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

Hi Clive,

>and not killing babies

Well, not unless they're possessed by demons, anyway.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20010304/ai_n13957722

Gif

To add a little to the above, 'outside' is a spatio-temporal concept. So the phrase 'outside of space-time' is necessarily meaningless. The same applies to 'non-material', 'supernatural', and 'miraculous'.

So we are dealing with a discourse whose key terms are meaningless when used in the normal way, and for which no alternative definitions are offered.

I would add that if Warner and Mikey feel that definitions of key terms of the materialist discourse are lacking, they should say so, and we can attempt to clarify. Fair's fair.

Noggin

>I would add that if Warner and Mikey feel that definitions of key terms of the materialist discourse are lacking, they should say so, and we can attempt to clarify. Fair's fair.<

I agree Nog. The problem is they don't. They just go off into new labarhynths of obsfurcation and meaninglessness, and people here like Clive try to *guess* at what they are driving at. To my mind though they appear to like nothing more than drivng round and round roundabouts, and just occasionally take the turn off that is sign posted as 'dead end'.

If they want to *honestly* tackle these things they should post appopriately. It's very easy to be straightforardly honest about these things....

I'd be all for a refreshing change of direction from them, but it appears to me that the faither brain is constitutionally addicted to the cul-de-sac, and is just lacking in any ability to take head on the difficult and scary questions about reality and existance, death, suffering etc.

Good Morning Gifford

>> numbers of people believing in God as evidence for the existence of God <<

Mmm, that can't be evidence, can it. But it certainly leads 'us' to examine
the 'phenomenen' in more depth.

>> 'being a scientist' <<

Like yourself (possibly), I like to see all theories etc. fit into
'the big picture' of mankind's collective understanding of the universe.

Thinking more about what Nog has said, I think the main problem for the faither is that they seek to label themselves according to a set of beliefs. It would be too scary for the person who has decided that they have opted to hold onto a lot of stuff eg I believe christ died for my sins or I believe in jins etc etc

As much as faithers try to put us in a 'church;...eg Darwinians, Einsteinians etc we non believers in gods don't label ourselves...we just accept what the latest evidence happens to suggest, fully prepared to change our minds if the evidence suggests otherwise.

Until a faither comes here and honestly fronts up to being prepared to change their mind about holding onto ideas for which there is no evidence, no-one is really going to take them seriously in discussion.

The reason they are just too scared to be prepared to change their minds, in the face of hard evidence, as I have suggested earlier in this thread is to do with psychology.

*But this elephant in the room is ignored, by *ALL* here so we go nowhere.*

Hi Warner,

>Mmm, that can't be evidence, can it. But it certainly leads 'us' to examine the 'phenomenen' in more depth.



>> 'being a scientist' <<
>Like yourself (possibly), I like to see all theories etc. fit into
'the big picture' of mankind's collective understanding of the universe.

It seems that we have quite different ideas on what it means to think scientifically. I would say that 'being a scientist' involves producing testable theories regarding observed phenomena. Whilst it is important that all our theories fit together, that alone doesn't make them scientific.

Gif

Hi Effers,

I'd agree with you about the reluctance to change minds - but (thinking back to some conversations I had off-line over Christmas) I'm not sure that its fear (certainly not always or totally fear).

People brought up in a religious environment are told that faith is a virtue - that changing your mind or admitting you are wrong is itself a bad thing. To me, that's just bizarre - changing your beliefs is a vital part of learning. But it's something that religion strives against.

Gif

Folks...I think we're missing an opportunity here. Now that we have not one but two believers here, maybe they'd like to share their opinions on a couple of matters? Like:

- Are Judaism, Islam and Christianity equally true or can God only be reached through the teachings of Christ?

- Do djinns exist?

>>Whilst it is important that all our theories fit together, that alone doesn't make them scientific.

Something on today's episode of 'In Our Time - Darwin' about a contemporary of Darwin who regarded it as a tragedy when a good theory was ruined by a fact.

Effers,
>> scared to be prepared to change their minds <<

No! The only reason I can think of that I wouldn't change my mind about
something, is due to 'fear of what might happen to me after death'.
My 'creed' is in a constant state of flux. Everyone should have an open mind and only 'fear God'.
Yes, there are those people who prefer to 'remain safe' and follow 'orthodox teachings' etc. from every religious community.
But that's the difference between the 'Newton's and Einstein's of this world' and those that feel safer sticking with
the majority of their people.

Everybody was born and will die and leave the present world.
We are all individually reponsible for 'being prepared' for that.
Almighty God knows our intentions!

But if this world has been designed so beautifully and perfectly for us, why do we have to leave so soon?

"Almighty God knows our intentions!"
Ah, so no point me asking to be buried with a custard pie then?

Hello Beatrice,

>> why do we have to leave so soon? <<

Might it be that mankind, isn't as good as 'looking after' the world,
as He/She thinks?

Mmm, perhaps it's just as well that we're not in this world, forever.
From what I understand, in the days of old, humans used to live for a 1000 years or more.
Ooo, so much polution now (cough), and we're so much more advanced

Whatever corner of the world we consider to be paradise,
it can't compare with what's in store for the 'righteous', later on.
Can it?

<>

Which is psychologically understandable, but given that we have no knowledge of what, if anything, happens to us after death, it's not a rational reason.

In fact, changing one's mind about what is the fundamental nature of reality is a big step, and may leave people feeling rudderless for a while, but that kind of examination is a necessity. And most of us rationalists have been through that at some point in our lives.

Noggin

<>

From what I understand this is a good reason for thinking that the sources concerned are not reliable.

Noggin

Mmm,

>> feeling rudderless <<

I remember a time in my youth, when I didn't practice any particular faith
but I've never stopped believing in God, mind you.
I had some fun, but I also remember times of anguish, sometimes caused
by my own actions.

Even if I have difficulty in following it, I am EXTREMELY happy and
thankful that I have been endowed with 'religious knowledge' and shown
'a way' which enriches my understanding and quality of life.

When a person admits that he/she is not 'the greatest', and trys to act accordingly,
then he/she can 'see' much more clearly.

Of course, I still experience anguish from time to time.
You may ask, isn't God helping/listening to you?
I am an insignificant being compared to the universe .. and a weak one at that!

warner
< All men are not infallible, only God! >

Your god infalliable? Tell me then, why does he keep changing his mind? Moses, Jesus, Mohammed? everytime your god tell humans via these people to do something different to the last time he spoke.

If he was infalliable it would have been first time only.

And please don;t say it was due to the infalliability of humans recorded your gods instructions which meant he has had to keep reiterating and changing the rules.

Hi Warner,

I'm slightly confused. Comments like: 'in the days of old, humans used to live for a 1000 years or more' would seem to indicate that you take a pretty literal view of the Bible. Ditto belief in genies for the Koran. Yet surely a literal reading of the Koran conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible on several important points (indivisible or tripartite nature of God, whether the NT is the final Word of God to which nothing can be added, etc). In general, when I've come across unitarian-ish theists, they don't tend to take any single set of scripture as the literal truth.

I was just wondering if you could explain what you believe concerning various scriptures.

Gif

warner<>>Whatever I may believe in, it is certainly not your god. <<

If you don't offer an explanation of what you believe,
then I don't know WHAT to think.>

This is *the* problem with religious people and the main reason why rational argument is difficult.

The mindset that 'not believing in a god' requires an explanation rather than 'not believing in a god' means that you don't believe in supernatural beings, that you don't need to a being to rationalise the world, that the mysteries of the universe are slowly being understood as much as possible and that the beginning of the universe, even if we never totally work it out, doesn;t require a supernatural being as an alternative explanation to something more rational. Especially, when there are so many sodding gods around which negate each other.

warner
<>> numbers of people believing in God as evidence for the existence of God <<

Mmm, that can't be evidence, can it. But it certainly leads 'us' to examine
the 'phenomenen' in more depth.

>> 'being a scientist' <<

Like yourself (possibly), I like to see all theories etc. fit into
'the big picture' of mankind's collective understanding of the universe.>

But Christians start from the basis that 'God exists' and then makes all the evidence for or against actually fit into the 'God exists' hypothesis.

The collective understanding of the universe doesn't need a god.

If you look at all the evidence for gods you will see that when you put down all the reasoning behind how gods have been created by humans based on previous incarnations and myths then you start, if thinking rationally, to move towards the hypothsis that gods do not exist and the universe was not created by some supernatural being.

It beggars belief that even after it is pointed out to Christians that the story of Jesus is so close to the story of Mithras and many other bits of the Jesus story are repeated around the world in other myths that they do not put all this evidence together and come up with the conclusion that Jesus probably didn't exist...probably in the way in which the sun will probably rise tomorrow morning.