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

Now *there's* an admission! It sounds like an illness, don't you think? "I'm phlig-positive"...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think it sounds quite cool.

MaW: "No, didn't we think that Phlig can be a good thing?"
(In a flash, Ex Libris becomes SUPER BACKLOG RESEARCHER!!! )

Let's see...about twenty posts ago, Art said:
"I say, what we're calling a "religion" (PC's definition, the broad thing) might be more accurately called a Phlig."
So, this makes us wonder, just what *was* PC's definition? Dredging even further back, we find he said:
"Faith is what we have (or exhibit?) when we choose to believe something for which there is no proof or disproof. Normally, it concerns matters for which proof or disproof is not (and will be) available."
and then:
"Religion is a set of beliefs that, taken together, provide a spiritual and moral framework according to which you can run your life."

So it seems to me that a phlig is inherently neither bad nor good; it's just what you *put* in it that matters. Like a sandwich.

SUPER BACKLOG RESEARCHER is no more, I guess I can stop being a geek--no, wait, that's me all along....

s and s,
~Wes

Thus Phlig can indeed be a good thing, and I was right.

Nice work there

Thus [IMO]Phlig is completely subjective... if you like a Phlig it's good if you don't it's bad... no one has right to force a Phlig on anyone else therefore I will pretend this is the Freedom From Unwanted Phlig & Associated Dogma Foundation...

Which is what it is - at least as far as I'm concerned.

Right, except that it doesn't make as snappy an acronym as FFFF.

(Re-reads the FFFF main page, then double-posts)

Although from the wording on the main page, it seems more like the Freedom From CHRISTIAN Faith Foundation...

Which is very sad... and arguably as irrational and reactionary as the elements it's presumably putting forward a motion against...

Well, would anyone like to suggest a rewording of any particular bits? Most of it is just what the Colonel had there when he left, and I hadn't bothered to think about changing it because nobody had said they weren't happy with it. Now someone has. Which part in particular seems... "irrational and reactionary"?

Oh, BTW, we had a couple of new members a few pages back. I added them to the roster, but was busy and didn't manage to post a welcome here.

Welcome, Stealth K, Department Head at the Bureau of Circumlocution, and My Profane Evil Twin, Beryl, Dean of the Fundamentalist and Proselytising Schools of Atheism!



Now, about that business, I've just looked at the page (to get those names), and the introduction does sound rather specifically anti-christian. If anyone would like to propose a rewrite of any particular paragraph or paragraphs, just submit your proposal to this thread, and we'll debate and see if we can't get some kind of consensus.

If nobody decides anything until I have more free time and look at it more closely, then I'll just come up with something myself, but that might not happen anytime real soon.



GTB

Stealth K: <I will pretend this is the Freedom From Unwanted Phlig & Associated Dogma Foundation...>

MaW:

Me too!

As for the stuff about Christianity; I agree that it's sad, *and* that it's necessary. Fundamentalist Christians - and other dogmatics, including proselytising (is that the right word?) atheists - are a pain in the ****! There are almost as many beliefs as there are people, and all of them are wrong, except me, of course! In order to live together, we need to accept *and* respect the views of others, even if they're wrong!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Since I joined here there really does seem to have been a shift of focus, largely invalidating the emphasis on Christianity on the front page. Maybe it should instead refer to, say, people and groups who push their beliefs on others (no matter what they are) as I think they're what really get us all very mad.

On another note brought up by recent posts, I'm not sure I'm Professor of Discontent anymore either. Maybe it's just time to throw the towel into the grinder and become Resident Wiccan.

"Throw the towel into the grinder." That sounds rather impolite to me.

WSOGMM. I like that concept. And the associated Phlig.

This is a literal enquiry: what does "life" mean? If I briefly describe some of my beliefs, it should become clearer.

First, I believe that things like insect colonies - and many associations of humans - are alive in their own right, not just as assemblies of their constituent creatures. [Not too controversial, I don't think.]

Second, I believe that the universe itself is just such an organism as I describe above.

So my question about life is an attempt to decide if the universe can reasonably be said to be alive in its own right. If so, then lots of interesting questions follow, not least of which is: is the universe self-aware?

Is anyone interested enough to give me a hand thinking this one through? There seems to have been very little excitement or interest around here lately.... I haven't stumbled into the Apathy Forum by mistake, have I?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Maybe we should use the homepage to give 'official' FFFF definitions of some of our most loaded words. Not, I hasten to add, because there is any 'right' or 'wrong' definition but because the imprecision of the words does tend to lead to misunderstandings in discussions. If we can agree on these 'standard' definitiond it might lend more clarity to these discussions (without everyone having to define what they mean when they use one of the words to avoid a welter of flame and contradiction).

Just a thought.

Can the Universe be considered to be alive? Yes, I think it can. It's filled with life, and that life combines as you have mentioned to produce something akin to another level of life, something that's perhaps not the same as the sum of its parts. All very mystical and so on, this, but it boils down to that being more or less exactly my definition of the Divine - but in that, it's top-down rather than bottom-up. I.e. we didn't start with single-celled organisms and eventually form a Universal awareness, we started with that awareness which influenced everything else to develop, and in doing so strengthened itself.

Is there any evidence of the universe being alive, I wonder? I'm thinking of the Gaia hypothesis, which describes this planet as a living entity, that responds to its environment, and so on.

Or perhaps a living universe is one of those faith things?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I am both a believer in Jediism and Chrisitanity. Jediism is a religion that embraces all faiths and does not put down anyone elses beliefs. The only requirement is that we must respect other peoples beliefs and not mock them. We are a very tolerant religion and do not force members to belief we have atheists and agonostics as members as well as the main religions as well as Druids etc. BTW I am a very science orientated person who is very interested in the advancement of deep interstellar travel and I am not anti-science infact I am the opposite. I do not think that I have all the answers nor do I think because I am a Christian or a Jediism believer that I am better than one else. I respect other peoples religion and do not think my own Christianity or Jediism has all the answers. I belief that faith is more important than religion. Any tips on various meditation techniques?

Pattern Chaser

Who cares wins.

It seems to me, that when I joined this place, the main issue was "having trouble with the christian faith" and the way devout followers of Christ go about treating faith etc. I think that is why it was "Freedom from Faith" and not "Freedom from Belief"

I am not sure what I should believe atm. I guess that we all have some system of beliefs and that if we wouldn´t believe in somethings we see or feel (or just sence in a way... thinking of all those spiritually sensitive people about here), we´d not be able to live anyway. Or is it just necessary to be aware that some things have to happen such as breathing, eating, drinking... oh... even that is doubted by some people if I remember rightly. But then they believe it is not needed...

I rather liked ranting against all those christian fundamentalists in the world. But now I sometimes wish I could just "not care" about it... It is something like my aversion to the german tabloid paper called the "Bild-Zeitung". I wish I could just ignore those pages of , but everytime I have to fill up at a gas-station, those stupid headlines (Boris Becker´s first love: She still has his letters)keep catching my eye and I just can´t help being angry about it.

What about this idea: Freedom from Faithists Foundation. Meaning: The problem are those people who have a strong set of Beliefs and go about rubbing it under everybodys nose...

I guess putting "our" definitions of words as an intro would actually just create a new beliefsystem - One deriving from discussion and a certain view collaborated from these discussions instead of some devine voice. I just imagine how someone will pop up in posting 1 203 534 and say: Well, as "Reverend GTB wrote in the introduction of the page in 2002..." and discussions of what these words actually ment...

O.K.... going through my thoughts now, I think the main issue should be to just give an outline of the idea behind the FFFF but no answers. I guess you can believe there are answers... but I rather don´t. I think I rather put the emphasis on the process...

As for medititation, Patern Chacer, I´m no good at that kind of stuff... I rather try and just find some time for sleep now and then...

Hi Jedi Apprentice

I think when you first introduced yourself, you told us all how very tolerant you were of other beliefs, at some length. I would like to know why you signed your note with my name, though. It can't've been a cut-and-paste accident, as you removed the punctuation from my motto, "Who cares, wins".

Englander thought you were me: If it's OK with you, I'd rather I only had to take responsibility for my own notes, not yours as well!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"