Why DON'T you believe in other gods?
- Thread starter Apone
- Start date
If someone is raised on a belief system and their concept of reality has been based upon it from early childhood, then even if they would be willing to try to, it would probably be more difficult to wrap their heads/hearts containing spiritual feeling around how other deities play a role in the reality that they and others experience. This is disregarding that with some religions you aren't supposed to engage in belief of other gods at all -- they are "idols".
By the same logic, Nickelback is better than Mozart, JK Rowling is better than James Joyce, KFC is an amazing restaurant, and Transformers 3 is better than anything by Ingmar Bergman or Andrei Tarkovsky.
Christianity and Islam are two of the most commercial and aggressive religions out there... it's not really surprising that they're popular. But popularity doesn't have anything to do with 'truth' or the inherent 'value' of any phenomena.
Your analogy doesn't really fit. I'm not appealing to popularity, rather making an inductive argument based upon the success of a particular deity, Yahweh.
I'm sure you recognize that if a deity exists, and wanted to be worshiped, we would expect that deity to rise to prominence amidst all the others that didn't exist and fade into irrelevance.
To arrange your analogy to more accurately represent my argument, Yahweh would be akin to mozart, and all the uninspired and obscure music we never heard of would be the other gods of yore.
To re-iterate, this doesn't prove the existence of this particular deity, but I believe this is why when most modern people wrestle with the existence of God, they intuitively write off obscure deities, and think of the Abrahamic God, or leastwise a similar monotheistic type.
How are success and popularity different in this case? I was under the impression that you were arguing that Yahweh is successful because it's popular, and because popularity was its goal. 'Prominence amidst all the others' is popularity. If you're hot and have a nice personality, you will be prominent. Justin Bieber is a prominent pop singer. I don't know what else that could mean.
And to set it all to rest, from merriamwebster.com:
Definition of PROMINENT
1
: standing out or projecting beyond a surface or line : protuberant
2
a : readily noticeable : conspicuous
b : widely and popularly known : leading
You can't just use more 'intelligent-sounding' words and make something not mean what it means.
I agree Mozart doesn't really work though, because Mozart was popular among his contemporaries. Today he's popular in that 'name one classical musician' trivia game answer sort of way... but in terms of influence, I can't say that he is.
I agree, and it's one of the reasons I have so little respect for people who think this way.
Last edited:
For a while several years ago I thought neopaganism was very interesting. I never really committed to it, but my point is that yes, there are people out there who do precisely that and believe in other gods. It is a possibility.
I guess, however, that some gods seem more plausible than others. Nobody takes Mr. Macamoo, the troll god of my small intestine, seriously. Major religion is subject to the same kinds of scrutiny and bias.... as is everything else in our lives.
I guess, however, that some gods seem more plausible than others. Nobody takes Mr. Macamoo, the troll god of my small intestine, seriously. Major religion is subject to the same kinds of scrutiny and bias.... as is everything else in our lives.
Shaqie
The Grandmaster in Disguise
Success in this case is more than just popularity, but the combination of popularity, longevity, the seriousness with which the deity is taken, and a complete lack of on par competition in that.
But my argument isn't just about the success of Yahweh, or even just the failure of all the obscure gods to achieve sole prominence as opposed to Yahweh.
Like my tweaking of your mozart analogy. ^_^
Funny thing is I actually thought that might happen back when I was an atheist.
But that would be a historical fact I overlooked, not a gauge for how the analogy applies to the argument.
Not sure what you're talking about here, but I generally reserve my disrespect for the abusive.
I am not new to being in a minority opinion.
I agree with you that popularity does not imply truth. This is where differences of beliefs within a belief system is relevant. A majority of Christian believers believe or imply that a stated or unstated level of moral living is required. Liberals and conservatives alike believe this. This is where I part ways with this majority.
I believe that all deities are reflections of the same God. I believe that if God wanted to have children, that it would be more than possible. God isn't physical, nor theoretical. Since he's above it all, he can assume any form he wishes.
I don't "just do" anything because I have faith, or don't have faith. I make decisions based on what I know and have felt. I have faith in the one God I believe exists. I choose to call it Krsna, but you can call it Allah, God, JHVH, Visnu, etc. etc.
Those aren't the words of God, those are the words of missionaries. Go directly to the source for information about God if you want what it believes in.
Seeing as how I believe God takes whichever form that suits it, I don't worry that I'm missing out on some other incarnation. I'd rather work on reaching God, and leave the speculation to the skeptics.
Asking questions is healthy, and it's a good way to go about living your life. I wouldn't waste my time with people that tell you to shut up and follow what is written in a book. In my opinion it's a waste of time to believe in something that you can't see or reach. I can't convince you, or any one else for that matter, that what I believe is the right thing. I can only tell you how I feel. If you want to join in, cool.
I don't believe in other gods, because other gods would not contain the attributes that God would need to truly be considered God in prevailing understanding of God from a philosophical perspective (Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and so on). The Greek gods for example, bear a stronger resemblance to super heroes than they do to the God of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists, Theists, etc. (Which I consider the same God) This point is often brought up by atheists or agnostics, that if Christians believe in their God, then why not Zeus? why not Odin? why not Horus? And to that I would say what I just said above, that these gods are not really God in the sense that we understand the term today. These gods are simply super powerful anthropomorphic or zoomorphic creations designed to explain the material world and perceive the spiritual world in various religions.
Zeus for example, is not "Alpha and Omega" as God in Christianity is presented, or the unmoved mover (something I believe is a logically necessary quality for God to have if God exists) ; Zeus on the other hand in Greek myth is presented as one who has an origin, his existence is not eternal, Zeus is the son of Cronus and Rhea, and just happens to be extremely powerful in Greek myth and king of the gods. Zeus is not omnipresent, nor is he omniscient since myths tell of him being fooled by other gods. There are also accounts in greek myth of gods being defeated in battle by other gods, famously showcased in the Iliad where different gods and goddesses take sides of the greeks and trojans. In fact if you trace back all of the variations of Greek myth, you are going to get to a point where gods have their genesis in a union between earth and sky, which is a very pantheistic view of the divine, but that also begs the question how these deities of earth (Gaia) and sky (Ouranos) came into being. Point being that of all the deities you can muster up from world history, you are going to find that these deities do not measure up, or are lacking in some attribute to be considered God in the clear and defined understanding we have today present in the major monotheistic religions and in the philosophy of the non-religious who consider themselves simply deists or theists.
I believe all the different beliefs in various gods were born out of the need for etiological explanation of the world and world events. And so we get gods attributed to different things in the world, things that are able to exercise some sort of power or influence, and we end up getting the god of the sea, the sky, thunder, music, wine, love, war, etc. But eventually as our understanding of our world grew, we understood a deity did not need to be attributed to things like the sky, thunder, music, etc. But it is my belief that the buck stops somewhere, and this is on the question of ultimate origin of the material world, and what occurred before the big bang if anything can be said to have occurred prior, seeing as both time and space were born out of the big bang. This is where my belief in God takes the reins as it were.
Zeus for example, is not "Alpha and Omega" as God in Christianity is presented, or the unmoved mover (something I believe is a logically necessary quality for God to have if God exists) ; Zeus on the other hand in Greek myth is presented as one who has an origin, his existence is not eternal, Zeus is the son of Cronus and Rhea, and just happens to be extremely powerful in Greek myth and king of the gods. Zeus is not omnipresent, nor is he omniscient since myths tell of him being fooled by other gods. There are also accounts in greek myth of gods being defeated in battle by other gods, famously showcased in the Iliad where different gods and goddesses take sides of the greeks and trojans. In fact if you trace back all of the variations of Greek myth, you are going to get to a point where gods have their genesis in a union between earth and sky, which is a very pantheistic view of the divine, but that also begs the question how these deities of earth (Gaia) and sky (Ouranos) came into being. Point being that of all the deities you can muster up from world history, you are going to find that these deities do not measure up, or are lacking in some attribute to be considered God in the clear and defined understanding we have today present in the major monotheistic religions and in the philosophy of the non-religious who consider themselves simply deists or theists.
I believe all the different beliefs in various gods were born out of the need for etiological explanation of the world and world events. And so we get gods attributed to different things in the world, things that are able to exercise some sort of power or influence, and we end up getting the god of the sea, the sky, thunder, music, wine, love, war, etc. But eventually as our understanding of our world grew, we understood a deity did not need to be attributed to things like the sky, thunder, music, etc. But it is my belief that the buck stops somewhere, and this is on the question of ultimate origin of the material world, and what occurred before the big bang if anything can be said to have occurred prior, seeing as both time and space were born out of the big bang. This is where my belief in God takes the reins as it were.
There is no God... oh wait wrong threadThis is the cool part about being an atheist, you don't have to scramble up some bogus answer to a very logical question which is practically unanswerable if you beleive in any 1 "true" god... there is no logical or meaningful reason as to why one would believe in Yaweh vs Zeus vs Odin, vs Osiris, vs Baal, vs Hercules, vs Fairies in the well, vs unicorns, vs gnomes, vs Sauron, vs Jesus, vs Pixies, vs werewolves, vs bugbears, vs Malorne, vs C'thulu, vs Satan, vs the spaghetti monster, vs any mythical creature mankind can dream up. The only real answer that seems obvious yet ignored is "this is the god I was raised to believe in". Which... well for some of us is kind of lazy.
There's more to the world than what you can see with your limited senses. I agree that ignorance is a bad thing, and I agree that if you believe in something with half of your heart, then you shouldn't believe at all. But if you need proof that your senses are limited, you need look no further than up. At night we see hundreds of suns from all over the galaxy. We see the moon, and sometimes we can even see planets like Mars and Mercury. But what do we really know about them? Can our senses tell us why the sun doesn't light up dark matter? Can your hearing ability let us know what sounds are emitted from Pluto? Can you smell the gasses of Jupiter? The answer is no. Likewise with spiritual and (gasp) religious matter: how can you expect to see with your limited sense, especially if you've come to a conclusion before even trying?
I am not sure what you are attempting to prove, but the whole basis for technology is that it improves our senses. We know whats on Mars because we send Rovers there. We can see Jupiter because of telescopes and satellites, we know of micro biology because we enhanced our vision with microscopes. You are falling prey to the god in the gaps theory. Just because something is not known, does not make it supernatural.
It is religion that does this. Not science
Science - I wonder what the answer is. Lets find out
Religion - This is the answer. Ignore any evidence to the contrary (faith)
As much as 'na na na I'm right you're wrong' can be pure.
There is a flaw in my reasoning. Broad strokes. Not all atheists come from a place of superiority; hell, not all atheists 'break free' from religions.
That same flaw can be applied in the other direction as well. >_>;
As for the OP:
Not particularly saying I don't.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]To a point, stories and works does give more...attention to other gods; not that other mainstream Gods don't receive them, but at least they have it easier (if worse) than older gods. :|
In that particular sense, Islam is quite smart about it.[/FONT]
Faith and willfull, self imposed ignorance are the same thing.
All religions require faith. This is why I don't believe in any man made god
All religions require faith. This is why I don't believe in any man made god
You think the abrahamic god is a man made creation? The stories suggest it was an observation rather than a deliberate creation
Can you explain please? I don't know what the abrahamic god is and haven't read the whole thread