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

Hi Albaus ,

I've been dozing away quietly in the background of this thread for weeks now, just keeping a weather eye on the 'kids' and making sure they don't get in trouble, when wham! The Albaus Quarterly Gazette lands at my feet.

Good stuff Albaus, I like someone who puts some thought into demolishing my arguments .

Like many before you, you seem to assume that all those who profess a religious belief or experience conform to the narrow and dogmatic views of the Abrahamic religions. I think that you will find that most people who have chosen to walk the paths of the new 'old religions' are quite different in their approach.

For most of us (and I use the term 'us' lightly and with respect) have no desire for power, do not evangelise our beliefs to the general populace and find no problem with the world and its neighbour believing what they damn well please. However, when challenged or offered the opportunity to share what little wisdom we have garnered we do so without an agenda or expectation of anything less than ridicule.

I do not deny that people could have lived full lives without religion in any form. However, they chose not to, and many did, and still do, find comfort in it. The frame it gives their lives is real and they want it. Neither you nor I can deny them that, for many of them live lives of such grinding pain and poverty that there is little else to bring them hope. Certainly science or modern humanism, to mention some possible alternatives, have so far singularly failed to alleviate their suffering.

I too live a life in a universe that is infinite and unknowable. I seek truth in all its forms, a hopeless quest for it has no end, but it gives me, personally, purpose. My frame of reference is not so different from your own, yet I am unwilling to deny the wisdom of my ancestors, nor the experiences I have have had that as yet are unproven by science.

I don't worry about what others believe, and live completely in the now. Unlike the Abrahamic religions we in the druid communities have no fear of, or obsession with death and the afterlife. There is no judgement day, no final reckoning, no karmic retribution. Life goes on in an continuous cycle as it always has and will.

My intended point was, if I can remember that far back, was a society needs a common set of core values. Something that most believe in or at least respect, or it cannot function as a society.

Until recently in the 'West' those core values closely followed those of the Christian Churches. The Churches were undoubtedly corrupt, abused by the men in power, and served many darker purposes. But, and it is a big 'but', to the average man or woman christianity gave their lives hope and purpose. They didn't care much for the Old Testament, but preferred the New with its Golden Rule and marvellous parables. The belief that there was something worth living a good life for.

Now the world has changed and in the West we are outgrowing christianity. Science, politics and secularism are in the ascendant. Unfortunately these 'movements' do not being with them an easily accessible or well communicated common set of values. So people search for something, anything to give their lives meaning.

It does not matter whether you or I believe that they can live without external direction. We are part of an educated elite and have the time and ability to squander on discussions like this. To the ordinary person our squabbles are meaningless, the language we use practically arcane. They need something to believe in, how else can we explain the explosion in interest in the 'new age' and neo-pagan philosophies? They want to believe that life has purpose, the scientific or secular belief that it does not has no appeal whatsoever.

Well I have to go do some meaningful work .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Albaus!



Despite the bias ("imagining" implies deluded or mistaken belief), you're stating a basic human truth, I think: there *is* nothing more comforting than believing you have the answers - to whatever questions. You have turned the unknown, the scary, into the known: cosy and comfortable.



This applies to any social grouping of humans, like trades unions, political parties or even charities, not just to religion.

<>

Albaus:

Now you are overlaying your beliefs onto others. The people who benefitted from all this love perceived and understood it - lived it! - in the context of religion. Whether they were right or wrong to make this connection is immaterial. Their belief is sufficient. Voodoo and psychosomatic illness work because of belief; the cause *may* not be real, but the symptoms, the effects, most certainly are.

You can tell people that what's happening is caused by themselves, with no outside influence or help, but don't be surprised if you are treated with contempt, or just ignored. Your perspective, true and accurate from where *you* stand, has no more validity than theirs. Not a jot. I do not and I will not say you are wrong in this, but your beliefs have no more justification than theirs (or mine ).

< The universe is wonderful, joyful, dreadful and amazing. Just because I don't know the rules doesn't mean I do not feel love, hope and purpose.>

I don't think many people would argue with that!



The fulfillment of shared belief shouldn't be overlooked. There is no particular virtue in following your own unique and individual belief system, or in rejecting one followed by others.

Oh, and if I thought you meant *my* beliefs when you referred to "delusions", I might be offended.... Luckily, of course, you didn't mean any such thing!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>As I have debated at length over on the 'God: Fact or Fiction?' thread, it is power and the men behind it that have created most of the evil acts in history. Religion has been used as the pretext many times, but greed and power have been the true motivators.

Power and the men behind it may have been the instigators of the most evil acts in history. But in order to perform those acts, the men in power had to have a way to manipulate lots of people into compliance. Power evaporates if you don't have the people supporting it. And people in general will not perform such acts unless they can be convinced that they are doing the right thing.

Only three forces in the world have the ability to unify huge numbers of people behind acts that they would otherwise abhor: racism, nationalism, and religion.

If it is done in religion's name, then religion is responsible. For without the religion, it could not have been done.

"12 of the 13 states with sodomy laws on the books were states that George W. Bush carried in the 2000 election..."

The whole sorry tale - "Grand Old Gay Bashers" - can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0702-06.htm

Why can't they just adopt the FFFF tactic of respecting differences, where they don't impinge on the rights or duties of others? Perhaps the government of the world should be placed in our hands? What does the panel think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Sport, the media and money?

Celebrity, drugs and politics?

Pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth?



It was the air. Without it, no act of evil could have taken place. In the slightly less short-term: water too was responsible. And as the term gets longer, food rears its ugly head.

My, my, there are *so* many contributors to evil, it's no wonder these individuals are *forced* to set aside their decent tendencies and commit these atrocities.

...

Er, you don't think these things could have been done by, er, people responsible for their own actions do you? No, no, of course not. Silly of me. Naive fool ... mumble ...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi P-c,

You raise some valid points here but I would interpret them slightly differently:

Air, water and food don't really meet the criteria of unifying huge numbers of people to commit acts they would otherwise abhor; although in times of scarcity they can clearly lead to unrest we don't see whole nations rising up to protect their access to these resources. I don't understand why - these are clearly important issues - but nations just don't seem to go to war over them; unless you include terrritorial disputes that cover farmland and water sources perhaps.

The other examples certainly have some validity:
Sport: 'local' sports can certainly have an effect on limited numbers of people - witness the football violence - and national sports can unify larger numbers although in a sense I believe this is just a form of Nationalism.
Media: this is really a catalyst for the other examples, albeit sometimes a highly irresponsible one, but it doesn't affect people 'in a vacuum' - it needs to cite some emotive issue to engender their interest and support.
Money: tends to be devisive rather than unifying although a megalomaniac with sufficient funds can pursuade a lot of people to follow his cause if he makes it look financially attractive to them.
Celebrity: certainly can attract a following but not in huge numbers - unless the celebrity can develop some kind of mystical (quasi religious?) status. 'Ordinary' celebrities might be a bit thin on the 'otherwise abhor' front and celebrity status tends to be a bit short lived for the followers to do a lot of damage.
Drugs: I think this is a bit of a red herring as it doesn't satisfy the 'unify' element.
Politics: in order to unite rather than divide this is either a form of nationalism (my country, right or wrong), racism (e.g. Nazi anti semitic policy), religion(e.g. the Taliban) or perhaps a militaristic dictatorship. In the latter case unity is tenuous as it is depends on the power base remaining a credible threat to the populace, as we saw from the fall of Baghdad.

On the other hand the ability to unite large numbers of people isn't necessarily a force for evil. Clearly we would agree that racism is a bit questionable but where it can be directed appropriately - and if corruption can be minimised - both Nationalism and religion can provide a lot of humanitarian muscle.

"Free Thinkers of the World Unite". If you can agree on anything.

F

Hi Fathom!



Well I was being facetious, as well as making a serious point! However, the forecasting department of the UN predicts that water will be THE significant issue of the next century. Today, Israelis fill their pools with water drawn from below Palestinian lands, while the natives go thirsty. Tomorrow, it may mean death to allow your water supply to be disturbed. Also, I think I may be right to claim that, in hotter lands where water is much more scarce than in Britain, there *have already* been many conflicts based on water and water rights.



Even when we are told that *over half* of all theft/burglary takes place as a direct consequence of drug use? Addicts do things that would/should shame them, to get the money for their next fix. I move that drugs be reinstated as a uniting factor.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-c,

I think you're right about the water issue. It is becoming a major global crisis and certainly there are countries who's water supply crosses a neighbouring territory with the potential for conflict. I don't remember any wars over this specifically but there may have been many. >makes note to do a little research<

I realise that drugs lead to all sorts of criminal behaviour that the perpetrators would ordinarily find abhorrent so they definitely meet that criteria. Drug users however are not united in the sense that, say, football hooligans or racists are. They are entirely self-serving in their criminal and anti-social activities (before we get complaints - I know there are plenty of drug users who remain otherwise completely law abiding). Even though there are undoubtedly a lot of them, I don't believe addiction-induced criminals can really be considered a unified force. Your motion is therefore denied. My point of course is that you won't get an army of drug users behind some unified cause except perhaps 'legalise cannabis' hmmm...

I'm suspect that Nationalism, Racism and Religion are not the *only* issues that do meet these criteria but their key message is one of 'the others are different'. Which is fine as far as it goes but as you pointed out earlier, mix that with intolerance and you get 'fear them, kill them' sneaking in.

As an aside - what you said about the water issue is true but it still seems odd to me that *most* wars are (or appear to be) fought over far more trivial issues than food and water. Don't you think?

F

hi Pattern-chaser,

<>

I agree with that 'possibility' totally. Found a nice quote this morning that I posted on another thread, but I think it also fits in here:

'The true civilisation is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself'. (Robert Green Ingersoll)

It turns out that stuff like racism, nationalism and religion are man-made. These things are not imposed upon us from 'above' or from anywhere else - WE do all the imposing. And then have the choice to either accept them or not as our daily routine. As you say, to take responsibility for our actions. Rather than say - HE made me do it!!! (for HE substitute any god, politial leader, family member, etc you like).

It's the same with 'evil'. Neither good or evil exist outside of what we personally believe and are. No other animals are considered to be 'evil' even if they rip the throat out of another creature in order to survive.


Hi Fathom,

<>

You mean, like oil? Especially as we now have the technology to mostly do without oil as an energy source? I'd agree with that.

az

<<"12 of the 13 states with sodomy laws on the books were states that George W. Bush carried in the 2000 election...">>

I read somewhere awhile back that there are many, many out-dated laws that are still in the books in the USA although since the turn of the 20th century most of them have been totally ignored - to the extent that most people don't even know they still exist as laws. Wish I could remember some of the more absurd examples now, but am old and slightly brain-damaged and my memory isn't what it used to be (and it was never that great in the first place).

How would someone in the USA actually report a case of sodomy - wouldn't they need proof? (photos, witnesses, etc) And what would be the sentence? A fine? Prison? The mind reels.

az

Agreed, but don't you think that drugs cause addicts to act, en masse, in a particular way? Perhaps *drugs* could be considered to be the unifying force? Anyway, this is a detail; it isn't essential to the argument, one way or another.



Which, of course, is my point, and my response to BtM's assertion.

<...their key message is one of 'the others are different'.>

Yes, label other people as 'us' or 'them': support the former; attack the latter.

<*most* wars are (or appear to be) fought over far more trivial issues than food and water>

IMO, wars are fought because people want to fight. So-called 'reasons' for war are often irrelevant, or constructed after the fact to 'justify' war.

Conflict in (for example) Northern Ireland is often portrayed as being based on a religious divide (Catholics versus Protestants). In fact, this conflict is primarily a territorial dispute, and the religious aspect is largely coincidental. IMO, of course. The same reasoning would seem to apply to the Middle East conflict. And to the Ruandan conflict, and....

OK, maybe territorial disputes are a prime cause of war? Add to this disputes over resources (very similar to territory), and have we found the root cause of most wars?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC:

Az:

Turning my question around: can anyone think of a war which *wasn't* (or isn't) down to a dispute over land or resources?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi All,

I'm starting to think people are missing the point with this.

Nations do not decide to go to war. People do not decide, religions don't, Leaders do.

However you believe that you choose your leaders, it is in the gift of a handful of men in each nation to decide if a war will be fought or not. It is their motivations you must understand. Once they have decided to fight the machinery of state will ensure that their will be done.

It has been shown recently that even where the people of a supposedly democratic nation, and its religious institutions, utterly oppose a war, it counts for naught. Even where that war can be shown to have little real international backing and may well be illegal.

In Britain Blair, Brown, Blunkett and Straw decided they wanted to go to war - why? In the USA it was Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeldt - why?

I seriously doubt that the reason was racism, or nationalism or religion. It was far more likely to be national (and personal) self-interest. Greed, ambition, power, natural resources, anger, revenge, motivated Bush's team. Ambition, power, anger and fear motivated Blair's.

When studying wars it is important to look at which small group of men benefited from it. They are always there somewhere.

Grimly,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Pattern-chaser,

<>

ALL wars are fought based on greed. And they always have been. Full stop. Not religion, not for any sort of 'higher purpose'.

We humans are a greedy bunch. We always want MORE. And we don't care who suffers as long as it makes our lives more comfortable.

Live with it.

az

ps
not talking about humans as individuals, but about 'leaders' of humans who are only leaders because they are power-hungry to begin with. I mean, seriously, who wants to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world? Not me. And not mostly anybody. It takes a special kind of psycho to want to have this sort of power.

Hi Azahar,

I'm not sure I agree totally with your statement: "ALL wars are fought based on greed." But I'm convinced there's always an element of the personal agenda in the mind of the leader.

Finding that personal agenda is a key step in diplomacy. If you know the real reason for the conflict - and it's often well hidden in all the rhetoric - a diplomatic solution might be possible. If false but plausible sounding reasons are given and these are taken as true no attempt at appeasement based on those reasons will work. Does this sound familiar with respect to recent events?

Once the leadership has decided to go to war it needs the support of the people. As was, I think, pointed out earlier; the leaders don't fight the war on their own. This is where the plausible reason gets introduced - Nationalism, Racism (xenophobia), International Security or religion. In the latter case though it takes the right kind of centralised, organised religion. I can't imagine a population of Wiccans, Pagans or Druids being motivated to fight the neighbouring Buddhist country on religious grounds.

I introduced International Security as it was the 'real' reason for unspecified recent events. This is what I was trying to think of **waves to P-c** when I said I thought there may be other motivators.

F

Hi Fathom,

There is no reason at all that you should have to agree with my statement that all wars are based on greed. It's only the way I see it.

<>

Yes, well, most people are sheep when it comes to this as they have a tendency to just go along with whatever their leaders tell them to do. I mean, this is why they want 'leaders' in the first place, so they don't have to think about absolutely everything and can just get on with their day-to-day lives that are being 'protected' by their leaders.

<>

I can't imagine this either, but then again Wiccan, Pagans, etc have never been in global power situtations.

Power does strange things to people. In that it makes them feel like they actually have power. But they only have power as long as the majority of the massive population goes along with them.

az

Az,

Sorry, I didn't mean to be argumentative - but it did come out a bit like that.

The "people are sheep" bit is spot on as is "power does strange things to people".

The idea of a democracy is that those in power are accountable to those who put them there but it only works if the people watch where they're being herded.

Blatherskite's suggestion puts Nationalism, racism and religion in the role of sheepdog. I think the point is - individual principles, prejudices and beliefs might lead you further than you want to go.

F

hi Fathom,

Be as argumentive as you like - this is a discussion. If we don't argue about stuff then - what? No discussion, everone will just be saying - oh yes, totally agree about what you just said. Snore.



The people we elect to be in power should be '*our* public servants'. That is their primary job. But of course, this does not happen.

Basically, none of us want the responsibility of having to run whatever country we happen to be living in. So we elect people who say they are going to run the country in they way we feel happiest about. But of course this ends up never being the case. And so? Then what do we do? when we find out that our elected politicians have lied and used nasty means only to further their own ambitions? Well, mostly we do nothing at all.

And since we are content to be sheep then I think we have forfeited our right to complain. Oh yes, we can still complain. And we do. But so? The sad state of the reality of all of this is that we have given up our say-so in government issues by thinking that by posting a vote ballot to the lesser of evil gov't possibility that somehow this will result in a happy and productive society for everybody.

And then we get upset when taxes or mortgage interest rates rise. Or, well sorry, too many other things to list.

Anyhoodle, was just told on another thread that I am not remotely interested in THE TRUTH. So please, don't listen to me at all. Am just here to waste your time, apparently!

kissitos,
az

Az,

The Truth huh? What exactly *is* that?
Which thread? - sounds interesting.

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always seems to get in.

Nonetheless, disillusionment aside, if we let our apathy control our actions we fall into the hands of those who would control us.

I hate to fall into the 'I read a science fiction story' ploy but I once read a science fiction story where the president was randomly selected from a selection of recognisedly capable people. In this case she had no choice but to carry out her four year term despite having no desire to do so. A feasible alternative perhaps?

And as for argument - I'll damn well agree with you if I want, right?

F

hi Fathom,

It was on the God-fact or fiction thread. I agree with your - what *is* the truth anyhow? Nah, it's just someone on that thread who has it in for me somehow and likes to take things I say and twist them so it maybe makes me look STOOPID. Though he doesn't realise that by doing this he is only making himself look ridiculous. Ho hum.

That's why I find this thread so refreshing. Nobody is out to 'prove' themself more whatever - it's all about discussion. No personal attacks, even if someone doesn't agree with what someone else has said. It's like that sign - where did I see this? during the Live Aid thing? many years ago! - there was a sign up saying 'leave all egos at the door before entering' - or something like that.

Because we are discussing ideas here. Not personalities. At least, that's the way I see it.

Anyhow, okay fine, damn well agree with me if you bloody have to - I won't be the one to stop you!!!

az