16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of HecateNonsense.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
Why anyone dismisses the existence of God has nothing to do with why a monotheist dismisses polytheism.
16 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateA truly magnificent quote!
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
I emphasize the last part again:
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Criticize this sentence when you understand it, not before!
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of HecateDoes this statement still hold if presented to a polytheist?
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatebegins with an assumption i am afraid and as we know, its a very shaky foundation from which to base anything.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is not an easy question to answer. Perhaps the closest I can get is to express my own concerns about religion in general.
Why do theists dismiss other gods?
I can think of at least one possibility where disbelief in all religions but one is not inconsistent.
Coherent and widely accepted religions do not spring up today as they did in mankind's infancy. Human fantasy created God, Gods and various other spiritual incarnations. These beings, through acts of their will alone, explained and influenced daily life and the happenings of chance.
Mankind desires control and understanding. Our spiritual youth was spent crafting religions and God's to exert control on our fellow man and attempt to explain a broader reality than these primitive cultures could test and grasp.
Is it any surprise that the horror of death and the miracle of child birth need some spiritual grounding to make them palatable to primitive man? The beauty and order of nature is equally worthy of a divine explanation. Not to mention the fact that how do you control people that have nothing to live for? Given the hand to mouth existance that plagues us still in many parts of the world, inventing an all seeing, all knowing God that will punish you eternally for your indiscretions seems like a pretty good approach don't you think? If there was nothing to live for, nothing but the emptyness of death to fear, what do you have to lose?
Pleading to this Divine Facilitator for blessings and good fortune also seems an attractive and understandable concept. All religions have prayer and sacrifice as a commonality. Having that edge over luck is a simple desire, but, as demonstrated by the relative success of casinos and other gambling establishments, prayer has little influence over our Mistress Chance.
I can imagine the ethical struggle that haunted the early priests of all religions. Balancing the the ethical and moral good of your society against your own personal gain must have been a difficult task.
It is my opinion that we must foresake religion, all religion. Give up that mystical and spiritual source of hope and fear which has endured in contaminating the growth of mankind. Until we do, we're not even a stones throw away from our primative ancestors grunting and rubbing sticks together to make fire. You wouldn't dress yourself in half tanned rotting hides, you've evolved. You're understanding has blossomed and the sum total of human knowledge grows exponentially. So why, I ask you, would you continue to clothe yourself in the rotting carcass notions of obsolete religions?
I know I haven't really answered your question, however, the very argument I've put forth here for the abolishment of all religion as pure fantasy is exactly the argument monotheists will put forth against other religions. Pure fantasy all the way around.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117373
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of HecateInteresting post, thanks. Your personal views seem reasonable given the material evidence available.
I know I haven't really answered your question, however, the very argument I've put forth here for the abolishment of all religion as pure fantasy is exactly the argument monotheists will put forth against other religions. Pure fantasy all the way around.
However would you agree that the right to freethinking and freespeech includes the right to believe in a god (or gods) of an individuals choosing.
Also, the final statement you make about why theists reject other gods as "pure fantasy" is incorrect at least for a large proportion.
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewrong, it is based on a contention, or idea. it is sound reasoning for the most part. It only fails, however, if the other person is a polytheist.
begins with an assumption i am afraid and as we know, its a very shaky foundation from which to base anything.
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIt is entirely possible that I've misunderstood the quote. If there is a clear and relevant connection between the body of argumentation, for and against, whether or not an all-powerful God exists and the polytheism vs monotheism debate, then it should not be difficult for you to elucidate.
Your failure to understand does not necessarily make the quote "nonsense".
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by divegeesterBelieve what you like. Still, it has been my opinion that any reconciliation of various religions is a forced process at best and often accompanied by a fair amount of fantasy in itself.
Interesting post, thanks. Your personal views seem reasonable given the material evidence available.
However would you agree that the right to freethinking and freespeech includes the right to believe in a god (or gods) of an individuals choosing.
Also, the final statement you make about why theists reject other gods as "pure fantasy" is incorrect at least for a large proportion.
Religion is being forced to evolve in the face of social, economic and scientific changes. This has been the painful state of affairs for hundreds of years. Don't you want us to move forward?
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by duecerwrong it assumes many things on many different levels, firstly its a subjective point of view, secondly that the individual is monotheistic, thirdly that there is no God, its premise after premise after premise...its a complete failure of a statement
wrong, it is based on a contention, or idea. it is sound reasoning for the most part. It only fails, however, if the other person is a polytheist.
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by duecerPlease elaborate upon your definition of "polytheist" and how you propose to reconcile often mutually exclusive religious concepts.
wrong, it is based on a contention, or idea. it is sound reasoning for the most part. It only fails, however, if the other person is a polytheist.
16 Mar 09
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatemove forward?, take a look around you for goodness sake, is this what you deem progress?
Believe what you like. Still, it has been my opinion that any reconciliation of various religions is a forced process at best and often accompanied by a fair amount of fantasy in itself.
Religion is being forced to evolve in the face of social, economic and scientific changes. This has been the painful state of affairs for hundreds of years. Don't you want us to move forward?