View Full Version : One Ring to Rule Them ALL???
Michael
10-22-08, 11:08 PM
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?
Michael
10-23-08, 01:24 AM
OK you 8 people who already viewed this thread - get back here and click a choice!
Carcano
10-23-08, 01:35 AM
1. One monotheism that encompasses all people of the world.
2. Multiples of different religions - including many different modern and old polytheisms.
So, which is better - one religion for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
Definitely number two...makes it easier for people to realize theyre ALL wrong.
Michael
10-23-08, 02:13 AM
you have to click the choice icon! :)
Pandaemoni
10-23-08, 02:20 AM
These are bad choices. The question doesn't even specify why people might adopt one religion (because they want to, or men with guns will shoot them if they don't). It also fails to consider the obvious "no religion" answer.
I think obviously if everyone willingly adopted a sungle belief system it would be one less soprce of friction, which would be good. If we forced them to accept the orthodoxy and any heterodosy (even within the religion) were punished than that's not, much different, or if anything worse than the ciurrent free-for-all.
So I made my choice. I choose to wait for a better designed poll question.
Michael
10-23-08, 03:01 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of: What would humanity look like. OK, maybe a one religion would reduce conflict (probably not) but even if so, does this come at the cost of diversity? Isn't it nice to have many different beleif systems?
So that;s the angel I was thinking about.
lightgigantic
10-23-08, 03:12 AM
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?
are you talking about religious orthodoxy (ie philosophical conclusions) politics ?
I clicked "none" but nothing happened.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-23-08, 07:16 AM
If somehow it came to be, it wouldn't be long before it split again.
visceral_instinct
10-23-08, 07:48 AM
One ring to rule them all? As in one asshole? Sounds about right.
cosmictraveler
10-23-08, 08:37 AM
I do not believe in anything that can "rule" everything so therefore I cannot vote because it doesn't have that option.
Michael
10-23-08, 09:02 AM
you know .... grrrrrrr
It has yet to be proven that all people can be ruled by one religion, just as not all people can be ruled by one government. There will always be dissenters, and always a new ideology. So, I guess what I'm saying is, of the two options given, only one of them is plausible.
But even then, I'm not sure clinging to multiple ancient religions is healthy. So I don't like either option.
cosmictraveler
10-23-08, 10:38 AM
you know .... grrrrrrr
I know that your poll is slanted so much it isn't very fair for any other opinions to be expressed. Why is that? :shrug:
Michael
10-23-08, 06:33 PM
Look, it's the ambition of many monotheists that I know of, namely Xians and Muslms, that one day in the far off future people will "wake up" to God and love Jesus or Mohammad and the world will peacefully be all Xian or all Muslim (or even Baha'i etc..). Probably even Scientologists think one day the world will be all Scientologists.
They all seem to think that at this time peace will reign and life will be great.
SO, I'm wondering, IF such a thing were to pass, would it really be all that great? Do we think a one world monotheism is better than multi-religionism?
lightgigantic
10-23-08, 06:44 PM
Look, it's the ambition of many monotheists that I know of, namely Xians and Muslms, that one day in the far off future people will "wake up" to God and love Jesus or Mohammad and the world will peacefully be all Xian or all Muslim (or even Baha'i etc..). Probably even Scientologists think one day the world will be all Scientologists.
They all seem to think that at this time peace will reign and life will be great.
SO, I'm wondering, IF such a thing were to pass, would it really be all that great? Do we think a one world monotheism is better than multi-religionism?
there is a suggestion that beyond all religious designations there is an ultimate reality (or tattva) that surrounds both the living entity and god - IOW if one accepts that god exists (summum bonum cause of all causes, etc etc), then there must be an irreducible element to both the living entity and god that finds its expression in the language of eternity (sanatana dharma). This may stand as distinct from expressions of religious activities that are more pertinent to one's social status, gender, etc etc (sva dharma).
It could be argued that nobody gets free from the constraints of this conditioned world without being properly socialized around issues of sanatana dharma ..... but, in light of the current state of affairs, I don't think that there is a very good argument for the suggestion that everyone will wholeheartedly accept such a status of living simultaneously, like a one world religion as you suggest (after all, we come to this world for the pursuit of a status of living very much non-sanatana dharmic)
greenberg
10-24-08, 02:04 AM
So, which is better - one religions for everyone OR many multiples of beliefs systems?
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.
Clearly, the situation we are in today is that of belief in multiple gods, which of course doesn't work as anyone can plainly see as it only serves to demonstrate the non-existence of a single god and the fact all gods are images of man.
If a god MUST exist, it must be a god who delivers a single message to all mankind; clear, concise and impartial to interpretation. We would all know this god intuitively and unequivocally.
If a god MUST exist, it must be a god who delivers a single message to all mankind; clear, concise and impartial to interpretation. We would all know this god intuitively and unequivocally.
Why do you believe this?
Why do you believe this?
Don't you know? Q claims to know exactly what a god would do if one existed. Apparently he's a blood relative...or an idiot. Actually, I'm pretty sure he's just an idiot.
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.
Such groups don't exist. They are always in the presence of other groups. Why? Because it isn't possible for everyone to believe in one thing.
it isn't possible for everyone to believe in one thing.
Water.
lightgigantic
10-24-08, 08:14 PM
Water.
sorry buddy, it's jal, or aqua in other parts ....
Simon Anders
10-24-08, 08:24 PM
Don't you know? Q claims to know exactly what a god would do if one existed.
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.
Michael
10-24-08, 08:30 PM
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.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)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-25-08, 01:46 AM
sorry buddy, it's jal, or aqua in other parts ....
Where is water called aqua?
greenberg
10-25-08, 01:52 AM
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?
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 ...
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?
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.
Then, why doesn't JDawg, who made the claim, back it up?
Water.
Water is a belief now?
Then, why doesn't JDawg, who made the claim, back it up?
So let me get this straight...I call you out on your BS in another thread, and now your sole purpose for life is to stalk me?
I call you out on your BS in another thread...
http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif (http://www.smileyhut.com)
http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif (http://www.smileyhut.com)
And it's things like this that make it abundantly clear why not one person on this forum respects you.
And it's things like this that make it abundantly clear why not one person on this forum respects you.
Appeal to Authority?
Who's stalking who?
:D
scorpius
10-25-08, 08:34 PM
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?
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...
Simon Anders
10-25-08, 08:44 PM
Then, why doesn't JDawg, who made the claim, back it up?
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.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-25-08, 08:54 PM
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
Mr. Hamtastic
10-25-08, 08:58 PM
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.
By consent, a global Khalifat. Otherwise, to each Empire its own.
Kadark
Mr. Hamtastic
10-25-08, 09:18 PM
No Khalifat. Just JC holding court, controlling weather patterns and such.:D
It seemed like his position is that for all he knows a number of things are possible.
JDawg, like yourself, simply parrot what already has occurred.
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.
The bible is the word of god and the bible decrees gods word must be obeyed. If you have a problem with this concept, you should take it up with the bible, as that is the bibles position, not mine.
That if there was a God this God must communicate directly with everyone so that they understand clearly.
Is that concept so vastly illogical or irrational? That makes no sense to you? God prefers the "Chinese Whispers" method of communication?
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.
Yes, he isn't sure that the bible is the word of god or that god commands his word be obeyed. Clearly, you and he haven't read the bible. Simple, really.
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.
Are you on or off your meds today, it's hard to tell?
Guys, isn't it funny that Q keeps claiming to have read the Bible despite making it abundantly obvious that he hasn't? And when he's had his head handed to him by a poster, his "argument" crumbles to insults. Notice in the other thread how I posed a simple question to challenge yet another of his baseless claims, and it has gone unanswered. I'm assuming that it will remain unanswered.
Man, arguing with a 14 year old! When will we learn? :D
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.