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

Hey, I think I'll just mention here that S. Day has not a snowball's chance in Cairo of becoming PM, because Johnny Poutine is keeping my fellow Canucks contented with his lack of actual policy decision or action. Our leader is the king of the couch potatoes, and we love him. "An'Dat's Da Truuut', eh". By the way, I want to join the FFFF, as oldpinkdog, the Counselor of Alcoholic Culture Jammers(Banging Their Heads Against the Wall of Willful Ignorance).

Well, I'm back! Hello folkies! Hey, CS, when you gonna add me to the list of members at the FFFF homepage, eh?

I'd make sure the girlfriend in question has access to a copy of the Principia Discordia. Don't even mention it to her, just leave it lying around where she'll see it. Somewhere absurd, like under the hood of her own car, stuck behind the battery .

So, I actually had some productive thoughts over the hiatus which were inspired by the "What is Spirituality" conversation. I s'pose I managed to irritate CS there, but he might enjoy the results - a sort of critique of the concept of "existence" which could be at least as devestating to the claim "God exists" as could be to the claim "God doesn't exist." ()

Here in the US, we've got our own version of that Day dude. And he got elected.

GT: Your application got lost with the beeb migration. Since that last business forum was Freaking Huge, it'll be a long time before it is restored to us. So if you could provide me with your title again, I can add you and oldpinkdog to the rolls.

And I wouldn't worry about irritating me... if everyone here agreed on everything, it would be a pretty dull place. And it's supposed to be a place where you can annoy without fear of persecution. I'm sure I've annoyed everyone here on at least one occasion.

Well, Cheers! Here's hoping we'll "annoy without fear" again soon!

I would like for my title to be (ahem): GTBacchus, Discordian Bureaucrat and Corrupter of Youth

>>Here in the US, we've got our own version of that Day dude. And he got elected. <<

That's why I have a plan to move further north as soon as posible or if George "dubbyah" Bush tries to visit.

Hiding in the northlands to escape Christianity, just like the ealdorfolk.

You can't escape Stoopid Jr. Canada's news media has more stories about him than anything else. Of course that may be because
our politicians never do anything.

Thank you Colonel. I am honoured to be part of the foundation.

You're welcome. I'll be hanging around today working on a Guide entry that covers my experience at the debate last night. It's going to be too much to post to this conversation. I'll let you all know where it's at when I'm finished. I promised a report, and this one will be in-depth (which sounds so much nicer than 'windy', doesn't it? ) and balanced (which means only my point-of-view will appear, but hey, it's autobiographical, what do you expect?).

Hello everyone.

Ok, so we had that debate a while back in the 'What is Spirituality?' thread, and I mentioned above that it had sparked certain trains of thought in myself (to mix metaphors). Well, I've managed to collect some of those thoughts (another metaphor!), and I posted them here at h2g2!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A525728

I'm interested to see what you guys think. I have attempted to cut through the question of the existence or non-existence of God by defining the word "exist" right out of the picture. Or something. I'm still a little muddled, but I figure among us all, we'll sort it out, right?

Cheers!

Anyone interested in the account of my experience at the "Does God Exist?" debate can read all about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A525944

By my tail its great to be back. Greetings and Salutations to all.
Read your debate Colonel. Good stuff. The Law of Non-Contradiction rang a bell.

If I recall correctly it means that A cannot be B simultaneously, with the same meaning. The argument I usually present to refute this law is that if God created all things, and creation means all things emanate from himself, then he created both good and evil and by logical definition is therefore both good and evil indivisible. (Or a man cannot serve two masters) This, of course, usually leads to further debate about fallen angels.

But I won't go down that road on this joyous day of return.

Interesting yarn, CS.

Pointing out the logical fallicies in a theosophist's viewpoint is seldom profitable... you can confront someone point blank with the accusation that logic, reason, and observation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their cosmology, and they will more often than not usually fall back on the importance of faith (one of those meaningless words that gets bandied about endlessly as a shield against thinking).

One thing I find helpful to do in situations such as the one you were in with Unibrow (who is more concerned with converting you to his viewpoint than he is in having a meaningful dialogue that carries all parties' understanding of the topic further ahead... a common problem) is to leave the onus on him to carry the discussion forward, and simply respond to his points as though they were at least as novel as they were stupid. "Ah ok, so you think that this "God" being that you claim "exists" is "good"? What do you mean by good? Don't you think that such zoroastrian notions are sort of trite from a cosmological viewpoint? I mean, I can see the value of "good" as a useful concept in defining the role of an individual in society, but it seems abundantly clear to me that the universe as a whole is beyond such measurement. Oh I see, you are referring to the "bible". How did you come to take the mythical writings of a semitic desert tribe to be revelatory cosmology anyways?" The value of this tactic is that the person trying to steamroll over you finds no resistance whatsoever, only honest questions from someone who seems willing to learn something... and as he attempts to answer your questions, he becomes aware of the holes in his own theory much more quickly than he would have otherwise, because for once he isn't trying to score points off of you.

Hello! My name is Lady K, and I would like to join! Could I be "Lady K - The Adversary"?

I really admire the 'principles' of the group. Also, may I say that I agree with oldpinkdog's position on Johnny and Dor--Stockwell. I also am a big fan of the Dubya-debates. I really enjoy his uhhhh... word-plays!

K
~8~

Hey TG! Good to hear from you! You said this, which I couldn't let go by without comment:

"...faith (one of those meaningless words that gets bandied about endlessly as a shield against thinking)."

Faith isn't meaningless at all. To choose to believe something in the absence of evidence (maybe even against the available evidence?) is faith. I invoke it regularly. It is a useful and wonderful invention. It has a lot in common with DA's "poetically correct" argument, which is equally wonderful.

You also said:

"How did you come to take the mythical writings of a semitic desert tribe to be revelatory cosmology anyways?"

You're shying away from controversy these days, then?

Pattern-chaser

>>Faith isn't meaningless at all. To choose to believe something in the absence of evidence (maybe even against the available evidence?) is faith. <<

If you didn't have faith in some things, you would have to spend all your time trying to prove everything. Stars shine during the day, but I can't see them. I accept that on faith because I can't be bothered to do the experiments and review the notes. I've never seen anyone else who posts in this forum in person, I just have faith you all really exit somewhere in the real world.

Faith isn't useless at all, just missused by some people. If we all remember to think things through enough faith is a wonderful time saver.

The Law of Non-Contradiction, I thought, is that the statements A and not-A cannot both be true. It and its brother, the Law of the Excluded Middle, which says that either A or not-A has to be true, like to hang out in bars together and cause trouble. Maybe I'm wrong about this.

To bring either of these laws into a debate about the "existence" of "God" seems silly, as what is really required is for the concepts in question to be vivisected, not for them to be backed up an absolute wall of Yes-or-No. Oh well; boys will be boys.

"Either God exists, or He doesn't! He can't both exist and not exist!" Sheesh... that sounds productive and useful...

GTB

GTB wrote (in jest): "Either God exists, or He doesn't! He can't both exist and not exist!"

Yeah, just like light can't be both a wave and a stream of particles, and Schrodinger's cat can't be both dead and alive, and...

I was brought up Roman Catholic. They're experts in merging apparently contradictory concepts, such as the Holy Trinity: three 'persons' in One God. No problem.

Pattern-chaser

So Unibrow did have a useful logical tool, he was just misusing it. If can't exist and not exist simultaneously, then he would have to show evidence for existence in order to make his argument valid. Instead, he took everything I said as wrong, because he clung to the unfounded presupposition that god exists.

As I said before, a clumsy and weak argument. But then again, it came from a pretty weak mind. His eyes were burning with conviction, but it was aparently searing his brain.

Welcome to the club, Lady K! Your application has been processed.

And, while I was at it, I added GTBacchus' piece and my own to the library.

Thanks Colonel Sellers!
~8~