I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen Henry Roberts
I would like to hear some explanations as to why the Christians on this site dismiss Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Osiris, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Loki, Odin, Thor, Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesh, etc. yet accept Jesus as a god.
I would also like to know why their reasoned dismissal of the above gods, can’t be turned on their own god Jesus.
So, you want somebody to write you a 800 page post explaining to you in detail why every single god you can name throughout history isn’t something they believe in?
Or, do you want some cultural/social explanation that covers them all with 2-3 paragraphs, that you can turn around and point out that some other guy in some other culture will have a parallel argument against the Christian God from his perspective?
You may as well add “No God at all” to the list, since that perspective is in exactly the same position.
We aren’t all atheists, we’re just really picky… If nothing else is obvious, religion, and the discussion of religion, revolves around what, who, and how exclusionary we can be. The idea that there might be commonality in spirituality is either ignored or buried under blah blah blah… As someone said, the devil is in the details.
In the old times, in many cultures, god and gods were part of the science.
The science back then, had gods as an explanation, for the cause and source of various things.
Because knowledge and belief controls the mind, as does science and metaphysics, in order to control the people, the details about what god was and was not, also had to be controlled until it fit very specific purposes and desires of the ones whom controlled the culture, the society an the information.
Belief in what is real and what is not – is all about concentual reality, and the cults which form are all examples of what democracy really is : a process of preaching and teaching for power, for belief, for control, for fame, for obediance, etc.
Religion is democracy, and god is the president of democracy, culturally, as a paragovernmental control system for large numbers of powers and persons.
What I meant to say is – most of these cults are one-party democracies, but if they don’t have a military and don’t collect much taxes, they’re not at the top of the political food-chain like they usedto be in the dark ages. – But ofcourse only the monotheists are “atheist” in Bane’s example, there are Hindu guys who believe in gods from more than one culture, ethnicity or teacher, and are examples of theism which goes against Stephen Henry’s silly words.
I don’t think names count. The Bible has over a hundred names for the one God. I worship the God of compassion. I think that might set Him apart from many of the gods you mention. If more than one of the gods you mention is hailed as a god of compassion, it is the same god interpreted into a different culture.
That is the exact point of the quote.
More to the point, certain reasons for rejecting a particular god should apply just the same to all gods.
Nope. Disbelief in all Gods is not the same as a belief in any one of them. Please don’t try the old tactic of setting disbelief next to belief. No God at all is not a God that is believed in.
I think you agree with me with respect to supposed monotheists being atheists of other gods. Correct?
But is polytheism even possible?
Religions and gods are mutually exclusive.
Just because a Baha’i can say that they believe in all gods and all religions,
doesn’t change the fact that religions and gods are mutually exclusive.
Just because a person can say something, doesn’t mean it isn’t contradictory or a fallacy of reason.
“Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!”
-Tyler Durden
A person cannot believe in Shiva, Zeus, Loki, Jesus, and Allah all at once.
On another note on polytheism. The trinity is every bit polytheistic. People seem to think that because they can call the three different gods all one god, that makes everything ok. Again, just because you can say these different characters are one god, doesn’t change the fact that they are used as separate gods and beings.
Ah, then I get the impression you aren’t really looking for explanations so much as hoping out loud that there aren’t any. And yes, belief and unbelief are compatible in the way I’ve proposed, in just the sense that you’re thinking there’s an argument to be made here when there’s not.
Sure they can. It just means that their version of Jesus isn’t the same as a Christian fundamentalist’s version of Jesus. ‘Gods’ in the Hindu or ancient Greek sense is not simply the plural of ‘God’ in the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim sense. The latter concept of God admits to no plural possibility.
Is that not a name?
We can ascribe the anthropomorphic characteristic of compassion to any of the gods named above.
Are you an atheist with respect to other gods that supposedly don’t have compassion?
On what grounds do you dismiss the gods that supposedly don’t have compassion as opposed to your god of compassion?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6
I have to disagree flat out.
To say one believes in all gods or believes in all religions or believes in all beliefs… is not belief in anything!
It is as I said above. Just because you can say it, doesn’t make it possible.
If I said that my single belief position is that: I believe in one god only, and I believe in all gods, and at the same time disbelieve in all gods…
This is a not a singular position that one can possibly hold.
It is impossible, illogical, and outright silly.
Actually, no one has given any reasons yet as to why they dismiss all other gods, yet accept their own.
f12hte, noted dismissing gods based on their level of supposed compassion.
I am interested in hearing specific reasons as to why those other gods (less compassionate ones) are dismissed.
You are correct that there could be millions of reasons as to why God “X” is better than other gods.
I more wanted to hear particular reasons why people dismissed certain gods, and see if that same reason couldn’t be applied to all gods.
He has said it, it is written, therefor it is true.
Belief in “X” is not the same a belief that there are fallacies in or problems with “X”.
Obviously to disbelieve in “X”, you believe in reasons as to why belief in “X” is wrong. Atheism is not belief, it is disbelief. I don’t want to have to explain this again!
My last posts on ILP have been a broken record.
I’m running out of gas and banging my head against a brick wall.
I think people intuitively know a leading question posed by an extremely hostile questioner when they see one. From the perspective of a Christian, is there a friendly debate to be had here, were they to respond to you?
Sure, there’s all kinds of differences, but they are the same in the relevant way that allowed you to jump on this:
Uccisore
If the problem is that a person raised in X culture is more likely to hold religion Y, then yes, atheism is in exactly the same boat. Beliefs are influenced by culture, yes. Doesn’t matter if they are pro- , anti-, a-, or non-, in character.
It would be contradictory to believe in any god which supposedly said or inspired people to write that there are no gods other than himself, and that would be the Judaism and the Islam monotheist’s god-totalitarianisms.
From a Hindu perspective this sort of issue or question is different, though, as they’d believe everyone is made from/of the same source-reality, and thus are simultaniously polytheist and pantheist. Super beings and lower beings are all manifestations of the whole which is beyond any single being or thing, of which is everyone and everything.
Also, disbelief in a certain amount of “gods” does not automatically mean “atheist”. Modern “atheism” is about disbelief in all of the “supernatural”, whilst non-theist may still believe in ghosts and whatever else.
That Stephen guy, he’s probably from a christian culture/country…
This is so rhetorical now that it’s political. Nothing but buzz-words of association.
I did not mean to give God yet another name there. I would have capitalized compassion, if I had wanted to do that. I simply meant whatever you call Him, if He is compassionate,He is God.
I defer to your knowledge in this area. If compassion is the principal characteristic of these other gods, then they are just what other cultures call the one true God.
Atheist “with respect to” is sort of meaningless to me. I prefer the simple dichotomy of Theist/Atheist. I believe that if it is not the God of compassion, then it is mythology.
On the basis of what is useful to me. A compassionate God gives meaning and joy to my life. A god without compassion is of no use to me.
Bane, your tenacity is irreprehensible. I am curious though, are you really searching for answers about God or gods? Could there be something said or done that may sate your mind? It’s not that I mind your questions concerning religion, it’s just that I feel we aren’t providing convincing arguments and we keep chasing our tails. Do you envision a possibility of being convinced by what we say because I seriously doubt God will make Himself known to you. I guess if He did it would be to put you to task for some reason or other. There you’d be, in our position trying to spread the Gospel while being villified by non-believers. I could think of worse things that could happen though. Who knows, you may one day pick up the cross and share the burden. All in all, I think you are a decent sort of fellow making us stay on our toes.
As Dan~ has already pointed out, you are more Christian than you realize. You’re applying a Judeo-Christian definition of God to a Hindu context, which doesn’t work. ‘God’ in that context is not an exlusionary concept and therefore can’t be subjected to the same rules of logic. ‘Gods’ (Hindu) is not the plural of ‘God’ (Christian) because there can be no plural Christian God. You have been fooled by words.
If nothing else is obvious, religion, and the discussion of religion, revolves around what, who, and how exclusionary we can be. The idea that there might be commonality in spirituality is either ignored or buried under blah blah blah… As someone said, the devil is in the details. 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}