One God, One Book

[Michael]

Tolerance for what? Risky behavior?

Saying

If you keep smoking cigarettes you have a high chance you may get lung cancer.

translates as

Even if I keep smoking cigarettes I have some chance I may not get lung cancer, so I'll take that chance and smoke because I like it so much.

in the mind of every person who is determined to enjoy themselves.

I used to smoke. I can still smoke. I chose to quite mainly because I learned how harmful it was to my body - through science based education and (as LG would appreciate) personal perspective!

I guess the question is: Should people be allowed to smoke?

 

[Doreen]

Wow, how did the thread get here.

Did it really take scientific research to let you know it was poor for your health?

I am very concerned about empiricists and what they need to make a decision, I really am.

 

[mike47]

I used to smoke. I can still smoke. I chose to quite mainly because I learned how harmful it was to my body - through science based education and (as LG would appreciate) personal perspective!

I guess the question is: Should people be allowed to smoke?

And the answer is : people should not be allowed to smoke because they harm themselves and others who do not want to be harmed by smoking .

 

[Michael]

Wow, how did the thread get here.

Did it really take scientific research to let you know it was poor for your health?

I am very concerned about empiricists and what they need to make a decision, I really am.

..haha.. .well, I can say this much, nicotine is gods damn addictive. At least for me. I think it took, what? 5 or 6 years of quitting to finally quit for good.

That said, while I don't like smoking in bars, if people choose to smoke they should have that right. Maybe it should reflect in their health premiums?

 

[lightgigantic]

OK LG, but, suppose that one group of mathematicians suggested that all other forms of math were inferior and in some way wrong. They taught that Only their Math was True Math. Suppose these mathematicians had a Math book that they taught was the Only Math book. This math book was handed down to them from the Last Mathematician. There is no improving this Math - it's Perfect (at least in their crazy world).

Now, suppose some of the members of this math cult murdered people for adding to the already "Perfect" Math book.
Murdered people for developing new and better ways to do mathematics.
Murdered people for suggesting there was a New Mathematician.

Could the Fundamental ideologies inherent in their Math Cult be the reason why some (not all) were motivated to violence? While they may feel that attacking their intolerance ideology is an attack against themselves, it's not. It's attacking the ideology.



Think about this, how would the Fundamental ideas of: Only One True Math, Only One True Math Book and Only One True Last Mathematician have on a society? Do you think it could stunt their Mathematical development over the course of 1000s of years. Isn't this exactly what we see? Could if be that they may have problems with their neighbors (who happen to do math differently) - Isn't this something else we may see. And would it really be so surprising to see it?

Then you still lack the means to tar a singular outlook as being necessarily derogatory of all other outlooks, despite its maintaining that it offers the topmost

:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

Judges and judgment

In modern multicultural societies, what good comes from the twin concepts of One God and One True book?

We'll come back to the issue of good, but for the moment it should be noted that monotheism is essentially a necessary theistic philosophical step in a quest for sublimity. That is, if you're going to have theism among a consciousness well-described by its ability to organize and classify, one should expect that the outlook will eventually demand some sort of hierarchy, and once that idea develops, monotheism is inevitable. Polytheism is essentially complicated monotheism. That is, if you have a sun god, why is s/he the sun god and not the moon, or the lightning, or the wind? What holds the gods in place? What fixes their finite attributes? The answer to that is the hidden monotheistic source in polytheism. As with the Greeks: first chaos, then time and order, then gods. There is, hidden within chaos and time, God.

Wouldn't it be much better to teach kids there may, or may not, be lots of different Gods and Goddesses and Alien Overlords? And that all of these religious books are equally as valid as the next?

But they're not. Abramism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Dao, and other longstanding, classic religions have about them a certain sense of anthropological and psychological riddle. Comparatively, faith in EBE overlords is a nascent religion that may or may not survive. The difference between a religion and a faery tale is in what people do with the ideas. Religion is one of humankind's earliest artistic endeavors.

Which brings us back, nearly, to the issue of good. Before the scientific era, gods and spirits were real to the people who experienced them. Most of the faithful people we know today are adulterated by science; part of their religious neurosis is reconciling the fantastic aspects with reality, or else keeping reality closed to only one such egregious violation. As we see with Abramic fundamentalists, the farther one withdraws from the rational Universe, the less capably one interacts with the human endeavor.

There is a lot invested in religion. There are logical schemes occurring within its confines. Rhetorically speaking, atheists simply disagree with the presuppositions at the outset, e.g., God exists, &c. But each god exists as a centerpiece—a justification—for a logical scheme within the religious structure. That the structure is so unstable is its own problem, but comparatively the instability within classic religions is considerably less than the nascent. There is no fixed pantheon of alien overlords yet. There is no time-tested cultural ability to define, preserve, and respond to the theology of alien overlords. And, rationally speaking, that time-tested cultural ability of classic religions to define, preserve, and respond to both theology and circumstance is a testament to its value.

The good that arises from the transmission of religious faith—of which monotheism is an inevitable product, thus demanding the transmission of one god and one book—is found in its social organization. The ability of the faith to redefine itself in response to circumstance is its testament in this context. The challenge is to redefine the faith in an evolutionarily beneficial manner; recent history has moved so quickly as to test human capacity for adjustment, hence the weakness of religious faith and the rise of atheism, nihilism, and neurosis. The same forces driving Christian faith into crisis are also vital to understanding the medication of American society; between booze, street drugs, and prescriptions for brain candy, more and more people are looking to chemistry for insight and comfort. It is very hard to adjust to the nearly amorphous demands of life and reality, as circumstantial and thematic demands are transitory and evolving. And here is where the religions meet crisis.

From the ancients up to Newton, science was in a state of flux as it related to mystical tendencies among people. From Newton forward, nature has crept steadily within reach. Newton stole the mechanics of nature from God, but the cyclical transformation of faith and knowledge has accelerated in centuries since. The nineteenth century saw Darwin unhinge human perceptions of life; Marx broke the human perception of society; Freud transformed the human perception of humanity itself. The beginning of the twentieth century saw Christianity struggling to maintain a tenuous grasp on nature. Endowed by God, we were, to be its masters. By the end of the twentieth century, humanity faced the question of global warming. We still struggle with the question of whether or not we can be so influential in nature, but also that we can be so nakedly subject to its forces.

The question, going forward, is what monotheistic faith offers. If the answer is more of what we've seen in recent decades, Abramism will continue its descent into crisis, and in its very human way try to take as many people with it as possible. What can people do? What seems like radical change could have been handled more progressively over the last couple centuries; there is a backlog. Even as such, had these issues been handled in stride, they would still be tremendously challenging. From the Greeks to Newton, the adjustment required how many societies, and how many years? Even the gap from Newton to Marx was comparatively short, and from there Darwin and Freud. By the time we get to Einstein in the twentieth century, the faithful have no idea what to think. They did not adapt well, but as with any such human undertaking, they still can.

Atheistic inquiry is quickly ossifying around several erroneous presuppositions. There is a very fixed, atemporal aspect about the presuppositions very reminiscent of religious faith. The question at hand in this thread suggests inflexibility insofar as it is most comprehensible according to the terms of an exceptionally short period of theological history. One can easily look at the disarray in religious communities today and find plenty to criticize, but the human limitations of any given body faithful do not accurately describe the philosophical limitations of the faith. In history and prehistory alike, transmission of religious faith offered a metaphorical torch to light the way and pass on to the next generation of explorers. It is not unjust to wonder if the religious templates of old have served their purpose, as human circumstances present challenges unthinkable to the original traditions. But we cannot presume the problem with the picture is the brush, canvas, or paints, until we understand the capabilities of any given painter.

If we look at the faith, and not the faithful, the answers emerge in terms of art, psychology, and anthropology. If we look at the faithful exclusively, we both witness and engage in a human tragedy of epic proportions. Rational critics can find a rational approach to understanding the relationship between faith and faithful, but it's not easy, it's not a static phenomenon, and it's not something a whole lot of critical atheists are undertaking these days.

 

[Michael]

Then you still lack the means to tar a singular outlook as being necessarily derogatory of all other outlooks, despite its maintaining that it offers the topmost

Are you sure. I mean, have you ever asked a Muslim what they think of the Bible? Or what they think of Multiple Gods. Overwhelmingly you will hear the following responses: The Bible is flawed. There is only One God.

Ask a monotheist about Shinto polytheism. Any serious monotheist (often referred to as a fundamentalist) will at best say the polytheists are simple-minded simpletons who need to see and touch their Gods (that is if those simpletons really believe in the divinity of their Gods) and that in reality they are worshipping God (which the monotheistic knows all about - all about) and at worse that their are worshiping false idols.
THAT isn't universal disrespect?
If you can not see that this line-of reasoning has led to violence and countless deaths, well, I don't know what to say LG? Check out a history book?

:shrug:

Yeah, no two people agree 100% on anything, but, riddle me this: Why were the 2500 year old Buddhas in Afghanistan destroyed? This place was Mecca for Buddhists. It'd be no different than dropping on nuke on the Kabaa or the Temple Mount.

What was their motivation?

(please don't say The West.... )

We'll come back to the issue of good, but for the moment it should be noted that monotheism is essentially a necessary theistic philosophical step in a quest for sublimity. That is, if you're going to have theism among a consciousness well-described by its ability to organize and classify, one should expect that the outlook will eventually demand some sort of hierarchy, and once that idea develops, monotheism is inevitable.

Is it? I agree it is common for monotheism to develop. But, I'm not certain it's inevitable. Not all Hindu are monotheistic - are they? What about the Buddhist and Shinto?

In Is Monotheistic Theology an Obstacle to Universal Bioethics? the author concludes that monotheism need not be an obstacle to universal bioethics. But as you can see, it's not exactly designed well for it either. I'd say the author himself suggests Religious systems which are polytheistic are more accepting of multiple approaches, so I focused on monotheistic religions to see how they could function with a universal bioethics model.

The author is Jewish.


Another thing that's interesting to note. If you ever have a chance to visit Japanese Temples you'll note that Buddhist Temples provide Shinto Shrines for homage and Shinto Shrines provide Buddhist with places for Prayer. Perhaps aspects of these religions have surpassed monotheism? Indeed, there once was a monotheistic-like Buddhist cult that cropped up in Japan (pretty much in the exact manner you suggest). They became very violent with their neighboring Japanese and were eventually so annoying they were all put to the sword.

This seems to suggest that (1) if people are not clear minded that can fall into the trap of monotheism and (2) once in it, it isn't long before intolerance classic of monotheism leads to a sort of violence we see from monotheistic religions - against people who don't share their same belief.


I wonder if the people who developed Buddhism didn't have a deep insight into the human condition and take this into account when they formulated their religion? Is it possible that they stepped over and past monotheism? Knowingly so? I mean, is it so hard to figure out?

There is a lot invested in religion. There are logical schemes occurring within its confines. Rhetorically speaking, atheists simply disagree with the presuppositions at the outset, e.g., God exists, &c. But each god exists as a centerpiece—a justification—for a logical scheme within the religious structure. That the structure is so unstable is its own problem, but comparatively the instability within classic religions is considerably less than the nascent. There is no fixed pantheon of alien overlords yet. There is no time-tested cultural ability to define, preserve, and respond to the theology of alien overlords. And, rationally speaking, that time-tested cultural ability of classic religions to define, preserve, and respond to both theology and circumstance is a testament to its value.

The good that arises from the transmission of religious faith—of which monotheism is an inevitable product, thus demanding the transmission of one god and one book—is found in its social organization. The ability of the faith to redefine itself in response to circumstance is its testament in this context. The challenge is to redefine the faith in an evolutionarily beneficial manner; recent history has moved so quickly as to test human capacity for adjustment, hence the weakness of religious faith and the rise of atheism, nihilism, and neurosis. The same forces driving Christian faith into crisis are also vital to understanding the medication of American society; between booze, street drugs, and prescriptions for brain candy, more and more people are looking to chemistry for insight and comfort. It is very hard to adjust to the nearly amorphous demands of life and reality, as circumstantial and thematic demands are transitory and evolving. And here is where the religions meet crisis.

I agree, and it's why I say I'm not against religion per say. Just that it needs to be reworked so that it's for suitable for a multicultural world and suites the needs of modern societies - not those from 2000+ years ago.

Atheistic inquiry is quickly ossifying around several erroneous presuppositions. There is a very fixed, atemporal aspect about the presuppositions very reminiscent of religious faith. The question at hand in this thread suggests inflexibility insofar as it is most comprehensible according to the terms of an exceptionally short period of theological history. One can easily look at the disarray in religious communities today and find plenty to criticize, but the human limitations of any given body faithful do not accurately describe the philosophical limitations of the faith. In history and prehistory alike, transmission of religious faith offered a metaphorical torch to light the way and pass on to the next generation of explorers. It is not unjust to wonder if the religious templates of old have served their purpose, as human circumstances present challenges unthinkable to the original traditions. But we cannot presume the problem with the picture is the brush, canvas, or paints, until we understand the capabilities of any given painter.

In English Tiassa!



I like the painting analogy - I'm not clear though, on what exactly it means.

 

[mike47]

OK, enlighten me, what's the good for the multicultural society?

I prefer a homogeneous society at any time . In multicultural society you have a case of many small nations in one nation . At the end the nation becomes like a hooker used by all by cared for by no one .
I live in a City that is one of the most multicultural in the world whereas you have little Italy, China town, Greek places.....etc. Ans of course racism is very obvious as every nationality wants only its own . Why should anyone care about such division ?!!!.

 

[Tiassa]

Trying again ....

In English Tiassa!

The atheistic critique of religion is fixing itself around a number of inflexible, erroneous presuppositions reflected in the simplicity of their treatment of the subject.

This is actually a reasonably explicable phenomenon. In recent decades, atheists have used the worst representations of religion to exemplify their complaints. This is, to a degree, fair. But the problem comes when people start presuming this is all religion has to offer. The level of inquiry and exploration by vocal, identifying atheists in the Dawkins era is incredibly childish.

For instance, when a religious person abandons God—essentially converts to atheism—a vital factor in their lives disappears. God acted as the center of their sociomoral outlook, the logical base for all that follows. Removing this screw, as such, causes the entire structure to fall apart.

How do atheist advocates organize their sociomoral outlook? Or are morals false because they are too subjective and dynamic? Fine, then: ethics. What is ethical or proper? Why?

It is striking to me how many atheists I've known over the years who not only can't answer the question, but have serious difficulty understanding it.

And, certainly, it might be difficult to connect Camus to Cady to O'Brien. Or Rabelais to Lovecraft to Barker to McCammon (and others). But such endeavors are not only enlightening, they are also often entertaining. It's not that atheists don't undertake such considerations, but that they aren't viewing those outcomes in a sphere relevant to religious people.

So start with the oft-abused assertion that, "There is no morality without God". You and I might call bullshit, but why? I have my reasons; I've stated them many times over the years. But how can one convince an errant (e.g., religious) neighbor that there are functional and sane moral constructs out there if the evangelist is incapable of seeing or understanding the moral constructs—and purpose thereof—within religious traditions?

I like the painting analogy - I'm not clear though, on what exactly it means.

I'm a decent figurative artist, although my realist credentials suffer in visual representation. Or, to be more direct: I can paint concepts, but certain forms elude my talent—I'm not a good painter. Or, perhaps, I might blame the brush (too coarse), the paint (too thick), or the canvas (bad fiber).

I might be able to do your portrait in pseudo-cubist, but I certainly can't according to any realist outlook. Is the problem me, or the tools?

Religion and the religious are not the same things as one another. I would suggest that, as I don't expect our figurative faculties will desert us in any near future generation, we might better invest our efforts into directing that creativity toward something useful. The problem is not the creative endeavor (e.g., religion), but rather the creative people (e.g., the religious).

 

[scifes]

The atheistic critique of religion is fixing itself around a number of inflexible, erroneous presuppositions reflected in the simplicity of their treatment of the subject.

This is actually a reasonably explicable phenomenon. In recent decades, atheists have used the worst representations of religion to exemplify their complaints. This is, to a degree, fair. But the problem comes when people start presuming this is all religion has to offer. The level of inquiry and exploration by vocal, identifying atheists in the Dawkins era is incredibly childish.

For instance, when a religious person abandons God—essentially converts to atheism—a vital factor in their lives disappears. God acted as the center of their sociomoral outlook, the logical base for all that follows. Removing this screw, as such, causes the entire structure to fall apart.

How do atheist advocates organize their sociomoral outlook? Or are morals false because they are too subjective and dynamic? Fine, then: ethics. What is ethical or proper? Why?

It is striking to me how many atheists I've known over the years who not only can't answer the question, but have serious difficulty understanding it.

And, certainly, it might be difficult to connect Camus to Cady to O'Brien. Or Rabelais to Lovecraft to Barker to McCammon (and others). But such endeavors are not only enlightening, they are also often entertaining. It's not that atheists don't undertake such considerations, but that they aren't viewing those outcomes in a sphere relevant to religious people.

So start with the oft-abused assertion that, "There is no morality without God". You and I might call bullshit, but why? I have my reasons; I've stated them many times over the years. But how can one convince an errant (e.g., religious) neighbor that there are functional and sane moral constructs out there if the evangelist is incapable of seeing or understanding the moral constructs—and purpose thereof—within religious traditions?

so in order for atheists to understand how they can "operate" without god, they first need to know how theists "operate" with god around, instead of why they "operate" worsewith god around(i.e linking defects in theists exclusively to god)??

it goes without saying, that i'm lost, but i'm really interested..

 

[lightgigantic]

Are you sure. I mean, have you ever asked a Muslim what they think of the Bible? Or what they think of Multiple Gods. Overwhelmingly you will hear the following responses: The Bible is flawed. There is only One God.

I think you have to make up your mind about whether you want to discuss the necessary philosophical outlooks of monotheism or a particular branch of it (from a particular region and a particular time).

I mean I bet you haven't heard of Bismillah Khan.

And I guess you don't have a clue who funded the production of these Ramayan miniatures

Ask a monotheist about Shinto polytheism. Any serious monotheist (often referred to as a fundamentalist) will at best say the polytheists are simple-minded simpletons who need to see and touch their Gods (that is if those simpletons really believe in the divinity of their Gods) and that in reality they are worshipping God (which the monotheistic knows all about - all about) and at worse that their are worshiping false idols.
THAT isn't universal disrespect?

I can't fathom why you deem that disrespectful ... especially given the extreme nature of your views on monotheism

If you can not see that this line-of reasoning has led to violence and countless deaths, well, I don't know what to say LG? Check out a history book?

:shrug:

Feel free to refer the history book you are paraphrasing that draws a (philosophical) connection between reasoning that polytheists are merely worshiping a partial aspect of god and justification for subjecting them to violence. Sure you can find personalities like Aquinas who tend to drag "heretics" over the coals, but their rhetoric is more heavily steeped in political necessity than anything philosophical.
At the very least, in the eyes of vedic monotheists, polytheists are at least granted that have a partial means of approaching liberation. For instance, Lord Siva is simultaneously celebrated as being the topmost devotee of visnu and the shelter of persons who subscribe to polytheism due to the pursuit of material desires. There is an interesting pastime where Siva has an altercation with Daksa (who is kind of like a high and mighty theist) .... no prizes for guessing who comes off second best

Yeah, no two people agree 100% on anything, but, riddle me this: Why were the 2500 year old Buddhas in Afghanistan destroyed? This place was Mecca for Buddhists. It'd be no different than dropping on nuke on the Kabaa or the Temple Mount.

What was their motivation?

In case you haven't noticed, religious tolerance and intolerance tends to find its cause in political language.

I mean what do you make of the buddhist plight in Sri-Lanka ?

(please don't say The West.... )

140 churches were forced to close in sri lanka during 2004 due to attacks, intimidation and violence.

What was the motivation of the buddhist protagonists?
(Please don't say the west ... even though it shares a remarkable parallel to Afghanistan where western funds were pumped in resulting in a restructured social/political environment)
:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

so in order for atheists to understand how they can "operate" without god, they first need to know how theists "operate" with god around, instead of why they "operate" worse with god around (i.e linking defects in theists exclusively to god)??

That's one way of looking at it, although perhaps a little too pointed.

The atheistic ideas of what religion and religious people are seem to be narrowing to several fixed presuppositions that sound more like supremacist political argument than any genuine reflection of the problem. It's easy enough to say that religious people are hypocrites, but it is much harder for many to acknowledge that they're human.

Myself, I don't hold with religion as a practice. I view religious philosophies as mass artistic phenomena. Religious criticism examining a faith from an artistic and psychological perspective will achieve better understanding of the subject matter than political arguments aimed at a two-dimensional caricature.

I'm critical of the current atheistic upwelling because it seems quite superficial. The easiest criticism, as I noted, pertains to a religion's weakest parts. Well and fine; these are not exempt from consideration, but neither are they all to consider. Not everything about a religion is so marginal.

What are atheists reading? What, beyond Dawkins, are their sources? I have no problem with answer like Hofstader and such, but what does it really say about religions? That's a harder thing to explain.

Karen Armstrong writes excellent books on religious history; Elaine Pagels examines ideological evolutions within Christianity; Jeffrey Russell Burton assembled an excellent volume on witchcraft and five books on the development of the Devil within Christian literature and tradition; Staniforth and Louth published a volume of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers; Mark Noll penned a thick but valuable resource considering the development of American faith; Idries Shah offers a glimpse inside Sufism; A. L. Basham wrote several volumes including an encyclopedia of faiths and volumes on the history and development of Hinduism; Barbara Sproul documented myths of origin; Margot Adler and Starhawk (Miriam Simos) wrote separate volumes thirty years ago that are essential to understanding modern neopaganism; Sir James G. Frazier authored a landmark, multi-volume examination of myth and religion; Freud analyzed religion and religious symbols closely in multiple works; Jean Markale's volume on the Celts includes an excellent reflection on the relationship between myth and history; Jaroslav Stetkevych applied an ancient myth to pre-Islamic and Islamic development.

These are, for the most part, generally, fine starting points for attempting to understand religious ideas and psychology. Noll's is a thick volume; Frazier's nineteenth-century tome is dense and exacting; Stetkevych is exceptionally specialized; the details of Freud are obscure and often controversial. As to the rest? Pick one; you'll find an easily-accessible consideration of religious ideas that go well beyond the standard rhetoric of the current atheistic expression.

In terms of the thread generally, whether or not one sees the good in the transmission of religious ideologies—or what degree of good one sees—is dependent in part on how one is looking at religion in the first place. If we consider the constant, annoying buzz of the modern American corpus Christi politic, obviously one would wonder what, aside from ideological cancer, is bequeathed unto the next generation. But viewed more broadly, religion is a dynamic human endeavor that has generally served basic anthropological purposes. Whether or not it continues as such depends on the faithful, but in the end I expect that human diversity is not yet finished with religion; the next iterations will be interesting—I wonder what the EBE canon will look like in a hundred years.

• • •​

Is it? I agree it is common for monotheism to develop. But, I'm not certain it's inevitable. Not all Hindu are monotheistic - are they? What about the Buddhist and Shinto?

Hinduism is largely henotheistic. I'll have to polish up on that one, since I don't discuss it often, but you will find henotheistic remnants in Abramism, as well; Judaism was not always monotheistic. The essential idea of henotheism is that among a pantheon of gods, one emerges as supreme.

I'll pass on Buddhism and Shinto; I learned a long time ago that I can't break down Buddhism the same way I can Abramism. However, it is my understanding that in Buddhism, "God" is a concept, a psychological process; a supreme creator is irrelevant to the faith and philosophy.

In Is Monotheistic Theology an Obstacle to Universal Bioethics? the author concludes that monotheism need not be an obstacle to universal bioethics. But as you can see, it's not exactly designed well for it either. I'd say the author himself suggests Religious systems which are polytheistic are more accepting of multiple approaches, so I focused on monotheistic religions to see how they could function with a universal bioethics model.

I wouldn't disagree. The question thus pertains to the attributes and boundaries of the monotheistic godhead. Abramism had a good run, but it is in crisis. It won't disappear overnight, or anything, but coming generations will look back on our religious disputes at personal, community, and geopolitical levels, and wonder what the hell our problem was.

The problem with the timeless word of God is that it is supposed to be timeless. The old revelations are running out of time, so to speak. The less they reflect people's perceptions of reality, the less influence they will have over that reality. A new religious template will, eventually, emerge. Maybe angels are really EBEs, and the true word of God is a mathematical-determinist principle yet undiscovered in the Big Bang. Universe? Multiverse? Implode? Fade away? Contract and expand again? From Newton (at least) forward, the traditional doctrines of revelation have been in decline as perceptions of reality pass by the timeless word of God. Religion, as I've suggested, is a creative endeavor; let us see what people come up with next.
_____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Henotheism". December 11, 2009. Wikipedia.org. December 11, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

 

[scifes]

well, Tiassa..thanks for opening that window, i appretiate being able to take a look inside that little Swiss clock of yours...

so you're more fascinated by the religious system way of working to be concerned with joining everybody else in beating its weak links...

...so, then what?

 

[Hapsburg]

In multicultural societies what good comes from teaching children that there is only One God and only One True Book?

Devil's advocate here: when done right, it can bind multiple cultures under a common ideological basis. Look at mediaeval Europe; many cultures, societies, languages, ethnic groups, all bound under the common banner of Christendom, which helped forge a common identity. There arguably might not be a European integration movement were it not for Christianity's influence on European history and culture.

Wouldn't it be much better to teach kids there may, or may not, be lots of different Gods and Goddesses and Alien Overlords? And that all of these religious books are equally as valid as the next?

Personally, yes. But there's no reason others can't hold to a "one true god" view and still respect others' beliefs and the right to believe however one wants. The key is in admitting that one might be wrong. The tolerant Christians that I know admit that they might be wrong, but they'll live their lives on the assumption that they are right.

Same way that I admit I might be wrong, but I live my life under the assumption that I am right. For all things, not just theology.

 

[Tiassa]

The human endeavor

so you're more fascinated by the religious system way of working to be concerned with joining everybody else in beating its weak links...

...so, then what?

I think it's a better outcome for the human endeavor if we all find a way to get along. And yes, I put the greater part of that burden on the religious, but whether we waltz or beat each other bloody, it still requires that each of us do our part.

Understanding the neuroses brought by religious faith is a key to understanding the broader neuroses of the human endeavor. Solving those conflicts is a long and possibly unrealistic goal, but there's no reason at this point to throw up our hands in surrender and then wallow in the mud.

 

[iceaura]

What are atheists reading?

The most influential for me were Gregory Bateson and Alan Watts, read during adolescence. I'm finding Wendell Berry and some of the folks on your list worth the time, more recently.

I'm critical of the current atheistic upwelling because it seems quite superficial.

KISS.

The basic problems with the standard theisms are best kept separate from the complex influences of religion, IMHO.

 

[Michael]

I think you have to make up your mind about whether you want to discuss the necessary philosophical outlooks of monotheism or a particular branch of it (from a particular region and a particular time).

I mean I bet you haven't heard of Bismillah Khan.

And I guess you don't have a clue who funded the production of these Ramayan miniatures

And?

I can't fathom why you deem that disrespectful ... especially given the extreme nature of your views on monotheism

Do you see an anti-racist POV to be "extreme"?

140 churches were forced to close in sri lanka during 2004 due to attacks, intimidation and violence.

They're intollerant of the Xian belief.

So, my question was about the 2500 year old Buddhist statues that were destroyed. Why do you suppose they were destroyed? What tenants in Islam support the destruction of "Idols" and "False Gods"? Any monkey see monkey do going on here?

 

[Michael]

I'm critical of the current atheistic upwelling because it seems quite superficial. The easiest criticism, as I noted, pertains to a religion's weakest parts. Well and fine; these are not exempt from consideration, but neither are they all to consider. Not everything about a religion is so marginal.

I think many atheists have fooled themselves into thinking that most people can live without superstition - this simply is not the case as for most people the world is a scary place and they feel insecure with their small insignificant place in it. I knew some Xian in MI who were sure Armageddon was coming and doing so from their small little town. This is what religions gives people - a sense of significance where, in reality, none exists.

BUT, that's not my point. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with superstition - so long as it's properly managed and fits with the modern world. Sure religion can be used to promote many beneficial behaviors within society. Steal and you don't get to transmutate to the next life form on an Alpah-747DreamLiner. Simple really.


We atheists have always made up religions. Perhaps that's why we've been evolutionarily conserved and is our benefit to society. It's highly likely we atheists are the Prophets. We're the one's who make it up. So it's time we make up new religions that are beneficial for living in a multicultural world?

I fail to see how One God and One Book fits beneficially into this world - as there will ALWAYS be other Gods and Other Books.

Michael

Note: We was used as in the royal we .. haha just kidding but don't get bent if you felt too much inclusion

 

[lightgigantic]

And?

according to time, place and circumstance, we see an absence of what you deem as essential to islam

Do you see an anti-racist POV to be "extreme"?

the value of any point of view rests upon the reasons behind it - but in short, any view on race, either for or against, tends to be shallow, simply for the reason that race is a superficial designation

They're intollerant of the Xian belief.

or more specifically, they were intolerant in a particular circumstance.

The next question to ask is why

So, my question was about the 2500 year old Buddhist statues that were destroyed. Why do you suppose they were destroyed? What tenants in Islam support the destruction of "Idols" and "False Gods"? Any monkey see monkey do going on here?

Given that it took 2500 years for an individual to make the decision to destroy it, at a guess I would say that there are reasons particular to the circumstances. .... much like there are particular reasons that can make even a community of buddhists turn into a bunch of raving lunatics
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

Devil's advocate here: when done right, it can bind multiple cultures under a common ideological basis. Look at mediaeval Europe; many cultures, societies, languages, ethnic groups, all bound under the common banner of Christendom, which helped forge a common identity. There arguably might not be a European integration movement were it not for Christianity's influence on European history and culture.

Maybe, but maybe Europeans would have united around something else? Xianity is such a huge part of European history it's hard to say.

My guess feeling is it could have happened without monotheism. But, probably not without a good fight - which happened anyway. China, Japan, etc... there may not be a need for God, but there does seem to be a need for a fight (even with God).

Personally, yes. But there's no reason others can't hold to a "one true god" view and still respect others' beliefs and the right to believe however one wants. The key is in admitting that one might be wrong. The tolerant Christians that I know admit that they might be wrong, but they'll live their lives on the assumption that they are right.

Same way that I admit I might be wrong, but I live my life under the assumption that I am right. For all things, not just theology.

I think that's a good step in the right direction. Anyway, it's not like a new religion is going to pop up and people are going to leave xianity and join it (at least I can't see it happening). So, it will be Xianity itself that is changed. neo-Christians and neo-Muslims so to speak. While they wouldn't call themselves that, compared today, future generations of monotheists would be considered a whole different religion.