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

Vicky, I have no interest in discussing anything with you for you have nothing to contribute beyond that which I mentioned. On the rare occasions you appear to be trying to interact normally it soon becomes apparent that it's a sham.

For example:

'. Should the Dawkinsites ever set up a school, I've no doubt they'd want books by such people as McGrath and John Cornwell banned from their library!'

And here I am again, getting dragged into your odd little world by vrtue of having the misfortune to be in a thread with you. I really do wish you'd go away and let us discuss things without your constant interruptions.

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

G'night.

<>

Is that what got your knickers in a knot? Why? What an absurd over-reaction! It was an an-al-og-y. You know, where I use one thing as an example, so you'll understand what I mean by my comments on another?

I still maintain it's perfectly reasonable. Here's another an-al-og-y that might not upset you. Hypothesize a Scientologist school. Would they want to have books denigrating Scientology in their library? No, you don't like that one? Well, here we have a party called the 'Labour' party (the one currently in government as it happens.) They have a branch at Auckland University. Do you suppose they have books and pamphlets teaching the evils of the working classes? I think they do not, and further, I think it's quite reasonable that they don't.



<>
So, which do you own, the thread or the site? I can see why you think you do own it, but you really don't - at least not yet.

Having dozed off and then awoken after a particularly *interesting* dream, I'm thinking in 2008 on this thread, we need to start getting more sexual. On these type of threads it often appears that that side of 'spirituality' or whatever one might call it gets sorely neglected. I know we've touched on it in relation to 'sexuality' and even ventured into the murkiness of glory holes, but we haven't really confronted it as part of the 'religious' experience. That seems to be quite a christian bias in our culture to separate the sacred from the profane. But we atheists don't need to be so coy.

I remember a few years ago going to an art show at the Whitechapel gallery in London which exhibited some remarkable ancient carvings from temples in India. They appeared to comprise of all kinds of writhing bodies in various states of sexual ecstacy, carved out of wood. I know in present day india this is not the case but in the past it was. There was a complete acceptance of the religious feeling in sex. In our own Western pre christian cultures this was also the case.

Any how that's my thought for the day.

'So, which do you own, the thread or the site? I can see why you think you do own it, but you really don't - at least not yet.'

Neither. Nor do you, which is why it would be nice if you showed us the courtesy we show you in the Christian threads: you don't agree with us so why not just leave us to it?

>>Should the Dawkinsites ever set up a school, I've no doubt they'd want books by such people as McGrath and John Cornwell banned from their library!'<<

It doesn't work as an analogy: indeed, the bishop actually did call for 'books containing polemics against the Catholic faith to be removed from school libraries'. Whereas in your analogy, you just assume that 'Dawkinsites' would do it, but this is only conjecture.

>>Hypothesize a Scientologist school. Would they want to have books denigrating Scientology in their library?<<

Not from a school, but from public libraries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_The_Now_Religion#Attempt_by_Church_of_Scientology_to_ban_book

<>

And I've no doubt they wouldn't. Part of the point here is that the schools in question are publically funded, and book banning is not acceptable in our society. Nor is the use of public money for indoctrination. One of the most important things about real democracy is that it is pluralistic. The key is not banning stuff, it's giving people the tools to be intellectually rigorous.

<>

This is actually a more complex question than it looks, because one has to take into account the social aspects of interpretation and validation, particularly in areas like ethics, or "sense of purpose".
In some sense, the "facts" are tested against physical reality, but ethics is tested against the society.

But as we've said before, one can really only discuss such issues from a secular viewpoint.

Noggin

Again, Nog, I agree in principle.

I have to say though, that we're not talking about judging "facts". I was talking about assessing "revelation" as to its validity versus someone else's similar experience.

>>Ed would probably dive on this too, but schizophrenia, as a euphemism for duplicity or mental contradiction, is incorrect and disrespectful of sufferers from schizophrenia.


Indeed. A horrible disease and a much-misused word.


Still catching up (I've had better things to do recently. Principally, boxing against a Wii ). For now I just want to add......I was somewhat underwhelmed by Pan's Labyrinth.

Correct, it is, however, a valid explanation of why some people believe in gods and that they have heard Jesus or their god speaking to them directly.

If you hear Elvis speaking to you, you get sectioned, if you hear Jesus speaking to you then no one questions it.

It was introduced to the discussion as a metaphor for doublethink and hypocrisy; a judgement call rather than a diagnosis, and something a lot of people sweat buckets trying to eradicate. Those I've met who suffer from schizophrenia have been singularly honest and trustworthy, not to mention incredibly generous and shit-hot artists.

Duplicity is generally a function of nurture, some mishap of (bitter) experience, where schizophrenia, unfortunately named, is widely considered a neurological mental illness generally accompanied by terrifying hallucinations, paranoia and suicidal depression, which is probably enough to be getting on with beside being equated with liars and turncoats.

<> (Ed)

I think the build-up of films like this often leads one to feel disappointed. I quite liked it myself, and might have liked it even more if I hadn't previously heard that it was *one of the best films ever*, etc.

az

The context in which *I *was becoming impatient with the use of the word, was Dogster feeling the need to apologise for describing people thinking 2 things at once, was 'shizophrenic'. I still that is perfectly acceptable and something that needs to be apologised for in that context.

I might describe something really unpleasant and corrosive affecting society as 'cancerous'; also a horrible disease. I would no more disrespect to cancer sufferers, than I would to Schizophrenics if I used the word 'schizophrenic' in a metaphorical context.

I think 3dots point is also interesting but slightly different.

One of the reasons I sometimes get impatient about too much pussy footing over words is that we have a culture founded on irony and parody; also rich in the use of metaphor. So unless someone is using a word to be deliberately hurtful and nasty, I don't have problem.

Effers; feeling a bit queer today,

And of course that is not to suggest being homosexual is a horrible disease; blimey I'm not a christian.

Touché. I just figured that something of the mystery (i.e. NIMBY horror) of mental illness is promulgated by those associations, just as it is with homosexuality.

Sorry didn't meant to ignore you az. I for some reason was unaware of the ravings over Pan's Labarinth (sp), so I agree that probavbly contributed to my enjoyment. I don't put it in my top 50. But maybe my top 100.

Yes you're right, Christopher. Maybe because I've been familiar with the exact symptoms of it, for as long as I can remember, I forget about general ignorance and stereotyping of it being a split mind.

<>

Oh, you didn't ignore me *here*, effers.

You (and everyone else) ignored my great West Wing 'chapter and verse' video clip on the god thread.

az

Vicky: "I was reminded of those days by a thread TRiG linked to ...."

To save any confusion, that too was in the 'God thread'. Az' West Wing link was also in the 'God thread'. I enjoyed it.

TRiG.

Well, if you insist ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU&feature=related


az

az I'm sorry I haven't got back to you on that link. But, (and I know you'll understand, about people struggling with colds and flu) I defo will check it out. I've been in a terrible mood all day with this virus thing I can't seem to shake off, and used what little bit of spare computer energy I had on the scrabble, ) Do you really think I'm going to tolerate any more humiliation on that?