Short List

[Aqueous Id]

Saturnine Pariah,

It's no understatement to call it a short list. Some of those, like Ea, or Yahweh, are associated with pantheons. And Yahweh was supposedly married to Asherah. The Sumerians had over 200 in their pantheon at the peak of their list-keeping. Case in point:



A great number of deities were worshiped by the followers of the Canaanite religion; this is a partial listing:

Anat, virgin goddess of war and strife, sister and putative mate of Ba'al Hadad
Athirat, "walker of the sea", Mother Goddess, wife of El (also known as Elat and after the Bronze Age as Asherah)
Athtart, better known by her Greek name Astarte, assists Anat in The Myth of Ba'al
Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)
Ba'al Hadad (lit. master of thunder), storm god.
Baal Hammon, god of fertility and renewer of all energies in the Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean
Dagon, god of crop fertility and grain, father of Ba'al Hadad
El Elyon (lit. God Most High) and El; also transliterated as Ilu
Eshmun, god, or as Baalat Asclepius, goddess, of healing
Ishat, goddess of fire. She was slain by Anat.[1][2][3]
Kotharat, goddesses of marriage and pregnancy
Kothar-wa-Khasis, the skilled, god of craftsmanship
Lotan, the twisting, seven-headed serpent ally of Yam
Marqod, God of Dance
Melqart, king of the city, the underworld and cycle of vegetation in Tyre
Molech or Moloch, putative god of fire[4]
Mot or Mawat, god of death (not worshiped or given offerings)
Nikkal-wa-Ib, goddess of orchards and fruit
Qadeshtu, lit. "Holy One", putative goddess of love. In modern times mistakenly thought to be a sacred prostitute; there is no evidence of sacred prostitution in ancient Canaanite cities
Resheph, god of plague and of healing
Shachar and Shalim, twin gods of dawn and dusk, respectively
Shamayim, (lit. skies) the god of the heavens
Shapash, also transliterated Shapshu, goddess of the sun; sometimes equated with the Mesopotamian sun god Shemesh[5] whose gender is disputed[6]
Yaw (lit. sea-river) the god of the sea and the river,[7] also called Judge Nahar (judge of the river).[8][9][10]
Yahweh may exist as an ending of some Amorite male names,[11] though the only Canaanite mention of Yahweh, found on the Mesha Stele, refers to the God of Israel contrasted with Chemosh.[12]
Yarikh, god of the moon and husband of Nikkal


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion


Pretty smart of them to narrow it down to just one, then to outlaw the utterance of his name, and to bury the fact that he was married. Otherwise we might all be polygamiststheists.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

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.

By that logic then there should only be monotheistic religions and NO polytheistic religions at all. Each culture has a creator god or king of the gods, now use your head for this, if a GOD is KING or SUPERIOR to ALL the other GODS,(which would be a paradox or contradiction how could an entity that is a god in the first place be considered inferior or superior to other deities) why wouldn’t that GOD simply take on with reasonability the tasks of the whole cast of secondary gods that are delegated to a particular phenomenon. The repertoire that I’d expect you to rebuttal with is the ever complicated subject of perception. Each one is single personification, for an abstract ideal; each one is implanted with human or natural traits as a means to give false meaning to randomness. The tale of Persephone, the Epics of Gilgamesh, Dreamtime by the Aborigines, need I go on? All are a means to try and understand certain phenomenon and put some illusion of control in a rather random, strange, scary world.
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/legend.htm or http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html or even summaries http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/creationmyths/tp/090808CreationMyths.htm

 

[Rav]

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o
You can talk about perception all you want Wynn you can talk about it until the cows come home. But perceptions of the earth, the universe and our very origins have come and gone. Some still exist under the conveniently made and untouchable area of the "supernatural" while others were proven dead wrong.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Ah yes the Invisible Pink Unicorn, thanks for bringing that in Rav. So many contradictions a great mockery. Just as humorous and useful as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jClyinERY&feature=plcp

 

[Rav]

Ah yes the Invisible Pink Unicorn

Not the invisible pink unicorn in particular. Just an illustration demonstrating how the progressive addition of detail doesn't necessarily make something any more real.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Just an illustration demonstrating how the progressive addition of detail doesn't necessarily make something any more real.

Just like all the other enitities I.E. Gods, demi-gods, saviors or creatures of myth.

 

[Balerion]

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).

It is the sheer number of gods that raises questions about the authenticity of the very concept of godhood. The response of "It's all just subjective views of the same thing" is empirically incorrect, most notably in the evidence we have of the modern monotheisms being hodgepodges of various other religions. None of them are drawing from a single source, that is. That response is also intellectually unsatisfying when applied to religions that were not influenced by each other, such as the religion of the Maya, say, and Buddhism. What is the thread that makes these two religions merely a difference in perspective?

Of course, there are logical problems as well, and perhaps those are what strike many modern atheists and agnostics first. But anyone who learns of ancient mythology in grade school should be curious as to why those gods are fake but the gods of their parents are not. It really isn't a long conversation from there to arrive at unbelief.

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.

This is correct. The badness of a god (or man's willingness to kill in its/their name/names is only a commentary on man's malleability, not on the authenticity of a god. Where a species of this argument does apply is in the context of a discussion on the validity of a caring, loving god. Yahweh is often considered to be such a god, but the world's seemingly natural bent for injustice completely discredits such an idea. (The attempt to reconcile the cruel world with a loving celestial father is really the whole purpose of theology as a discipline.)

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.

You're falling into the same trap you are warning against, as well as getting a key fact wrong. For one, Jehovah is simply the vocalization of "YHWH" or "Yahweh," and Allah is just the Muslim name for the deity the Hebrews called Yahweh. They're the same god, in other words. Secondly, the behavior of the marauding Muslims would have been no different had they believed Krishna to be a real being, since a god is beyond the reach of a man. Their purview was the killing or conversion of people of a different faith, and destroying any shrines to their gods. Presumably, if Krishna were real, that battle would be on waged by Allah himself. Sort of like how Christians can only fight Satan by avoiding his traps, rather than physically accosting him.

(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, but someone else could rebuild a temple or make another statue. The object of destroying these things was psychological rather than practical.

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

Do complete the post.

I think my internet connection is weak, because that isn't the first time that's happened to me. I post, and the whole post appears on the page, and then some time later half of it disappears. Either that or a moderator is messing with me.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at was really just the point I made at the top of this post, about how the devout attempt to explain away the various religions and gods in the world by claiming they're all just cultural perspectives on the same thing. I believe this is a nonsensical answer, and does not even attempt to explain why there is literally no commonality between some faiths. The other problem with their explanation is that it begins with the assumption that God exists, and works down from there, rather than from the ground up. In other words, they say "Okay, God exists, so how do we make all these different religions and gods work in that context? Ah-ha! We'll say it's just a continuum of man's understanding of the actual God!" This isn't an attempt to understand, it's an attempt to evangelize. It's theology, not science.

 

[Syne]

This is correct. The badness of a god (or man's willingness to kill in its/their name/names is only a commentary on man's malleability, not on the authenticity of a god. Where a species of this argument does apply is in the context of a discussion on the validity of a caring, loving god. Yahweh is often considered to be such a god, but the world's seemingly natural bent for injustice completely discredits such an idea. (The attempt to reconcile the cruel world with a loving celestial father is really the whole purpose of theology as a discipline.)

The problem of evil is only an issue to fatalists.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at was really just the point I made at the top of this post, about how the devout attempt to explain away the various religions and gods in the world by claiming they're all just cultural perspectives on the same thing. I believe this is a nonsensical answer, and does not even attempt to explain why there is literally no commonality between some faiths.

It is no "claim" that differing views on god/s are inherently cultural, much less nonsensical. Any reasonable person should be able to recognize that specific religions appeal to specific cultures. It is not, itself, an attempt to explain commonality, so it is a straw man to imply it addresses that at all. But their is ample commonality. All gods tend to be idealizations of men, whether for good or bad, and often for both.

The other problem with their explanation is that it begins with the assumption that God exists, and works down from there, rather than from the ground up. In other words, they say "Okay, God exists, so how do we make all these different religions and gods work in that context? Ah-ha! We'll say it's just a continuum of man's understanding of the actual God!" This isn't an attempt to understand, it's an attempt to evangelize. It's theology, not science.

No, the history of world religions make it clear that what one people and time referred to as a god has always been a consistent enough idea to define them all under the headings of "god" and "religion". Otherwise we would not be able to make such hasty generalizations and comparisons of the whole lot.

 

[Balerion]

The problem of evil is only an issue to fatalists.

And yet theology is practically dedicated to it.

It is no "claim" that differing views on god/s are inherently cultural, much less nonsensical. Any reasonable person should be able to recognize that specific religions appeal to specific cultures. It is not, itself, an attempt to explain commonality, so it is a straw man to imply it addresses that at all. But their is ample commonality. All gods tend to be idealizations of men, whether for good or bad, and often for both.

Straw men galore here. For one, you weren't arguing that gods are cultural, you were arguing that all religions are cultural interpretations of the same original deity, and that such interpretations are maturing as time goes on. Second, I never said it was an attempt to explain commonality, I said that your explanation was an attempt to reconcile all of the various gods and faiths by asserting a commonality that simply is not there. Thirdly, all gods do not tend to be idealizations of man. American Indian gods in many cases weren't even men at all, but animals, or animal-man hybrids. But even if it were true, how about you answer the question I actually posed, which pertained to how these alleged commonalities spoke to all religion being a cultural interpretation of the same thing.

No, the history of world religions make it clear that what one people and time referred to as a god has always been a consistent enough idea to define them all under the headings of "god" and "religion". Otherwise we would not be able to make such hasty generalizations and comparisons of the whole lot.

But they haven't, because many polytheistic faiths lack the singular godhead that monotheisms claim. So how does this imply that they're all talking about the same thing?

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

well I did ask which of these images of trees has no credibility, so it was kind of a given that they were all created by man (even though for some funny reason you think the first one wasn't created in such a manner ...)
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

actually the point is that you don't have any problems with the variety of approaches to depicting trees (even if you have to go so far as to declare something, like a car, as a grossly inaccurate depiction of a tree) ...in fact I would even hazard to guess that you are capable of discussing which depictions of trees are more "real" than others (and I would also hazard that this discussion would revolve around your current cultural/sensory strong/weak points)

So in short, there is absolutely no substance to your argument that a variety of approaches (from a variety of peoples) to a subject (that even goes to the extent of saying which claims are more real than others .. or even which ones are grossly inaccurate and false) renders the analysis questionable
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Its the nature of existing here that we all have problems.
The only sliding scale is how one deals with it (which usually falls back to an analysis of cause and effect - IOW adhyatmic (my problems) , adhibautic (you and every other living entity giving me problems) and adhidaivic (problems of physical existence) are filtered through issues of attachment/aversion which at the end of the day make me concur "who's fault it really is"

 

[Syne]

The problem of evil is only an issue to fatalists.

And yet theology is practically dedicated to it.

First, I think you mean religion, as theology is the study of religion, not a dedication to any particular credo. Second, religion is primarily dedicated to free will and the responsibility for ones actions, i.e. morality. At the very least, they seek to provide some meaning to life, which a fatalistic view is devoid of. There is no significance to any action if all is fated.

Straw men galore here. For one, you weren't arguing that gods are cultural, you were arguing that all religions are cultural interpretations of the same original deity, and that such interpretations are maturing as time goes on. Second, I never said it was an attempt to explain commonality, I said that your explanation was an attempt to reconcile all of the various gods and faiths by asserting a commonality that simply is not there. Thirdly, all gods do not tend to be idealizations of man. American Indian gods in many cases weren't even men at all, but animals, or animal-man hybrids. But even if it were true, how about you answer the question I actually posed, which pertained to how these alleged commonalities spoke to all religion being a cultural interpretation of the same thing.

But you were not responding to my post, so it apparently had nothing to do with what I was arguing or said. But if you were trying to address my argument, you should probably refrain from hiding it in responses to others. That would seem to be a dishonest attempt to gainsay me without fear of rebuttal. Certainly you can make effective arguments without resorting to such tactics. No straw men at all, you just seem to have completely missed that I was responding to what you had said (that is why we use quotes), which was not presented as an argument of any previous post of mine, and actually was obfuscated as an argument to "the devout". Now that we have your confusion out of the way...

So you wish to make some sort of distinction between gods that originate from a specific culture and a specific cultural interpretation of the notion of god? I fail to see any difference. I did not say "same original deity", I said "conceptions of a god" (nonspecific).

It is painfully obvious that the notions of gods have evolved over time. From those displaying very human foibles, jealousies, and wrath to those more benevolent. If you cannot see any commonality between all those entities collectively classified as gods then you either have not looked, suffer from a serious attentional blindness, or simply do not understand why we would choose to call them all by the same word. Do you fail to see the similarity of other things called by the same word as well? Exactly how much difference does it take for you to ignore all linguistic cues? Do human names confuse you as to the species of the person?

Native Americans simply thought that characteristics of animals, which they held in great regard, were idealistic. Idealization of man are not confined to his form, nor his inherent attributes, alone.

If you are still too obtuse to see any commonalities then no doubt you will refuse to accept any arguments based on them.

But they haven't, because many polytheistic faiths lack the singular godhead that monotheisms claim. So how does this imply that they're all talking about the same thing?

Really? Even just more than one god so easily confuses you? Do you get similarly confused when a person is compared to a group of people? Seems the word "god" just wreaks havoc on any reasoning skills you may possess. No wonder you are an atheist. You cannot even seem to comprehend how that single word applies to several things much like any other word.

 

[lightgigantic]

Where is the graveyard of dead gods?

Kind of a silly article.

I mean all the cultures also had different names for the sun, water, children, teachers, warriors, sex, politicians, clay pots and bread. Just because their civilization has kicked the bucket we don't see the author going on a tirade about the (apparent) loss of these things.
IOW its kind of ridiculous to think that a culture is somehow incapable of identifying things that contextualize themselves.
How would you react to the claim that science is simply a cultural phenomena, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah yes the Invisible Pink Unicorn, thanks for bringing that in Rav. So many contradictions a great mockery. Just as humorous and useful as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jClyinERY&feature=plcp

actually all of rav's contributions are inaccurate depictions of the invisible pink unicorn
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o
You can talk about perception all you want Wynn you can talk about it until the cows come home. But perceptions of the earth, the universe and our very origins have come and gone. Some still exist under the conveniently made and untouchable area of the "supernatural" while others were proven dead wrong.

just start to talk about which depictions of trees are more real than others (and which things are not depictions of trees at all) .
I double dare you

 

[Balerion]

It's practically spam at this point.

 

[Rav]

actually all of rav's contributions are inaccurate depictions of the invisible pink unicorn
:shrug:

They weren't depictions of an invisible pink unicorn at all. They were simply depictions of a pink unicorn.

 

[Balerion]

First, I think you mean religion, as theology is the study of religion, not a dedication to any particular credo.

No, theology is the attempt of the religious to reconcile their dogma with the realities of the world. It's hucksterism disguised as legitimate academic endeavor.

Second, religion is primarily dedicated to free will and the responsibility for ones actions, i.e. morality. At the very least, they seek to provide some meaning to life, which a fatalistic view is devoid of. There is no significance to any action if all is fated.

Your confusing your religion with religion as a general concept. Not all religions tackled these issue. Most didn't, in fact. As to the question of meaning, I feel very sorry for people who need blind faith for their lives to be of any value. I am an atheist, I understand that my consciousness will cease to exist upon my death, yet my life still has plenty of meaning. I do what I love, I love my friends and family, and I feel I have found a purpose. It's not "purpose" in a divine sense, but in a real sense. As in, "this is what I'm best at, and so I am doing it." It takes a truly weak-minded person to believe that life is meaningless without the promise of an afterlife. And the intellectual depth of a puddle to actually believe that eternal life is inherently meaningful.

But you were not responding to my post, so it apparently had nothing to do with what I was arguing or said. But if you were trying to address my argument, you should probably refrain from hiding it in responses to others. That would seem to be a dishonest attempt to gainsay me without fear of rebuttal. Certainly you can make effective arguments without resorting to such tactics. No straw men at all, you just seem to have completely missed that I was responding to what you had said (that is why we use quotes), which was not presented as an argument of any previous post of mine, and actually was obfuscated as an argument to "the devout". Now that we have your confusion out of the way...

Due to the low quality of your posts and your penchant for trolling, I have you on my ignore list, so no, yours was not a post originally being responded to. But when I saw another poster giving ground following one of your posts, I had to see what the fuss was about, and promptly addressed you directly. You are evading me now by pretending that your other comments exist on a different plane of existence, so I'll give you the chance to swallow your pride and come around to the point on your next try.

So you wish to make some sort of distinction between gods that originate from a specific culture and a specific cultural interpretation of the notion of god? I fail to see any difference. I did not say "same original deity", I said "conceptions of a god" (nonspecific).

I'm sorry, I thought we were adult enough to abandon pretense. You're still pretending that you're not talking about the original creator you believe in?

It is painfully obvious that the notions of gods have evolved over time. From those displaying very human foibles, jealousies, and wrath to those more benevolent.

So you mean from the Hebrew God to the Christian God? There have been benevolent gods since the dawn of time, as well as jealous ones, chief. The only thing painfully obvious about your assertion is how narrow the viewpoint is it represents.

If you cannot see any commonality between all those entities collectively classified as gods then you either have not looked, suffer from a serious attentional blindness, or simply do not understand why we would choose to call them all by the same word. Do you fail to see the similarity of other things called by the same word as well? Exactly how much difference does it take for you to ignore all linguistic cues? Do human names confuse you as to the species of the person?

All ad hominem, zero substance.

We call "gods" the same word because it's a catch-all for deities, but it certainly doesn't imply that they share any more than one trait in common. If you call that "commonality" sufficient to claim that we're all talking about the same thing, then this conversation needs to go no further.

Native Americans simply thought that characteristics of animals, which they held in great regard, were idealistic. Idealization of man are not confined to his form, nor his inherent attributes, alone.

Try again. While certain animal traits might be considered ideal, the gods their collective form made would not be an idealization of man, they would be an idealization of animal.

If you are still too obtuse to see any commonalities then no doubt you will refuse to accept any arguments based on them.

Ah, there it is again. The truth is, I refuse to accept your arguments because your arguments are false. I know that's hard to hear, but there it is.

Really? Even just more than one god so easily confuses you? Do you get similarly confused when a person is compared to a group of people? Seems the word "god" just wreaks havoc on any reasoning skills you may possess. No wonder you are an atheist. You cannot even seem to comprehend how that single word applies to several things much like any other word.

It's very easy to tell when your argument has been defeated, Syne. It's also very easy to see why GIA is just about the only person left on the forum who will talk to you.