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

Hi there, AbleGoodtry!

Pattern chaser wrote: 'the theist and the atheist explanations of the world are entirely compatible with the real world as we observe it. Neither one can be caught out by the evidence that exists.'

AG:

Whew! I had to go all the way back to post 20 to find that! We've nearly reached 200.

As I said to pffffft, if you want to debate this, that's fine by me, but if all you can do is say "no, you're wrong", we're not going to get far.

I've moved this to your PS because the thread has had a lot of OT stuff on it lately, much of which I've been involved in.

So, do you want to discuss this? If so, please say why or where I'm wrong, and let's play!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Sorry PC. Reference back to 20 and thing is at 200, I'm new to this, haven't learnt intracasies of turning page?!!!

The posting I made, made the point you didn't want to divorce god and ethics.

As a pantheist you believe god is intrinsic to all things; the point I am making is that education of new minds should concentrate on the secular facts, or events (yeah yeah the f word). How the god belief has been interpreted down the ages by society as a whole, and how that has changed - unlike ethicaly proven human values ...

Apologies to all for dragging thing back

With all due respect, I don't need you to tell me what I believe!

Back in post 20, I said "the theist and the atheist explanations of the world are entirely compatible with the real world as we observe it. Neither one can be caught out by the evidence that exists."

You disagreed, and said so: "No. The sentence is wrong. As YOU observe it, possibly. And 'caught out'? Suggests a certain way of considering faith."

Now I don't have a problem with this, but I'd like to know why, where or what you think is wrong in what I said, so that I can respond. After all, you didn't just say you disagreed, you said, for everyone else to read, that I was wrong. I claim my right of reply!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The definition in my favoured (sentimental attachment) dictionary says: doctrine that god and the universe are identical. I felt the term intrinsic was extension of same.

As for reply - the sentence was flawed. I can only refer you to George Orwell 'Politics and the English Language'.

Thing is PC, if we go back to original you seemed to be taking this stance on religion. Which I assumed to be organised religion. At the time you also wrote this bizarre sentence which drew a comparison with homosexuality and atheism.

Further, 'Pattern Chaser' I found this handle beyond the ironic considering the belief system you seemed to have reached. I decided you must be some sort of fundamentalist Christian; I equate all fundamentalists as Nazis.

Therefore I wanted to negatively criticise you. I wanted to show who you were. Those who are not aware of latter-day Nazis could be taken in by you. And you could be just getting seduced by your own words.

The definition of what?



Regarding what?



What stance? You keeping making statements that I can't relate to anything already written in this increasingly bizarre conversation. Please explain yourself: I can't understand what you're trying to tell me.



Oh I wish I hadn't written that! There was no comparison made or intended. What I said was that atheism is something practiced only by a minority of people. I.e. it is not a majority pursuit. The same thing is true of homosexuality. Thus neither of these two otherwise unrelated things is 'normal', where 'normal' is taken to mean 'typical', or 'what the majority do'.



Then I sincerely suggest that you concentrate on becoming a better judge of character before you allow your own judgement free rein again on real people in the real world!



So you publically stated that I was wrong, when you had absolutely no evidence that this was so, based upon your badly mistaken analysis of what and who I am?

You take too much upon yourself! I have no need of your protection, from myself or from my own ideas (which do not resemble your impression of them in the slightest). And I do not believe the vast majority of readers here on h2g2 need or want your protection from the likes of me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Tell you what. You care. I lose.

Tranquility and prosperity to you.

Just in case you're still taking note of this, did you see the flaw in my short note to you?

A healthy mind would've said: you care, you win - which is, I'm sure, the way you would like your signature to be interpreted