///I just got why you replied "one gods" .
My bad. I meant the ones in the dictionary.
In answer to your question all gods.
Jan.
///
I see now. You might never see.
<>
///
That does not answer anything.
<>
///So bitter.
Jan.
///
Your attempt at mind reading is not working.
<>
///Because it does.
Jan.
It is obvious that the presence of polytheism is very disturbing to several theists here.Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
///
You perpetually try to ask why not when the question is why. You will not answer, you only try to sidestep.
IF you cannot explain god more than this & why you believe , we must conclude you do not actually believe in any god.
You may as well say you believe in a wisp of smoke.
<>
It is obvious that the presence of polytheism is very disturbing to several theists here.
Why would monotheism be considered a more desirable option today, when its terrestrial equivalents of kings and dictators have mostly been replaced with today’s models of delegated authority more resembling polytheism?Given that it seems polytheism, etc seems to only ever get introduced in these threads to slight monotheism and given that monotheism is the only serious contender in terms of offering persistent, influential philosophical traditions in contemporary society, is it not obvious?
Why is it disturbing to you or why is it obvious?Why?
Why is it disturbing to you or why is it obvious?
It is obvious because of how angry you got when it was pointed out that there are hard polytheists out there who really do believe in multiple separate Gods and have done so throughout history. It conflicts with your claims that there's really only one God, and only your view on that is valid.
conflicts with your claims that there's really only one God, and only your view on that is valid.
Sure, that can be an angle.I don't think that's always true. Atheists often write "God or gods" in pursuit of completeness, trying to encompass all of the personalized supernatural powers that religious believers have over time insisted are relevant to human life.
It's an artifact of philosophy. The philosophical traditions arising from polytheism are not anywhere near as encompassing as those arising from monotheism.I think that the idea that monotheism is somehow superior to polytheism is an artifact of history.
Philosophically speaking, you are talking about the neoclassical revival of the philosophy of ancient Greece (since this is the philosophical "work horse" appropriated by Islam and Christianity)It's the result of the hugely outsized influence that Judaism, and its subsequent offspring Christianity and Islam, have had on intellectual history.
I'm not sure how your professed liking translates into any intellectual reason. At the very least, Plato and Aristotle are credited with distancing themselves from polytheistic thinking for the sake of philosophically discussing pure actuality/the unmovable mover etc.Since I'm not a monotheist, I have no interest in defending the honor of monotheism against any association with polytheism.
I kind of like polytheism for intellectual reasons, even though I don't literally believe that it's true. In polytheism, the various gods and goddesses often seem to serve as personifications of various principles that people perceived as being at work in the world. We have storm deities and war deities and fertility deities, Apollonian gods of dispassionate reason and Dionysian gods of pleasure and ecstatic abandon.
Its not clear how "cosmic principles sometimes work in mysterious ways" provides relief from the perceived lameness.The thing is that in real life, principles like these often do seem to work in contradiction to each other. A monotheist can always fall back on the rather lame excuse that 'God works in mysterious ways', but it's easier and more straight-forward to just say that different cosmic principles sometimes work at cross-purposes.
Clearly atheists exist and they fail to match Jans straw man of an atheist which he can only comprehend as folk who dont believe in his mythical made up God and reject something he just knows is real or exists...I am never sure exactly what Jan is putting forward and who knows what he is really thinking.
Atheists are real and God is made up and that fact will stand and walk through the superstition down the road of eightenment whilst our theists side step and throw poo and make as much sence as their poo throwing cousin the ape.