Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 01-04-2003, 09:01 AM

You missed one: Panentheism: God is the universe, but also extends beyond the universe. That might be my vote if Pan and Dionysus didn't exist.

beyelzu · 01-04-2003, 10:18 AM

keith are you an objectivist a la ayn rand. just wondering, i realized that i agree with a lot of your posts then i realized that they sound like objectivist philosophy which i like although i do disagree with it in some ways.

i picked polytheism. i veiwed the question, more like if one of these choices was actually real which would you pick. and i like the old gods, they were fun and vengeful and really just like people.

thor is no more real than god, but at least in myths about thor he road around in a chariot pulled by goats that he would kill and eat every night. thats just cool. plus thor got drunk alot.

Keith Russell · 01-04-2003, 06:28 PM

beyel:

Yes, I'm an Objectivist a la Ayn Rand, although I disagree with some of it in some ways, too.

With what parts of Objectivism do you disagree?

If I can bring a 'God' (or gods) into existence just by 'picking', it's not going to be much of a 'God', now is it?

Keith.

hinduwoman · 01-04-2003, 07:23 PM

Pantehism and Polytheism combined. That is what I am accustomed to.

beyelzu · 01-04-2003, 10:21 PM

keith,

i am fine with most of objectivism. ayn rand hated comparisons to nietzche's ideas about ublimench(?sp) but nietzche's superman had alot in common with rand's perfect humans. nietzche stressed will power as a defining characteristic and rand stressed reason. but if you take a good look at her protagonists they all had a large amount of will power. i think that her disregard of this trait is most interesting.

the main point i disagree with the philosophy however, is that i believe that reality is ultimately subjective. but we must behave as if it is objective. seeing is believing. i view this dichotomy to be much like newtonian versus relativistic physics. newtonian actually only describes a small part of reality but it is the one that we function in. similarly, reality is subjective on the whole, but by applying objectivist philosophy life functions better. that was a really awkward sentence

i guess what i am saying is reality is subjective but since it seems that a=a, then a does equal a. i guess in that way my philosophy is some sort of extremely egocentric subjectivism. thats why i argue that lack of proof of gods existence equals lack of existence. i hope that i explained that ok.

grady

Keith Russell · 01-05-2003, 08:25 AM

Grady:

If reality is subjective, then 'A' might be 'A' after all. If reality is subjective, you simply cannot know.

Nor can you know--if reality is subjective--that reality is really subjective. If reality is truly subjective, again, you simply cannot know that it is.

(So again, if reality is subjective, then it might not be, after all. You can't know.)

So, what leads you to this conclusion? On what do you base your belief that reality is subjective?

Keith.

Scottyman · 01-05-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by L. Noctivagans
Option one: Monotheism - One omnimax diety in charge of everything (temprament and attitude notwithstanding)

Option two: Limited Monotheism - One diety, in charge competantly, but somehow not completely omnimax.

Option three: Polytheism - Multiple dieties, none omnimax, each with influence over a different sphere of existance.

Option four: Omni-Polytheism - Multiple omnimax dieties in charge of everything in a sort of council-type set up.

Option five: Animism - Each rock, tree, animal type, weather event and landscape feature has its own resident god-spirit-thingie.

Option six: Pantheism - God reveals itself through nature. Everything that's natural is a part of a higher being.

Option seven: Reverse Pantheism - Nature reveals itself through God. Everything that's natural contributes to the creation of the higher being.

Option eight: Neopaganism - Like, it's all totally true and stuff. Totally. All of it. But it's all, like, part of one big god. Which makes us technically, like, Monotheist Lite.

LOL

beyelzu · 01-05-2003, 04:03 PM

keith,

i veiw reality as being kind of like a quantum physics probability wave. where all possible realities exist until you look at the situation and see which one is real. like the cat in the box experiment in the book in search of shroedingers cat. so more or less the determining factors are a persons observations. the cat experiment is just a thought experiment. on the other hand, the electron test which i mentioned in another post i think is a real valid experiment. in the test a single electron can run into itself as long as you arent looking. if you are looking at the electron it cant do it. so by observation you force objective reality on the electron. so, a might not be a, unless you are looking at it, in which case a is a. i know it sounds odd. on of the reasons i called this egocentric subjectivism is because of the importance of the observer. i behave as if objective reality does exist, because i observe reality and thus make it objective.

incidentally, i also believe that subjective reality necessitates the lack of a omnimax god, because such a god would be an ultimate observer and there could be no subjective reality, and an electron couldnt run into itself.

i believe that if a seems a then it is. in fact that is how one proves that supposition in real life.

Magazine · 01-07-2003, 12:51 PM

All of them.

Keith Russell · 01-07-2003, 01:26 PM

Grady:

I don't see how your theory holds up against the fact that reality does not obey our wishes.

Keith.

View Poll Results: If a higher power existed, which system do you think would be the most accurate?
Monotheism	3	6.98%
Limited Monotheism	2	4.65%
Polytheism	6	13.95%
Omni-Polytheism	1	2.33%
Animism	2	4.65%
Pantheism	24	55.81%
Reverse Pantheism	3	6.98%
Neopaganism	2	4.65%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

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

01-04-2003, 09:01 AM	#11
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	You missed one: Panentheism: God is the universe, but also extends beyond the universe. That might be my vote if Pan and Dionysus didn't exist.

01-04-2003, 10:18 AM	#12
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	keith are you an objectivist a la ayn rand. just wondering, i realized that i agree with a lot of your posts then i realized that they sound like objectivist philosophy which i like although i do disagree with it in some ways. i picked polytheism. i veiwed the question, more like if one of these choices was actually real which would you pick. and i like the old gods, they were fun and vengeful and really just like people. thor is no more real than god, but at least in myths about thor he road around in a chariot pulled by goats that he would kill and eat every night. thats just cool. plus thor got drunk alot.

01-04-2003, 06:28 PM	#13
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	beyel: Yes, I'm an Objectivist a la Ayn Rand, although I disagree with some of it in some ways, too. With what parts of Objectivism do you disagree? If I can bring a 'God' (or gods) into existence just by 'picking', it's not going to be much of a 'God', now is it? Keith.

01-04-2003, 07:23 PM	#14
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Pantehism and Polytheism combined. That is what I am accustomed to.

01-04-2003, 10:21 PM	#15
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	keith, i am fine with most of objectivism. ayn rand hated comparisons to nietzche's ideas about ublimench(?sp) but nietzche's superman had alot in common with rand's perfect humans. nietzche stressed will power as a defining characteristic and rand stressed reason. but if you take a good look at her protagonists they all had a large amount of will power. i think that her disregard of this trait is most interesting. the main point i disagree with the philosophy however, is that i believe that reality is ultimately subjective. but we must behave as if it is objective. seeing is believing. i view this dichotomy to be much like newtonian versus relativistic physics. newtonian actually only describes a small part of reality but it is the one that we function in. similarly, reality is subjective on the whole, but by applying objectivist philosophy life functions better. that was a really awkward sentence i guess what i am saying is reality is subjective but since it seems that a=a, then a does equal a. i guess in that way my philosophy is some sort of extremely egocentric subjectivism. thats why i argue that lack of proof of gods existence equals lack of existence. i hope that i explained that ok. grady

01-05-2003, 08:25 AM	#16
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Grady: If reality is subjective, then 'A' might be 'A' after all. If reality is subjective, you simply cannot know. Nor can you know--if reality is subjective--that reality is really subjective. If reality is truly subjective, again, you simply cannot know that it is. (So again, if reality is subjective, then it might not be, after all. You can't know.) So, what leads you to this conclusion? On what do you base your belief that reality is subjective? Keith.

01-05-2003, 04:03 PM	#18
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	keith, i veiw reality as being kind of like a quantum physics probability wave. where all possible realities exist until you look at the situation and see which one is real. like the cat in the box experiment in the book in search of shroedingers cat. so more or less the determining factors are a persons observations. the cat experiment is just a thought experiment. on the other hand, the electron test which i mentioned in another post i think is a real valid experiment. in the test a single electron can run into itself as long as you arent looking. if you are looking at the electron it cant do it. so by observation you force objective reality on the electron. so, a might not be a, unless you are looking at it, in which case a is a. i know it sounds odd. on of the reasons i called this egocentric subjectivism is because of the importance of the observer. i behave as if objective reality does exist, because i observe reality and thus make it objective. incidentally, i also believe that subjective reality necessitates the lack of a omnimax god, because such a god would be an ultimate observer and there could be no subjective reality, and an electron couldnt run into itself. i believe that if a seems a then it is. in fact that is how one proves that supposition in real life.

01-07-2003, 12:51 PM	#19
Magazine Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 40	All of them.

01-07-2003, 01:26 PM	#20
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Grady: I don't see how your theory holds up against the fact that reality does not obey our wishes. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.