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

Keeping on the Liar or Madman theme...assuming that we're talking about a real person, it's still possible to say he may have been neither without going so far as to say he was divine.

Granted, religious charlatans are ten a penny (Sai Baba; Joseph Smith), as are religious madmen (Rev Jim Jones; Shoko Ashahara). But note that the psychiatric definition of psychosis is (something like) 'Holding views which are not founded in reality or *which do not align with the patient's culture*'

Now, in some cultures it may be thought quite reasonable to go around communing with the divine. Such a person may quite sincerely believe they have a hotline to god without actually being mad.

A liar, a madman or...simply mistaken.

I object to the delineation of the alternatives, it's really quit a cheap argument, something also typical of Christian apologetics.

And also we note, Warner has completely moved on from his accusation without answering our riposte to his challenge.

Corporeal symptoms are frequently mistaken for religious revelation. Countless ascetics have seen god when half starved. Hildegaard of Bingen mistook her migraine auras for visions. St Teresa mistook orgasm for divine ecstacy.

And then there's...
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165038/

When people do bad things, what do you think makes them do it?
Don't you feel that perhaps some unseen force is "egging them on", through anger or desire etc?

warner's frantic channeling of C.S. Lewis and his(Lewis') straw man Jesus, along with his (warner's) accusation that we (whoever 'we' are) would plot to crucify Jesus is making me feel sad. I don't want to do this anymore.


here's a video that I find interesting as a pedagogical tool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

'Don't you feel that perhaps some unseen force is "egging them on", through anger or desire etc?'

I would think that 'anger or desire etc' is egging them on. Why multiply entities? Why invoke an unseen force when you've already specified seen forces?

>>Don't you feel that perhaps some unseen force is "egging them on", through anger or desire etc?

I don't know why you think of anger, desire, etc. as 'unseen forces'. They are human states of mind. People do bad (or good) things for human reasons.

Also...I suggest that to say 'the made me do it' is to abbrogate human responsibility.

So, warner. Still no answer to my question about what 'blasphemy' is? (post 15653)

Surely, it can't be just to condemn people for something without telling them what their crime is supposed to be.

Ed,
>>They are human states of mind. People do bad (or good) things for human reasons.<<
You can't see a state of mind. You can only see a persons reactions to their state of mind. They might be restraining themselves, or they might not.

If they are restraining themselves, why? What are they fighting?

Slapjack,
Blasphemy:
"When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being (or apostles) in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence."

So as people are finding the media is getting wider and can have almost any content at all, we find you in this thread, making jibes and references to blasphemous videos etc. Ha ha.

so, warner, this blasphemy is a Christian thing? It's just Supreme Being and Apostles?

Which Supreme Being? Is Mohammed an Apostle? Is Zues a Supreme Being? Where does Jesus fit?

Hi Warner,

Sorry I've been away from the thread for so long, particularly as some of the points you've raised are quite interesting.

>'The war of the end of time is the war of the world. There will be a third war after two great wars in which many are killed. He who will light the fires of the second world war will be known as the 'Great Leader.' (Al- Mahdi-ul Munthazar)

http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/blogs/kaminyu/something-interest-21/
The prophecy goes on to name Nasser as ruler of Egypt, before predicting the end of the world in 2042-2062. So far, so impressive.

But at the same time, there are some very curious errors. Nasser is described in very negative terms for such a successful leader, and as ruling from 1972 - 2002 (he died in 1970). Someone the translators identify as Saddam Hussein (based on the claim that 'Saddam' means 'confrontation' - which it doesn't according to my dictionary) is claimed to have 'a slight injury in his eye' (not true afaik) and come from Kut (wrong, he's from Tikrit), and all that talk of Greek and Roman kings and German leaders named after a cat (http://www.fugly.com/pictures/19027/hitler_cat.html ?) is less than accurate. Not to mention reference to an 'Arab nation' as a political entity.

Saying that Nasser's successor will 'make peace with the thieves of the Masjid al-Aqsa (Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel) is too specific to be coincidence - but then they describe the same man as 'the leader of the Arab nation' - an equally obvious error. Sadat's father was a farmer and not afaik particularly wise.

Do you have any evidence that this is a genuine prophecy, rather than something made up (or, more likely, massively mis-translated) by a few Internet Islamists? If this is a genuine prophecy, how do you explain the obvious errors? It sounds to me like some over-zealous Muslims have recently (last 30 years max) tried to alter an existing prophecy to make it say something it doesn't. But I can't find any reference to state definitively one way or the other, so if you have any further info on this I'd be fascinated.



The civilisations thing is waaay cool! If you run Islam and Christianity together, you can see how Christianity was nearly wiped out in the 1450s, and it was only the 'age of exploration' that saved it. You could make a case that it's Fernando and Isabella, not Jesus or Paul, who made Christianity the global religion it is today!

Wonder what would have happened if the Chinese had been a bit more expansionist?



>Have another banana

Don't mind if I do. What's evolved as a seed-spreading mechanism utilising the digestive tract of the goose has evolved as a seed-spreading mechanism utilising the digestive tract of the gander, as a very wise man so nearly once said.



Antony Flew's book wasn't actually written by him, and sadly he seems too far gone in dementia to realise this. For instance, he has stated: "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions." Yet the same year the book was published, Flew stated he was not a Christian - despite the book being written from a very Christian perspective. Eventually the 'co-author' of the book, Fundie Christian Roy Varghese, was forced to admit he wrote the whole thing. In other words, this appears to be a distasteful case of a dishonest Christian taking advantage of a semi-senile, isolated former philosopher - and hence the downside of atheism not having an 'outreach and support' programme, unlike real religions.

Your quote on the origins of life simply show that Flew (or whoever really wrote it) does not understand current science - something Flew admits. Flew once used that argument, but has since withdrawn his support for it after a series of biologists pointed out to him how weak it is.

Just to emphasise something Azathoth wrote (quoted): "Flew [...] was unfamiliar with the arguments advanced in the book." That's the book Flew supposedly wrote. A book where Flew, an 80-year-old Englishman is supposed to have used words such as 'candy' and 'vacation'.

For further info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Book_with_Varghese and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/roy_varghese_and_the_exploitat.php and http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html

But most important of all is that this is an 'argument from authority'. It matters not a jot that Flew is a professor, or that he was once a prominent atheist. He could be the 12th Imam or Richard Dawkins for all I care. What matters is the quality of the arguments he can put forward to justify his claims. And in this case, Flew can neither justify his claim that God exists, nor refute his previous work supporting atheism.

>I don't believe that this is a correct statement, referring to his age, health and mental confusion.

Well, his age (86) is hardly in dispute, and by his own admission he suffers from a form of dementia called aphasia. He clearly can't recall key passages from a book he claims to 'fully support', and his arguments are frequently contradictory. As to his physical health, I have no idea.

>I imagine that if you went to see him, his talent in philosophy would still be superior to most. You think he's a "has been". I doubt it very much.

Based on what? The fact that you agree with some of his views? Are you aware that he still denies the existence of a personal God, and seems to hold a particular dislike of Islam?: "Flew is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism." In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins". -Wiki.



And re liar or madman - the whole argument presupposes that the Gospel accounts are accurate. He may merely have been a preacher who was misquoted. In fact - isn't that the Muslim viewpoint? That Jesus didn't claim to be the Son of God, but that the New Testament has been corrupted?

Gif

>>You can't see a state of mind. You can only see a persons reactions to their state of mind.

Yes, well done. But......I didn't say one can see states of mind. And neither can you see a force urging anyone to do bad.

>>They might be restraining themselves, or they might not.

>>If they are restraining themselves, why? What are they fighting?


Well...first of all you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth...It's *you* talking about restraining, not me.

Try looking at it differently. People undertake actions - good or bad - as a result of their having made some form of choice. For example - I may choose to rob an old lady's purse because I see an advantage to myself. Alternately - I may weigh up the advantages (which in my case would be relatively minor, compared with someone with more need of money then me) against various costs: the risk of being caught and punished; my natural human empathy which might make me feel guilty; etc.

Certainly, though, I don't generally have to restrain myself from robbing old ladies. It simply dosn't feature. I don't have any kind of need that would outweigh the costs. The trade-off is so obvious that I don't even have to think about it: it's simply not something I'm in the habit of doing.

And note that in no way am I restrained by god. I am capable of making an ordinary, human choice.

Do *you* find yourself having to restrain yourself?

Hi FT,

>The Moses tablets proclaimed that Jews shall Honour their Mother and their Father. It is because Jesus was following that dictum that she held such influence over him in life.

That's not what the Jesus of the Bible says about his parents.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26

Gif

Hi Kariblake,

>There seems to be a view that most scientists do not believe in a god as logical thinking people however while many of my fellow scientists may not follow a specific religious belief they still have a belief that something intelligent is behind things

Indeed. Many scientists are quite religious. However, religious belief is measurably less common among scientists than among the general public.

If you have any more details on the argument for design and/or Gina Mohammed, please post them - otherwise it's just an argument from authority - for which, see my comments to Warner.

>I am enjoying this conversation immensley it is challenging me to look at my own assumptions

Good discussions have that effect on people (on *both* sides - mine included).

>I would be interested to know peoples thoughts on a movie i heard a little about today called Corpus Christi I think?

There's an email currently doing the rounds, based on a non-existent film about a controversial stage play that had a run nearly a decade ago. (I know this because a work colleague was sent the email as a chat-up line by a socially awkward churchgoer )

>my personal opinion is that while I may not like the subject matter that is not a good enough readson to prohibit it



Gif

Hi Ed,

>[Flew] doesn't understand the science

What he is prepared to do is accept that people who *do* understand the science see no problem - and he has withdrawn his support for the 'argument from DNA' as a result. Strangely, this has not been trumpeted by Christian internet sites.

It's unclear whether he *remembers* he's withdrawn the argument. Much of his thinking seems to be clouded - f'rinstance, he once claimed that the argument from DNA was his only reason for believing in God. He's now renounced that argument, but maintains his belief in God - but also stands by his earlier work claiming that in the absence of evidence we should not believe in God

I can't believe you didn't know he came up with the 'No True Scotsman' falacy!

Argument: "No atheist believes in the existence of God"
Reply: "But Antony Flew, a world renowned Atheist, says he can accept a form of Deism"
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no *true* atheist believes in the existence of God"



Gif

Gif
>>Your quote on the origins of life simply show that Flew (or whoever really wrote it) does not understand current science - something Flew admits.<<

"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Well I don't think it's a weak argument. Whether one of the above "conjectures" is anywhere near the truth or not, does not even suggest that it is likely that mankind could come into existence from a physical and spiritual void.

Gif,
My ref. was taken from "Al- Mahdi-ul Munthazar".
I've no idea why you start quoting a website without refs. about Nasser and Saddam.

Please don't try to criticise my ref. with somebody else's quotes.

I stand with the Hitler/second world war prediction being an accurate one. That's my opinion. It's not a fact, as you know, but I take wars very seriously, and religion aside, any serious historian could predict a massive "third world war", with today's global nature.

Hi Warner,

The article you've quoted says that there are many possibilities for how abiogenesis occurred and we don't yet know which (if any) of our theories is the correct one.

In order for this to be an argument for the existence of God, you would need to show that all our theories are incorrect (and even then you'd be left with the problem of where God came from).

Gif

>> Please don't try to criticise my ref. with somebody else's quotes. <<

Three words, warner: Pot. Kettle. Black.

RF