Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Elgarian]

Your explanation is not clear to me

I think that's because it wasn't an explanation. It was a statement, viz: "I'm really not interested in resolving this"

[Homo Aestheticus]

I think that's because it wasn't an explanation. It was a statement, viz: "I'm really not interested in resolving this"

O.k. fine.

But now a simpler question, maybe:

Is Christopher Hitchens wrong when he says:

"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents..."

[Daidalos]

O.k. fine.

But now a simpler question, maybe:

Is Christopher Hitchens wrong when he says:

"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents..."

Oh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.

[karlhenning]

This remains the quintessential blah-blah thread.

[DavidRoss]

Oh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.

What does being religious have to do with it?  Surely religious people are not the only ones capable of recognizing horseshit?  I'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.

Regard "Eric" as a perverse sort of bot and everything will become clear.

[Daidalos]

What does being religious have to do with it? 

I took it as a question posed to the religious, primarily adherents to the monotheistic faiths. Those do seem to be the targets of many of The Unrepentant Pelleastrian's posts on this topic, and the people who he is trying to aggravate.

Surely religious people are not the only ones capable of recognizing horseshit?  I'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.

Regard "Eric" as a perverse sort of bot and everything will become clear.

I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.

[Papageno]

"Religion is the opium of the people."

[Catison]

"Religion is the opium of the people."

I hope you are familiar with the whole paragraph this quote comes from.

[karlhenning]

. . . I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.

Well, that's Eric for you.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Oh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.

No Daidalos, that was NOT my intention... 

And didn't you note my post on Spinoza just before that one ??

I'm just trying to get some clarification here.     

[Catison]

Eric,

Do you believe this Hitchens quote is true?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Catison,

Eric,

Do you believe this Hitchens quote is true?

Honestly, I don't know... He could be wrong too.

On the other hand I believe the following statement by Richard Dawkins is completely true:

"The God of the Hebrews is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully..."

[karlhenning]

Pick a thread, any thread:

Miss Allen: Atheism Is Simply About Anger

Why Is America Still So Often Puritanical ?

Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

God Bless Sarah Palin !

The Pope speaks on the global financial crisis

The Two Doctrines I Believe In

An argument against Charles Murray ?

The immortality of the 'soul'

Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

Is There Something Degrading About It ?

[karlhenning]

I'm just trying to get some clarification here.    

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[DavidRoss]

I took it as a question posed to the religious, primarily adherents to the monotheistic faiths. Those do seem to be the targets of many of The Unrepentant Pelleastrian's posts on this topic, and the people who he is trying to aggravate. I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.

I'm with you, Bjorn.  I join in sometimes to help sort out sincere but muddled thinking, to hold some accountable for their intellectual dishonesty, and to call the ignorant SOBs on their self-righteous, vindictive horseshit when they try to stir up animosity by unfair and hateful attacks on religious folks.  (And it shouldn't take long for a newcomer to this site to learn that that's the purpose of most of these threads, and that even the sincere threads on such topics get invaded and twisted by the same intolerant bigots chronically pushing their nasty agenda.  Sigh.)  

[Homo Aestheticus]

I'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.

Do you REALLY want to know what substandard reasoning is ?

This past week I sent that Spinoza article to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, one of the leading Orthodox leaders in the United States.

He sent me the following e-mail:

"Reason is often an unreliable guide to human conduct, and leaves a person's moral aspirations very subjective. That is why Jews were blessed with an historical event of unparalleled proportions - the Revelation of G-d at Sinai and the transmission of His moral code - the only such public revelation, and even claim of public revelation in history.

Spinoza's ideas led him to be construed - rightly so - as a heretic, and one can draw a straight line from Spinoza to all the excesses engendered by 19th and 20th century man that led to such devastation and human degradation"

*****

That, my friend, is substandard reasoning and ignorance.

[karlhenning]

That, my friend, is ignorance.

Better than half of your posts, my friend, is ignorance.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Better than half of your posts, my friend, is ignorance.

Perhaps you are right, Karl.

But at least I am not making totally outlandish and absurd claims as the Rabbi does here:

"The Revelation of G-d at Sinai and the transmission of His moral code are the only such public revelation, and even claim of public revelation in history"

"One can draw a straight line from Spinoza to all the excesses engendered by 19th and 20th century man that led to such devastation and human degradation"

*****



On the first point, there is absolutely no evidence (and this coming from Israeli archaelogists) that there ever was a covenant between Moses and God... Not even the Egyptian records mention anything about the book of Exodus.

On the second point, how could a philosophical system from a man as exemplary as Spinoza lead in some way to the devastation and human degradation that occurred in the 19th/20th century ?



 

[Joe_Campbell]

So Eric, if that revelation occured, is the Rabbi's first paragraph sound reasoning?

[knight66]

[
........there is absolutely no evidence (and this coming from Israeli archaelogists) that there ever was a covenant between Moses and God... Not even the Egyptian records mention anything about the book of Exodus.

Wrong. Read more archeology. Note the following.

1)The Bible is inconclusive as to which Pharaoh was involved in Exodus. It uses a name that is not part of the Egyptian lineage. Often names become altered from language to language.

2) In trying to define whether the event took place, rather than there being no possibilities, historians cannot come to a consensus as there are several possible candidates.

3) You would not find anything about it in the official Egyption versions of history, as they were adroit propagandists. They did not record battles they lost, or if they did they changed the outcomes. They expunged the first recorded monotheist, Pharoah Akenaten, from the public records, even destroying his city.

4) Knowing this, archaeologists have looked for other evidence. They have found plague victims buried hurriedly that might tie in with the time of the Exodus. They have also found evidence of political problems arising from alterations in the way society functioned for periods that again they try to tie to an Exodus of useful servants on a large scale.

So, the matter is still open, rather than there being no evidence.

Mike