Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-05-2002, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
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.

This is how comic books are created.

Jobar · 06-05-2002, 06:02 AM

I find Ojuice's ideas interesting though bizarre- I don't see them addressing the question of existence of gods, though. Let's put them in MRD...

MadMordigan · 06-05-2002, 06:48 AM

One thing to remember about my elitist ideas of the world: The elite is not necessarily better than the non-elite.

Why does every silly theistic philosphy require language to be mutilated? You can't just arbitrarily define a word to mean the opposite of what it commonly means and expect people to take you seriously.

IvanK · 06-05-2002, 07:15 AM

There are at least twice as many sides to "the theism debate" as there are gods. Or actually there is one more side than there are gods. Once you've done away with Yahweh it doesn't take a great deal more intellectual labor to do away with Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-05-2002, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
One thing to remember about my elitist ideas of the world: The elite is not necessarily better than the non-elite.

Why does every silly theistic philosphy require language to be mutilated? You can't just arbitrarily define a word to mean the opposite of what it commonly means and expect people to take you seriously.

You might as well argue that the Gods exist because Cheerios are more 'elite' than Cocoa Puffs. Calling this a philosophy may be a stretch. At the same time ...

Quote:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

—Through the Looking-Glass

Ojuice5001 · 06-05-2002, 08:30 AM

To the atheists: I am going to make an effort to abandon this strange philosophy. It does, as you say, rest on oversimplifications of taxonomy, history, etc. I knew they were oversimplifications, yet somehow didn't care. At the same time, once a philosophical system is believed, it can be hard to remove. Those of you who are ex-fundies know what I mean.

To Sikh: Your point is a real problem with polytheism, though it is not so much a theoretical problem as a practical one. The myth (which I believe) of the modern gods taking over the world from the Titans gives an idea of how things happened. The gods saw the world they had won, and they divided it into spheres of influence. Jupiter took the sky, Neptune took the sea, and Pluto took the lower regions of the world. Other gods took specialized parts of the world, such as Diana ruling the forests and large mammals, Postverta ruling the elements of the world that are remnants of or returns to previous states of affairs, etc. You are right that the world could be divided any number of different ways; there has to be a sort of "leap of faith" where you decide that a certain mythology portrays the division of the world accurately. I think there is no better mythology for this purpose than that of Rome.

Your profile says you are from Canada, so you may or may not be familiar with the US cabinet. The president has offices that rule over the various functions of the federal government. There is one for urban affairs, one for helping the energy-related interests of the country, etc. Just think of the gods as having a similar system.

ImGod · 06-05-2002, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
Now a non-materialistic atheist, like a Muslim, might well think my arguments have limited application to him, but I can't be all things to all men.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can be a Muslim and an atheist at the same time. I guess it must come from the redefinition of terms pointed out by MadMorgan. If I missed something, just let me know.

Ojuice5001 · 06-05-2002, 11:24 AM

I realized this was ambiguous a little after I wrote it. Don't know whether you seriously misunderstood. I meant "A non-materialistic atheist, as mighta Muslim...." I was making the point that not every atheist and monotheist might consider the original post's arguments to apply to them.

hinduwoman · 06-05-2002, 04:33 PM

OJuice, you did not answer to Typhon's post about the hindu gods.
While the Roman gods are no longer worshipped, the hindu gods still are.

Also, several Hindu kingdoms had their own patron gods whom they would invoke going to battle with other hindu kings. The winner would attribute their victory to his god. So obviously you do not have a cabinet here. How would you see this problem?

Ojuice5001 · 06-05-2002, 08:08 PM

Okay, the pantheon I worship has to contain a deity of the past. That is because I consider a patron deity to be important, and the patron who has revealed her/himself to me is a deity of the past. I know there is a Korean deity of the past, but what about in Hinduism? It doesn't matter how minor the deity is, but there does have to be one.

About people winning battles and establishing their patron deity. I see no problem with the Hindu pantheon getting along with each other less well than the Romans. Maybe the Roman gods divided the world up in a civilized fashion, but the Hindu deities made their division by everyone taking what he could. My answer was specific to the Roman pantheon.

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

06-05-2002, 06:02 AM	#42
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I find Ojuice's ideas interesting though bizarre- I don't see them addressing the question of existence of gods, though. Let's put them in MRD...

06-05-2002, 06:48 AM	#43
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	One thing to remember about my elitist ideas of the world: The elite is not necessarily better than the non-elite. Why does every silly theistic philosphy require language to be mutilated? You can't just arbitrarily define a word to mean the opposite of what it commonly means and expect people to take you seriously.

06-05-2002, 07:15 AM	#44
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	There are at least twice as many sides to "the theism debate" as there are gods. Or actually there is one more side than there are gods. Once you've done away with Yahweh it doesn't take a great deal more intellectual labor to do away with Zeus, Apollo and Athena.

06-05-2002, 08:30 AM	#46
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	To the atheists: I am going to make an effort to abandon this strange philosophy. It does, as you say, rest on oversimplifications of taxonomy, history, etc. I knew they were oversimplifications, yet somehow didn't care. At the same time, once a philosophical system is believed, it can be hard to remove. Those of you who are ex-fundies know what I mean. To Sikh: Your point is a real problem with polytheism, though it is not so much a theoretical problem as a practical one. The myth (which I believe) of the modern gods taking over the world from the Titans gives an idea of how things happened. The gods saw the world they had won, and they divided it into spheres of influence. Jupiter took the sky, Neptune took the sea, and Pluto took the lower regions of the world. Other gods took specialized parts of the world, such as Diana ruling the forests and large mammals, Postverta ruling the elements of the world that are remnants of or returns to previous states of affairs, etc. You are right that the world could be divided any number of different ways; there has to be a sort of "leap of faith" where you decide that a certain mythology portrays the division of the world accurately. I think there is no better mythology for this purpose than that of Rome. Your profile says you are from Canada, so you may or may not be familiar with the US cabinet. The president has offices that rule over the various functions of the federal government. There is one for urban affairs, one for helping the energy-related interests of the country, etc. Just think of the gods as having a similar system.

06-05-2002, 11:24 AM	#48
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	I realized this was ambiguous a little after I wrote it. Don't know whether you seriously misunderstood. I meant "A non-materialistic atheist, as mighta Muslim...." I was making the point that not every atheist and monotheist might consider the original post's arguments to apply to them.

06-05-2002, 04:33 PM	#49
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	OJuice, you did not answer to Typhon's post about the hindu gods. While the Roman gods are no longer worshipped, the hindu gods still are. Also, several Hindu kingdoms had their own patron gods whom they would invoke going to battle with other hindu kings. The winner would attribute their victory to his god. So obviously you do not have a cabinet here. How would you see this problem?

06-05-2002, 08:08 PM	#50
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Okay, the pantheon I worship has to contain a deity of the past. That is because I consider a patron deity to be important, and the patron who has revealed her/himself to me is a deity of the past. I know there is a Korean deity of the past, but what about in Hinduism? It doesn't matter how minor the deity is, but there does have to be one. About people winning battles and establishing their patron deity. I see no problem with the Hindu pantheon getting along with each other less well than the Romans. Maybe the Roman gods divided the world up in a civilized fashion, but the Hindu deities made their division by everyone taking what he could. My answer was specific to the Roman pantheon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.