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

Star Wars may well have been a key factor in the decline of Doctor Who as a cultural force of any significance. If memory serves, the rot set in around the late 70s / early 80s, not long after Chewbacca, R2D2 et al had shown the world what a real artificial robot is supposed to look like. But they were works of art, I would say they even still look good today. Large plastic cones with egg boxes stuck against the sides were never going to survive the comparison...

I wouldn't say that. I am probably one of the biggest Star Wars fans ever, and I loved Dr. Who when I discovered it in the Late 80s, pedaled-powered Daleks and all. But I always was more into the story than the surroundings. I am one of those guys who cares more about who wrote a comic book over who drew it.

I can certainly relate to that (I have a background in literary studies, so I suppose I have to really), but I suspect it wasn't really the storyline that attracted so many of us to Star Wars. From the point of view of narrative, I always saw it as basically just another reworking of the old God vs Satan myth, with a lot of impressive special effects to keep the casual viewer entertained while Good went about its laboursome business of saving the universe again... Doctor Who's appeal is a little more obscure, but I suspect it had something to do with it being an odd kind of cult phenomenon (in its time). As far as I remember, the storylines there weren't too groundbreaking either...

I thought some other folks here might as be amused as I. A new books has been published called, "Who's Who In Hell." It documents all the famous people who are atheists, agnostics, humanists, and so on -- basically everyone who doesn't necessarily believe in God.

It's 1,200 pages long and can be purchased at Amazon.com for about $100. I hope they come out with a soft-cover version. Ouch.

Anyway, CNN.com has a video snippet on people's reactions to the book at:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/08/30/moos.whos.who.hell/index.html

Ok folks, any of you who haven't seen it yet please pop out to the forum thread at http://www.h2g2.com/F48874?thread=73031&post=569842 I could use a bit of support getting this thing out, so please make a ruckus with me and let's see if we can talk the editors into reconsidering. Ungoing commentary and criticism are also both welcome.

I'd like to join the Foundation - haven't got time to read through this thread though...

Not particularly necessary... just skim the last few posts, and pipe in when you like. We'll be moving on to new subjects anyway. Come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea to start a new forum shortly, but let's see if we get some more ew members from the public service announcement first.

But of course, you do have to name your chair.

I think it would be apt for me to join.

I'll come in as the Chair for the Decategorization of Beliefs. Seeing as I would be pushed to classify myself as anything. And my beliefs/ philosophies change as a matter of course as I get around to thinking about them properly...

Why force yourself into a classification anyway?

SW.

Reapplying previous argument - because you've got to put *something* down on the form with the box marked "religion"...

Personally, I put "none."

I check "other," then fill in "No thank you, I can think for myself."

And there we have it

It's sort of a bit daft just categorising yourself as, say, a Wiccan and sticking it down on a form, and then, when someone says, 'so you're a Wiccan huh?', you reply with, 'well, not really. You know - yes and no...'

I'm with Fragilis on this one

SW.

Sure, but "none" is just as much a categorisation as "atheist", "agnostic", or any of the others. Besides, Fragilis is clearly lying - he has beliefs about religions - though primarily they're about how dumb the rest of us are for having beliefs about religions...

It's not though. It's the empty categorisation. The one that cannot be defined, except to say 'not one of the ones that can be defined'.

Fragilis may or may not be lying, but putting, 'Religion: None" isn't lying in itself, unless you *do* have a religion...

I'm not generally afraid of labels, really. But sometimes there is no appropriate label. If forced, I classify myself as agnostic. But this is tricky, as I may on any particular day lean more towards believing there is a God, or more towards believing that there isn't. Some days I am better classified as atheist, foggily spiritual, or downright pan-theistic. Why I should have to crystallize this into some rigid defitinion for the benefit of a bean counter is beyond me.

I don't believe other people's religions are dumb. Sometimes I envy the certainty other people have (pro or con) where religion is concerned. And I do see some social benefit to convincing people to adhere to some basic set of morals, although admittedly it is sad that it takes eternal damnation to convince some people not to hit each other. But on the other hand, I find that organized religion has been war-hungry enough in some cases to be its own problem.

Oh, well. I'm rambling. I hope I've made myself more clear, in any case.

BTW, I'm a "she."

http://www.theonion.com/archive/archive_religion.html

Pope calls for greater understanding between Catholics, damned. Heehee.

Ah, the Onion. You gotta love it.

Anybody herart about the catholic statement, that they were the ONLY church to claim they were THE church? It was a german bishop who drafted the dominudummdummdumm-thingyo-what-ever-its-called, and he was one of the folks who didn´t seem quite as hardlined. So there, we can stop our discussions, the popes gone off to solve the problem...

Great link, dude... I didn't know they had a single point of collection for all their religious stuff. I'm putting this one on the Foundation page.