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

Hi Azahar

Yes of course, I remember now talking to you about this.

>I also said that I thought the world would be a better place if religions didn't exist. So I guess this makes me 'anti-religion' as well.

Yes, I remember that too.

>Thing is, I cannot feel your same anger (and Math's) towards the Christian religion.

I don't feel particularly angry about xians, although I used to. Mainly I feel exasperated and sorry about the whole religion thing, no more so regarding xians than anybody else. Sometimes individual religos can make me angry, but in general the whole notion makes me feel dispirited, rather than angry.

>Perhaps I am being far too naive, but I think it is people who first created these religions and then warped them beyond recognition, from perhaps the original intention.

No, you are correct. But that's the whole point of religion/s and why they are so corrupt. They are created by people, and those who create them are the people in power who wish to remain in power. The original intentions are never more than the fact of wishing to exert some control - whether over the universe or their neighbours, it all amounts to the same thing. It's a fiction of control, and only those who are the most determined to exert that control end up in power.

>But there are still quite good things to be found within all religions, and myths.

Absolutely. I have always said there are poetic things, pretty things and even good lessons to be found in the bible. Just as there are in most human works. However, those things would be here with or without religion.

>You see, I do think of all religions as being myth, so in this sense I don't take it all so personally - NOW.

And nor do I, except if others try to inflict it upon me or if I am in open debate about it. I think in previous posts of mine in various threads you will see how I feel about xianity and other religions.

>When I was a small chld of course I could not differentiate between allegory and fact. And that's why I said that I thought the RC religion should not be something ever shown to small children.

Amen to that !

>I mostly go along with that. But I think that within all that weirdness, some Christians do find something there that speaks to them, something that adds meaning and purpose to their lives. They don't need to take the whole package deal, but just what suits them.

Or, like me they can reject the fact that any other humans know more than they do themselves. Not that I know everything, or anything like it, but just accepting that you do not know is a huge step and a very liberating one. I have said before on this thread, many times, I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. And that's ok with me. If, rather than accepting the desperately flawed words of others, people would simply stand on their own two feet and accept that the universe is a marvellous and (at this point anyway) unknowable place, life would me more peaceful and less difficult.

>For those that feel they need some sort of religion in their lives. I don't. But I'm not everybody. And so I cannot judge or criticize people who feel they need some sort of religion in their lives.

I do judge and criticise those who feel that need. That is probably a flaw in me. I see it as DNA did, they have had access to the same books, literature and media as I have, how have they not come to the same conclusions? I can only conclude it is fear. Yes, it is frightening to admit you have no idea what happens when you die, or when a loved one dies. Yes, it is unnerving to have no idea in a cosmic sense if we are important - but it is also peaceful and liberating.

>Personally, I think the Holy Bible is a load of crap, especially the OT bit. But lots of the teachings of Jesus seem to me quite sound and humane.

Are you aware that JC was the first one in the bible to bring up the idea of eternal hellfire? For gawd so loved his children that he condemned them to everlasting agony for not doing what he told them to do. Thanks, JC.

>So I guess I am not so much anti-religion as anti-what-people-end-up-doing in the name of their own particular God and religion.

Well, you see, to me they are one and the same thing. Let's all just try to live our lives, regardless.

Having said that, I do think that most xians are fairly benign people. But, then, ignorance is not any sort of defence, really. If someone claims to be a xian, yet I know more of their book than they do, that's not something to be proud of.

I do think our philosophies are very close - maybe I have made more of a study than you of the various cruelties and idiocies which the xian bible would claim are the word of god? I used to think xianism was a fairly benign religion too, until I really researched it.

I would love to talk to you more about this, I might drop you a line at your own page when I get a chance.

Regards

Albaus: "I do judge and criticise those who feel that need. That is probably a flaw in me. I see it as DNA did, they have had access to the same books, literature and media as I have, how have they not come to the same conclusions? I can only conclude it is fear. Yes, it is frightening to admit you have no idea what happens when you die, or when a loved one dies. Yes, it is unnerving to have no idea in a cosmic sense if we are important - but it is also peaceful and liberating."

Admitting that you do not know is often said to be the first step towards wisdom. For me, the next step to that admission was finding religion, as prior to that I was agnostic. I find it very interesting that so many different people can look at the same things and be subjected to very similar influences and come to such different conclusions. Some people can read the words in the Bible and find them inspiring, uplifting and worthy of further investigation. One of my housemates last year, a very, very intelligent man, did just that and despite being one of the happiest people I knew somehow managed to become even happier - or perhaps more content. I, on the other hand, can look at those same words and think that yes, there are some good points in there (like being nice to each other), but that the basic principles are fundamentally flawed. For what reason do we have to believe that God made the world and why do we have to accept that Eve's deeds condemned all of us?

That comes over as complete poppycock to me, but if anyone else wants to believe it, they can - just as long as they don't try pushing it on me or anyone else. I look at the world and I cannot believe that we can understand it all in the terms we currently accept as scientific, but even adding the things to it which I have added in the pursuit of my religion, I still cannot understand it completely. It is simply too big and complex for any one person to completely understand it all - or really to do more than scratch the surface.

If more people realised this and devoted themselves to improving their understanding of the world, perhaps things would work out more peacefully in the world.

Oh, and can I get my chair name changed to 'Sitter at the Crossroads' please. I feel it represents much better what I'm about at the moment.

I'm currently trying to track down a copy of 'The Dice Man' and have become interested in the whole diceliving thing.
I might, for example, draw up a list:
1. Be angry with everyone all day
2. Quit my job and find a different one.
3. Go to the station and jump on the the next train to wherever
4. Play computer games for the next 4 hours.
5. Be Christian until bedtime.
6. Treat myself to a bottle of Australian red wine.
Then roll one die. No re-rolls, just go for it whatever the result. Many might scoff over living ones life randomly but I think it would take real willpower to stick with it, and free yourself away from the illusion of civilisation. As valid as any religion. Or something.
Anyway, not got hold of the book yet. Anyone else read it?

Yes: it's sick. I browsed it as a student, and thought it was sort of cool. Just shows what a jerk I must've been. It's about pretending that you can live your life as though you were not a member of society. The ultimate betrayal of your species, your friends, your neighbours and yourself. Recommended for serial killers and would-be evil dictators.



Exercise for the student: list as many reasons as you can why this is probably not a worthwhile thing to do.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Az

Anti-christian? I observe that "And ye harm none, do what ye will" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" are little different. The baggage layered on top of them is a different matter!

I too was brought up RC, and I *owe* them for my lifelong interest in religion and philosophy, even if it was initially to justify my escape from the clutches of Rome!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

As far as I'm concerned, anything Brian Eno says should be given serious consideration. Here's a political article he wrote, published in the UK Observer newspaper on Sunday August 17 2003: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0817-01.htm

Everything is a lie.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

hi Pattern Chaser,

I quite like the last paragraph - that everyone should *know* how to lie in order to recognize when they are being lied to. Sounds like good advice to me.

hi Albaus,

>>I do judge and criticise those who feel that need. That is probably a flaw in me.>>

Well, we are all flawed, which is (I think) what basically makes us human. And this is not a bad thing, being flawed. After all, being perfect would be kind of boring, doncha think?

And so I will not judge you for your need to judge others. But I will ask you something - does judging and criticizing others make you feel good about yourself? If not, then perhaps your self is trying to tell you something. ( ? )

hi MaW,

When it comes to reading about different religions I find I do a 'pick and mix' sort of thing - taking the stuff from various religions and myths (same thing) that resonates inside me as feeling true for myself. Yet I have no personal need for a God or gods, somehow.

For those that do feel a need to have a God or gods, well I reckon whatever gets you through the night, you know? Because it would also be more than somewhat boring if we were all the same.

az

Hi, azahar, Math. et al,

Looks like there has been an attempt at post hijacking by some "Axis of Evil" types. ......the malignantly misguided. The forces lining up against them are uniting. Who cares, wins and who dares, wins are alliances made in heaven.

Read them and weep, you suckers. Aces on the roof, with kings is good enough for now. Fold or you lose the lot. Now we are taking no prisoners.

Man from Mars,

As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about. 'Malignantly misguided? Axis of evil types?' (say what???) And which forces are you talking about?

More to the point - what on earth do you mean by all of that?

>>Read them and weep, you suckers. Aces on the roof, with kings is good enough for now. Fold or you lose the lot. Now we are taking no prisoners.>>

That statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Does it make any sense to anybody else here?

az

"..malignantly misguided"


Those who would cause harm to others as a result of being falsely led by their beliefs.

Sounds like religious zealots to me.

I think the phrase 'axis of evil' is a bit strong, Man from Mars. Some people take criticism of their religious beliefs personally.

F

MaW - Sitter at the Crossroads.

It's worth noting at this time this society was formed, I had to slap some sort of name onto it while we discussed what its eventual name and role would be. That name was Anti-Christs' Support Network. I found it funny at the time.

But it also showed my own prejudices. I'm rather strongly anti-Christian in general. I think there is some good in it, but I also think there is a lot of bad in it. That's not any different from any other philosophy or religion, in my experience. And as long as Christians can keep that in perspective, I don't have any problems with them. The ones I have problems with are the ones who think the Bible is a perfect iteration of the word of their god, and every part must be obeyed... even the parts that contradict the other parts.

Exactly my thoughts Blatherskite. The thing that really confuses me though is how people who do try and take the Bible 100% literally, word for word, don't end up being confused their entire lives. Surely the contradictions make that kind of interpretation impossible.

Or do they do what most people will do and end up ignoring some things they don't like?

Oh, and thanks GTB

The trick is never to hold both halves of the contradiction in your mind at the same time.

"A man may believe almost anything in conjunction with believing that P, including that not P, but not including that P and not P." Jerry Fodor (I think).

Noggin

sigh

For more, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1017505,00.html

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

azahar,
You should have spoken up sooner..... "As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about." What is the point in talking if people cannot understand what you are saying? Hopefully, when you ask them to explain, they can.

"As usual" is a little harsh. Is it true?

So, onto my understanding of what I have written......"Read them and weep, you suckers. Aces on the roof, with kings is good enough for now. Fold or you lose the lot. Now we are taking no prisoners"

Azahar, You appear not to have played Poker....."Aces on the roof, with kings is good enough for now."....is a card hand with 3 aces and 2 kings. It is very hard to beat but it can be beaten.

My post is a simple analogy on the state of the world and where I see it going. The existing players sat around the table are into "self" and in walks the Cincinnati Kid who isn't into "self" but the Game. No one can win at a game unless they play it. A shift in emphasis renders former "successful" players, less powerful because they are playing by old rules. The game remains the same, the goals remain the same but the new rules introduced, change the nature of the game. The nature of the game has changed from a nightmare to a dream and whether you wish to accept the rule changes is the choice you make as to whether you wish to continue playing. You cannot play outside of the rules.

"Fold or you lose the lot. Now we are taking no prisoners."...... Poker, eventually, has a winner. Someone who takes it all. If you are a winner, it is advisable for your opponents not to play against you, because they will lose. Some who continue to follow nightmares will lose everything, which will be no less than they deserve. Everybody gets what they deserve.......and that seems eminently fair to me.

But the most important point that I am making is that this winning hand does not stop the game but it does make the players sit up and take notice. They can be beaten and whether they win or lose depends not on them but on their opponent. If he doesn't lose, if he is just happy playing the Game, how are they going to win.

Play the Game with no winners and no losers and it can go on forever. And you never know.....the Cincinnati kid may have ALL the winning hands....right up to a Royal Flush.

I hope this makes things clearer or have I just muddied the waters?

The latter, I'm afraid - for me if no-one else. The poker stuff was pretty straight-forward. It was the rest:



What is this attempt, by whom, and to achieve what? I think if you explain *that*, we might start to understand you....

"Who cares, wins" is light years from "who dares, wins", IMO. The former rejects the limited win-or-lose mindset, whereas the latter glorifies it. IMO, of course.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"