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

" No really, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary,"

We are clearly operating on different standards of evidence, and possibly even different definitions.

"near death experiences for one, not that I think for a moment you will accept that"

Hmm, I wonder why? Perhaps even you recognise that on some level the evidence is, for want of a better word, flaky. Why else would you say upfront that I'm likely to reject it? Surely if it's persuasive and strong evidence, I'd accept it?

I'll repeat the oft-quoted truism: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not for me to disprove these people, it is for them to offer evidence I can use.

I can say with some certainty that no such usable evidence is available. Why? Because if it was it would be a massive, world-changing event. It would be impossible to dismiss. Communicating with those who have survived, conscious, beyond death would be a major mainstream industry, probably run by Microsoft or a similar company, not a hobby confined to a few kooks with a website and the odd bouffant charlatan.

Can YOU explain why, if as you assert, this is such a definite fact, that there isn't a major industry with a branch in every major city offering the service to members of the public?

H.

Regarding Alfster's use of the word "clan":

"<>
Other than by Hoo, generally accepted by whom? No one else that I am aware of... "

Then presumably now Della you are denying awareness of kea, sixsevens, blickybadger, Ferrettbadger, azahar, a girl called Ben, and probably others I can't remember. ALL of these people have at some stage referred to you and your idiot offspring as a "clan".

I would suggest that, given this history, any newbie is more than likely to adopt the accepted nomenclature. So far from being unlikely, it is closer to a certainty.

Why am I not surprised you don't understand that?

H.

"Admit it, you *are* the Angry Man! What fun! "

Excellent. Yet another person has managed to confuse poor Della to the point where she believes they are me.

Keep it up Alfster!

H.

Hoo and Alf: Does everything have to be prooved scientifically for it to exist?

I quote R. Feynman: "..if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science." (Slighlty different to my point but still a relevant point in itself.)

<< denying awareness of kea, sixsevens, blickybadger, Ferrettbadger, azahar, a girl called Ben, and probably others I can't remember. ALL of these people have at some stage referred to you and your idiot offspring as a "clan".>>

No. Just you and Blinky have used that term. The other people you mention are not as vicious, spiteful or personally insulting. I cannot imagine azahar for one, using such an unpleasant term. She doesn't generally go in for ad hominem at all.
Alfster is a newbie, is he? There was nothing on his space earlier. Wonder why?

Alfster, looks like your going to have to put your photo up in the gallery soon!

Della, I may have used the word 'clan' at some point - can't remember. I don't consider it an unpleasant term, so if I did use it I wouldn't have meant it to be insulting. Why do you find it an unpleasant term?


az

It's not so much the word, as the way he uses it - as if we're a bunch of knuckle-dragging hillbillies (or rugby players) about the rugby player remark, private joke, to any rugby players out there..
The way he says 'clan' makes me think of the movie Deliverance (shudder).

Hoo or Alf or anyone else for that matter.

I'm interested to know what you think of my post above.

<>

Well, this has always been one of my problems with Christians (and no, I'm not anti-Christian). In fact, some of my best friends are Christian.

It's just that Christians vary so much in their beliefs that the term often becomes confusing to me. And one of the many ways they vary is about which parts of the Bible they take literally and which parts they say are allegory.

My question has always been - Who decides this?

If it is just personal preference (which it mostly seems to be to me) then it makes the whole book, well, just a book, and not The Holy Word of God. Which is fine by me. Except Christians keep saying it's their Holy Book. But if so, why are they picking and choosing the bits they like best to believe in? What or who gives them the right to tamper with Holy Writings in this manner?


az

"No. Just you and Blinky have used that term."

Given that az has already shown that to be yet another of your lies, I feel I am spared the chore of finding links to when each of those people has used the term.

I'm pretty sure I could track down an instance of ben calling you and yours the "family from hell" on h2g2, if you really want me to, just to show you're lying for certain. Do we really need, at this late stage, to keep ON proving how dishonest you are? I don't think so.

"I cannot imagine azahar for one, using such an unpleasant term."

Well, thankfully we've already established that you're either guilty of a lack of imagination, a conveniently bad memory, or simply lying. I know where my money is...

"Alfster is a newbie, is he? There was nothing on his space earlier. Wonder why?"

Did I say Alfster was a newbie? I certainly don't remember doing. I can't imagine why there was nothing on his space. Why not ask him?

H.

Okay, I'll have a go, ice.

<>

Um, no.


az

Okay, bored already, Hoo. Icecoldalex has already tried womanfully to get this thread back on topic, and away from your issues... so, could we do that?
If az says she has used that term, fine, it's actually good for me to remember some of the things she has said. As for Ben, she may well have said what you quote her as saying, but that isn't the 'clan' word is it? As she isn't here, I'm saying nothing about her or what she may have said or meant.
Now, nice day, isn't it, all?

"Does everything have to be prooved scientifically for it to exist?"

Hmm. Now we have a problem, a basica misunderstanding of what science does.

Science doesn't, indeed can't, prove things. Science DISproves things. The idea of "scientific proof" is an oxymoron beloved of Creationists.

I cannot prove love exists. I can offer evidence that it does, but if the theory of the existence of love is scientific, then it must BY DEFINITION be falsifiable. If a theory cannot be falsified, it isn't scientific.

If something ISN'T scientific, is that bad? Well, that depends. Do you base your life philosophy around it? Does it damage others? If the answer to these is, or could be, yes, then yes, it damn well is bad. And Christianity is, by that criterion, bad.

The other question is this: if something is not amenable to objective observation, on what level can it be said to exist?

God exists. This is incontrovertible. It exists as an idea in the minds of those who believe in it.

But existence OUTSIDE the heads of the superstitious? Now you're on stickier ground. There's no evidence for it. Not a little, not poor evidence - none. We have the word of believers, and nothing else. So, on what level can god be said to exist, objectively?

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't. But a complete lack of any evidence at all is, to me, pretty compelling. But of course, my theory of the NON-existence of god is a scientific theory - because it is falsifiable. All god needs to do to falsify it is appear in the sky above me now and make himself known. He's omnipotent. He could do it.

I won't hold my breath.

H.

"Now, nice day, isn't it, all?"

Yes, lovely day. No lies, dishonesty or stubborn pig ignorance here.

Move along.

Nothing to see.

H.

Okay - back on topic. Do you not think it is a duty of teachers to teach children facts to learn from. Any superstitions and beliefs should be identified as such. I was taught 'Scripture' at school alongside the usual Maths, English, etc. Eventually I realised that Scripture was nonsense and felt totally betrayed. Why should religion have anything to do with education?

Question for Hoo and Alfster

What are you views on Buddists, are they just as bad as monotheists (eg. christianity/islam/etc) and polytheists (hinduism). Or are they better/worse, in your view.


(Just so you know i'm not a buddist, i'm just interested in your views on the subject.)

Della, I said that I may have used the term but couldn't actually remember if I had or not.

<>

Oh, stop please! I thought we'd got past all that. I could remember plenty of things you said to me that I could take issue with but since we came to the agreement that we were going to let that lie, then I wish you would keep up your end. I have no interest in dredging up past slights (imagined or otherwise).

What goes on while debating on more 'serious' threads that often include quite heated debate has nothing to do with what goes on while chatting on personal conversation threads.

As you said yourself, I don't go in for ad hominem attacks.

Meanwhile, yes it is a nice day. Started off here in Seville all foggy and misty but now the sun is shining and I'm feeling quite good.


az

<<. All god needs to do to falsify it is appear in the sky above me now and make himself known. He's omnipotent. He could do it.>>

What makes you so special? God has made Godself known plenty of ways and over plenty of years to people all over the world - but you choose not to accept any of that evidence, because nothing but a personal appearance to you will do? Well, it could happen, and not in any way that you expect, nothing so crass as God appearing in your cubicle. (I am assuming you're at wherever you work.) Something more subtle, probably, and then just see how far you get trying to convince those who don't want to know, that your experience was real!

<< Started off here in Seville all foggy and misty but now the sun is shining and I'm feeling quite good>>

It was so overcast earlier today, and windy - almost gale force, and sadly, no, I am not exaggerating! Now, it's past midnight and quite cold, but tomorrow - well, here's hoping! I think from what I remember of your photos, that Seville must look quite al when it's misty.