Short List

[Saturnine Pariah]

which of these pictures of trees has no credibility?
(I will do it over 2 posts since there is a limit on images/post)

The first one could be real or just an image of a tree that used to exist but is now dead or chopped down.
The second one is a piece of art MADE by man
The third is a piece of art MADE by man.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

I don't know the answer to that question.

You believe you know it?

How have you come to know it?

The question is rhetorical, and if you look at modern society and ancient history monotheism calls for the discrediting of all the other gods usually by killing or converting the people who believe in them and not the "gods" themselves. This can in turn show that these gods much like any other gods only are real in a person’s head.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

You said which of these "trees" has any more credibility. You mentioned nothing about a car.
All three are images are displaying man-made objects, however one is a form of transportation, the others are simply renditions of what an individual human sees as a "tree". I see the point you are trying to make light however we know trees and cars exist I can outside and look at the oak tree in my yard or my car. Tell me if you go outside and call out the name of any of these gods on the list will you see them in the form that those societies made them in?

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-did-we-invent-god/
If you can watch all three videos
Remember that's it's all in your head.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

The Abrahamic god is simply too powerful.http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=LLKnTppulNLhBOD3rkM8ywbQ&NR=1&v=Ra2ka-gYGWQ&feature=endscreen

 

[wynn]

The question is rhetorical, and if you look at modern society and ancient history monotheism calls for the discrediting of all the other gods usually by killing or converting the people who believe in them and not the "gods" themselves. This can in turn show that these gods much like any other gods only are real in a person’s head.

The fact that people expell, maim and kill other people (and other beings) in the name of their particular god or whatever else,
does not automatically make said god or whatever else
fictional.

For example, the US executes inmates on death row; that doesn't make the US Government fictional.



Although it's an interesting thought - Why did, for example, the Muslims not attempt to kill Jehovah or Krishna, and instead went after Christians and Hindus. But then again, this suggests that the Muslims thought that Jehovah and Krishna are merely fictional characters that thus cannot be killed by a sword. So at most, the fact that Muslims did not go after Jehovah or Krishna only means that those particular Muslims did not think that Jehovah and Krishna are real; it doesn't mean that Jehovah and Krishna are in fact not real.

(Also, there are many examples of vandalism against other people's religiousness, such as when members of one tradition destroy the churches, temples, books, various other artifacts of the people from another tradition. Such destruction is sometimes referred to as "destroying another's god(s)".)

 

[wynn]

When you put it that way, there are far more gods or demi-gods that accompany each major one. Each god as credible as the one before or after it. These are just the major gods. As for the two dimensional thinking or your implication of me having a delusional dichotomist world view . Do you worship or believe in any of these gods? If not you would be considered an “atheist” in that culture. Now I understand that most of these gods are seen as fictions or just mythological, we know that the tales of the Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Babylonian, Chinese, Japanese and Roman/Latin gods are considered false and yet when it comes to monotheism it is seen with more validity? One could say that these gods “died out” or “ they were truly vanquished by the one and true god” If there is truly only ONE supreme diety...why are there so many religions with so many different separate gods. Would "he" not have vindicated it's existance to all the people of all the continents of the world? Yet we have this list as a testmant against that notion. "We are all atheist to most of the gods that societies have created...Some of us just go one god further." I’m sure you're familiar with the person who quoted that.

In that case, you are atheist because you believe gods are man-made,



not because of the problem with there being so many (notions of) g/God(s).

 

[wynn]

Monotheism is successful because it demands all other gods to be false, or inferior, to its own. It has a natural survival instinct. You'll notice Yahweh's excessive throat-clearing in the Old Testament, which is a necessity in a time and landscape where the majority of people worshiped different (and often several different) gods. And you ask the million-dollar question: What makes this one so special? The answer is simply that Yahweh had the better armies. He won the wars. Polytheistic religions tended to be inclusive, since there was no concept of a "one true god" in that worldview. It is only in monotheism that the god's authority is dependent on the smiting of another's gods.

This nonsense about all gods being a reflection of an ultimate originator is just their coping mechanism for the fact that o

... just their coping mechanism for the fact that o --?

Do complete the post.

 

[wynn]

probably because I can't relate to it since I was born outside of organized religion

I don't understand how come you seem to be so untroubled by the whole matter.


Do you ever have a rainy day?

Have you ever had a serious crisis of faith?

Have you ever had sleepless nights over doubts as to whether God is real, whether Krishna is just a fictional character, whether this or that person is indeed God's pure devotee or not, etc.?



For many people, religion, especially theism, and the various related issues, seems to be perplexing.

 

[wynn]

All conceptions of a god or gods are only the best approximation of a given people and time. No one see such things free of subjectivity.

How do you suggest then that we evaluate the fact that those who identify themselves as theists generally do not consider their conception of G/god or gods as an approximation, but as the absolute truth?

Of course, for example, a particular Christian will generally say that his concept of God is to some degree subjective, but will insist that on the whole, it is the Christian notion of God that is the correct one, as opposed to, say, the Muslim or the Hindu one.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

In that case, you are atheist because you believe gods are man-made,



not because of the problem with there being so many (notions of) g/God(s).

That is one part of my Athiesim yes, but not the whole reason.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

The fact that people expell, maim and kill other people (and other beings) in the name of their particular god or whatever else,
does not automatically make said god or whatever else)"
fictional)".

.True, however if the worshippers are the ones that take charge of their god's decisions or have to carry out its will then that displays an ownership in the mental sense of the burden of responsibility of the believer to fight their god's battles and not the gods themselves to show vindication and evidence for their existence. Which in hindsight is rather odd if an omnipotent god cannot simply alter the other cultures beliefs to fulfill its own desire, which again would be another contradiction for an entity that is with accordance to the belief everything and everywhere.

For example, the US executes inmates on death row; that doesn't make the US Government fictional.)

.
Yes, those are humans executing humans for transgressions against human made laws in a finite and tangible society. Gods don't kill people, People with gods kill people.

Although it's an interesting thought - Why did, for example, the Muslims not attempt to kill Jehovah or Krishna, and instead went after Christians and Hindus. But then again, this suggests that the Muslims thought that Jehovah and Krishna are merely fictional characters that thus cannot be killed by a sword. So at most, the fact that Muslims did not go after Jehovah or Krishna only means that those particular Muslims did not think that Jehovah and Krishna are real; it doesn't mean that Jehovah and Krishna are in fact not real.

(Also, there are many examples of vandalism against other people's religiousness, such as when members of one tradition destroy the churches, temples, books, various other artifacts of the people from another tradition. Such destruction is sometimes referred to as "destroying another's god(s)".)

Yes, small cults or alternate societies and cultures that are not deemed threats or a threat to supremacy will often go unnoticed since they are the minority and have little influence or power in the cultures or geo-political regions they arise in. However as history can show and attest to, once a cult gains power or grows in the society, that society will try to stomp it out or crush it out of self interest in preserving the status quo.

 

[wynn]

That is one part of my atheistism yes, but not the whole reason.

What is the other part or reason for your atheism?

Do you believe that because there are so many conceptions of G/god(s), this means that they are all necessarily fictional?

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

What is the other part or reason for your atheism?

Do you believe that because there are so many conceptions of G/god(s), this means that they are all necessarily fictional?

It is not the gods themselves but the sheer multitude of gods that makes me question their validity. If these gods are truely behaving in the mannerisms or control of the certain traits that they are assigned by their respective socieites then why or how could other gods even be allowed to exist. Yes i know that in our early years as a species we were geographically seperated and isolated but with globalization and technology connecting us, why wouldn't we see signs of all these different gods duking it out to determine who or whom is the true and only god?

 

[wynn]

It is not the gods themselves but the sheer multitude of gods that makes me question their validity. If these gods are truely behaving in the mannerisms or control of the certain traits that they are assigned by their respective socieites then why or how could other gods even be allowed to exist. Yes i know that in our early years as a species we were geographically seperated and isolated but with globalization and technology connecting us, why wouldn't we see signs of all these different gods duking it out to determine who or whom is the true and only god?

That depends on the perspective from which one looks at all this.

As a comparison, consider how the same man may be viewed in very different ways: by his wife, his mistress, his children, his coworkers, his boss, his subordinates, his friends, his acquaintances, his parents, his siblings, ...
For example, his children experience him in a radically different way, than say, his wife or his coworkers.
That doesn't mean that anyone involved is a fake, just that given the situation, the people involved have very different roles and thus very different viewpoints and different experiences.

It's not unthinkable that God is similarly perceived very differently, depending on the particular role that someone has in relation to God, the relationship that the two are in.

People who perceive God as their boss probably have a very different image of God than those who perceive God as their friend, for example.

 

[Syne]

Fair enough, regardless of how subjective the concepts are i still see no credibility in the gods of polytheism and monotheism. The Abrahamic god is simply too powerful.

Incredulity is nothing more than a form of argument from ignorance. So not, itself, a strong argument.

The continuum of man's progressive conception of a god. The god doesn't necessarily change.

All conceptions of a god or gods are only the best approximation of a given people and time. No one see such things free of subjectivity.

What evidence do you have to support these assertions?

These are obvious facts. If man has asserted these things then, regardless of their possible truth value, it is clear that these have been the conceptions of men, even if completely erroneous. The multitude of such conceptions imply nothing about their reality, either way. The one thing known is that the conceptions of gods have always tended to be some sort of idealization of man. As the ideal has evolved so has the conception.

 

[Syne]

All conceptions of a god or gods are only the best approximation of a given people and time. No one see such things free of subjectivity.

How do you suggest then that we evaluate the fact that those who identify themselves as theists generally do not consider their conception of G/god or gods as an approximation, but as the absolute truth?

Of course, for example, a particular Christian will generally say that his concept of God is to some degree subjective, but will insist that on the whole, it is the Christian notion of God that is the correct one, as opposed to, say, the Muslim or the Hindu one.

There is always such a thing as a best approximation. For the given time and culture, such best approximations have no higher truth. If it did, then that better approximation would be the accepted truth. This mirrors the development of science. You do not abandon one approximation until a better one if found, and it is expected that you will have a whole pantheon of such approximations over time.

A "given people" includes their culture, so we would expect there to be coexisting conceptions in competition between cultures, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc.. Being subjective, different approximations seem more suitable to one culture than another. Unlike science, such conceptions have no objectively discernible criteria.

 

[Yazata]

I find this format gives more emphasis on the sheer numbers of deities humans have made throughout history...it also shows a growing lack of credibility for everyone one you count.

Maybe, maybe not.

People around the world have obviously honored a large number of different gods. Or maybe they have honored a somewhat smaller number of gods, employing lots of different names and imagery for the same ones, depending on their culture.

One could argue that just as there are lots of individual human beings, there are lots of individual gods too. They have different names, personalities, specialties and areas of concern. Some are interested in particular localities or ethnic groups, and some aren't. Some are patrons of things like childbirth, music or healing.

One of the cool things about polytheism is that it's inherently tolerant. If there are lots of gods and people are already familiar with different people honoring different ones, even within their own culture, then they aren't going to be tremendously surprised or upset if they encounter a different culture with different gods. It's what they would expect.

Polytheism is more consistent with observed reality, in some ways. Oftentimes it seems like there are conflicting powers operating in the world, natural forces working at cross-purposes. Life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil, peace and war, freedom and order, reason and intuition. Monotheism has trouble creating a picture in which all of that turbulence is rendered consistent, but again, it's exactly what a polytheist would expect to see.

To tell the truth, I have some fondness for polytheism.

 

[Repo Man]

Where is the graveyard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a time when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And who of Huitzilopochtli? In one year - and it is no more than five hundred years ago - 50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried out with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood. But today Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha and Wotan, he is now the peer of Richmond P. Hobson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler and Tom Sharkey.

Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother Tezcatilpoca.
Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful; he consumed 25,000 virgins a year.

Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quetzalcoatl is? Or Xiehtecuthli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Of Mictlan? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard-of Hell do they await their resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Of that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jackass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods, but today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them.

Where is the graveyard of dead gods?

 

[Aqueous Id]

EDIT: Oh, and I feel sorry for those who had to pray to Huitzilopohctl, Quetzalcoatl, Tezcamtlipoca, Chalichiuhtlicue and Xochizuetzal out loud, by name.

For those who ritually perforated their tongues with thorned branches of rose shrubs, while under the influence of magic toad skins, they would probably have equal difficulty uttering anything else.