PaganApologetics

Oftentimes the debates on Internet Infidels are center around monotheism. It is often an argument by atheists against Christians that the myths of Jesus or Jehovah are descended from other religions. But that doesn't "prove" that the other Gods are not real. I propose an informal debate of polytheism (specifically, Hellenic (Greek) polythiesm) versus atheism.

TOPICS COVERED:
* can you prove that the Gods exist or that they do not exist?
* should polytheism be considered at least as "reasonable" as Xiantiy?
* can one be a skeptic and a (poly)theist at the same time (may be better in philosophy section)?
* Is the "religious left" as dangerous as the "religious right"?
* Are we all just nuts?

TOPICS NOT COVERED:
* Monotheism
* Wicca, Magic(k), divination, etc.
* New Age

I used to have a web site which had articles and essays about pagan apologetics, but it hasn't been updated for about a year and a half. Also, I have enjoyed Internet Infidels for a couple of years now and I wanted to contribute something.

Thank you,
Gods Bless!

PaganApologetics
PaganApologetics@email.com

diana

Howdy, PA! Welcome to II. Sounds like you've been lurking for a while.

True, that. The majority of our debates take place with Christians, and the odd thing about many (most?) of them is that if you get them to walk away from that religion, they already assume the rest of the gods are bunk--probably as a result of years of Christian indoctrination that they never think twice about. Hence, it's rarely necessary to argue against the existence of any other specific god.

TOPICS COVERED:
* can you prove that the Gods exist or that they do not exist?

No, of course not. We are all agnostic (in its original sense of simply "not knowing") when it comes to the supernatural. This is why belief is necessary. Belief is something you can have only in the absence of knowledge.

* should polytheism be considered at least as "reasonable" as Xiantiy?

Yes, indeed. I think it's equally reasonable. As a matter of fact, Xnty is polytheistic, despite their insistence that they are monotheistic. Either 3 = 1 or it doesn't...y'know?

* can one be a skeptic and a (poly)theist at the same time (may be better in philosophy section)?

I'm not sure what your definition of "skeptic" is, exactly, but if you mean it in its vague sense of "one who questions/doubts," I say absolutely.

* Is the "religious left" as dangerous as the "religious right"?

What's the "religious left"? Do you mean atheists/agnostics? I think humans are capable of doing dangerous things, but they seem to attain some degree of "untouchable" status if they have some deity's say-so to hide behind as "justification" for their actions.

* Are we all just nuts?

I don't know about you, but I certainly am.

TOPICS NOT COVERED:
* Monotheism

O thank God.

d

Heathen Dawn

Are you a literal polytheist? If so, then how can you discern the action of Zeus and Hera from natural events? I mean, if I decide to have a parade on a particular day and suddenly it rains on that day, do you see it as a sum of all meteorological events, or as Zeus's will?

The question is basically the same as I ask for monotheistic claims: events - when are they just "fate", and when are they "acts of God(s)"?

For the record, I'm a literal naturalist and symbolic duotheist. I see the complementary God/Goddess duo as a symbolic, not literal, face of the reality of the natural All.

May God and Goddess fill you with love.

Bible Humper

Hrmpf, this could be refreshing!

Well, the same problem Yahweh suffers from afflicts your gods equally. Nobody can prove that Santa Claus isn't the emperor of an invisible empire on Venus, but we can both agree that such an extraordinary claim requires some damn good evidence to be believable, right?

I bet some of the christians here will have a more complete answer to this, but I'll toss my pennies in too.

The multiplicity of deities implies that none may be omnipresent, obviously, so if they are incorporeal we have to wonder about the boundaries between them.

We really need some more info to really get started with meaningful discussion, but I'll say that the only pantheon that seems to account for all concepts as well as monotheism is the old Chinese celestial bureaucracy that had a nearly infinite amount of "offices" of different importance that paralleled the presence of that particular phenomenon in the real world.

Hehe, I truly doubt it. If you have evidence of your deities, you could be, but if you had evidence for these deities Internet Infidels wouldn't exist.

I need examples of the "religious left" to be sure I know what you are talking about here.

Depends on how inclusive you are when you toss around that label.

I don't see any problem with the topics you wish to exclude except possibly for magick. If magick is a component of your particular religion, expect to be called upon to explain yourself.

Welcome to II, enjoy your tour.

lpetrich

This may depend on what one means, whether literal Universe-controlling superbeings or allegories/symbols of some sort.

Xianity is already polytheistic in some ways -- the Trinity is an obvious example. And the multitude of saints revered by some Xian church is a rather glaring example of covert polytheism.

If you think that there is good reason to accept the existence of multiple deities.

There is no significant "religious left" in US politics. I don't see anyone waving the Bible in favor of leftwing policies, like Jesus Christ teaching that one ought to sell everything one has and give the money to the poor.

I don't see how neopaganism is much more absurd than the religion of the crucified tripartite man-god, as Gore Vidal once put it.

lpetrich

LOL.

Xenophanes would have gotten a real kick out of that; it was he who first pointed out that people tend to make deities in their likeness -- whatever it happens to be.

And as to bureaucratic heavens, the rationale for praying to Xian saints is that they will intercede with the Xian God. And Xian saints, like pagan deities, have their special departments of expertise.

muon

Polytheism does manage to avoid some of the philosophical problems of monotheism. If there are multiple, sometimes competing gods, then there's no reason to posit that any particular god is omnipotent. The problem of evil goes away too if there is no omnipotence at stake. The deities of traditional Hellenic polytheism also lacked any real claim to moral perfection or even a prescriptive aspect.

However, polytheism does face some of the same problems that monotheism faces as well ...

1) Is there actually any evidence that deities exist?
2) Is belief in deities justifiable in the absence of such evidence?
3) Do deities intervene in the natural operation of the universe? If so, how, and how do you know?

Plus, you get some new problems particular to polytheism:

4) If the deities are neither omnipotent nor especially benevolent, what attitude should we have towards them? Is worship appropriate, and even moral? If worship is based on appeasement, or desire for protection, do we have the equivalent of a Cosmic Mafia?
5) How do you reconcile your pantheon's characteristics, number, etc. with the differing characteristics of your neighbor's pantheon? While polytheisms tend easily towards syncretism, it's easy to imagine cases where one conception of deity could be irreconcilable with another.
6) Is there any real distinction between the existence of multiple non-omnipotent deities and the existence of powerful extraterrestrials?

PaganApologetics

I finally got around to checking on my little thread and honestly, I can't remember what I meant by "religious left" ^_^ but it seems that a few things have been brought up.

* the impossibility of proving the existence/non-existence of God(s).
- those that claim this are strong agnostics (i don't know and you don't either or you can't know), but there are those true atheists (definitely does not exist) and (d/th)eistis (definitely does exist). How does one come to a conclusion either way? (i realize i am stepping on another board section, sorry)

* the acceptability of polytheism.
- I started an essay a couple of years ago called "Polytheism as an Alternative to Atheism". As both an ex-Xtian and an ex-atheist, I have had to convince myself of the logical possibility of polytheism. Polytheism, by its nature avoids many issues that monotheism has including the whole omni* subject and the exclusiveness of religions (my fertility Goddess and yours might both exist). Although there have been times when attacking the prevailing religion has been an issue (including a bit of hemlock...), for the most part we are generally pretty tolerant of other religions. Just be logical.

I do realize though that logic and religion are sometimes at odds with each other but the early philosophers had no problem with applying the logic of the natural world to the divine.

I believe (stress the word "believe") that there are two worlds -- the material and the "spiritual" (which can be divided into the heavenly and cthonic). What happens in the spiritual world directly effects what happends in the natural one. Just because we can only study the natural world doesn't mean that there isn't a spiritual one.

What I'm going to call "Pure Materialism" is losing ground because the belief that the universe is a machine which just works the same way every time is outdated. A purely materialistic philosophy does not take into consideration the nature of chaos and the fundamental unpredictability of the (material universe. I propose that the fundamental property of chaotic events come from the creation of the universe out of Khaos (please understand that this is a late understanding of the word "Khaos" and is not supported by many writers).

I have to go to class soon so I will wrap up. (anyway, this is getting unweildy ^_^). Bertrand Russell, in "What is an Agnostic?", says that he would be at a loss to _prove_ that the gods of Homer do not exist. Yet he also says that it is "improbable" that they do. Why?

Also, is it "immoral" to have Gods that are "imperfect" and do not represent a human ideal (i.e. Jesus)? Certainly this is not a new question, some Hellenic monotheistic and atheistic philosophers claimed the same thing. I feel that it makes the Gods more real as they become more human rather than representing an abstract ideal of the "infinite" and a "singularity". But does it affect society?

Ok, I really have to go. I will write more often hopefully (and shorter). I just had a lot to say.

Gods Bless!
Pagan Apologetics
PaganApologetics@email.com

monkey mind

I think the belief in many gods is the same as the belief in one God, or the belief that millions of dollards will make you happy. Any of them can be either helpful, harmful or of neutral influence on your life. Up to you.

I took 'religious left' to mean new agers who try to tie together every belief system imaginable. Can it be just as dangerous? Absolutely. Some of these people hold downright unreasonable and absurd beliefs. It can be dangerous. Just as believing that God is going to eradicate all the evil people and give you the earth can be a dangerous belief, or the belief that a slurpee is a healthy breakfast can be a dangerous belief.

About proof, why even bother trying to prove the existence of gods or God. Do they really need it? What would proof of an existence of gods or God do for the world? (you can choose a specific set of gods to answer this if you wish)

Doubting Didymus

One thing polytheism has over monotheism is that it sidesteps a LOT of the logical arguments against 'god', simply by not claiming omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or even omniprescence. Evil can be attributed to evil/angry gods.

Portraying the uiniverse as a struggle between warring godly entities explains an awful lot more than portraying it as Mr Monogods Magic Fishbowl.