Monotheism vs Polytheism

Which do you prefer


  • Total voters
    23
No. Religion is powerful because it solves problems for people. The question of being able to disprove god or not is secondary. Religion organizes the world and answers questions that most find difficult. The inability to disprove it contributes to its longevity in the face of science.

This^^^
I would elaborate and say that some of the problems it solves are existential, but the most important are social. And I would say the question of being able to prove or disprove god isn't even secondary, it's more like tertiary or just totally irrelevant.

Correlation is not causation

You shouldn't even have gone here. What evidence is there that the religions that have persisted the longest are those that can't be disproven? How could anyone possibly have any basis for making such a sweeping claim?

My point is that if you design a religion around a monotheistic mysterious entity the existence of which can't be disproven, it will be a lot harder for people to reach that "a ha!" moment that's caused a lot of other religions to wither away into obscurity.

Religions don't wither away into obscurity because people decide to stop believing in God. They wither away into obscurity because the social and material conditions that sustain them change. Classical religion was not supplanted by Christianity and Islam because people decided that those gods were more "believable" than the classical pantheon. It's because, over a period of centuries, the nature of society changed in a way that left classical religion behind: that made it unsuitable for dealing with the problems facing the typical person.

Get back to me when all religious people in the world stop breaking their own rules, and actually practice what they preach.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that there are no irreligious people who are hypocrites?
 
Last edited:
Or Ken Ham, teaching school kids to act snotty in science class and ask the teacher, "Were you there?" (my mother would have slapped me for speaking to an adult like that, and in my elementary years it would have meant at least detention, if not the strap).

Seriously not an appropriate response

That's not what Birdjaguar said. He said the religion started changing 800 years before Jesus. If they were expecting a messiah who would do good things, why didn't they start doing good things themselves, and not wait to be told to do them? Eight centuries is a long time to be lazy about it.

What we now know of as the Old Testament started being written sometime around then, so that could be to what is being referred.
 
Seriously not an appropriate response
Why? It's one of the ways in which Christianity has been reinventing itself in the modern era - teaching children to be snotty brats to their elders.

If you think the post has violated any forum rules, you know where the "report" link is. :rolleyes:
 
teaching children to be snotty brats to their elders.

Questioning your teacher about evolution is not being snotty. In fact, the best practice when teaching evolution is precisely to invite students to challenge it - all their challenges can inevitably be easily met, because evolution is a very powerful theory indeed. Asking troll questions is the likes of Ken Ham is stupid but beating children is abuse and your words can easily be read as advocating that.
 
Why? It's one of the ways in which Christianity has been reinventing itself in the modern era - teaching children to be snotty brats to their elders.

If you think the post has violated any forum rules, you know where the "report" link is. :rolleyes:

Yeah I'm going to take the side of ''not-beating-children''
 
Yes, but if they were easily disprovable, then they probably wouldn't have survived as long as they did. Cultural tradition is one thing, but again, I don't think it's coincidence that none of the major world religions revolve around tenets that can be easily shown to be false. It's a lot easier to keep a tradition going if you can convince people that it is in fact true.
OK, then let's assume that the driving force behind the current proliferation of religion is its inability to be disproved. If that is the case, are you saying that the disprovability aspect is planned, designed, or otherwise baked into those religions by its leaders or has it naturally evolved in them over time?

IIRC before Jesus became a whole thing, it was thought by Jews that there'd be a messiah who'd do lots of good things in the future (c.f. Book of Isaiah)
What we now know of as the Old Testament started being written sometime around then, so that could be to what is being referred.
Yes, the Jewish > Christianity thread begins about 800 BCE; with the death of Jesus, Judaism splinters and Christianity takes new path. nonetheless, Christianity is tied very closely to the Old Testament. you cannot understand Christianity without understanding its roots in the OT. It is not too different than the appearance of Buddhism 500 years earlier. Islam, though, is not a splinter of Judaism/Christianity. It seems to have been a new starting point that accepted much of the foundations of those two. Mohammed was neither Christian nor Jew.
 
Islam, though, is not a splinter of Judaism/Christianity. It seems to have been a new starting point that accepted much of the foundations of those two. Mohammed was neither Christian nor Jew.

Worth pointing out that he and his followers saw themselves as restoring the original monotheistic faith of Abraham.
 
OK, then let's assume that the driving force behind the current proliferation of religion is its inability to be disproved. If that is the case, are you saying that the disprovability aspect is planned, designed, or otherwise baked into those religions by its leaders or has it naturally evolved in them over time?

No, unless we assume that God exists and did in fact design these religions in that way to give them an edge... which seems unlikely even if God does exist.

I am not saying that it is the driving edge either, but a big factor. Not saying that was deliberately done, but that religions rather evolved in that direction. And sure, maybe a priest or god emperor here and there might have had a conscious hand in that decision. But overall I am just pointing out the pattern, not really trying to say how it came to be.
 
Worth pointing out that he and his followers saw themselves as restoring the original monotheistic faith of Abraham.
I can accept that Mohammed saw it as a restart, a getting back to the roots and perhaps providing some updates for the modern (his modern) era. :)

No, unless we assume that God exists and did in fact design these religions in that way to give them an edge... which seems unlikely even if God does exist.

I am not saying that it is the driving edge either, but a big factor. Not saying that was deliberately done, but that religions rather evolved in that direction. And sure, maybe a priest or god emperor here and there might have had a conscious hand in that decision. But overall I am just pointing out the pattern, not really trying to say how it came to be.
I agree it is a pattern. If it is, can we discern from that pattern, how religion will evolve as we get further into an even more technological future?
 
I agree it is a pattern. If it is, can we discern from that pattern, how religion will evolve as we get further into an even more technological future?

If trends continue, then organized religion will become less and less prominent while secular ways of thinking become more prominent. This seems to be a common trend as countries/regions become more educated overall and society becomes more progressive.

Hard to say how individual religions will deal with these changes, though. Each organized religion will probably approach things differently, so it might be hard to make uniform predictions (I mean, it is hard to make predictions about the future as it is, if not impossible, all you can do is look at trends really)
 
Spoiler :
Christianity began 800 years before Jesus? Since he was the inspiration for it, that's a pretty neat trick. Which method of time travel was used? :huh:

"Lost in the weeds"? :huh:

I'm not blind to how religion affects people. Some religious people are actually not hypocrites. They don't do despicable things six days a week and think everything's okay because some preacher or priest forgives them on Sunday. Some of them actually keep the vows they made at their weddings. Some of them actually don't use the bible as an excuse to discriminate against other people, or insult them, or (here's the biggie!) kill them. And some religious people can do all this without bragging about it.

The ones who can't seem to do these things are in the majority, in my experience. They're hypocrites. They mouth the words but don't practice what they preach, harass women at clinics, go doorknocking and insist on inflicting their preaching on people at 8 am, make laws to prevent women from accessing adequate health care, scream and rant about non-heterosexual people wanting to marry and adopt children, impose their own views on patients who want a dignified, assisted death by refusing to allow it or refer the patient to another doctor/facility (apparently they believe, like Mother Teresa, that suffering is "beautiful"), and they can't seem to understand basic ethics or honor.

You know what one of the things that put me off religion at a very early age was? Some school kid puffed out her chest and said, "I'm BETTER than you, because I'm CATHOLIC." As if that makes a good person. Henry VIII was Catholic some of the time, when he wasn't something else, and there were times when it varied from day to day depending on what his mood was in the given moment, and he had two of his wives murdered (might as well say three, since his abominable treatment of Catherine of Aragon led to her death), and he was planning to have his sixth wife killed - luckily for her, he died before he could carry through with it. And all because they either couldn't provide him with a healthy son, or they broke their own marriage vows (something Henry did regularly with all of his wives), or in the case of Catherine Parr, she dared to have her own opinions about religion and wrote books about it.

:rolleyes: yourself. If you don't want to give that impression, you should choose your words more carefully.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Somebody believes in God and suddenly someone can just magic up a pile of fish and bread out of nothing? That's Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager. Check out the episodes where a couple of greedy Ferengi got stranded in the Delta Quadrant and found a planet of gullible people who revered them for being able to create stuff out of nothing. Turns out they had a Federation replicator and used it to make the locals believe they were gods.

At this point you're going to do "rolleyes" at me and accuse me of being literal, right? So explain what metaphorical thing is being talked about by the multiplying of fish and bread. It's a gathering, there wasn't enough food, Jesus snapped his fingers and POOF! Suddenly there's enough food. If that's really a thing, why do these supposedly loving supernatural beings let famines go on? Aren't modern Africans worth zapping up some food to at least keep the kids from starving? Funny how the miracles slowed to a crawl and then stopped, as more sophisticated BS detectors were developed over the centuries.

BS. Augustus was real. The Emperor referred to in the "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" is Tiberius, Augustus' successor. King Herod was real (although he was already dead by the time Jesus was said to have been born, so there goes that whole "kill the male children born in such-and-such a year" schtick; remarkably similar to the Moses story, right?). Evidence was found to confirm the existence of Pontius Pilate.

But these individuals being real is no reason to expect people to accept the nonsense of a virgin giving birth ("God got me pregnant" sounds a lot like Zeus and Leda... or a story made up to cover an unintended pregnancy that was achieved the normal way... or just a normal birth that was embellished), or the other "miracles."

Never assume you know my goals, because it's abundantly clear that you really don't have a clue. They're the same as they've always been, whether we're discussing religion or a long list of other things you and I have discussed - or tried to discuss - over the years.

People can believe whatever they want. But to shoehorn religious fantasy into science classes, law courts, parliaments (and other places where elected officials draft bills intended to become laws, government policies pertaining to health, marriage, adoption, the environment, sex education classes, and so many other public areas is just not ethical.

Did you know that in my province, Catholic schools are allowed to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and discriminate in their hiring practices? They claim that it would be against their Charter rights to have to hire non-Catholics, but please explain to me why a math teacher or a phys. ed. teacher or a janitor would need to be Catholic. Math is math, no matter the religion of the person teaching it or the student learning it, gym classes presumably don't require religion (although there's a lot of "thankyoujesus" that goes on when an athlete wins a race or game; I wonder if these same people are bothered when Jesus doesn't feed the starving people in Africa or turn the hurricane aside - probably not; after all, a race is much more important, right?), and why would a janitor need to be Catholic? Is he or she expected to pray the dirt away?

My goal is to get the fantasy out of these areas. As I said in one of my comments on CBC.ca earlier, religion has no place in Parliament. It also has no place in the laboratories, or the courts, or a doctor sticking his nose in the air and preaching at a terminally-ill cancer patient who would prefer to die with dignity and not be forced to suffer because of "God's will." It has no place with nurses refusing to provide proper care to women who have had an abortion.


My goal is also to stop the hypocrisy. It's a tall order, admittedly. Get back to me when all religious people in the world stop breaking their own rules, and actually practice what they preach.

I predict both of us would have to become immortal for you to do this. And even then, it won't matter. Entropy wins.

How's the purple part of your sig coming along? It's a classic example of what I'm talking about.
Thank you; I think you have proved my point. You seem quite obsessed with my signature and have now called me out at least twice on it implying that I am a hypocrite about it with regards to you. Where in my posts have I been unkind or mean to you? Or do you think people who criticize your thinking/posting are being mean?

You are quite verbal in these threads about your various situations, life struggles, general unhappiness about many of the events in your life and why you are cranky. Many people are not so open. My sig is all about our lack of knowledge of what people are actually enduring and there may well be things going on about which we have no knowledge. Because of that, being kinder is the better path whether we are on line or in real life.
 
Back in a few hours....
 
That's not what Birdjaguar said. He said the religion started changing 800 years before Jesus. If they were expecting a messiah who would do good things, why didn't they start doing good things themselves, and not wait to be told to do them? Eight centuries is a long time to be lazy about it.
Most of that eight hundred years is the Prophets lecturing the Hebrews to that very effect, though, often adding that the Messiah will appear when and only when the Jews have proven themselves virtuous enough to deserve him. Judaism have never taken a wait-and-see approach to virtue.
 
Questioning your teacher about evolution is not being snotty. In fact, the best practice when teaching evolution is precisely to invite students to challenge it - all their challenges can inevitably be easily met, because evolution is a very powerful theory indeed. Asking troll questions is the likes of Ken Ham is stupid but beating children is abuse and your words can easily be read as advocating that.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

Questioning politely is okay. Questioning a teacher in an obnoxious manner is not okay, and Ken Ham teaches children to question teachers in an obnoxious way.

Show me where I advocated violence or beating children. I stated that my mother would have slapped me for such obnoxious behavior, and that's true. She would have, and did. I was about 4 or 5 at the time. And the school I attended during my first four elementary grades was strict. Obnoxious behavior toward the teachers was grounds for detention or the strap. I'm stating that as a fact, not advocating the strap as punishment.

Thank you; I think you have proved my point. You seem quite obsessed with my signature and have now called me out at least twice on it implying that I am a hypocrite about it with regards to you. Where in my posts have I been unkind or mean to you? Or do you think people who criticize your thinking/posting are being mean?
Answering this is a matter for PM.

As for other people... some of it is legitimate criticism, some is honest misunderstanding, some is willful misunderstanding, and some is... worse.

You are quite verbal in these threads about your various situations, life struggles, general unhappiness about many of the events in your life and why you are cranky. Many people are not so open. My sig is all about our lack of knowledge of what people are actually enduring and there may well be things going on about which we have no knowledge. Because of that, being kinder is the better path whether we are on line or in real life.
Yes, I've been open and honest. This is a forum where lots of people feel comfortable sharing some of the most stressful parts of their lives, trusting that they're not going to be mocked or told to shut up. You've read my posts, but it's obvious that there are many that you simply don't understand, so you seem to just pretend they never happened.
 
Reading comprehension is your friend.

Questioning politely is okay. Questioning a teacher in an obnoxious manner is not okay, and Ken Ham teaches children to question teachers in an obnoxious way.

Sure, I agree, but do you think that in a classroom setting the best response to obnoxious questions from the likes of Ken Ham would be to tell the child to sit down and shut up?
 
Sure, I agree, but do you think that in a classroom setting the best response to obnoxious questions from the likes of Ken Ham would be to tell the child to sit down and shut up?
Show me where I said that. Telling the kid to sit down and shut up because he/she is being rude is valid. Telling the kid to sit down and shut up for questioning evolution, astronomy, physics, biology, etc. is going to lead to problems. Teachers owe students courtesy, too, and if the kid is asking honest questions, those questions should be answered.

I've been in numerous situations where the situation could have gotten ugly if people hadn't remained civil(ish). My own English teacher forgot to be neutral and started baiting me during our debate assignment (my partner and I were assigned to argue in the affirmative that history should not be taught in schools, which we both considered a monumentally stupid stance to take). She considered the bible to be literal history, and would assign us readings from the Jerusalem Bible (this was in a public high school). She didn't like it that I met and shot down her baiting during the Q&A session (I did so as politely as possible)... and then assigned me to be a judge in the evolution vs. creationism debate a couple of days later. I never did tell her that I voted in favor of the creationism side simply because they had better debating skills, whereas I was privately wondering what the evolution side was thinking, since they made a thorough mess of their presentation and didn't present half the facts they should have.
 
If trends continue, then organized religion will become less and less prominent while secular ways of thinking become more prominent. This seems to be a common trend as countries/regions become more educated overall and society becomes more progressive.

Hard to say how individual religions will deal with these changes, though. Each organized religion will probably approach things differently, so it might be hard to make uniform predictions (I mean, it is hard to make predictions about the future as it is, if not impossible, all you can do is look at trends really)
These two links to Pew research may provide a clue. The first is from 2015 and the second from 2012. They point to the rise of the unaffiliated religious. Both links are to long but interesting articles. The "nones" have grown from from 16 to 23 % of the US population from 2007 to 2015.

A small section said:
Pew Research Center surveys consistently show that not all religious “nones” are nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of Americans without a religious affiliation say they believe in God. As a group, however, the “nones” are far less religiously observant than Americans who identify with a specific faith. And, as the “nones” have grown in size, they also have become even less observant than they were when the original Religious Landscape Study was conducted in 2007. The growth of the “nones” as a share of the population, coupled with their declining levels of religious observance, is tugging down the nation’s overall rates of religious belief and practice.

At the same time, the vast majority of Americans (77% of all adults) continue to identify with some religious faith. And this religiously affiliated population – comprising a wide variety of Protestants as well as Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and adherents of other faith traditions – is, on the whole, just as religiously committed today as when the study was first conducted in 2007. Fully two-thirds of religiously affiliated adults say they pray every day and that religion is very important to them, and roughly six-in-ten say they attend religious services at least once or twice a month; those numbers have changed little, if at all, in recent years. And nearly all religiously affiliated people in the survey (97%) continue to believe in God, though a declining share express this belief with absolute certainty (74% in 2014, down from 79% in 2007).
Indeed, by some measures, religiously affiliated people appear to have grown more religiously observant in recent years. The portion of religiously affiliated adults who say they regularly read scripture, share their faith with others and participate in small prayer groups or scripture study groups all have increased modestly since 2007. And roughly four-in-ten religiously affiliated adults (41%) now say they rely mainly on their religious beliefs for guidance on questions about right and wrong, up 7 percentage points in seven years.

The study also suggests that in some ways Americans are becoming more spiritual. About six-in-ten adults now say they regularly feel a deep sense of “spiritual peace and well-being,” up 7 percentage points since 2007. And 46% of Americans say they experience a deep sense of “wonder about the universe” at least once a week, also up 7 points over the same period.

These are among the key findings of Pew Research Center’s 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study. The latest survey was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 35,071 adults interviewed by telephone, on both cellphones and landlines, from June 4-Sept. 30, 2014. Findings based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. (For a table of margins of error for sub-groups, as well as other methodological details, see Appendix A.)

As noted above, this is the second report on the results of the 2014 Religious Landscape Study. The first report, published in May 2015, focused on the changing religious composition of the U.S. public. It documented the continued, rapid growth of the religiously unaffiliated population and described the importance of generational replacement in driving the rise of the “nones.” As older cohorts of adults (comprised mainly of self-identified Christians) pass away, they are being replaced by a new cohort of young adults who display far lower levels of attachment to organized religion than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations did when they were the same age.
The same dynamic helps explain the declines in traditional measures of religious belief and practice. Millennials – especially the youngest Millennials, who have entered adulthood since the first Landscape Study was conducted – are far less religious than their elders. For example, only 27% of Millennials say they attend religious services on a weekly basis, compared with 51% of adults in the Silent generation. Four-in-ten of the youngest Millennials say they pray every day, compared with six-in-ten Baby Boomers and two-thirds of members of the Silent generation. Only about half of Millennials say they believe in God with absolute certainty, compared with seven-in-ten Americans in the Silent and Baby Boom cohorts. And only about four-in-ten Millennials say religion is very important in their lives, compared with more than half in the older generational cohorts.


http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
 
These two links to Pew research may provide a clue. The first is from 2015 and the second from 2012. They point to the rise of the unaffiliated religious. Both links are to long but interesting articles. The "nones" have grown from from 16 to 23 % of the US population from 2007 to 2015.

The U.S. is a bit of an outlier in terms of religious trends in the western world overall.

Jesus did say that he thinks religion should be a personal thing though, I believe. So maybe Christianity is the one true religion and organised religion is dying as a result.
 
Of the major religions, Christianity is not the only tradition of individual "worship". Hinayana Buddhism also falls into this arena. Also there are aspects of Sufism that point to "finding the Friend" (god) on one's own. And in our own time, much of New Age spiritualism is all about seeking one's own path to god. Perhaps we are at the beginning of the decentralization of organized religion: more splintering, more regional variations, more individuality, more diversity. And perhaps with the help of science and its growing understanding of the quantum reality, a better grasp of consciousness.
 
As you know I'm not a believer. However, I am not a strong atheist (i.e. I do not say "God definitely doesn't exist") but am instead a weak atheist (i.e. I say "I do not believe that God(s) exist")

So I do not believe that such things exist, but I do not discount it outright. It's always made sense to me that if God exists, then he likely does not care at all about any sort of political or leadership structures we have set up i.e. organized religion. If God exists, and he even cares about us, organized religions are going to be a joke to him/her/it. It's just structures humans have built up over the centuries, initially for purposes of control. IMO without them religions would fade from the mainstream, so obviously they want to cling on to the organized structures they have set up so carefully over such long periods of time. If God(s) exist(s) though, whatever "true" religion exists out there, will stand on its own legs, without the need of an organized structure.

So whether God(s) exist(s) or not, I also am a big supporter of the "no more organized religion" philosophy. Obviously if people choose to join together and form such groups, as they do, then they should be allowed to do so. I do not wish to strip people of this right. But I think overall humanity would be in a much better place if these structures went away and religion became a purely personal pursuit, devoid of any organized structure.
 
Back
Top Bottom