Are you familiar with the general notion of ontology - that is discussion about which things are "realer" than others?
How (in)valid are arguments "based on worst example"?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Unless you're referring to a triangle then no 
Please elaborate
That aside, going back to the OP, do you agree that teaching people the idea that there is One True God, One True Book and One True Prophet leads to a general intolerance in the overall population of other people's Gods, Books and Prophets? I mean, this isn't a case of ""based on worst example", believe it or not, it's a much more common place perspective than the Gods is are like Triangles and Goddesses like circles....
Please elaborate
That aside, going back to the OP, do you agree that teaching people the idea that there is One True God, One True Book and One True Prophet leads to a general intolerance in the overall population of other people's Gods, Books and Prophets? I mean, this isn't a case of ""based on worst example", believe it or not, it's a much more common place perspective than the Gods is are like Triangles and Goddesses like circles....
triangles are a good a place as any to start.Unless you're referring to a triangle then no
Please elaborate
Do you think triangles are real?
Not in the slightest, since issues of intolerance etc have as much to do with monotheism as moustaches.
If reality and truth are side issues of vox populi, we could just take a vote
:shrug:
It may be possible, if we knew every molecule and every possible life experience, to mathematically calculate a probably of intolerance.That doesn't stop you from getting up in the morning
Do you think teaching people to be racist leads can lead to racial violence? Not in ALL people mind you, but, for a certain demographic.
What if we were to go back 200 years. To middle America in the deep south. Some people owned Slaves. Most people were taught to believe African Slaves were not human. At least not as human as their White owners. They were sub-human. Occasionally people beat their Slaves. Not all people, but some people used to beat their Slaves. Back then, Slave owning was Okey-dokey with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you think that the harsh treatment of Slaves was a reflection of this meme in which Whites were taught Blacks were sub-human? Or, is that just to much of an irregular triangle to get your mind wrapped around?
You are assuming that I'm a fault because I'm picking an arguments "based on worst example". But that's not the point. I could just as easily picked any example. The point I'm making is simply that some people act irrationally based on the irrationalities they were taught. That's not all THAT difficult to grasp? In some cases this is a violent behavior. That's also reasonable. In the case of the One God, One Book, One Prophet meme trifector - this leads a large number of otherwise pretty decent people to act intolerantly towards people of a different God, different Book and different Prophet. Of those people a small minority will act violently.
Suppose it was something different. Suppose we were talking about the common Chinese superstition that 8 is a lucky number. Do you suppose that for some people being taught the 8-is-lucky meme, is why they like to base things in their life around the number 8 That's not a triangle! And yet seems reasonable! SSSSSShocking!!
Do you have a form of monotheism that can accept that other Gods, other Books and Other Prophets are equally as valid as your own? If so than that's a good, and not all that common, form of monotheism. Is that what you're trying to tell me?
Do you think teaching people to be racist leads can lead to racial violence? Not in ALL people mind you, but, for a certain demographic.
What if we were to go back 200 years. To middle America in the deep south. Some people owned Slaves. Most people were taught to believe African Slaves were not human. At least not as human as their White owners. They were sub-human. Occasionally people beat their Slaves. Not all people, but some people used to beat their Slaves. Back then, Slave owning was Okey-dokey with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you think that the harsh treatment of Slaves was a reflection of this meme in which Whites were taught Blacks were sub-human? Or, is that just to much of an irregular triangle to get your mind wrapped around?
You are assuming that I'm a fault because I'm picking an arguments "based on worst example". But that's not the point. I could just as easily picked any example. The point I'm making is simply that some people act irrationally based on the irrationalities they were taught. That's not all THAT difficult to grasp? In some cases this is a violent behavior. That's also reasonable. In the case of the One God, One Book, One Prophet meme trifector - this leads a large number of otherwise pretty decent people to act intolerantly towards people of a different God, different Book and different Prophet. Of those people a small minority will act violently.
Suppose it was something different. Suppose we were talking about the common Chinese superstition that 8 is a lucky number. Do you suppose that for some people being taught the 8-is-lucky meme, is why they like to base things in their life around the number 8
That's not a triangle! And yet seems reasonable! SSSSSShocking!! Do you have a form of monotheism that can accept that other Gods, other Books and Other Prophets are equally as valid as your own? If so than that's a good, and not all that common, form of monotheism. Is that what you're trying to tell me?
It may be possible, if we knew every molecule and every possible life experience, to mathematically calculate a probably of intolerance.That doesn't stop you from getting up in the morning
Do you think teaching people to be racist leads can lead to racial violence? Not in ALL people mind you, but, for a certain demographic.
What if we were to go back 200 years. To middle America in the deep south. Some people owned Slaves. Most people were taught to believe African Slaves were not human. At least not as human as their White owners. They were sub-human. Occasionally people beat their Slaves. Not all people, but some people used to beat their Slaves. Back then, Slave owning was Okey-dokey with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you think that the harsh treatment of Slaves was a reflection of this meme in which Whites were taught Blacks were sub-human? Or, is that just to much of an irregular triangle to get your mind wrapped around?
You are assuming that I'm a fault because I'm picking an arguments "based on worst example". But that's not the point. I could just as easily picked any example. The point I'm making is simply that some people act irrationally based on the irrationalities they were taught. That's not all THAT difficult to grasp? In some cases this is a violent behavior. That's also reasonable. In the case of the One God, One Book, One Prophet meme trifector - this leads a large number of otherwise pretty decent people to act intolerantly towards people of a different God, different Book and different Prophet. Of those people a small minority will act violently.
Suppose it was something different. Suppose we were talking about the common Chinese superstition that 8 is a lucky number. Do you suppose that for some people being taught the 8-is-lucky meme, is why they like to base things in their life around the number 8
Do you have a form of monotheism that can accept that other Gods, other Books and Other Prophets are equally as valid as your own? If so than that's a good, and not all that common, form of monotheism. Is that what you're trying to tell me?
once again, we could be talking about what the romans did to the greeks, liverpool did to chelsea or what moustaches do for the portrayal of atheists
:shrug:
why limit yourself to monotheism?
Thank you for your response. Would you still like me to reply, though?
I think Michael has a point, though he hasn't worded it precisely enough.
For all practical intents and purposes, when people are taught that there is One True God etc., this is intended to mean "... and this One True God, One True Book and One True Prophet are the ones that we believe in, while all others are wrong, false or at least inferior."
I do not know of any examples of anyone who would teach that there is One True God, whereby this teacher wouldn't simultaneously assume or claim that they have full or at least adequate knowledge of this One True God (thereby excluding others/from other traditions from having such knowledge).
Because being wrong about the others doesn't come with the threat of eternal and irrepairable consequences.
or alternatively, if there is one true god, you would expect to see characteristics within living entities that cannot be extinguished even within the greatest depths of ignorance - IOW its unavoidable
depends on one's values.
I'm pretty sure if I looked hard enough I could find some instance of a person committing suicide or something because their football team lost
I am not sure I understand?
Why/how would it follow that if there is One True God, then we could see characteristics within living entities that cannot be extinguished even within the greatest depths of ignorance?
What if one's values are all wrong, though?
Because if there is one true god, there is one constant underlying (personified) principle that underlies everything
then one suffers
What implications would that have?
That is rather obvious ...
What I am trying to get at is that perhaps the way to become truly happy is to deliberately do certain things even though one finds them morally repugnant or at least that they cause one suffering.
One of the first things that the Christians have made clear to me is that my values are all wrong. For example that my idea that it is not love that God tortures His children in hell for all eternity - that this is just my worldly morality, and that those who believe that it indeed is love that God tortures His children in hell for all eternity - that the values of such people are the ones that are right.
Anyway, the basic dilemma here is about the many perhaps and how to choose one of them.
Even in your tradition, you say that the mode of goodness at first feels like poison. So just because I suffer at something does not yet mean that said thing is wrong or that I shouldn't do it.
So I don't see how one's values can help in one's decision as to what to do, which path to pursue.
?
Last edited:
that there is a rising tide that lifts all boats
hence fideism was called to the gauntlet at a certain critical stage in the development of christian philosophy
the suffering on offer in other modes is more extensive
Even objectively speaking, the values that surround the mode of goodness are more enlightening.
I mean if a man punches his wife in the head and then kicks her repeatedly in the stomach while saying "I love you", does that seem okay?
And similarly, does a god who tortures his living entities for eternity for their thought crimes while saying "I love you", does that seem okay?
Do you think you are capable of complying to more elegant behavior in your dealings with your loved ones?
If so, what do you possess that (this supposed) god doesn't?
:shrug:
I still don't see the relevance of this?
I cannot prove that such behavior isn't wrong, though.
I suppose so, but I cannot prove it is right to behave that way.
And if I cannot prove it, how am I justified to behave that way?
A flaw. From the perspective of many theists, not just Christians, "intelligent discernment" is considered a flaw, something to be ashamed of, something to get rid of, something that is a mark of impiety.
Last edited: