A Conversation for Ask h2g2
Is there a God?
Ridge57 Posted Nov 20, 2006
What is facinating is the depth of reasoning and scope about a subject that cannot be refuted or confirmed. What is safe to state is that the human mind is very complex and struggles to make sense of the world and of its contridictions. Further, our emotions are not something to dismiss as subjective conditions that often mislead us into irrationality. What we are left with are nagging questions that cannot be generalized away.
My faith isn't something that is measurable or agrees to a Positivistic model nor does it find its voice in classic philosophy. Transcendence or what we call such a state is only experienced. I name it, stepping out of the frame. Its deeply personal and the religious expressions are merely its many modalities.
Is there a God?
IctoanAWEWawi Posted Nov 21, 2006
"I want you to consider other reasoning faculties, such as your emotional and spiritual intelligence. When you 'sense' the stolen apple from the grocers, you; see, smell, touch, taste and hear it (as your crunch into it). You don't diminish the sense of sight, by using the other faculties, you augment them. You 'know' an apple by useing the whole of your being."
Can you clarify what you mean by 'emotional' and 'spiritual' intelligence? Emotional intelligence already has one definition, which is basically that of being able to understand and process how other humans react emotionally to various stimuli. To be able to identify emotions in other people. I don't think this is what you mean. And spiritual intelligence is not a phrase I have come across before.
You then give an example using the classic 5 senses, and I'm unsure as to how that has any relevance to the two additional intelligence models you propose. Your phrase 'you know an apple useing the whole of your being' is incorrect since you don't use your proprioception to identify it, nor your equilibrioception. It's unlikely that hearing really contributes anything. Really, it is only sight, and then smell and perhaps touch (in the dark) and taste (which is really smell). So only a few senses are involved. And you don't get emotionally, rationally, intellectually, personally involved with the apple so it is hardly the whole being which interacts.
And none of these tell you it is stolen, that relies on your knowledge and possibly personal narrative.
Is there a God?
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Nov 21, 2006
OK - As you say I for simplicity use the 5 senses, but I mean all our senses. Those 'senses' of proprioception & equilibrioception relating to ones bodies internal awareness may not be used in some specific actions (eating an apple say, though you may feel it go down so to speak), and as you say for any specific example maybe some of the senses are used more than others. But the point is still made that we know things well when we use all of our perceptive capability. Some memories, afterall, can be triggered by smell, when at the time of the event conscious awareness of the smell might not have been thought a key thing.
When we say we know something, for example the knowledge that you love someone. It is something you engage your rational mind for sure. But also you 'understand' that person with your emotional feelings. If it is a sexual relationship you will probably have a body reaction, not just in terms of arousal but also in subtle conditioned responses (e.g., blushing). You may even sense something spiritual. Not everyone does, but some do. You can say (and people have said in poetry since man started to record his awareness of love) that you know the persoon you love with all of your being.
We can get intelligence (lets simply call it ordered information) from many faculties of our being, based on the information we percieve. Mind (dealing with the consious and rational aspect of thought), Heart (poetically speaking), Body and Soul all are able to receive & generate data. In that sense we can say that our intelligence is a distributed and embodied function in part (it may in the case of Soul even be a disembodied function - but lets not go there now - since I suspect you have a strong negative reaction to that concept!). There is academic research to support this. Eg., the work of Dr Anne Foerst at MIT on embodied intelligence. Much medical research on brain damage to emotional processing centres of the brain indicates severe reduction in decision making capability. There even has been (controversial) research in parapsychological areas (remote sensing and use of 'psychics' by police investigators, etc.).
I do not think it a coincidence that we are called to love the lord our God with the whole of our Mind, Body, Heart and Soul, and our neighbour as our selves. To love in the hebrew sense is to really know a person. My thesis is that we need to engage all our faculties.
If we limit ourselves to knowing only through a rational verificationist sense, then we limit ourselves. Indeed it may become a self fulfilling prohecy as we atrophy the other senses by lack of use.
(on this business of the apple being 'stolen', and that affecting your senses, well it is just an analogy/allegory. The Apple in the Garden of Eden may have been in my mind or the Theodicy of St Augustine - who as a boy stole apples with his friends. Some people might say forbidden fruit tastes different)
Icotan - for a moment I'd like to ask you to not be so negative, seeking to find loopholes. Its a useful function on many occasions, and is neccessary. But it maybe that you are missing something if you dont try and be positive and use your intelligence to fill in the gaps without having someone do that for you - just an idea and mind set that I would be so bold as to advocate for you.
Is there a God?
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Nov 21, 2006
Icotan
I am intrigued ...
What are your beliefs regarding God?
Do you see God as a possibility, or take a definitive position?.
Do you have an emotional reaction when you comtemplate the question? Hve you ever had a 'syncrhonicity' event, as Carl Jung might say, when something just too coincidental and patterned occured?
What are you getting out of this conversation?
Is there a God?
G8ch Posted Nov 21, 2006
>>As for Pascals Wager for me it does articulate the point - "what is their to lose", take it at that level (looking to the positive aspect rather than the negative). It is not cynicism to be positive, though you can argue that its cynical to be a nihilist.
With regard to my earlier posting, your understanding of cynicism is a very cynical one I think (i.e. you limit its meaning to the one specific one which serves your argument). Of course it is possible to be cynical and positive. This is the fundamental position of Pascal's wager: 'I will say I believe, regardless of logic or evidence, on the grounds that I calculate it would be in my best interests to take this position'. That is quite clearly a cynical view. The fact that the imagined outcome of this process is 'positive' for the reasoner exactly demonstrates the cynicism of it. To arrive at a nihilistic position through the same reasoning would not be cynical: it would be foolish, or more likely the result of accute depression.
For the sake of argument, we could assume it could not be in the reasoner's best interests to be nihilistic, therefore although someone with such an outlook may be cynical, their cynicism would be the result of their nihilistic viewpoint, not the other way around. Someone who is nihilistic might well have a view of the world which is cynical of others' motivations/actions etc. This is the opposite process from that which you describe, in which you suggest cynicism leads to nihilism.
cyn·i·cal adj.
1. Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others: a cynical dismissal of the politician's promise to reform the campaign finance system.
2. Selfishly or callously calculating: showed a cynical disregard for the safety of his troops in his efforts to advance his reputation.
3. Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.
4. Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter.
* I bring this up again now at least partly because several times, as in the section below, you suggest that accepting something you are told is true, regardless of a lack of proof, or even the seeming impossibility of it being true, is a virtue, and a position which should be adopted *prior* to even considering whether god exists or not. It seems to me this characterises your approach to the question (perhaps this is stating the obvious), but to investigate the question honestly, you cannot start from a position which rejects rationalism when it suits you to do so, on the basis that you have already decided on the outcome you want. This is another circular argument: 'Accept that such a(n unprovable) thing exists, then see if you can (re)interpret observable phenomena in the light of this assumption'. This is inherently self-serving, circular and cynical.
>>Icotan - for a moment I'd like to ask you to not be so negative, seeking to find loopholes. Its a useful function on many occasions, and is neccessary. But it maybe that you are missing something if you dont try and be positive and use your intelligence to fill in the gaps without having someone do that for you - just an idea and mind set that I would be so bold as to advocate for you.
>>Do you have an emotional reaction when you comtemplate the question? Hve you ever had a 'syncrhonicity' event, as Carl Jung might say, when something just too coincidental and patterned occured?
>>What are you getting out of this conversation?
And what are you getting out of this conversation p4t? I wouldn't imagine that you have 'converted' many people to your point of view.
'Is there a god?' - is the title of the thread. You may seek to reduce the apparent value of the flaws, holes and illogicality of your viewpoint by characterising these things as 'loopholes', but that does not in any way diminish their value. The stated purpose of the thread is to consider the possibility of the existence of god. Questioning those hootooers who convince themselves to believe despite the irrationality and implausibility of that position is the exact reason people post here. If godists' faith has any value, it should be able to stand up to analysis. The need to fall back on the abdication of reason, as you seem very willing to do at the first resort, reinforces the incompatibility of what you like to dismiss as 'rational verificationism' and fundamentally unverifiable faith. The value of a rational explanation of phenomena can be tested and demonstrated: the value of an irrational, faith-based explanation of phenomena is entirely subjective and untestable, and therefore of considerably less value.
Is there a God?
benjaminpmoore Posted Nov 21, 2006
Well I've got a bit behind again but I'll do my best to catch up.
First of all I'd like to address the notion that you can approach a subject with both faith and reason. This idea, along with others, seems to have been posited on the basis that two alternative, and indeed contradictory, things can be used at the same time. If I reason something out, I do not need faith, whereas if I beleive something that reason cannot defend, I need faith. I have faith in the future because while I can rationally suggest how it might be, I can't rationalise for certain. Whereas I don't need to have faith in the existence of my table, because I can see it. So I approach God with either reason or faith, I can't do both.
I'd also like to consider this business of 'thinking' being something done in different ways. As has been suggested, emotional intellligence is a valid expression for an accuate understanding of other people's emotions, but I must confess that I can't see spiritual intelligence as being anything at all. I can't avoid coming back to the conclusion that, however much quibbling you do semantically and however many different words you use to mean slightly different things, the process that has refined our understanding of human anatomy is not in any way the process that has been used by people seeking to refine their understanding of God. Equally, when people used the process they had used to refine their understanding of God as a process to refine their understanding of human anatomy, or ethics, or many other things, it has often gone badly wrong.
Is there a God?
BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf Posted Nov 21, 2006
I think that faith and reason are always complementary. To take your example, you say that you don't need to have faith in the existence of your table, because you can see it. But you have to have faith that the world being relayed by your optical nerves to your brain is an accurate representation of reality. How can you know for sure that you don't live in a box and your senses are being tricked into imagining this whole world? OK, science isn't my strong point, so don't press me on how this might actually be done, but hopefully you'll understand what I mean. In the end, everyone has faith in something, even if it's just their own powers of reasoning.
As another example, say you've fallen into the sea, and someone standing on a pier throws you a rope. You reason that, because they threw the rope, they're going to pull you out of the sea. However, you can't know for sure: they might just let it go and leave you to drown. In the end, you have to have faith in that person, and grab the rope. Your reason and faith complement one another.
Is there a God?
benjaminpmoore Posted Nov 21, 2006
No you're wrong on both counts. Firstly, to pick up my example, I don't trust my senses on the basis of faith, as I have said before, but on the basis of experience. Science explains how, for example, my eyes work. I have presumed this to be correct and not some sort of trick or error, and that presumption has never let me down. Put another way, what if someone knocked on your door and told you that everything you heard and saw was just an illusion? You'd actually be deomnstrating a fair degree of faith if you believed him. It's not faith that causes me to presume that, during the day, my electricity won't be cut off, I won't be attacked by a gang of armed thugs and catch a hideous disease, but, frankly, if I believed those things I'd be pretty paranoid, wouldn't I? Any of these things are possible, but all, to some degree, pretty unlikely, so I don't really give them a thought. In much the same way, I don't consider the possbility that my world is an illusion, because I have no reason to.
For your second example, in all liklidhood I would grab the the rope because it was my only option. If I did have time to think it through I might grab it more in hope thane expecation, but only because reasoning could not give me a definite conclusion. That's my point - reason gets me a far as it can, but if I want to speculate, rather than be content with what is certain, then, and only then, is faith of any use to me. Faith is not a system working out answers, just a means of backing up what I think is true.
Is there a God?
BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf Posted Nov 21, 2006
"It's not faith that causes me to presume that, during the day, my electricity won't be cut off..."
Haha, my electricity went off just half an hour ago. My faith in the electricity board was clearly misplaced.
"That's my point - reason gets me a far as it can, but if I want to speculate, rather than be content with what is certain, then, and only then, is faith of any use to me."
I agree that reason only gets you as far as it can, and then, after that point, you need faith. What I think we disagree on is whether faith is necessary. I think you believe that you can get by on reason alone, whereas I believe that faith is a necessary complement to reason. Is that fair enough?
Is there a God?
benjaminpmoore Posted Nov 21, 2006
I don't oppose faith in all it's facets, I just think you need to know when to use it. I think we should have faith in people, for example, and their ability to acheieve and suceed if given that encouragement and beleif, even though it is probably, in some cases, completely contradicted by past experience. Faith in certain contexts, usually, I think, faith in what MIGHT BE, breeds confidence and enthusiasm, and that can only be a good thing. But the expecation of religion is that you allow faith to give you certainty (ie, faith that God definitely exists). I don't think faith can do that.
I guess your electricity is back on now?
Is there a God?
BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf Posted Nov 21, 2006
It is indeed.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. And you're right, Paul says in the Bible that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". So I suppose he's saying that faith does give us certainty, when reason can't. I understand what you mean though, and I don't know how you bridge the gap from reason taking you so far to faith taking you further. Maybe some of the other guys round here will be able to explain it better than I can.
Is there a God?
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Nov 22, 2006
G8ch
I think you are being very silly. For Pascals wager to be useful for an individual the issue of evidence and support for the Belief-In-God (BIG) proposition (as a Bayesian statistic) is that it should be at least 0.5 or greater).
For me it is 0.5 by the way from a rationalistic and emprical perspecifive (verificationist a la A J Ayer), this make me an Anti-Realist (as Michael Dummet would say), but only BEFORE I apply my personal & subjective reasoning (eg., my emotions and personal experiences), and when I do I personally find the BIG = 1 (i.e., I personally believe in God).
There is nothing cynical about this.
What Pascals's wager is saying is that in addition to your personal assessment the value of the benefits of faith should be factored. You can if you like, or not if you don't. That's your choice and if you find it distasteful to contemplate the values and benefits of faith then that is your choice.
To deny it would be cynical given your definition, it point of fact it is a case example of "Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity".
IMO you are simply being pathetic to characterise my postition as 'Accept that such a(n unprovable) thing exists, then see if you can (re)interpret observable phenomena in the light of this assumption'.'
Such a position render my position as meaningless before we start. And it really is not. Maybe this is your understanding of my position (but if it is, then to use your own words it's an "inherently self-serving, circular and cynical" one).
What I say is this - I find meaning (specifically a positive realist value) to the BIG question in life the universe and everything when I apply the whole of my being to the understanding of the question.
Now stop misrepresenting my position so self servingly. And try and be less cynical and open minded please. If your only point to be on this conversation is to argue without any intention of learning something from others I have to question your sincerity. I have learned a lot by reading others postings, there is a lot of genuine folks here looking to take something away of real value - don't miss out on it.
Is there a God?
Pilgrim4Truth Posted Nov 22, 2006
Benjamin,
regarding the points you make - Take a look here A3472986
George (Bishop) Berkeley invented what is now called Subjective Idealism on the basis that we could only perceive what the world is by way of our senses, and that what we considered to be objects where in facts subjective mentalizations within our consciouness.
Such phenomenological arguments cause a lot of angst. But 'to be percieved is to be' is a dictum that is simply accurate IMO given our actual realities. When one persons objective truth is challenged it becomes the subjective dogma for another. If I ask you to PROVE the table exists, you will do so by positing fundamental particles and their forces, we then ask you to prove those exist, and so on you will have an hyperbolical argument, a lot of which you take on faith.
When you say the table exists, it does for you, in your mind. When I say God exists, it does for me, in my mind. From here you rapidly develop into St Anselms argument (see A764624)
Are these rational arguments for the Belief-In-God question absolutely compelling - I don't think so. Personally for me they all leave me with no more than a 50/50 position on the BIG porposition. For me what the argument turns on is your personal choice, your faith.
If we have faith in reason, we can have a reasonable faith in God.
To conclude (and I'm going to drop of theis coversation hereafter) I think it is reasonable of you to say your Table exists. I believe you. I have faith in your reasoning. When Jesus said 'when two or three of you come together in my name, then I will be with you', I think he was being amazingly profound (almost 'unhumanly' so).
Reason and Faith not only can coexist, but they are symbiotic to the extent that you cannot seperate them. To do so will render all you thoughts, aspirations and your very being - meaningless. You can see this point by the way in Heidegger Ultimate Question (A656787)
As I say I am unsubscribing now. You have had enough input, to resolve the BIG question one way or another is a personal choice. No one is going to make that for you, nor should they - God wills you to have free will - and loves you enough for you to make the wrong choice if you must, but hopes you will not.
Good luck on your journey - Pilgrim4Truth
By all means pop over to my PS if you want to follow up on anything. And don't forget
Is there a God?
benjaminpmoore Posted Nov 22, 2006
Okay let's move on from the whole 'reason' argument for a moment, I'd like to get back to talking about sin anyway, it's more fun . I still don't understand why God is necessary for the whole sin 'transaction' if you like. I take Pilgrim's point that it is the state that prosecutes me for stealing from the Grocer, but the fact is that my moral obligation is still to the Grocer (ie, he is the one to whom I should apolise and return the apple). God can do the parent thing and make me apologise, or whatever, to the victims of my crimes, but to make me apologise to him seems odd. Also, Nicky suggest that he is prepared to punish Jesus for something I have done but still expects me to ask him to forgive me? No, if he wants to a hold me accountable for my actions and give me the opportunity to atone for them, apologise to the victims or convince him that they weren't as bad as he thinks then fair enough, but the current system seems to be odd and rather directionless. If this really is the truth then I have a nasty suspicion that God will turn out to be John Reid.
Is there a God?
G8ch Posted Nov 22, 2006
p4t
Apologies if the wording of my post offended you. I have reread my post, and several of yours, and I cannot find any substantial flaws in the content of what I said.
Your arguments all seem predicated on the assumption that your belief in god is correct, and therefore have little value logically. (E.g. You characterise a godless position as negative >>for a moment I'd like to ask you to not be so negative [post 703]) You say mine are based on the assumption of his non-existence. Well, obviously this is correct. This has to be the starting position for any investigation into the question. There is no direct proof that he exists, and the implications of his existence are of a different magnitude than the potential existence of, for example the keyboard I’m typing on. Therefore, his existence must be subjected to objective, rigorous analysis. This irreconcilability between your starting point and mine seems to be insurmountable, and as far as I can see probably renders this debate pointless.
You seem to accept that there are no meaningful verifiable means by which the existence of god could be tested, and so it must be accepted on different terms. You then use vague and undefined (or indefinable) terms such as (‘know with the whole of my being’) to validate your reason for believing. I think you are perhaps confusing yourself, and disguising your faith in more objective-sounding terminology to make it more acceptable to the reasoning aspects of your peronality.
You suggest that your views have been altered or changed by contributions by others on this thread. Having read a number of your posts on this thread, and on others, I can see no evidence for this. Your position appears to remain completely consistent throughout (as, to be fair, so does everyone else’s, including mine). As I suggested above, I think this is probably almost unavoidable in this context.
You say that for you Belief-In-God has a Bayesian probability value of 0.5, and your certainty that god exists results from also using your emotions beyond that point; for me this sums up the attempted rationalising of an inherently irrational position quite well. Firstly, you don't say how you arrived at this 0.5 probability: but if we accept that a 0.5 probability may be accurate in an abstract sense, this still has no real meaning in a practical sense. I cannot categorically disprove the existence of an intangible, invisible unicorn at the desk next to mine, yet I don’t imagine anyone would take the view that I should say there is a consequent probability of this creature’s existence being 0.5. You then combine this very abstract type of reasoning, with an inherently subjective and unquantifiable, untestable emotional view, to tip the scales (as you say, in your personal case), in favour of god’s existence. I cannot see how these two types of approach can be meaningfully combined in this way, even if the 0.5 probability has any validity to begin with.
(I would also refer you back to your own link in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
>>the wager says that if one is uncertain that Christianity is true then one should still believe in it, ... one should decide to be and become certain that it is. But the thing is, being certain that something is true is not something that one can decide to be and become... If you're uncertain that something is true, then it is not as if you can somehow decide to be and become certain about it, unless you see or find evidence that it is true. But if you are able to see or find evidence that Christianity is true, then it is unnecessary to resort to Pascal's Wager...
There are many other objections to it there besides).
It is not a useful, consistent or meaningful approach to attempt to combine reason and faith in the same arena, as they will unavoidably come into conflict. As people inevitably have a strong emotional attachment to their beliefs, they will find it very difficult if not impossible to subject them to truly objective, rational analysis. I am as guilty of this as anyone else, in some contexts. However, when faith in god/religion is being applied to provide guidance for methods of explaining the real world, or how to live in a morally good way for example, it becomes problematic (e.g. homosexual relationships/marriage, abortion), and the resulting conclusion of many people supposedly guided by their religious principles are in direct conflict with a morality derived from observation and objective inquiry.
I do apologise if I have offended you, but I don’t apologise for pointing out inconsistencies and flaws in a view derived from religious faith.
Is there a God?
nicki Posted Nov 23, 2006
God will hold you an ever human being accountable for their actions and therefore judge us.
can you say that your havent done anything against God and his commandment for us to love oneanother at all times?
our sins have to be paid for, so either we are punished or we choose to follow Jesus and his sacrifice pays for them
Is there a God?
a visitor to planet earth Posted Nov 23, 2006
All this arguing about whether god exists could simply be stopped. All god has to do is appear to the whole world at the same time. It wont happen because god doesnt exist, christians and others, lets face it your whole life is based on a lie. And I wont be watching out for thunderbolts, just enjoy life if you can and forget this religion nonsense.
Is there a God?
benjaminpmoore Posted Nov 23, 2006
Okay, let's back up and check some assumptions here. You've said that God is perfect, right? In which case presumably his commandments aren't merely laws chosen by him to suit his own ideas, but are, as it were 'ethically perfect' in the sense that there is one correct, true set of ethics and that God knows them and has chosen to pass them on to us so that we can be ethically perfect. This leads on to one interesting question immediately. If These are THE universal rules, then why did God make us capable of disobeying them? Why are we able to do things that are fundamentally wrong? That's like me building a cyborg that's capable of murder and then claiming that I only did it so that it could have free will. God has created moral imperfection. Either that, or there is no such thing as morally perfect and God has chosen these rules for himself, and they could be wrong.
Either way, why do our sins have to be 'paid for'? What point does that serve? It isn't an effective detterent, since a large portion of the population don't beleieve in God anyway, and those that do can't agree on what rules he's given us. Holding us to account after it's too late for us to learn and change our ways (ie, after we are dead) seems a very odd thing to do indeed.
Is there a God?
nicki Posted Nov 24, 2006
>>All this arguing about whether god exists could simply be stopped. All god has to do is appear to the whole world at the same time. It wont happen because god doesnt exist, christians and others, lets face it your whole life is based on a lie. And I wont be watching out for thunderbolts, just enjoy life if you can and forget this religion nonsense.
<<
first of all God has appeared to us through Jesus Christ, he doesnt appear so every generation can see him.
second of all, if christianity is based on a lie then we should be pityed. however check the evidence! Jesus did exist, the question is was he God? alot of people have died because they believe he was. why would people willilingly die to stand up for their belief that God exists and Jesus was his son? it seems to me that they had nothing to gain by dying for their belief if in fact Jesus wasn't the son of God and that God doesnt exist
Key: Complain about this post
Is there a God?
- 701: Ridge57 (Nov 20, 2006)
- 702: IctoanAWEWawi (Nov 21, 2006)
- 703: Pilgrim4Truth (Nov 21, 2006)
- 704: Pilgrim4Truth (Nov 21, 2006)
- 705: LITTLEMO5 (Nov 21, 2006)
- 706: G8ch (Nov 21, 2006)
- 707: benjaminpmoore (Nov 21, 2006)
- 708: BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf (Nov 21, 2006)
- 709: benjaminpmoore (Nov 21, 2006)
- 710: BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf (Nov 21, 2006)
- 711: benjaminpmoore (Nov 21, 2006)
- 712: BP - sometime guardian of Doobry the Thingite wolf (Nov 21, 2006)
- 713: Pilgrim4Truth (Nov 22, 2006)
- 714: Pilgrim4Truth (Nov 22, 2006)
- 715: benjaminpmoore (Nov 22, 2006)
- 716: G8ch (Nov 22, 2006)
- 717: nicki (Nov 23, 2006)
- 718: a visitor to planet earth (Nov 23, 2006)
- 719: benjaminpmoore (Nov 23, 2006)
- 720: nicki (Nov 24, 2006)
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
- For those who have been shut out of h2g2 and managed to get back in again [28]
3 Weeks Ago - What can we blame 2legs for? [19024]
Nov 22, 2024 - Radio Paradise introduces a Rule 42 based channel [1]
Nov 21, 2024 - What did you learn today? (TIL) [274]
Nov 6, 2024 - What scams have you encountered lately? [10]
Sep 2, 2024
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."