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

*This time, Arty /hands/ some marshmallow (taken from the head of Marshmallow Man's evil mother) to the new friend, actually coming close to looking friendly, until he slipps in a rather slapstick fashion, splattering the wad in the new friend's face.*

! More splattering. I'm sorry. I'll just stop moving, it seems to work better that way.

Now you see why I stay out of Artenshiur's way...

Hi GTB and everyone!

I had wanted to be appointed to the chair of *Defender of the Faithless*, but I see its already occupied.

However, it has occurred to me that as I live in a rugby mad country it would be appropriate for me to occupy the chair of *Full Back of the Faithless.*

Essentially the same position in regard to being in the last line of defence although requiring rather different kicking skills.

yours etc
six7's

You know, one of these days I should come up with a better wording for my position. Or just find a completely different one...

Updated. sixSevens is hereby declared the official FFFF Full Back of the Faithless. Share and enjoy!









Oh, BTW everyone, I forgot...


Is there a God?

Yes. Several, actually. However, they're really not all that different, just personifications (probably solely within the human mind) of something some people perceive to be the divine consciousness of the Universe.

<>

As MaW said: yes. And as Deep Thought taught us, it's not the answer that's important here, but the question. What you mean by the term "God" leads directly to the answer to your question, IMO.

So: who or what is God?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

God is a personification of the way in which some people see the Universe as a consciousness.

At least to me. Others will no doubt disagree. I'm not going to post a huge post on this yet because from my perspective it's a very simple matter which therefore shouldn't require long explanations. That can come later

* rubs hands together in an anticipatory manner *

<>

I'd agree with that statement.

I'm going to pose a question here, I was wondering if any body had read the book 'Heaven's Mirror', and if any body had any thoughts on it...

<>

I'd agree with that statement.

I'm going to pose a question here, I was wondering if any body had read the book 'Heaven's Mirror', and if any body had any thoughts on it...

I've never read it, although I seem to remember watching the TV programme. Readers on Amazon (British site) seem evenly split between those who swallowed it whole, and those who think it's a joke, but enjoyed reading it anyway! I'll adopt an agnostic position for now...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

Succinct... nice.

Is there anything that clear and accurate in the 'What is God' Edited Entry?





It's a shame there's still places you'd get killed for saying that, probably.

<<"God is a personification of the way in which some people see the Universe as a consciousness."

Succinct... nice.>>

It's fine for me, as a pantheist, but I wonder if it suits the more mainstream religions? Any christians, jews or moslems here? Did I say something wrong?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"God is a personification of the way in which some people see the Universe as a consciousness."

That's a pretty cool way of putting it, providing you share a similar view point and agree with the concept.

Of course all the theists who believe that a god created the universe would disagree, since obviously that god was outside of the universe, otherwise they couldn't create it.

And all those who claim to be atheists will disagree on principle, if for no other reason.

Whereas the agnostics, obviously, are a possible maybe on Thursdays through Saturdays and a possible maybe not the rest of the time.

I must remember that other people have differing viewpoints... In my opinion, obviously, my ideas about what God is are pretty clear and obvious, but you're right of course, I doubt many who believe in a Creator God would agree with me.

Doesn't anyone else find that some people tend to be so incredibly inflexible (or maybe close-minded) that they won't even consider an alternative viewpoint on God? It's not like looking at God from another angle is guarenteed to diminish Him at all, and to be honest, if their faith's true, what are they worrying about? They won't even do it as a hypothetical exercise, it seems...

* rumbles off to stop stressing about inflexible Christian housemates *

<>

From their perspective, it's not inflexibility or close-mindedness. They *know* beyond all doubt that their understanding of God is correct and exclusive, so any other notion is (at best) mistaken. Of course, we all know that it's not possible to advance beyond that point. Not that anyone here is so afflicted...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't know, PC.

Wouldn't you say that the acceptance of the possible validity of all theological claims (monotheist, ditheist, pantheist, atheist, agnostic, etc) shows a degree of maturity and advancement beyond that of dogmatic refusal to accept any beliefs other than one's own?

The freedom and willingness to formulate, discuss, change and even discard a personal viewpoint on the basis of rational debate seems to me to be quite a step on from orthodox (insert name of religion).

Hi Madent!

<>

Would I, personally, say that? Yes, indeed. Might a seriously committed Roman Catholic (for example)? I suspect not.

<>

Ditto.

You already know my views on certainty (aka dogmatism), and people who are certain... Oddly enough, your disapproval and mine is insufficient to influence these people. What can you do?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC, the basic idea bahind the book is that there was some lost civilization that we haven't found out about as of yet.

I guess I would be somewhere in the middle of the skeptics and fanatical beleivers. I found some of the points really fascinating.

Such as the fact that a lot of the religions that we have, or have had seem to have the same idea, as in there was a great flood that destroyed a great civilization, and people fled from there on boats, and interactd with the rest of civilization. I also found the astronimcal coincidences kinda neat, as in a lot of the coincidences point to 10500 BC, which is around the time that we say the last ice age ended.

Although I would disagree with the idea that just because a lot of religions forsee an end to civilization sometime soon doesn't mean it'll actually happen. Recording the past isn't really that hard, but predicting the future is a tad more difficult.

I could really go into more about it, but it would ruin if for you if you wanted to read it. It's really a very entertaining book, whether or not you're skeptical of the ideas.

> "Wouldn't you say that the acceptance of the possible validity of all theological claims (monotheist, ditheist, pantheist, atheist, agnostic, etc) shows a degree of maturity and advancement beyond that of dogmatic refusal to accept any beliefs other than one's own?"

Pfft. I'd say it shows a general wishy-washiness, and a feeble attempt to avoid losing arguments by never actually adopting a position. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to argue A over B, and getting "but don't you accept that there's a possibility that B is right too?"

Of course I accept that. If there wasn't a possibility, there wouldn't be an argument, and we wouldn't be sitting here talking. That doesn't stop me from saying that A is more likely than B, nor from saying that this particular fallible human can't see any way that B could be true.

And it's such a content-free argument to espouse as well. It's like somebody getting up and declaring "two plus two either equals four, or it doesn't equal four". You might as well wander around speaking gibberish, for all the positive contribution that such statements make to the sum total of human knowledge. Say something meaningful, or stop saying stuff.

-Xanthia