Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BWE · 07-09-2007, 09:45 AM

Hail to the stale old invective. Dave, don't you have a debate post due about now?

Constant Mews · 07-09-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhaedas

Does having an initial creator who then populates the universe with various gods make a religion monotheistic? If so, most religions are monotheistic in their beginning. I can't think of a mythology that has multiple creators.

Sure, initially. Remember that the many 'gods' are often just men who have been 'deified.'

Sure. Just like YAHWEH?

Constant Mews · 07-09-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Roger seems to be of the opinion that the existence of this mythical population of extremely long-lived humans is not subject to debate.

I'm not the only one having difficulty with this thread, I see! I did not express any such view, nor do I hold it. My point was about the kinds of arguments that were being made; that both sides agreed that any such people were not like us today, precisely in that they lived for a long time.

Quote:

Apparently he never read the OP here, because that is supposedly the topic here. He hasn't addressed that particular topic at all, other than to imply it's not worth debating because it's self-evidently true.

Have a look at my posts and see the connection. Unlike most posters I really *did* read the OP and think about what it meant, and what would be involved.

But the difficulty with this thread is that 90% of the posters have now turned off their minds and are parrotting stale old invective almost in set terms. This of course squeezes out any possibility of intelligent discussion, and leads to people attributing to others views that they do not hold on subjects that they have not discussed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

We are discussing the OP. You appear to wish to discuss something else. Feel free to start a new thread. And I apologize for Dave and his stale old invective. I don't know that he has anything else to offer at this point.

The Evil One · 07-09-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MORE ON ORIGINAL MONOTHEISM IN EGYPT

Quote:

Monotheism in Ancient Egypt

<snip>http://www.submission.info/perspecti...ent_times.html

How exactly can you cite as evidence of original monotheism a document that ....

* praises Amun-Ra (known from other sources to be a fusion of an earlier God called Amun and a separate earlier god called Ra from another part of Egypt,l ie more gods earlier in time)

* is president of the gods

* has more forms than any other god?

Egypt is a classic instance of steadily declining polytheism. They started out with lots of gods in several local pantheons, slowly merged them together over time, and eventually got down to about two or three (or one in the case of Akhenaten). You are claiming the exact opposite process.

You (and Budge if you are citing Budge correctly) have discovered extremely good evidence for the move from polytheism to an abstract monotheism and are claiming it to be evidence for original monotheism.

Debating you would be a bit more of a challenge if fewer of the sources you posted undermined your own case so easily.

The Evil One · 07-09-2007, 09:56 AM

Actually (slaps forehead) why are we arguing about whether monotheism is original or not? Surely this is a derail? How is it relevent to the OP?

The Evil One · 07-09-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Thank you for your thoughts, but in fact I have, as I have said, no interest in the (useless) question that you want to discuss.

You are on a thread full of people all discussing said question, Roger. If you have no interest in discussing it, your presence here, and your sniping at those who do have an interest in discussing it, is in want of explanation. Although your trouble getting a "grip" on the thread is probably adequately explained thereby.

BWE · 07-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

You are on a thread full of people all discussing said question, Roger. If you have no interest in discussing it, your presence here, and your sniping at those who do have an interest in discussing it, is in want of explanation. Although your trouble getting a "grip" on the thread is probably adequately explained thereby.

Some of my best friends are gay.

The Evil One · 07-09-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

You are on a thread full of people all discussing said question, Roger. If you have no interest in discussing it, your presence here, and your sniping at those who do have an interest in discussing it, is in want of explanation. Although your trouble getting a "grip" on the thread is probably adequately explained thereby.

Some of my best friends are gay.

Eh? I don't know what you think I said, but I'm moderately confident it's not what I think I said.

Calilasseia · 07-09-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In answer to your summary dismissal I provide
(irrelevant stuff snipped)

Er, excuse me ... YOU were the one who wanted the invariance of physical law establishing. When I provide material documents establishing this, you describe this as irrelevant?

Thank you for that wonderful insight into your debating technique. This is the second time you have done this. I therefore conclude that continued engagement with you is a waste of time.

Constant Mews · 07-09-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Egypt is a classic instance of steadily declining polytheism. They started out with lots of gods in several local pantheons, slowly merged them together over time, and eventually got down to about two or three (or one in the case of Akhenaten). You are claiming the exact opposite process.

I don't think you've grasped Dave's convoluted thinking. He is claiming that the 'lots of gods in several local pantheons' isn't correct; that it was really 'several local gods' and in each locality, there was only a single god. Each group fixed on certain characteristics of the one god and in the process, distorted the image of god to appear as if each group had its own distinct god. It was only after this that pantheism arose from the merging of the various groups who had modified their image of the one original true god.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2007, 09:45 AM	#321
BWE Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 624	Hail to the stale old invective. Dave, don't you have a debate post due about now?

07-09-2007, 09:56 AM	#325
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Actually (slaps forehead) why are we arguing about whether monotheism is original or not? Surely this is a derail? How is it relevent to the OP?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.