Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[karlhenning]

Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries?

I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!

[DavidRoss]

I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!

And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." 

[karlhenning]

And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." 

(* vacuums tea out of computer keyboard *)

[DavidRoss]

Sorry, Karl.

Eric's right!  Polystyrenism is better for us!

I have it on good authority from the Big Fellow pictured below:

[karlhenning]

Inexplicably, I am overcome with an intense desire to visit a coffee shop . . . .

[Guido]

How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?

Because beauty=truth?

Guido,

I agree but what do you make of the following:

a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.

c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.

This argument seems the wrong way round to me - with that line of reasoning and thought - b would usually follow from c rather than the other way round - why would you suppose they exist before deciding why they exist? And there have been many moral systems suggested that do not require supernatural authority - lots of people think these work, I have no strong opinions on them. Essentially I don't buy (b), and again even if it was true I'm not sure how clear it is that (a) was true.

[Elgarian]

Polystyrenism is better for us!

Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.

[DavidRoss]

Not only is Eric's preposterous syllogism above false (c does not follow from a and b), but a and b are ludicrous premises.  It's typical of what passes for reason with Eric, however.  

If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
There are tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

But even if the second premise were factual instead of just another empty assertion, that still would tell us nothing about flying unicorns since even if the first premise bore any relationship to reality then flying unicorns would still be only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

See the following instructional video on critical thinking by Eric's logic tutor:
http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g

Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.

[Elgarian]

If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.

Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.

[DavidRoss]

Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.

Carry a stout umbrella.

[Frumaster]

Because beauty=truth?

Great, but there are subjective thruths too, which allow room for passions, which in turn affirm our existence.  Objective truths do none of these things but enslave us. 

[greg]

And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods.  If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.

lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...

[mahler10th]

Polytheism would lead to wars.
Then we'd have to consult the Taoist "Art of War".
Then we would all be living the Tao.
  Hurrah!!

[Josquin des Prez]

lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...

Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...

[Elgarian]

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

I think there's something worthwhile in this paragraph trying to get out, but it's obscured by the misleading first two sentences. I see no reason to link liberalism with relativism in this way. If there is a real universal truth out there beyond the world of the physical senses (let's say), then our separate understandings of it are likely to be different, because incomplete; indeed, our knowledge of the diversity of understandings expressed by other human beings tells us that they are different. A liberal response is the only sensible outcome of such an outlook, which is neither materialistic, nor relativistic (because the existence of an absolute is acknowledged).

[greg]

Plato didn't believe in the "gods"

Really? That's good to know, it'd make more sense if he didn't. I'm going to read more of his writings, so I guess I'll learn more about this...

[Xenophanes]

Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.

People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.

It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...

You're quite right.  I don't know that Plato got his metaphysics from the East Indians.  I still don't.  Neither do I accept that they had the greatest metaphsyics ever--which metaphysics, one might ask?

I have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't give much cognitive value to religious feelings of people, no matter how great.

[Elgarian]

I have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.

[Contrapunctus666]

Of all beliefs that I saw on the Internet, this one seems to be very intelligent:

http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy

Back to the topic:

Religion doesn't matter. How it affects our lifes DOES. I don't have time to type what I think but this guy has written some smart articles about the Paganism:

http://www.burzum.com/burzum/library/text/ (total 15 articles)

I think that it is important to understand the first article before reading these Paganism articles.

cheers

[Josquin des Prez]

http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy

Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.