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

AHA!! You're a Gaian! The truth may be told : ) Inasmuch as the current thinking is that it's as likely that our planet was seeded as that our planet developed life on its own, I think it's much more accurate to say that the immortality of Life lives on, and that I'll buy. There's probably bits of Jupiter on Earth and vice versa, depending on how far back you look and how you decide ownership of a particle...

Fly me out there sometime - love to meetcha : )

"There's probably bits of Jupiter on Earth and vice versa, depending on how far back you look and how you decide ownership of a particle..."

Absolutely, Gaians who take the earth as a living organism but forget about everything surrounding earth are rather missing the point. They've made the leap from self vs environment to self as part of enviroment, but probably because it all gets a bit big, and our role a bit small, they hold environment at its earthly limits and not at its universal limits. The universe is the living organism, and we are one of it's more complex manifestations.

(I would never actually call myself a Gaian, but I guess it is one of the better fitting shoes. Do they have any fun rituals that involve getting naked a lot? I have a great fondness for any sect which demands retual hedonism )

well, I was put in a hospital and I got "better." Certainly I'm bitter about it, but I don't know if I was persecuted. It made a lot of people who I care for very strongly feel better to have me "get better."

They probably do, I don't know, being Erisian. Certainly, I like hedonism, and ritual nudity's fine and all that. I like spontaneous nudity myself, and I have a perfectly good fiance with whom to enjoy it, so I'm a happy camper, I must say.

Other people who dig ritual nudity are the Xists. I tend to think of them as pretenders, since they have all the trappings and rituals of religion without any of the spirit (so far as I can tell). But at least they're completely bonkers. Um, website... where was that website...? Ah, of course... http://www.subgenius.com/

"Absolutely, Gaians who take the earth as a living organism but forget about everything surrounding earth are rather missing the point. They've made the leap from self vs environment to self as part of enviroment, but probably
because it all gets a bit big, and our role a bit small, they hold environment at its earthly limits and not at its universal limits. The universe is the living organism, and we are one of it's more complex manifestations. "

Yay, another example of the "you think just like I do" game! My favorite conceit (because I just made it up...) is that the power that keeps electrons orbiting the same nucleus is that they're having a really good conversation about how they're one of the universe's more complex manifestations : ) That's what gravity is, too...

That seems a bit extreme, though of course I'm not familiar with the details. For most people the more exuberantly religious are a cause of suspicion, I find.

yeah, so screw it. Since all things are true, I just chose another truth and made it my own. I'm happier now than any o' them. HA!

if the bee dies from stinging, that is a fault on natures part...but i may have had a helping hand in it. i myself am a vegan, i do not consume, wear, buy or support the consumption, wearing, or buying of animal products or bi-products. i would rather not kill a bee. but once again, my girlfriend's happiness is more important to me than that particular belief. if she asked me to drink a glass of milk, i just might consider it. if my mom told me to, i would laugh at her.

Sorry if I've joined this discussion a little late in the day - but has any one defined GOD and if so proved that he ever lived. 'Cos if he didn't live in the first place how can he be dead?

Come to think of it have we defined 'live' or 'dead' or 'GOD' ?


Oh well I'll try and put my brain back together before I look in here again!!!!

fellow researcher; we have indeed defined live and dead, and i do believe we are viewing god as some form of conscious deity who has the ability to directly or indirectly affect concrete and abstract [for lack of a better term ->} "things"... such as thoughts, emotions, people, moving cars, blowing stuff up, zapping little johnny with a bit of the ol' lightening juice, etc. at least, that is the way i see god. the noun "God" is actually defined as [for those of you too lazy to get a dictionary [i was til just now]]:
[god] superhuman being worshipped as having supernatural power; object of worship, idol. or
[God] supreme being
that is, according to dr. webster's researchers. i think, however, the hitchhiker's researchers are capable of coming up with a better definition because [a] we aren't getting paid for this, we are doing this out of sheer information greed and [b] we dont have a printing deadline.

so i guess you are welcome to take the words "God", "dead" and "alive" however you want, though you may want to explain how you are viewing them when you post a message so as to avoid confusion between your god and mine. =]
cheerio

I love the idea of us all going down the pub to chat. But seeing how many there are of us, it could make for expensive rounds!

To question the subject of God, to define the being would be incorrect. I am sure that it would even be a sin to drop God into a defined position. Even to define dead or alive would seem incorrect in this forum. There is now need for the definition, the death of God is just that, no need to define the points.

However, if we were to define him and his status, could we all be heading for our respective hells because we are even doubting our faiths because of the question. As yet, no one has come forward and shouted out that we are wrong to even suggested that God is dead (maybe no one is that religious!) but I am sure that any Sunday morning program (which is normally shown when the church goers are at church?) would bring this forum up as a sign of technology moving faith.

Do we actually have faith in technology though, do we see it as a way forward, a control over us? I for one, have no faith in technology, while it works, great, but I understand that at any time it could fall apart on me. I don't see that as my god forsaking me, its normally Bill Gates screwing me (Why did we believe in Windows 98?)

This forum is speading again, and maybe we should spread it out. Do any of the regular posters have MSN messenger or ICQ.... I can be found on MSN under '[email protected]'. Feel free to add me and give me a bell.

Sorry Merks, I missed this one.

I thought about my part in the Knights' glorious march of salvation and it struck me, as a bolt from the Midlands, that I should quite like something very senior in order to maximise access to the latest automatic weapons and the most nubile of our hour glass vanguard. God or something Papal, though it depends what positions are available.

Thou shalt refer to me a "Enquay the Critical". Although, if I get the God job, thou shalt not refer to me by name. Except on the Sabbath (Friday afternoon).

(http://www.h2g2.com/P180802 - is hilarious, BTW, and provoked a genuine LOL)

I've changed my mind. A bit like the RC church and Gallileo.

Enquay is but a scribe. A simple man, though held in high regard by the providers of guns and wenches.

I've changed my mind again

You're alot better at names and titles than be. By what name shall I be known?

Enquay the Critical it shall be then! You can't really be God, since most of us in the cult would be forced to immediately deny your existence, yourself included; leading to your good self vanishing into some logical maelstrom, and us all standing around wondering why we'd had a sudden sense of deja vu, and why Nilchii was holding an extra set of antlers.

Claiming to be HIM, the vengeful one would be a hideous act of sacrilidge and Vladimir would be forced to eviscerate you with a tuning fork.

As for Pope, weeell, we'd all want to be that one. Still, there's more than enough amazonian buxomness to go round .

Sorry mate, servers me right for taking two hours to reply on a forum, but I've already popped you up on the page as the Enquay. I shall ruminate further as to a moniker more fitting to your place in the Cult, however I feel to be a scribe in a cult governed by the written word, is that not a position of great respect?

Better a scribe than a balding minge

> Better a scribe than a balding minge

I'm not sure that I would believe God to be quite so rigid as to send us to hell for this forum. Which is would be a greater show of faith: to follow along blindly simply because your mommy and daddy said there's God and there's Jesus, that you should be Jewish or that you should be Hindu; or to examine the theory that God is dead, look at it, think about it, open your mind to it, and in the end STILL believe in God (with whatever name you'd like to give to *non gender specific deity related pronoun here*)? And I agree with RavenCross. I can't keep up with this forum anymore...

>"If you tried". Exactly! Never mind the real course of evolution, >never mind it's bushy, branching nature plucking novel order from >near-chaotic genomic networks. Never mind that the only time that >matters to evolution is _now_. *If you try* you can divide the >history of life on earth by seven and build a creation story over it! >I bet you could chop it into 42 different stages if you tried hard >enough!

>Why do all the exclamations I want to use have religious names?

The forum is so jumbled that I hadn't read Si's response to my creation v evolution ideas untill just now. I think you missunderstood my point. I'm not trying to prove evolution. I'm not trying to prove creation. I'm trying to prove that the two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive. I think I've said somewhere else (be it in this forum or another) that the Bible is so big and can be interpreted so many different ways, you could find an argument for anything. The only thing that bothers me is when someone claims that Science disproves Religeon, or vice versa. Neither would have lasted this long if they were not more compatable than people seem to think.

Technically, the former would be the greater show of faith, since faith, by its very nature, requires that one believes WITHOUT question. Faith needs no examination, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."

It is, at the same time, both inspirational and mind-boggling when people who have been through several kinds of hell can still retain their beliefs. But on the other hand, it always seems tragic somehow, when great crisis shakes a person's faith. I vaguely remember hearing a story from the Holocaust about Jews in a concentration camp who put God on trial for all the shit He's put their people through. Does anyone else know that story, and if so, do they remember the verdict?