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

Hi pp,

The Genesis 1 account has some other difficulties too, like having plants appear before the sun, the Earth before the sun, and water before anything (even light). And remember, these are specified as days from dusk to dawn (some of them before the creation of the sun!).

I'm sure that if pressed you friend will assure you that such things are 'metaphorical'.

Gif

Clive:

And we see an increase in as global warming increases ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FSM_Pirates.png

No no no, you've got it all wrong The number of pirates *decreases*!

PP: "Surely warner's point would be that, for any half decent god, a "day" might be a couple of million of our light years?"

So for gods, 'days' are a measure of length?

I won't even comment on something else which bothers me about genesis. If at the beginning, there is nothing, how can a god 'say' something? Where do the sound waves propagate?

Okay, you've all pushed me to it! I now believe in Esmerelda and Keith the emerald lobsters that hold up the world. Hail Esmerelda! Hail Keith! Bewstow unto me your pinchy goodness.



Haha sorry. This is really interesting but its pertty circular, there is almost no way to convince someone of the non-existance of god because as someone quoted from Einstein before (paraphrased): Illogical and irrational beliefs fed to children at their most impressionable become instincts.

I'm sure there's something in The God Delusion about naivite and unconditional trust in elders by children is very useful but is a trait seriously misused by religion (and the tobacco industry).

P.S. I didn't read all of the backlog so apologies if i'm just echoing someone else.

Toy Box

Earth rotates about 'its' axis once each day (approximately 24 hours).
How LONG is that ?

Bobaah

Hi Bobaah'

I wouldn't worry about reading the backlog...you'll go insane.

Also, I take issue the world isn't held up by two lobsters called 'Esmerelda and Keith' but two lobsters called 'Esmeralda and Keith'. If you had studied your theology correctly would know that this mistake was sorted out at the 14th Crustacean Meeting. Some people!



All correct. Here is an interesting message left on the comments page of Thought for the Day thath I recently read:

"Clearly the BBC is gearing up to Darwin Day by wheeling in a Deist or 'Christian' to confound the creation position. J.Cornwell , a scholar, has been allowed to get away with wrong information and glib answers. he is prepared to accept man's theories over God's clear Word. He created kinds, with immense variety, but never 'cogs' or 'dats'. If Adam is a metaphor or poetry, then how about, 'As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.' Or 'If you do not believe what Moses said, how will you believe My words?' Accepting evolution means a Christian cannot believe in the real Jesus, ie, the Jesus of the bible. Ev. is not proven science. Would God have made a system, which spawned Marxism, Hitler, Stalin, etc? Jesus is the Creator, John 1, Col. 1. He is a God of miracles not requiring millions of years to create. Compromisers will have to answer eventually.
Brian - Southampton
Mon Jan 5 13:09:44 2009 "

Brian uses the circular logic that basically goes along the lines that 'the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible'.

So ludicrously absurd and obvious and yet it is still one of the mainstays of religious dogma and argument.

But then the hypothosis that 'God exists' is taken as the one starting fact from which all deity-driven religious 'theories' are made then it's not really surpirsing that they can't 'get what circular reasonong' is.

>>But then the hypothosis that 'God exists' is taken as the one starting fact from which all deity-driven religious 'theories' are made then it's not really surpirsing that they can't 'get what circular reasoning' is. <<

Plus the fact that reasonable or any kind of critical discussion is actively discouraged by both the church and theologians... but that's been pretty well covered in this thread (and many, many others).

I think the problem is that one side can't truly see what the other side means. Athiests (whether disillusioned ex-followers or life-long) can't see any reason for anyone to still have faith in god/allah/whatever, and people of faith 'know' there is a god and cannot understand why we oppose the 'truth' and they rationalise it in purely religious terms: The devil makes us think these things.

Enough nonsense for now - i really need to get back to work! (i'll back in 2 minutes then )

Bobaah

Believing in a deity helps you to

a) easily explain away things that are too complicated to bother trying to understand (I am reading a book on time travel in Einstiens universe at the moment and at times I just want to stop raeding and say ‘can’t happen’ because I can’t understand some of the concepts that can only be proved via complex mathematics. Cognitive dissonance would stop my brain hurting). A diety can stop peoples brains hurting.
b) Have a warm glow that ‘every things Ok’, God will sort it out, there is a definite purpose to life, explain away the bad things.
c) Feel part of a group rather than an outsider
d) A placeboic helper to stop your alcoholic, drug-taking, illegal tendencies. A structured way of life.
e) Justify homophobic and sexist mind-set.

So apart from e) and possibly a)...what's so bad about that?

<>

By shutting them down through lack of fuel I take it?

I must say, not having posted here for a while, that the standard of theist debate is laughable. I don't know why anyone even responds to warner and KZWG. warner can barely define what he believes, never mind counter the flaws in it, or the outright inaccuracies* and bullshitting.

Are there any believers who are cogent, anywhere?

But none of that would help towards truth claims and they're mostly distractions from the main point. Some of these people must *actually* believe what they say they believe. They're not all purposefully decieving each other/themselves, and it's impossible to choose to belive something just because of the benefits incurred in believing. You would always know that you didn't truly believe and were just using the social structure to your own ends. What i was talking about was the difference between people who do actually believe and those who don't.

Edward the Bonobo

a few things:

a) gods do not exist...apart from maybe one if monotheistic or a certain defined group if panthiestic...and have you chosen the right one(s)?
b) based on (a) with no gods...you are living a lie.
c) the amount of trouble and eath caused by religion in the world.
d) a reduction in rationality of thought.
e) the control of believers by those in power.
f) the treatment of unbelievers or even believers who do not follow or stray from a 'god's' laws.
g) the forcing of ones laws onto others through statutes, stopping abortion clinics being built, stopping stem-cell research, banning abortions, banning contraception.

I could go on.

Bobaah



Um, you should read up on the reasons why abused partners choose to remain with their abusers because they have convinced themselves its the right thing to do.

Of course, imagine that you have built your whole existence around a god as brought up from birth or that it’s a better alternative to reality.

It must be akin to a bereavement to realise that someone you trusted in and loved was in fact fictional or ‘dead’ and since no one can ‘prove’ your god is ‘dead’ it’s much easier to keep saying it’s alive. Read up on cognitive dissonance which will explain what we will choose to deny or ignore in life.

Do you take my point, though? Some people do seem to derive something useful out of religion. Your criticisms may be valid...but do they apply in *all* cases?

Why, basically, should the faithful listen to you? What positive arguments are you putting forward for Atheism?

Oh yes, Ed, I agree with you. I am sometimes jealous of 'believers' at how content I could be if I threw aside rationality and with all my heart believed in a living deity.

Problem is one doesn't exist and I can't pretend one does.

As for 'athiesm' you can get everything from secular things that you can from a god apart from eternal life after all everything a god gives you is just given to you from friends and colleagues in your chosen religious group or from yuorself.

I should have said "...impossible to consciously decide what to believe..." sorry.

But i still think the point still stands, mostly; people who truly believe and people who don't believe at all really won't be able to fully understand why the other side feel they are making good points while you/me/us/them/whatever feel they are just repeating the same thing over and over.
By the way i'm not taking some middle road i just think that you won't be able to rationalise non-rational thinking and you can't un-rationalise (i know it's not a word!) rational thiking so neither side can see the point the other is making... i think i might be talking nonsense again though... time to stop i think. I'll just be trolling mostly from now on.

apart from to apologise for using the word 'think' far too much

Hi Ed,

>So apart from e) and possibly a)...what's so bad about that?

You're right, apart from the bad stuff, there is nothing bad about religion. Actually, I do seem to recall a recent list of the harms of religion that ran to thirty-something points.

Gif

An observation:

You've got to grant that the theists here are polite. Now that Some People have left, it's become more obvious that the only rude people left are the atheists. Yes, perhaps it's frustration at a refusal to acknowledge obvious points. But to the theists, we fit the 'angry atheist' stereotype every time we vent.

Gif

Indeed. I'm not sure I can understand why anyone needs to get het up at mere tosh. *Malicious* tosh is something else.

How about this:

Imagine a happy theist who doesn't seem to do any harm.
- Why would we want to point out the error of their ways?
- Assuming we did...how might we convince them?

I don't think I've ever consciously gone out to try and convert someone else to my way of thinking.

However, I have often been in conversations where someone has either stated something that I disagree with or has asked about my thoughts and reasoning on the deep questions of life. As such I try and set out my arguments and thoughts in a manner which they can understand.
All I can do is try and explain myself in response to their questions.

I don't particularly go out to poke holes in their worldview, but if they ask me about mine it inevitably involves invalidating (or falsifying) some of the concepts they hold dear and thus can be perceived as trying to do down their views. This is the problem with fundamentally opposing arguments. You can't make yours without rubbishing theirs.

The weird thing that happens, I find, is that when the questioner is a believer and has initiated the debate then eventually one of two things will happen
1) they'll start getting very defensive and, depending on my relationship with that person, I may decide to back off and leave let the discussion die.
2) they'll retreat into a relativist position, or an overlapping magisteria position which I usually take to be an indication that they do not wish to continue with the debate and are looking for a way out.