One Ring to Rule Them ALL???

Which is better for humanity

  • Total voters
    8
JDawg said:
Don't you know? Q claims to know exactly what a god would do if one existed.
Click to expand...

Actually it is an important issue, not in the specific case here, but in general.

Such claims should require as much back up as claims for what is.

To claim what would have to be true if _____________ such and such is the case, means that one KNOWS what is possible and what is not. This is an extreme claim to knowledge.
 
greenberg said:
Everyone should adhere to the same religion.

That this is the best option can easily be observed in existing social groups/societies: A social group where all its members adhere to the same principles has better chances of survival and happiness for all its members, as opposed to a versatile group.
For example, when a family is deciding about where to go on vacations, it helps very much if everyone has the same ideas about what they should do and where they should go. Otherwise, someone is always going to be unhappy - and as it is with humans, especially those who are close to eachother, it is difficult to be happy when those close to you are unhappy.

But of course, what these principles are plays an important role, too: If a group's principles lead them to exploit the natural environment in which they all live, their chances of survival and happiness diminish drastically.
Click to expand...
I like your idea, but, do you suppose there is something more.

For example, think about this: Suppose we have two societies,

Society A: they have a single culture (one language, one philosophy, one religion, one way to do math, etc...)

Society B: they have multiple languages, multople philosophies, muleiple religions.

When we run our life-simulation:

We see that society planet A, works as a team and intially progresses very fast. Working as a group. However, they only go from say cavemen to medievel development. At this point they exhaust their idea base. But suppose they do so in 500 years. OR suppose they do so linearly

Then society planet B, they work as small teams that compete, even fight one another, initially OVERALL they don't appear to get very far very fast. It takes them 1500 years to go from cavemen to medieval. BUT they are progressing exponentially. In the end they progress MUCH much faster further.

Can you picture this?

Think about it and tell me your thoughts....

OK, I'm off for Yum Cha (that's Dim Sim for you Yanks who have more Cantonese Chinese immigrants)
 
Michael said:
I like your idea, but, do you suppose there is something more.

For example, think about this: Suppose we have two societies,

Society A: they have a single culture (one language, one philosophy, one religion, one way to do math, etc...)

Society B: they have multiple languages, multople philosophies, muleiple religions.

When we run our life-simulation:

We see that society planet A, works as a team and intially progresses very fast. Working as a group. However, they only go from say cavemen to medievel development. At this point they exhaust their idea base. But suppose they do so in 500 years. OR suppose they do so linearly

Then society planet B, they work as small teams that compete, even fight one another, initially OVERALL they don't appear to get very far very fast. It takes them 1500 years to go from cavemen to medieval. BUT they are progressing exponentially. In the end they progress MUCH much faster further.

Can you picture this?
Click to expand...

Sure. And what exactly are they progressing towards? Destruction of their planet by pollution and exploitation of resources?


Progress doesn't necessarily mean well-being of happiness.

Tumors, cancers, infections - they progress too ...
 
greenberg
they progress too ...
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different meaning of the word.

When you have a defensible point, why pollute it with a cheap and obvious ploy like that?
 
Simon Anders said:
Actually it is an important issue, not in the specific case here, but in general.

Such claims should require as much back up as claims for what is.

To claim what would have to be true if _____________ such and such is the case, means that one KNOWS what is possible and what is not. This is an extreme claim to knowledge.
Click to expand...

Then, why doesn't JDawg, who made the claim, back it up?
 
Michael said:
Which do you think is better for humanity:

1) One monotheism that encompasses all people of the world
2) Multiples of different religions - including many different modern and old polytheisms (including ancient Greek and Arab, as well as modern Japanese polytheisms) and traditional and modern monotheisms as well as new Alien-based beliefs and new age religions and even nature religions.

So, which is better - one religions for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
Click to expand...
I like it just the way it is.

sure theres plenty of idiocy done in the name of god,imo its just part of growing up,evolving as human race

religions are obsolete and will eventualy die of when people realize that praying doesnt solve anything...
 
(Q) said:
Then, why doesn't JDawg, who made the claim, back it up?
Click to expand...
It seemed like his position is that for all he knows a number of things are possible. It seems like your position is that if there is a God this God must do this or that. That if God had any influence on the Bible the whole Bible must be true. That if there was a God this God must communicate directly with everyone so that they understand clearly.

His position, being vastly less specific has vastly less claims about how things must be. In fact it is a cautious position primarily claiming not to be sure.
 
Leave Q alone! He's the only fundamentalist evangelizing Atheist I have ever met! He could be a bible scholoar to some out-there literalist cult of christianity, as long as he kept it quiet about the disbelief. He might be a priest somewhere. Maybe he's seen God in action, and thus knows what God is or isn't from experience. That would make the whole atheism thing tough, but sometimes I think perhaps he doth protest too much. :D
 
Oh, and as to the poll and title and all that rubbish.

It would be nice if God just showed up one day, and ruled the world with an iron fist. Simpler, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top