't quite get the gist of what *I* had been saying. Speak soon.

Mikey2

And in the name of civilised discourse I thank you also for taking the time to note that.

And since we're being nice to each for a change; Mickey would you mind answering my questions in 13654. I didn't get much of a reply from BCR and I genuinely want to know the theist's perspective on this.

I've not really been following this thread much recently, but...

Have you seen the atheist channel on Sky?

Well, it's not actually an atheist channel, it's EMTV (Edge Media TV http://www.edgemediatv.com/about.html), seems to be an outworking of http://www.edge.org/, a rather nifty website for those who like to think about stuff.
"EMTV, broadcasting in the UK on Sky channel 200, is a platform for people to share alternative and suppressed viewpoints, we aim to air programming that is educational, thought provoking, intelligent and enlightening."


I just found it a few hours ago, and watched RD giving a lecture about why religion is crap.

Will check it out.

Actually, the guy on just now seems to be a bit of a nutter. There's a global conspiracy organised by Skull & Bones (the Yale frat club) and the Rothschilds to make money from wars. And they're Satanists.

Still more likely than God though.

And the Queen's an alien apparently..


*Still* more likely than god though.

Well I had the joy today - and I use the term loosely - of following a link from Pharyngula to an article by Melanie Phillips ( the Daily Mail columnist), so, appalled and curious in equal measure, I then followed some more links to her other articles.

In one she was decrying societies urge to forsake belief in god for a belief in absolutely anything (including conspiracy, astrology etc,) Naturally she blamed this all on atheism arguing that what we encouraged was not a rational society but an irrational one.

I somehow had the feeling she was missing the point.

As an atheist all that entails is an absence of belief in the supernatural, including gods.

Typically that entails a huge dose of rationality along the way, so while I can hardly say atheism permits astrology or conspiracy as any more legitimate than religion, I think we are equally adverse to such practices. Though they lack the global dominion, reverence and vocal support and influence of religion.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=619

Well, she is German...hence an alien...but not in the UFO sense.

Unified Federal Organisation...sounds like what the EU is trying to become.

Gotta love Pharyngula --

>>Camels, cows, sheep and goats were created outside this planet and were brought down to the ape man ‘ Adams ’ after they were converted to intelligent beings.<<

http://www.shajaracode.com/pageID_4764296.html

... and some _really_ loony stuff about Darwin --

http://www.shajaracode.com/pageID_4689899.html

-- and this is relevant to the thread, btw! --

http://www.shajaracode.com/index.html

Sorry, mentally I'm not up to following that link at present. But I would have thought her analysis says more about her as a person.

From my own perspective I would say that a lack of a fixed conventional thing which is commonly called a 'belief/faith' is because I have such a strong instinctual love/joy, (not sure if there's a word for it actually), for absolutely everything. That's why ART means so much to me. I find artists have this in common generally. It's pretty hard to articulate actually. But from what you have described Clive, it suggests she is saying the only alternative to 'faith' is a kind of nihilistic cynicism. Simple minded Daily Mail bealocks.

What a perversion. Like I say it says everything about *her* and nothing about many of us, termed disparigingly, atheists. (A term I absolutely won't use anymore, BTW. I find it an utter irrelevance as a description, as to how I think of where I'm coming from).

Replying to Clive's post

Your analysis serves you well, from what I can tell she equates atheism to nihilism.

Scary lady.

Melanie Phillips typical moron:

"No less irrational is the overreach of science which, as London writes, has been hijacked by secular fundamentalists who want to supplant religion by asserting that only in science can truths be found."


Well, yes and that science includes psychology and such other disciplines that deal with the mind.

"Such ’scientism’"


And there we go the religious norm of trying to 'religify' science by making it into a 'ism'.

Pathetic as usual.

This post has been removed.

Oh in case my post gets yikesed for libel...the substantive point is:-

'I do think there is a wider more interesting point to come out of all this though in that the mindset of such requires a simple battle between good&evil....theism&atheism etc

I refuse point blank any longer to dance to that tune any more.....I find it meaningless. To have this battle between opposites suits the *extremist* Abrahmic mindset I reckon. Not that I compromise at all. It's just I've better things to think about.

Effers: >secular fundamentalists<

Yes, it is the new tactics of the god-squadders to make 'atheism' and rationality seem on the same level as theism i.e. there is no difference..or in fact it's WORSE than what the rationalists are saying about thiests. Also, they use combatative words such as agressive, rampant athiests etc to make out non-theists are nasty people and using 'violence' etc if only through words.

Snidey under-hand tactics which they seem to thing no-one sees.