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

>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. <

What's wrong with a bit of healthy full blooded frustration with people who refuse to engage with debate in and discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way? (from my POV obviously)

I sometimes think they welcome it, and set that up. There is a school of thought, which I subscribe to, that some theists positively welcome the feeling of being persecuted, it is part of the very essence of the idea of their particular god, whom they worship, being tortured and put to death by angry folk, from their perspective.

From post 14565:

I have to say I have some empathy with Brian. If you are going to believe in the Christian view you need to do so wholeheartedly. Without Creation the whole explanation for 'evil' falls apart. Unless 'Man is fallen from grace' then what was the point of Jesus' dying on the cross? Why does God make (or at least allow) such bad things happen? Without Noah there is no plausible (stifles a ) explanation for fossils and clear geological features such as seashells on mountaintops.

No, sorry, you have to believe in the whole thing; start picking at the story and it collapses like a house of cards leaving a non-interventionist deity who may as well not exist.

F

Giford

Agreed! It's frustration from me.

Thiests seem to be on a drug-induced high all the time totally oblivious to the obvious around them.

If stating verifiable facts and statements is rude fine I'm rude.

>>No, sorry, you have to believe in the whole thing; start picking at the story and it collapses like a house of cards leaving a non-interventionist deity who may as well not exist.

Well that's certainly true...but it's easy for us to say. Nevertheless - even leaving aside those who can't tell a circular argument from a hole in a belief system - there are, observably, some who seem to manage to reconcile the inconsistencies. I include some who I'd credit withn a fair degree of intelligence. How do we account for them?

(That's a rhetorical question. They probably have to account for themselves.)

Myself...I'd be quite happy to read a book on theology () if it came from the angle of:
'Yeah, I hear where you're coming from, totally agree on the Darwin stuff. *But*...'

Anyone know of one?

Hi Ictoan,

I have 'converted' people (or at least brought them much closer to 'my' position). And I have set out to 'convert' people. But I've never converted anyone I set out to convert. I guess there's probably something in the attitude/approach. Or perhaps it's just that people who start those conversations tend to be more inquisitive.

Gif

Hi Effers, 3Dots

>What's wrong with a bit of healthy full blooded frustration

Only that it plays into their stereotypes.

>some theists positively welcome the feeling of being persecuted

Absolutely. I can't see any reason any other UK or USA Christian would claim they are being 'discriminated against'.

NB: the corollary of my observation is that almost all the atheists on this thread seem willing (even keen) to challenge their preconceptions and change their minds.

Gif

Hi Ed,

Anything by McGrath ought to be OK then. Not that I've read any of it myself. Oh, and some obscure bloke called CS Lewis.

Gif

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

40,075.02 km (equatorial) and a light year is 9,465,284,000,000km (aprox) so roughly 236,189,127.29 times difference. That's a lot of rotation!

I can see how the idea of *god's days* can seem attractive in describing the billions of years it took to form earth geologically and create life biologically, not to mention *the hand of god* in evolution. Is this not just a refutation of the bible if not justification of old myth over new revelations?

(going back a couple of pages, sorry)

Ed,

If technology ever progresses to where it becomes possible to reliably model 'ought' problems to the level of infallibly predicting individual decisions, it will also have reached the stage where such predictions will become unnecessary.

Universal Omnipotence will have been achieved; all problems will be resolved; all choices will be obviated; there will be no requirement for decisions, & etc.

In short: 42

I suspect brain function will be chaotic. I don't think anyone will ever be able to build a model that accurately reflects a person (or another model, or the model of another model, or....). Well, not for more than 10 seconds.

Or, as W.C. Fields said *Everyone has to believe in something ...

























... and I believe I'll have another drink*

"AND IT IS We who have built the universe with power/support;
and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."
Quran - 51:47

We built this city, we built this city on rock and roll
Built this city, we built this city on rock and roll.
Starship.



F

Gif

>Let me know what you'd like to see there<etc

Thank you, Gif.

Could I just request that care is taken to understand the main thrust of my postings.

i.e. Recently I put forward points that were intended *to suggest that the atheist at least considers the merits of agnosticism over atheism* rather than *to prove God's existence*. If the intention of the posting is misunderstood, the quotation of parts of that posting may give a misleading impression about the logic (or lack of) that lay behind the thought expressed.

Mikey2

I'll ask again:

warner, do you consider yourself a religious person?

>>.. the merits of agnosticism over atheism..<<



'agnosticism' is not a philosophical alternative either to 'atheism' or to 'theism'

It is NOT like this:
Theist: 'God exists, I'm absolutely certain of it'
Atheist: 'No, it does not, and I'm completely sure of that'
Agnostic: 'Oh, I just cannot make up my mind whether god does or does not exist'

But is like this:
Agnostic Theist: 'I believe God exists, but I admit I cannot prove it'
Agnostic Atheist: 'I do not believe God exists, and of course I cannot prove a negative'
Agnostic anything: 'It is never possible to be absolutely certain'

A clear-thinking atheist must also be agnostic, at least with respect to undefined gods: "I don't know exactly what you mean by 'god', and I do not believe such a thing exists, so lacking a clear definition it is not logically possible to state categorically that such a thing either exists or does not exist"

A clear-thinking theist, (hey, it could happen!), must also be agnostic, especially when talking about a 'transcendental' or 'supernatural' god: "I am a mere mortal, and as such am not capable of understanding or comprehending the nature of god. So I admit I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about. Nevertheless, I believe god exists, but am unable to declare that as an unequivocal fact"

I know people use the word 'agnostic' as if it meant some kind of philosophical fence-sitting, but it is simply not possible to be undecided here. If you say, "I am an agnostic", meaning you are not sure god exists, you must have at least accepted some notion of what the word means, however vague and fuzzy. Agnostic does NOT mean ambivalent, but rather it means not amenable to, or in possession of sure and certain knowledge.

Science, for example, is by definition agnostic, because it requires there to always be a certain percentage of possibility that some theory or principle can be proven false or incomplete -- scientific facts always come with a dash of uncertainty.

So considering the 'merits of agnosticism over atheism' is a meaningless exercise. Agnosticism is implicit to atheism, and should be to theism.

Anhaga
>>do you consider yourself a religious person?<<
Is this a trick question ?

I suppose I do. I believe in 'The One God', and try to act according to my belief.

warner:

'>>do you consider yourself a religious person?<<
Is this a trick question ?

I suppose I do. I believe in 'The One God', and try to act according to my belief.'



Perhaps you will think it a trick question:



I said:

'Of course there's no inherent point [in mankind being in the universe]. We all make up our own point. The religious just pretend that they're not making it up.'

warner responded:

'I agree with post 14519, except substitute 'believe' for 'pretend'.'


So, here is a clear statement of one of warner's contentions:

'Of course there's no inherent point [in mankind being in the universe]. We all make up our own point. The religious just believe that they're not making it up.'

So:

warner agrees that there is no inherent point.
warner agrees that we all make up our own point.
warner agrees that the religious are delusional in their beliefs about the point of mankind's existence in the universe.

and 23 hours ago warner posted:

'warner agrees that there is no inherent point.
warner agrees that there is no inherent point.
warner agrees that there is no inherent point.'

and just now warner posted:

his response to my question of whether he thought of himself as a religious person quoted at the beginning of this post.

So:

warner agrees *emphatically* that there is no inherent point.
warner agrees that we all make up our own point.
warner agrees that the religious are delusional in their beliefs about the point of mankind's existence in the universe.
warner considers himself a religious person

ergo

warner considers himself delusional in his beliefs.

anhaga
>>warner considers himself delusional in his beliefs.<<

You're not serious ?