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

Alfster, why are you so hostile to the idea of God? I ask because of <>

While you are psychoanalysing Rains and me, (and azahar, who isn't a Christian!) why not be psychoanalysed?
What is at the root of your intense loathing?
(Oh, and are you Hoo/Member/Number *again*?)

Adelaide/Della/Adele/Debbie/Annie/whatever:

"I believed in God before I ever knew anything about the Bible."

What an interesting education you must have had...

"It isn't picking and choosing what parts I'll believe at all - it's being aware that some parts are to be taken literally, others are more metaphorical."



Yes, dear, we are all AWARE that some parts are to be taken literally, and others metaphorically. The issue, which once again you stubbornly fail to grasp, is WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE, and more interestingly, why.

If you accept that there is a line to be drawn, and you explicitly state that there is, in the quote above, then you must also accept that there IS some picking and choosing to be done.

Choose: do you believe man was created before the animals, or after?
Choose: do you believe Noah literally built an ark containing examples of every living land animal, or not?
Choose: do you believe the world is flat with four corners, or not?
Choose: do you believe Jesus literally died and then came back to life, or do you believe that was just a metaphor, or put another way - a fairy story.

So - do you believe the fairy stories are literally true? And if you say "yes" to some but "no" to others - how do you choose?

"whose alter identity are you? Another one of the Hoo/Member/Number multiple?"



You seem to struggle with this concept, Della, so let me spell it out for you:

Quite a lot of people are smarter than you. Quite a lot of those people don't like you very much. Quite a lot of them find you ridiculous.

As a coping mechanism, you seem to like to pretend that really, they are all one person.

Personally, I find your clinging on, in the teeth of simple explanations and evidence, to this idea that "Member" and "Number" and now "Alfster" are simply me under a different login quite funny. After all, clinging on to stupid ideas in the teeth of the evidence is what Christians do best - it's practically in the job description. A more compassionate person than myself would probably consider it sad.

Sometimes I'm glad I'm not compassionate.

H.

Hoo, you really need to chill out a bit, it's not war (perhaps to you it is, but it's really only a debate.) Put the knuckle dusters away.

<>
No, I don't take that literally.
<>
No, do you?
<>
Yes, I do.
As for picking and choosing, as Rains says, it's a matter of reason, authority and experience.

<>

Sure. You keep telling yourself that...

<<"Member" and "Number" and now "Alfster" are simply me under a different login quite funny...>>
I think it's well known that Member and Number are of course you, despite pathetic attempts on your part to prove the contrary.
<< A more compassionate person than myself would probably consider it sad.>>
Don't worry, no one could mistake you for a passionate, or a compassionate person!

<>

What does it matter where she draws the line?

Good grief Hoo. You and Alfster are the ones who sound utterly evangelical (not about Christianity obviously, but about *your* thoughts). Spread the word! Spread the word! Don't let anyone investigate ideas for themselves! This is the truth!! Evolution is the way forward. Don't even think about anything else. Get yourself the *right* education!

So you DO pick and choose.

"it's a matter of reason, authority and experience."

Wow, where to start.

I can't see how any of those applies to the one thing you've chosen to believe out of the several I mentioned.

Reason suggests that when a man dies, that's it - he's dead. Once autonomic functions cease, brain activity cannot be sustained. When brain activity ceases, all that was the person, their personality and individuality, is lost. This is what reason would suggest.

And indeed experience - OBJECTIVE, unbiased experience - backs this position up 100%, unless you can provide me with any examples from the medical literature of three-day-dead corpses revivifying.

Which leaves "authority". Argument from authority is a commonly recognised logical fallacy. Anyone with even the most elementary education in logic understands that arguing that something is so "because person X says so" is not a valid argument - *regardless* of who the person is, what their qualifications are, or how closely their opinion chimes with your own.

So, of the three things you offer to support your choice, two of them contradict you and one of them fails to support you.

Doesn't any of this bother you, even a little bit?

Oh, and: "Put the knuckle dusters away".

My dear, this is me in lightly amused mode. War? How delightful that that concept should even cross your mind, however fleetingly. Obviously you have an overinflated sense of how seriously I take you. Don't flatter yourself. If a decent argument is a steak dinner, I regard this as a mushroom vol au vent.

H.

"What does it matter where she draws the line?"

Well, as I thought I'd made clear, where she draws the line is much less important than why she draws a line at all and how she makes the choice of where.

This seems to me to be the central problem of any scripture-based religious belief (and like it or not, Christianity is a fundamentally scripture-based belief). Most scripture is clearly fairy stories. Some of it is less clearly so. Ultimately you have to choose which you believe, and more importantly, why.

And the "why", as Della has demonstrated, very often comes down to "because I said so" (which is passed off as 'reason' or 'experience') or more commonly "because my Daddy said so" (insert authority figure of choice). These seem to me to be weak reasons on which to base one's life philosophy, but more importantly I think it's very often the case that these people don't even realise that that's all they've got. They think they've got some strong, sound philosophical basis for their lives, because although they may have studied what they believe in depth, they rarely evince awareness of why they believe it.

I take exception to the idea that I suggest people don't investigate ideas for themselves. That is very much more a Christian attitude. For instance - have you ever, ever heard a scientist recommending Christian belief should not be taught about in schools? No, you have not, because the very idea is ridiculous.

Now ask yourself if there are any large, well-funded Christian organisations trying to stop science being taught properly in schools.

QED.

H.

"Sure. You keep telling yourself that..."

Actually, I don't. I don't need to tell myself that. I could list the people I mean, and you know well who they are, because you have crossed swords with them repeatedly on this site, even going so far as to threaten ("seriously", in your own words) to have one of them killed.

However, you can keep telling yourself that those people don't exist, or are all simply different accounts run by me, if you like. If that's what makes you happy, crack on.

"I think it's well known that Member and Number are of course you,"

It's well known by you, dear. But all sorts of things that are well known by you. Digging back into the backlog the best example I can think of is that you KNOW, and apparently know well, that since not having an abortion reduces your risk of breast cancer by 50%, and breastfeeding reduces it by a further 50%, your risk of breast cancer is now zero.

I hope you act on that certain knowledge if ever a lump appears in your breast, I really do.

"Don't worry, no one could mistake you for a passionate, or a compassionate person!"

Hmm. I wonder if you're so illiterate that you don't even understand the difference between "passionate" and "compassionate"? It seems so.

If I were to take a straw poll of h2g2 users who know of me, I'd guess few of them would mark me down as "compassionate". Those who know me *well* might.

But "passionate"? I think anyone with two braincells to rub together who knows anything about me at all would tick the box marked "passionate". I mean, apart from anything else, here I am still arguing with you, and icecoldalex, and all comers, in favour of education and logic and reason and against backward middle eastern superstition, and I have been doing this now on this site for three years. Not passionate?

H.

<>

Ah, but where does that leave women? (JUst winding you up, there..) No really, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, near death experiences for one, not that I think for a moment you will accept that, but check out
http://www.near-death.com/index.html
especially the section headed Skeptical Arguments, down the middle of the right hand column.
<< from the medical literature of three-day-dead corpses revivifying.>>
Aside from the incident in the Bible, look at the case of George Rodonaia on the cited site!
<>
Man! If this is you in lightly amused mode, I'd hate to see you upset! Answer yes or no, aren't you the researcher known as 'Mr Angry'?

Hoo, chill out, man! I know the difference between passionate and compassionate - do you? More important - I think you do mistake angry for passionate... because there is a big difference.

"Man! If this is you in lightly amused mode, I'd hate to see you upset!"

Damn right you would.

"Answer yes or no, aren't you the researcher known as 'Mr Angry'?"

No. I am the researcher known as "Hoo".

I cannot comment on what other people call me, although I did receive a message on my PS yesterday pointing out that at least one person here tends to forget that I'm not, and I quote "Mr. Angry all the time". So I guess to at least one person I am, from time to time, regarded as, if not actually known as, Mr. Angry.

More comments after I've read the link.

H.

"< from the medical literature of three-day-dead corpses revivifying.>>
Aside from the incident in the Bible, look at the case of George Rodonaia on the cited site!"

I'm sorry, perhaps you went selectively blind for a moment.

Which part of the phrase "from the medical literature" are you having difficulty with?

H.

<>

And of course because you were so highly aware as a kid that there was a GOD before knowing about the Bible you have the cognitive reasoning skills to know which are real and which are made up? Or put it another way you are STILL just choosing the bits to believe in that require the least work to follow and the ones that sound less silly than the rest.

<>

I used the word clan because it is the generally accepted way of referring to you and your little helpers.

<<- which leads me to ask - whose alter identity are you? Another one of the Hoo/Member/Number multiple? >>

Oh shucks You and your compliments. No, am not Hoo or Number or Member. You might like to know that more than one person can have a certain writing style or idea.

<<<< I know a lot of born-again Christians ? total mindf*cks most of them>>
I'm sorry you regard them that way - do they know you have so little regard for them?>>

They certainly do not hold back in inferring that people who have not found God or met Jesus are inferior to Them who know him.

<>

And we all know that yours sons do not lie to your or take over your Personal Space. Quite possibly he is embarrassed about having an imaginary friend. He shouldn't be.

<>

Erm, it proves that he invented the imaginary friend because he did not have any siblings living with him?
Confused you just contradicted your own argument within two sentences.

<<Alfster, why are you so hostile to the idea of God? I ask because of <>>>

I am not hosilte towards the idea of God I am hostile towards the people who still peddle this out-of-date nonsense still to control the un(brain)washed masses.

<>

Do it all the time madame with friends. We regular unpick each others problem quite openly - we can all cope with the truth.

No, Az is not a Christian she has an interesting past and I merely wanted to understand where the reasons for at lay so that I could understand someone else better and maybe understand myself a little better.


<>

Stupidity: plain and simple. Other peoples stupidity. However if it is loathing of the idea of God: See above.

<<(Oh, and are you Hoo/Member/Number *again*? )>>

Again. NO. I am not any of those 3 people. Please do not insult me by inferring that *I* am merely a made up person by some one else. I am ME. With me own, thoughts and views. They may sometimes be similar to the other 3 but they are mine.

<<(Oh, and are you Hoo/Member/Number *again*? )>>

Again. NO. I am not any of those 3 people. Please do not insult me by inferring that *I* am merely a made up person by some one else. I am ME. With my own, thoughts and views. They may sometimes be similar to the other 3 but they are mine.

<>
Other than by Hoo, generally accepted by whom? No one else that I am aware of...
<>
In the case of a specific insult against a specific family, unlikely!
<>
Oh, do stop teasing! Admit it, you *are* the Angry Man! What fun!
<>
No, sorry, I think you're the one who's confused... (Hoo's confused - geddit?) You were ranting about mental health issues, I just clarified. Simple, really.

<>

We are not stopping people investigate ideas for themselves. We do not hide the ideas put forth by religin. I have certainly investigated them to be able to put forward a balanced argument of why religion is a manifestation of the evolution path.

Once again you forget about the amount of information that Hoo *has* written in these forums about the Bible its content, ideas and history. How *do* you think he knows all this stuff? Research.

You may want to put something on your space to differentiate yourself from your friend, then...

<< You may want to put something on your space to differentiate yourself from your friend, then...>>

Something like: 'Stupid people, please note: I AM NOT HOO.'