Do you believe in GOD?

Post Reply New Topic

You mean monotheists in the west outcompeted polytheists in many ways, which they did. I mean, talking about "pyromania genocide" does not mean that polytheists in the Roman empire didn't crucify Christian monotheists. They certainly did, and the monotheist symbol we know most of today is the symbol of the leader of the religion who was crucified by Roman authority.

I've already presented the big problem I see with polytheism, and that is the same as most other religions, it multiplies entities needlessly. I mean, it is likely correct that polytheism is no worse than monotheism, but the issue is that polytheism still is only slightly better anyway, and religion itself is just a human fantasy.

I believe in God as defined to be the purpose-driven cause of everything.

Just as it says: the Alpha and the Omega. With the caveat that the Alpha is brought about by the Omega.
We as temporal based humans can not perceive higher realities in which the concept of time loses relevance.
Our mission in the temporal universe is not to be, but to become. Hence the requirement for cause and consequence and thus time.
Invariability incorporating variability.
Where the Bible says that we can not 'see God and live' it means exactly that. To live is a process of becoming whereas God is being.

I believe the apparent contradiction between the two to be the reason we can not yet integrate our understanding of the universe.

The notion of Final Cause or Telos as put forth by Aristotle is rather shaky.

ruveyn

Polytheism does not senselessly multiply deities this statement shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of what polytheism is. Monotheists gained power through treachery and destroyed much of the worlds original culture. The Romans were not a true polytheistic culture they simply adopted the culture of other civilizations first Greek Polytheism then Christianity when Christianity was adopted all other beliefs were declared heresy and Rome began its focus on evangelizing their beliefs and converting the rest of Europe to "their" religion. Christianity only "succeeded" because they received the support of the then most powerful empire in Europe which had a very weak culture from the beginning. Polytheism did not die it simply went underground ironically do to the spread of atheism and freedom of religion as a human right it is starting to resurface.

I was merely referring to Occam's razor, not to any specific problem in polytheism. Monotheism has the exact same problem, of needlessly multiplying entities.


They gained power through getting people to convert. I don't see how one would call that "treachery", and yes, they destroyed a lot of culture, but really a lot of culture just wasn't preserved, which is also why a lot of it went away.


I don't exactly see your argument. Yes, they took Greek polytheism, and made it their own, which should suggest they were polytheists. They had some separate cultural sensitivities given that they created many of their own gods, such as Roman emperors, and given that they had a more military and practical aim than the Greeks. They also did genuinely accept other religions into their own people, just so long as those religions honored the Roman state gods. Even further, they held to polytheism much longer than Christianity, and only adopted given that Christians had success proselyting.


Ok?


Christianity DID succeed. It did receive the support of the most powerful empire in Europe, which was NOT an easy task like you pretend it was. One of the big reasons it won was likely because it was a monotheist religion that put emphasis on correct beliefs over other values, which means that against a religion that doesn't really care as much about beliefs, monotheism will make a better sales pitch. Secondly, Christianity also won because of its appeal to the Roman underclass, who in all societies are only weakly connected to the culture, and because of the fact that the Roman empire was also decaying by the point that Christianity came on the scene. However, despite that, Christians actually were regarded very negatively by the Romans, especially the Roman upper classes, who tended to be more connected to the Roman religion.

Would it matter whether polytheism died, or went underground? Probably not, while maybe a few people kept it around for that long, it is unlike that this is a significant number.

Does any of this really show us that polytheism isn't nonsense? No. If Zeus existed, why didn't he miraculously intervene to show people that he deserves their worship? Is there any hypothetical state of earthly affairs that polytheism is incompatible with, or even anything that polytheism explains that a naturalistic explanation definitely cannot? I don't see either of those. As such, I don't really see the reason for polytheism as opposed to monotheism.

(Note: I am sure that the polytheist notion of God is significantly different than the monotheist notion as well, as more than one monotheist kind of God would lead to large problems)

I am not sure personally yet I do not pretend to be on par with a god. If one is a god in a polytheistic belief system he/she would not require worship but is still aware of those who are loyal to them in this case neo-polytheists. Gods are not comparable to humans a common mistake many seem to make in interpreting polytheism. Polytheists are however responsible for western philosophy, irrigation, fountains, agriculture, and many other things that allow us to live in the wonderful ways that we do. It is insulting and incorrect to view our ancestors and the gods the worshiped to declare them primitive. Polytheists were the first scientist not atheists, materialists or monotheists.

Well, ok, but that is one of many problems that I pointed out, and even if you perfectly answered my objection, I would still have the other. Not only that, but given that most mythologies make it clear that the gods ARE personally interested in the actions of mankind in some form or fashion, I am not sure that your "appeal to mystery" really accomplishes anything but rather seems just ad hoc.

The statement that gods are not comparable to humans is actually a questionable assumption, as almost every myth has a deity that is very human-like in their behavior. Zeus, and the other Greek gods are notable for being very human in their behaviors, and even the Biblical God is relatively man-like, so I really have to believe that either the earlier myths are just outright crap, which undermines your polytheism given how much you are appealing back to history, or I have to believe that you are just offering an ad hoc excuse, which also undermines your polytheism.

Look, the fact that polytheists created certain things does not make it incorrect to believe that they were primitive by modern standards. They are a few centuries less technologically developed than we are today, and that is by nature primitive. Even further, it wouldn't matter who the first scientists were, as the first science was invariably primitive, and even further, such wouldn't prove the truth of the beliefs of the first scientists or disprove the truth of any other set of beliefs. Particularly given that there is like sociological or anthropological explanations for these phenomena that have nothing to do with the specifics of any religious belief.

Pollytheism (not to be confused with parakeettheism) offers more variety in an array of powerful imaginary supernatural figures and is much more satisfactory for creating myths. The Christian-Jewish-Muslim God is an ill tempered idiot with insane demands upon His adherents and does provide a bit of fun, now and then, but in general He could easily fit in with The Three Stooges as a supreme kluts. The other gods had fun sexual adventures and all sorts of imaginative rivalry and varied personal characters. Much preferred.

The main problem with the Christian God is that He is so out of date. Who wants to follow an old Fart with a beard? God needs a makeover as any ad agency can clearly see. How about a clean shave and a blue skin tight suit with a big red "G"within a gold shield emblazoned on his chest. And of course the cape. Perhaps gold dotted with LED lights for night visits. And his wonder boy, Jesus, in a comparable outfit for auxiliary operations. And Satan could become a wonder dog that bites sinners.That should capture appropriately dumded down minds.

And while we're at it we could revamp the Vatican as well. How about a female pope with a well rounded ass and a great set of boobs. Something along the lines of Palin who never says anything that makes any more sense than the current pope but guys are too busy looking her over to pay any attention to her spoken nonsense. Politically the Catholics could call themselves the wine and crackers party.

Before I declare a stalemate disagreement I will say that Greek gods are not the entire polytheistic belief system while Greece tended to have childish deities the same can not be said for Egyptian and Sumerian deities. However while the possibility of religion being a false ideal the way we live now is simply not natural. However the biggest absurdity (methinks) is the view that the universe is eventually going to end and we are all just here for no reason what so ever. I now declare a stalemate disagreement.

Its Polytheism your post=Epic Fail

The Vikings had deities that had their own childishness. Even further, you can't just discount the Greek experience if you are trying to defend polytheism, a lot of the value of polytheism is based upon claims about the Greeks.


The term "natural" tends to be BS in my mind.

http://abstrusegoose.com/215

Anything that humans do is because our nature, in some sense of the term, pushes us to this, just as other animals do what they do. Humans have an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to have rapid cultural adaptations, but our evolution is such that we are the heavy lifters in terms of our cognitive abilities. It is not as if we are the only creatures that have colonies, or farm, or enslave, or anything else like that, as ants do all of those other things.


Declaring something absurd doesn't mean it to be absurd. Even further, what reason did our many gods suddenly agree to for our existence? Entertainment? It seems just as silly then too.


I don't see the stalemate. I don't think you have beaten my claims, nor do I think you really can.

Inflexible minds seem totally incapable to appreciate the wonderful flexibility of the language and its multiple interpretations.

Hmmmm, freedom of speech?


well duh, nothing in this damn world is infallible, not science, not philosophy, much less religion.


Evidence Please?


Everyone has their own bias, so? I mean, given that you have argued in favor of polytheism in this thread, it seems evident.


Really, if that is what you've got as a counterargument then YOU have failed, or even if that refers to a typo because of the irrelevance to the discussion.

Last edited by greenblue on 11 Jun 2010, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ahem, excuse me?

It was not a typo, it was a pun. A little sense of humor, please.