daemon

Schizophrenics are rarer than the sane. Therefore, schizophrenics are higher than sane people.

People with one blue eye and one brown eye are more rare than people with matched eyes. Therefore, people with mismatched eyes are higher than those with matched eyes.

Aryans are more rare than "mud races" and non-Aryan whites, therefore Aryans are higher than all other races.

I think at this point the potential danger in this evaluative method should be obvious.

Jayhawker Soule

Exactly!

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Typhon

NOTE TO MODERATOR: I would again suggest, that this thread be moved to the Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy forum.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=13" target="_blank">Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy </a>

OJ...

I didn't mean to call you racist or juvenile in previous posts, I have no idea about your personal views, only what you present here. If you take that away from my comments, my apologies.

However, I stand by the fact that I think your ideas, as presented, contain some serious flaws. Also, I personally find some of the ideas, such as an "elitist" universe, to be not only not backed up by your claims, but slightly disturbing. Likely this is because they seem to me to lead easily to a possibly racist or cultural/egocentric viewpoint that I do not think is either healthy or accurate.

Again though, I appreciate you presenting your views in an honest and responsive manner, even if I do not agree with them.

One more question. You've discussed what you think are the role/nature of such monotheistic gods as found in the Abrahamic traditions. How do you deal with for example the Hindu gods?

Hinduism is not only the world's third largest religion, making claim to over 700 million followers, it is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion. Placing a firm date on the beginnings of this diverse faith is difficult. However, it can likely trace its roots back to perhaps as early as 1500 BCE. This would place it at least 500 to 800 years before the founding of Rome. Even taking into account that the majority of the Roman gods are in fact Greek, with Latin names, this would predate the formal formation of that faith as well.

Admittedly, the Minoan civilization of Crete is much older than that, but then too is the civilization on the Indian sub-continent that likely spawned Hinduism. Minoan religion is also, not identical to what later developed in the rest of the Aegean, though it no doubt had influences in the formation of the Greek mythos.

Indian culture and civilization has been "advanced" and "stable" during much of the period when Western Europeans were by many standards, including those of later Rome, "barbaric." It remains a world power to this day and provided it does not foolishly destroy itself in a nuclear/religious war with Islamic Pakistan, it will likely be an influential and growing power in the century to come.

So, considering that the polytheistic pantheon of Hinduism has not only likely predated those of the Romans, but outlasted and achieved a much greater following than ever the gods of Rome could have laid claim to, even at the stage of Rome's greatest expansion, why do not the Hindu gods hold a "higher" place in your system of worship?

Best,

.T.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Ron Singh

OJuice, you took a stand against Christianity, and claimed it to be a stance against monotheism. What argument have you against monotheism, not a specific doctrine.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh

Ojuice5001

One thing to remember about my elitist ideas of the world: The elite is not necessarily better than the non-elite. For instance, an episode of Friends is lower than a movie like Dude, Where's My Car? More energy went into producing the movie; it has a more complex plot, etc. Does that mean the episode of Friends isn't as good? No. The episode of Friends can have more "good" qualities even if it has fewer qualities. The desire to eat marshmallows is lower than the desire to be rich, since it is a simpler and more transient phenomenon. Does that mean that it is better to seek riches than marshmallows? No. Of course, the ordinary way of thinking is that the elite is better by definition, but that doesn't stand to scrutiny.

I would say I see the flaws in this philosophy, which I created in the year 2000 and named intelligence theory. Somehow, in the attempt to categorize everything in the universe, I glossed over the uniquenesses of things. Intelligence theory was an attempt to understand the gods through reason, and it was around before my belief in the Roman gods. Now it has faded away without ever being rejected, and I bring it up again only when it is useful for Roman apologetics Tell me, Typhon, how do you think societies should be categorized?

Ojuice5001

Basically, the world has diverse phenomena that work at cross purposes with each other. I think that means that if you postulate a supernatural cause for the world, it makes more sense to postulate one that is as plural and divided as the things in the world. Sorry not to elaborate, but I think you can see what my reasoning is. If you would like specifics, ask me for them.

Philosoft

This is entirely unsupported by and generally contrary to your earlier formulation. How do we not conclude you are making this up as you go?

<strong> What in the world does categorization have to do with theistic reasoning?

<strong> Not for long.

<strong> Any of about a hundred thousand different ways. What did you have in mind?

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Ojuice5001

Philosoft:

Being in existence for a long time is a sign of being in the elite. Things that exist for a long time usually, but not necessarily, have positive qualities. That's how I reconcile these divergent statements.

Well, the idea was to look at the world and determine what kind of god (not gods, this was a deistic approach) would have created the world. And to do that, I needed to create an (over)simplified classification scheme for the world. And somehow that scheme ran away into a philosophical system. This thread is making me reconsider intelligence theory, as there are clearly confusions and sweeping generalizations latent in it.

Something that systemizes the differences between how social institutions interact

Philosoft

Is there anything else, while you're adding stuff to your formulation that was nowhere in the original?

<strong> Not to mention that for any god that you consider likely to have created a particular world, I can come up with a different one equally as likely.


<strong> Not asking much are you?

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Ron Singh

I disagree. The universe exists in unary. It is. On the earth, there is rain, snow, sleet, etc. Should this infer the existence of a unique god for each of these?
Or does this mean that there is just one rain god?
Well in that case, why not just one omnipotent god?
So if this universe were to contain no planets that had evaporation of water, would this mean that there is no rain god?

You say that the universe exists in different aspects? Okay. There is a different God for the wave opposed to the particle aspects of things?

More importantly, how do you distinguish one god from another?

Good riddance, and God(s) bless!

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh