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

Taliesin we of the New Old New Reformed Church of the Flying Ant Spaghetti Monster, believe it is completely despicable in the most ant stinging way imaginable to follow the lead of the god bothering sheep religions and have an *annual* holy celebration, what the heretics call noodletide.

February 29th is the only day possible for we latter day, old day, latterday flying ants. It's the one truth of reason that shines forth from spaghetti formicarians, where we gather every four years for our flying gyrations and celebrations.

Effers, you poor deluded sap!

You and your foolish fellow NONRCFASM-ists have the proverbial cart before the metaphorical horse: It is the god-bothering sheep religions who have cavalierly stolen the idea of sacred annual celebration from the ancient, honorable and holy tradition of the Most Ancient First Reformed Church of the Flying Ant Spaghetti Monster (MAFRCFASM)

You, and all your misguided ilk, will doubtless boil in the Eternal Vat of Three Cheese Sauce, With Mushrooms

Unless, of course, you seek forgiveness from the Flying Ant Spaghetti Monster (PBTHUIHAIANFAE) Itself...

I'll pray for you

Nope we dont have frogs that blow up and sound like cats here Mr shadow but i know of a person that has a very hungry monster that lives in one of our lochs if you care to check it out .

A philosopher who used the same twisted, circular logic as other Christians, he was getting on in life and realising his own mortality and more than anything else he based his 'conversion' on conclusions that he had made that there is now way we could be here without a supernatural being creating us i.e. he had no understanding of evolution, astronomy, biology, science etc.

Philososhy isn' that far from Theology i.e. it needs little to know proof of statements it makes and makes up most of the stuff anyway.

He is a very poor example.

Philosophy is a *long* way from Theology.

Theology is the justification of dogma by sophistry. Philosophy is the analysis of concepts.

Noggin

what's that quote? Something like:

in a general social grouping is is the academic who is treated with suspicion
In an academic social grouping it is the philosopher who is treated with suspicion
In a philosophers social grouping it is the theologist who is treated with suspicion

something like that anyway, I forget the exact words.

Theology is also a concept. I agree with 'justification of dogma by 'making sh1t up'. But you cannot prove totally the conclusions of philosophy either. And hence why this certian philosopher looked at our very being here and came up with the conclusion that we had to come here via some god. Did he then peer review this conclusion? Did he look at evolution and the facts behind that? Did he look at the evolution of all the various religions factually and logically? From what I have read about his conclusions: no, he did not. And this shows how philosophy can be flawed.

I don't see philosophy as having anything to do with theism. It's a system for trying to understand human thought, moral questions etc. Nothing wrong with that. I find it fascinating. Much as I enjoy literature, film, etc. Apart from theology, all those systems of knowledge/ thought strike as meaningful within our culture and enrich it. I don't want every single aspect of my life to be part of some sort of science monoculture. I would find such a society impoverished. That's absolutely not to say that I 100% validate 'science' as the best and sanest way of understanding the basis of the natural world and how it works.

Just because some philosopher gets god in his dotage, has no bearing on the subject of philosophy in general. I see that as a personal thing that only applies to him, full stop. My understanding is that philosophers, in general, when they talk about 'god', they mean *exactly* that, *god*; not god, if you see what I mean?

Theology is unique in my opinion as a system founded on irrationality and non sensical principles. I think it's much better to concentrate the argument on the real 'bogey man'.

*I don't* 100%........

academically theology is very much philosophy isn't it? Sub part of the same school I thought?

I always thought of theology as philosophy which took the existence of god as real as a given and his commands as law as given and then tried to work the rest out from this point. I.e. theology is a flawed philosophy because it assumes a truth which cannot be proven except by circular reasoning.

There are definite cross overs between the two disciplines and it is hard to study theology seriously without studying philosophy to some degree. Certainly to a level comparable to undergrad.

Wait, wait, so if you hav a theory on our morality and evolution (in a social sense) and how we behave etc and call it NOT god, it's ok cos you're not being religious, but if you suggest one of the options may be a higher being (i.e. making it religious) then you're immediately in a different ballark? I have to take issue with that...

From this page alone I get the impression that theism, religion and god are being considered in a very modern, organised, current big religions sort of way, when in fact many people 'have' religion without feeling the need to go to church, honour random festivals etc... I dont understand how philosophy can be entirely seperated from religion in such a wholesale manner. In places, yes, absolutely, but in general overall and with absolute authority? No, surely not.

It's all theories, and religion started as people wondering about how they came to be, why we are the way we are, how to help people get along... (social specialisation to an extreme degree?). How does that root really differ from philosophy except in the final 'solution'? And until we all die, we'll not know who's right anyway (which, incidentally, bothers me not at all, which I know is not the case for a lot of people)

>>theology is a flawed philosophy because it assumes a truth which cannot be proven except by circular reasoning.<<

Yes as I said, founded on nonsensical principles.

Philosophy is more of a question than an answer. There should be more philosophy.

Just because theology needs philosophy, which I wouldn't know, not having studied it in great depth, thank god says nothing about philosophy. A bit like you might say, 'all birds have beaks, but not everything with a beak is a bird.'*

*Cephalopds are said to have beaks.

My reply is to Ictoan.

"says nothing about philosophy"
indeed not, and I did not mean to imply that.

"Yes as I said, founded on nonsensical principles."
You have a much better way with words than I!

"Philosophy is more of a question than an answer."
I see it more as a process of reasoning rather than a question. And definitly not "an" answer, but a maybe a probably or possible explanation.

Don't totally disregard theology - it does have some worth. There's some good stuff in liberation theology, if you disregard the divine bits, about what the role of the church is. And given I don't think it'll be going away any time soon, I'd rather have a discussion about its role which resolves it as being there to help and aid people.


p.s. I haven't studied theology either, but I know someone who has.

"Wait, wait, so if you hav a theory on our morality and evolution (in a social sense) and how we behave etc and call it NOT god, it's ok cos you're not being religious, but if you suggest one of the options may be a higher being (i.e. making it religious) then you're immediately in a different ballark? I have to take issue with that..."

No, only if you take the existence of the divine as axiomatic and fundamental to all your arguments. It's a closed shop basically that does not brook any dissent. If you ain't willing to accept god, it ain;t theology.

that's accept in an academic sense, not a religious sense. There are those strange beings who study theology whilst quite happily being rationalists.

OK...

It was just the impression I got from the postings here...

Personally I'm an undecided/dont really care. I'm far more interested in what has happened between people becoming people and now... and how that affects us individually, cradle to grave...

'Why' doesn't bother me all that much so I find people for whom it's an obsession slightly confusing

>>There are those strange beings who study theology whilst quite happily being rationalists.<<

Yes I'm one of those. I got an A grade for both 'biology' and 'religious studies' at 'O' level.

never understood that myself, what the appeal of RE was.

It's p*ss easy to get an 'A' grade in RE. You just regurgitate a lot of nonsense you've memorised from the bible, and throw in a lot of meaningless waffle about the synoptics and how they differ from 'John'. And then a bit more quoting from 'Acts'; and then bob's your uncle, you've got an A.