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

"Is it an ironic joke, statement on reality, whatever, AKA Discordianism?"

It is not a joke.

"Or is it a specific thing you believe?"

It's a sepcific thing that I believe, or at least that I used to believ, until a few months ago. Recently, I've started
to question how much of it is my imagination. I still believ strongly in the philosophy behind Primism, but I'm starting to question the supernatural elements (the conspiracy as a supernatural being, the existance of a sort of "soul" and afterlife, and the physical exiastance of the Primes. I'm not longer completely sure they exist.

Hi Bodhisattava

Exactly!!! because according to ecclesiasties. "life is useless"!!!

Modern day version may read, you get up, have your coffee, go to work, nothing changes, the bills come in, you wonder how to pay them, you get depressed, so you do your best, try to pay the loan, gather enough to pay the mortgate, get enough together to pay the loan on the car, get a loan from the bank, become a slave to them, get up again, have your coffee, go to work.............etc., like chasing the wind.........yet, God is there, giving you the strength to continue.........

Well, that,s my version anyway

I agree with you exactly, Jane - nothing can ever anaesthetise that pain, as Eric Clapton said, when his son died in 1992.
Both my parents are dead, my mother in 1980, and it is surprising how mellow I feel about it - I thought I would never get over it, but of course one does.
>> I have personal experience that convinces me that the soul continues, and I do believe that there is something much richer in the afterlife<<
I am very interested in such experiences - may I ask if you could elaborate on your comments above?
I have dreamed of my parents, and some at least, I think were 'true dreams', but that's all I can lay claim to.
I have *always* believed in an after-life, I just have always taken it for granted, as I do water, or trees! Not sure why, though!

Primist,

Well maybe because it,s late, I am tired, I have had one beer to many, but......... you,ve lost me mate........



Jane

"Or is the way you express an intelligence emergent in the universe?"

By the way, Fnord, what does that mean?

Ah, hello, CP. When I agree and agreed with you about the Primes and Conspiracy, I didn't mean it in a physical sense. I *don't* agree that they actually have a physical, seperate existence.
(I strongly recommend you read the VALIS trilogy by Philip K. Dick, paticularly V.A.L.I.S itself.)
However, this leads me neatly on to your second question. While them having an actual noticeable effect on your life is probably pschosomatic, perhaps the following, more general, explanation will suite you.
(The following views are not those of the author, and nothing posted by him on this site has been.)

Many things in the universe give rise to the explanation that there are two principles, intelligences, factions, whatever, contending in the universe. This contention creates other things in its course. One of the two intelligences must be inferior and one superior, or the contest would be stalemate, but the inferior force must be infinitely self-replicating, in order for the other not to win. We see this manifested in our culture as the constant battle between Good and Bad, Authority and Rebellion, Order and Chaos, Entropy and Apathy.

(This IS my view, however - that rebellion temporarily reverses/slows entropy.)

What I meant by "intelligence emergent in the universe" is some vast guiding force/s, of which we see many things in our lives down here as symptoms. Argh, this is sooooo frustrating, I can't express this without sounding like a Theist or Dualist.

Jane - there is a Zen saying, "Before Zen I chopped wood and carried water. After Zen I chopped wood and carried water." The point being that nothing external has changed, but the change which has taken place is the most important of all - inner transformation, a new way of seeing and being.

Kaz - the purpose of words is to convey meaning from the speaker to the listener. So when we use labels such as "pagan" etc the purpose is to provide an efficient overview of our world view and principles. So yes, you may well be a Christian Buddhist (neo-?)pagan. Any or all depending upon the context.

Della - the few gay men I have known (not in the biblical sense ) have been perhaps the most emotionally stable compassionate people I have met. I understand your objection to "in yer face" antics, but I question whether those are representative of the gay community. As for the promiscuity claim, it strikes me that since the gay community makes up only about 4% of the population, other things being equal each member is likely to have 24 times as much difficulty finding the right partner as the rest of us. Not very conducive to a promiscuous lifestyle. I realise there's more to it than that, but perhaps a pointer along a particular line of thought.

And a quick note on translation - to my knowledge the word "homosexual" did not exist in any language prior to the 20th century. The word in the bible was "sodomy", which has changed its meaning often over time, sometimes referring to homosexual activity and others referring to heterosexual excess. I realise that Paul considered it an abomination, but we both know he was the wrong choice for leader of the Christian church!

Bod

You seem to want it both ways,Pinniped. There is a God, yet there isnt. The problem surely is one of comprehension, or perhaps that should be "incomprehension". God; any God, is a man made concept, created in mans image to explain that which he doesnt understand. There is, of course, a tendency for each age of mankind to allude to a God, or an agency (as you put it) to explain away that which we do not, at a given time, understand.

The person who accepts this concept can always win the argument, for anything which cannot be explained can be attributed to this God, or agency...and ...Q.E.D.! But as our knowledge of science increases (and we are still at a primitive state) perhaps the incomprehensible will be comprehended, and the need to explain mysteries away by attributing them to a God will become unnecessary.

In closing, a couple of quotes...."All Gods are home made, and it is we who pull their strings; and so give them the power to pull ours" Aldous Huxley....... and
"
Is man merely a mistake of God...or God merely a mistake of man".....Nietzsche. And, as Dave Allen used to say..." May your God go with you"

>>God; any God, is a man made concept, created in mans image to explain that which he doesnt understand.<<

If this is true, why then has belief in God not faded away? There's been plenty of time. God isn't an explanation. That's like saying Henry Ford is the explanation of the assembly line. There's a lot more to it than that.

"One of the two intelligences must be inferior and one superior, or the contest would be stalemate, but the inferior force must be infinitely self-replicating, in order for the other not to win."

It seems to me that they could be equal in power, but not omnipotent or omnicient. Tus, in any particular region, one might be winning while the other was winning in another. Am I making some mistake here?

"If this is true, why then has belief in God not faded away? There's been plenty of time."

Because there's plenty that people don't understand. Also, there are many things that people don' want to understand, and need a different explanation for them. For example, I'd say its pretty clear that conciousness ends when people die. However, most people find this so unacceptable that they can't accept it and want an alternative explanation.

"That's like saying Henry Ford is the explanation of the assembly line."

He is. If one asks the question "Where did assembly lines come from?", there are several possible answers.

1.) A man named Henry Ford thought of it one day and implemented it in his factory. (INCORRECT)

2.) Workers at a factory belonging to Henry Ford suggested the idea of the assmebly line to him and he implemented it. (CORRECT)

3.) Many factory-owners thought of the idea around the same time. (INCORRECT)

4.) Assmebly lines have always existed. (INCORRECT)

5.) The idea was developed over hundreds of years by many people. (INCORRECT)

You see, Henry Ford is merely one explanation, or part of one explanation for where the assembly line came from.

Likewise YHWH, or any other god, is an explanation for where the world came from, what happens when we die, and other questions.

Whether it is correct or not can be (possibly) determined by examining the evidence.

>>but we both know he was the wrong choice for leader of the Christian church!<<

I'm sorry, Bod, but I just really seriously don't agree about Paul! It's almost fashionable to hold the anti-Paul view, and many, perhaps most people who aren't exactly gone on Christianity, are anti-Paul, so they can say that they support Jesus, if it wasn't for that Paul guy...You know the story. I seriously don't understand what he did wrong! Sure he opposed all types and sorts of immorality, but he was anything but legalistic, one thing he opposed was creeping legalism! Paul was concerned about doing what Jesus wanted... anti-Paul people say, 'Oh, yes, but he never knew him'. True, but he knew people who had, and it's yet another myth that nothing was written down 'for hundreds of years'.
BTW, the 'house-keeping' epistles, as they are known, all the 'rules for the early church' are generally accepted now, to have *not* been written by Paul!

>>For example, I'd say its pretty clear that conciousness ends when people die. However, most people find this so unacceptable that they can't accept it and want an alternative explanation.<<
You say, 'it's pretty clear' as if it is proven scientifically that there is no afterlife. It's not, there is not, and never can be such proof.
What you're leaving out of the equation is, that there are a large number of people who *don't want* to believe in God or an afterlife. 'They find this so unacceptable' that they can't accept it and go around insisting that anyone who believes otherwise is evil, stupid or just pretending! (All of those accusations have been made at different times, even here!)
One of the funniest things I've read, is a diehard sceptic desperately trying to rationalise a ghost sighting he'd had in his home town in about 2000. He was writing in the Atheist/Rationalist magazine edited by a friend of mine. He'd seen a priest he'd known and loathed as a child, and had some involved story about having seen the man because all his childhood hatreds had been forced to the surface, and he'd imagined it.
That didn't explain why (a) he'd seen the man, on the other side of the street, for at least 2 full minutes in broad daylight.
(b) Why he'd seen the man *on that occasion only* and not on any of the other 100s of times he'd visited his childhood home in the past 30 years.
(c) Why he has reacted with distaste but not the expected loathing and fear that should have been necessary to create such an hallucination, especially as the man hadn't aged in 30 years and the percipient didn't know the Priest had even died!

"You say, 'it's pretty clear' as if it is proven scientifically that there is no afterlife. It's not, there is not, and never can be such proof."

You're right. You can't prove a negative. I should have said that there is no scientific evidence that there is an afterlife. You can imagine on all you want, and I can't prove you wrong, but it doesn't mean that you aren't wrong.

"What you're leaving out of the equation is, that there are a large number of people who *don't want* to believe in God or an afterlife. 'They find this so unacceptable' that they can't accept it and go around insisting that anyone who believes otherwise is evil, stupid or just pretending! (All of those accusations have been made at different times, even here!)"

Yes, and then there atre lots of people who really *need* to have an afterlife be true. They can't accept that there is no afterlife and that their death will be permanent. They will go to just about any lengths to convince themselves that one exists. Many of them will claim that those who don't believ in an after life, or don't believe in theirs are evil and will be punished with eternal damnation, is stupid to not believe 2000 year old texts that contradict themselves, or is only "going through a phase" or "rebeling", or being controled by Satan!

As for your story, he probably saw someone who looked a bit like the preist! He never saw him on other occasions because this was the only time he went there and saw someone who resembled the priest. He saw him sstanding on the other side of the street becasue there really was someone standing there. He hated the person, so he imagined that it really was the priest. Why does it matter if he knew the guy was dead? And, how much fear does it really take, especially if you're just mistakeing an identity and not completely creating something out of thin air!

You Human!

>>And, how much fear does it really take, especially if you're just mistakeing an identity and not completely creating something out of thin air!<<

In Christianity, you'll find that fear plays no role. Perhaps fear for other's salvation, but not fear of death.

The electron, any electron, is a man made concept. It is conceived in a way that is understandable to humans. It explains certain observations we didn't previously understand. Therefore, there is no such thing as the electron.

i just dont see any real evidence of the existance of god. Its like believing money is coming your way even though you havent been employed to do something to earn it.

It's not fear of death I'm talking about in that quote, but rather fear of the dead priest who the person thought he saw.

Whatever you may sa about that, I think you're agree that many who are Christians would fear death if they did not believe with such certainty in an afterlife.