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

I have often thought that there was a direct correlation between the ease with which one takes offense and the smallness of one's mind or the invincibility of one's ignorance.

Happy new milleneum on the Gregorian calendar folks. Jesus didn't come back this year either. Btw, if anyone wants to see my webpage Jesufied, or any page, go to www.askjesus.org and then load up www.h2g2.com/U109577 I think it looks a lot betterm personally.

Some of the denizons of the FFFF may be interested to read a yarn I wrote about taking noni juice with the faith healers of the Cook Islands. I was trying to make a fashion statement...

http://www.h2g2.com/A499403

A fascinating yarn, and one that deserves inclusion in our humor section of the library, if you are so inclined.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the power of faith, but it has to happen before you're too old and wise to believe in such foolishness. I wished for height when I was quite young, since as a child I was shorter than all of the other kids, including the girls. I fantasized about growing to the dizzying height of six feet, and I wished very hard for it. I post to you now with the fingers of a man who surveys the world from no less than, and no more than, the height of six feet.

So on both sides of my family tree, the men generally tend to be late bloomers. A technicality. So my father stands a mere inch shorter, and my uncles range from 6'4" to 5'9". A minor detail. The important thing is that I wished for it, and I got it. As the Romans say, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Feel free to link the yarn to the humour section Colonel

And remember, like drinks, don't mix your miracles

Ah... I made a similar wish as a child. I was hoping merely for average height, around 5'6". I'm 4 1/2 inches shorter though, and my cousin who wished to be less tall than expected is 6'6". So there you go. It all evens out in the end.

Or not.

>It seems to me that one of the things that unites us all is a >curiosity about religion, and that's why we're veritable know-it->alls.

Is this the same thing that makes people stare at a train wreck?

I think that sums it up as well as anyone could, Guardian.

Yup.

Jamie d'Eath wrote: "Happy new year everyone, which we can celebrate on account of the fact that it represents a dead religion..."

Pattern-chaser wrote: "I would be careful about claiming that any religion is dead."

Well, what can we say about the "life" of a religion that does not respect it's own calendar? I mean there is no year zero in our calendar. The year 1 BC is followed by the year 1 AC - which means that the year that Jesus is supposed to have been born in does not exist!

So how can he exist?

Now that is one of the neater arguments for the non-existance of Jesus that I have yet seen.

This post has been removed.

so what do y'all think about the god entry? It seems to have taken some notice of the criticism of its earlier form - but I'm still not happy about the arguments for and against being in there...

To paraphrase what the editors say in the preamble, "it's such a contentious subject that whatever is posted is not going to please everybody".

The guidelines of writing do not allow for entries which deal with fictious things. So there should be no entry about god anyway.

There could be an entry about religion(s) only, and that religion stinks is even clear to the editors.

Twophlag's entry was an piece of art.

The Edited Guide doesn't allow for fiction. It does allow for entries on well-known fictional things, though. For instance, there is an entry on the Good Luck Fairy. As long as the Guide includes a preamble explaining the nature of the subject, and focuses on mankind's interest in it, I don't see the problem.

But yes. Twophlag's entry is a piece of art. We'll always be able to access it through the FFFF page.

But the problem with religion is that it's not really possible ot prove beyond all doubt that God doesn't exist. Not to the satisfaction of every single person on the planet, anyway. That's why I'm agnostic rather than atheist - I cannot totally discount the possibility of the existance of deities. So God might not be a work of fiction, although I am inclined to believe He is.

Maybe it's not possible to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist, but I think it is possible to argue convincingly that God is a human construction, something that we've invented to help us deal with stuff that we can't accept - disease, death, and so forth.

I was writing in another thread about this the other day actually. My basic point was that most of us have some sort of imaginative way of dealing with problems. Some turn to psychoanalysis and the 'unconscious'. Some turn to the arts. Some go mad - perhaps the most rational response of all, in a way. And some turn to God. Very human, all of these weaknesses...

So the rational view would seem to be that God is a human construction. This cannot be 'proved' beyond all doubt, but it can be argued pretty well as convincingly as any other decent theory, I think. I mean, how much evidence is necessary before a theory is said to be proved or disproved? Some would say Darwinism hasn't been completely 'proved' yet - but the evidence would seem to be overwhelming...

I would revise that "it's such a contentious subject that whatever is posted is not going to please everybody" to "it's such a contentious subject that whatever is posted is not going to please ANYbody".

bleh - TG's entry did better than "anybody"...

though perhaps an entry which offends lots of people is better than one which offends only some.

I resent that!