Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a book called Dictionary of Ancient Deities. It gives a list of all the gods that are and ever have been worshipped. There is a god in Nicaragua mythology called Thomagostad. Thomagostad is the chief deity and creator of everything. Why is the belief in Jehovah more superior than that of Thomagostad? Asking which god isn't ridicule. Why don't you worship Zeus, Thor, Aurora or the thousands of other gods worshipped on the planet?
The gods you name are either the personification of a natural phenomenon (thunder, dawn, etc) or are extremely cultural specific. If a God is real it seems sensible, I think, to believe it's not just real for one tribe in Nicaragua.
The Old Testament God might seem cultural specific in many ways, but there is some indication in the Old Testament of it being over "other gods" and that it will someday be universal. Christianity sees itself as a fulfillment of Judaism that is universal. You see Christianity grow, or at least endure, in cultures never, or only briefly, conquered by a European power. (Parts of "Assyria", Korea, and so forth)
Islam and Baha'i also have a universalizing vision of God. Baha'i, considering its small numbers and recent age, is remarkably diverse in terms of cultures. However if a Christian responded with "okay fine, consider Baha'i or Islam if you prefer" I really don't think that would be what you want. (For my part I really don't care if you consider any of them. I'm just agreeing that "which god" is a bit of a flippant non-answer. Also it's a tad condescending as it comes with the assumption that we don't there are other monotheistic, or just theistic, religions. Being a Christian isn't the same as having brain-damage as much as some might wish to indicate otherwise.)
Islam and Baha'i also have a universalizing vision of God. Baha'i, considering its small numbers and recent age, is remarkably diverse in terms of cultures. However if a Christian responded with "okay fine, consider Baha'i or Islam if you prefer" I really don't think that would be what you want. (For my part I really don't care if you consider any of them. I'm just agreeing that "which god" is a bit of a flippant non-answer. Also it's a tad condescending as it comes with the assumption that we don't there are other monotheistic, or just theistic, religions. Being a Christian isn't the same as having brain-damage as much as some might wish to indicate otherwise.)
Well - the fact that you don't care if people believe in your God or in any of them, for that matter, means that you probably won't ask anyone a question that would necessitate a flippant answer! If that makes sense... I don't think of it as a "nice" response but as a response to prove a point. It may be condescending - but when someone asks you a question - and their only reason for asking is to tell you that you are wrong - they probably aren't going to get the answer that they were hoping for! When someone asks me if I believe in God purely for the purpose of telling me that I'm going to rot in Hell if I don't - I don't always feel like giving them a "nice" response. However, I've never used the which god tactic - at least I don't think I have. I usually just tell them that I'm happy with my own beliefs. Not that that works either...
However, I don't recall you ever asking such questions - but not everyone is as open minded and accepting as you!
I'm just agreeing that "which god" is a bit of a flippant non-answer. Also it's a tad condescending as it comes with the assumption that we don't there are other monotheistic, or just theistic, religions.
Oh, please. Brushing off the "which god" question is completely flippant on your part! By doing this, you dismiss any other 'god' than the one that fits your specific criteria, and you dismiss a valid point brought up by those that don't believe in your particular flavor of religious delusion. How arrogant of you...but of course, that's pretty much par for the course for christians, at least in the USA.
Oh, please. Brushing off the "which god" question is completely flippant on your part!
If you believe the statement is not a flippant non-answer that's just sort-of sad of you. People might be aware of other gods but reject them for a variety of valid or invalid reasons. Either way the "which God" response proves nothing and rarely adds anything to a conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar
By doing this, you dismiss any other 'god' than the one that fits your specific criteria, and you dismiss a valid point brought up by those that don't believe in your particular flavor of religious delusion.
Well for one that's clearly not true. I indicated the criteria I mean could fit Islam or Baha'i. If I had just wanted to invent a criteria that Christianity alone would fit I wouldn't have even brought those two up and said they could fit as well.
For another this is the kind of "A student ego" thing that many atheist seem to have. Your point is valid, I guess, because you say it is valid and are willing to use like "delusional" to those who disagree. As I don't properly see your brilliance, and I'm not giving you an A+ on your paper, you're going to stamp your feet at me. I can live with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar
How arrogant of you...but of course, that's pretty much par for the course for christians, at least in the USA.
Yeah yeah. You call entire belief systems shared by billions "delusional" and I'm the arrogant one
OP seems a bit combative. I prefer (as always) Thomas' M.O.
---
In my opinion, I think the OP is slightly off base from the start: He defines himself as an adherent to Christianity but goes on to say that the methodology of some non-theists who question his belief-hood are wrong because it just so happens that it doesn't matter which God because God is the generalized term for the Creator of the Universe, whichever God that may be.
Problems:
1. By claiming a specific religion with a specific holy book/doctrine, you lose the ability to be generalized, don't you? In fact, by calling yourself a Christian, at least to me, is quite specialized. Perhaps you would be better served simply calling yourself a Theist instead.
2. Because you chose a specific religion with a specific holy book/doctrine that contradicts the specific holy books/doctrines of other very specialized religions, how can the two contradicting religions be correct at the same time? I don't ever wish to quote directly but I'll just mention that there are many Biblical verses of your religion that speak to the unholiness and the certain brimstone that awaits you if you deviate from the Biblical masterplan, even if its simply to follow the other religions that purport to be following God also. I am sure quite a few speak to the certain hell that awaits them if they deviate from its masterplan as well. How can this be?
There are over 700,000 worldwide religions - likely more - some tribal, some polytheistic, some of the occult, some monotheistic, etc - and many of them contradict another by claiming a certain exclusivity to God/Heaven if followed properly. Are they are a charade? If they all are worshipping the God of the universe, then the Holy Books that contradict other Holy Books must not actually be from God. And if you do claim a religion that has a doctrine of exclusivity - and much of Christianity's adherents believe this, then aren't you admitting that you've chosen the correct doctrine?
Well, what if you chose wrong? I really don't see the faltering logic in such a question. If the atheist can be choosing wrong for not choosing one of the many paths, then why is the Theist not able to choose wrong just the same? And if we are all following paths to Heaven, how is it clear to anyone that Atheists are falling short simply by not believing in the God but living a meaningful and productive life on His planet?
...
In the end, does anyone here really believe any of this will ever matter? Cause I don't.
I think that asking which God one believes in is a valid question. Why do you think it's not?
Quote:
Yeah yeah. You call entire belief systems shared by billions "delusional" and I'm the arrogant one
Numbers do not prove you are right Thomas...Many folks do think that calling something that cannot be verified "the truth"is delusional.
In psychiatry delusion is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. Even you have to admit that many religious people fit that description.
The gods you name are either the personification of a natural phenomenon (thunder, dawn, etc) or are extremely cultural specific. If a God is real it seems sensible, I think, to believe it's not just real for one tribe in Nicaragua.
The Old Testament God might seem cultural specific in many ways, but there is some indication in the Old Testament of it being over "other gods" and that it will someday be universal. Christianity sees itself as a fulfillment of Judaism that is universal. You see Christianity grow, or at least endure, in cultures never, or only briefly, conquered by a European power. (Parts of "Assyria", Korea, and so forth)
Islam and Baha'i also have a universalizing vision of God. Baha'i, considering its small numbers and recent age, is remarkably diverse in terms of cultures. However if a Christian responded with "okay fine, consider Baha'i or Islam if you prefer" I really don't think that would be what you want. (For my part I really don't care if you consider any of them. I'm just agreeing that "which god" is a bit of a flippant non-answer. Also it's a tad condescending as it comes with the assumption that we don't there are other monotheistic, or just theistic, religions. Being a Christian isn't the same as having brain-damage as much as some might wish to indicate otherwise.)
Asian countries like China, Japan, Thailand, Korea and Taiwan are highly Buddhist. Christianity hasn't really played any role in those countries. The many paganisms also endured for thousands of years, even longer than christianity has been around. Only a third of the world's population is christian and about a billion are muslim. That leaves three and a half billion that don't accept those religions. Why does Jehovah get more credibility than Kali or Vishnu, especially since Hinduism is so old that we don't even know whose its founder was. The abrahamic don't hold more superiority just because they've endured in some cultures doesn't give more credibility to them being true. The abrahamic religions are also mostly only dominant in Western and Middle Eastern cultures. Many parts of the world don't accept it. It isn't a flippant non answer nor is it condescending. It is rather arrogant to dismiss all other gods and claim that christianity is more superior just because it has endured in some cultures. Jehovah is no more superior than any other god, despite what many christians like to tell themselves.
I have to admit I don't find this very effective either. I think even the part of me that is, or perhaps was, most sympathetic to skepticism doesn't/didn't find it effective. Why?
Well the existence of many possible answers to a question does not mean that there is no right answer or that all answers are equally valid. I don't even think that's a hard concept to understand. There were many ideas on how to solve Fermat's Last Theorem but, at least so far, we only known of one right solution.
What the person is saying with the "which God" thing, to me, is that you think it's unfair to feel one is right or is even just the most right. That might be fine as an argument for agnosticism, or some kind of syncretism, but I think it's a bad argument for an atheist to make because by being atheist you are rejecting or if you prefer non-accepting all of them. So to turn it around why is the monotheist bad for believing in one more God than your zero?
The only way I think it makes sense as an atheist argument is as a kind of "Argument by indecision." Like someone who goes to a grocery store to buy breakfast cereal, but is so bewildered by the vast selection that they choose nothing. However if said person stated from that experience that they will never again eat breakfast cereal I think people would see that as dopey. They would think that because it is, in fact, a dopey reason to stop eating breakfast cereal. (Although I'd agree that in combination with other reasons, like you just don't like breakfast cereal much anyway, it could make sense)
Whether a thing or concept is true or useful or not depends on its merits. The mere existence of other things, even similar things, is not really relevant.
Looking through the posts, I find, again, Thom R's an effective one to respond to.
First. Commander 515C0 clevery diverted the 'Which God' argument into 'say how different denominations of Christianity worship a different God?'
Ok They worship the same god. Point conceded. Now, let's get back to the real point. And, since 'Which God' is a term I'm constantly trotting out, let's put it into the context of the argument.
Assuming for sake of argument, the validity of 'Some intelligent Creator Aka 'God' must have made everything.' do we (atheists) then troop into the nearest church? Nope, because one then needs to show 'Which God' (out of all the ones presently on offer, all the ones that are on the remaindered shelves, the ones that haven't yet been thought of PLUS the myriad that no-one ever will think of).
The Denominational Q. is a red hering as, IF one particular religion's god can be shown to be the TRUE God, then one can ask which denomination of that religion to follow.
Commander SISCO's bland assumption that Biblegod (read Christian-god) is the only possible choice hardly needs refuting.
So, having stated my case re. 'Which God'. Let's consider Thom's points.
Essentially there's a misunderstanding of atheism, but not a bad one. We are agnostic in that we do not even know (and nobody truly knows) that there is any 'god', let alone anything about it. Therefore, we do not believe in any.
Thom. asks why is it 'bad' (I parse that as why is it illogical or unreasonable) to believe in one more god than none?
Well, simply because there is no evidence even for any 'god', it is illogical to believe in 'It' and even more unreasonable to believe in any particular one of the models currently on offer in 'Which god' magazine.
But I think I know where you are coming from, and it is from the 'personal experience' end of the Leap of Faith from Sortagod to Biblegod thus:
Something mustha dunnit.
Call 'It' "God".
The Bible tells us Which God. Personal experience is not confined to one religion but the Holy Books and Theology tells one Which God' it is an 'experience' of.
This is, of course suggesting that belief in Biblegod (read Christiangod, not Jewish or Muslimgod) is justified because the Bible (especially the Gospels) is trustworthy.
Is it hell.
Christiangod, let alone Biblegod, is evidentially much less believeable for an atheist even than Sortagod Alias Deistgod Aka Eintein's Intelligent nature. And there is no logical reason to take even that as more than an unproven (1) possibility.
(1) to a given value of 'proven'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-25-2010 at 04:58 AM..
Reason: A general tidy - up of my wretched typing
True to a point, but this ruse really doesn't work for the Christian or other Monotheists.
The point missed is that Christians worship the God who created the Universe.
Ironic that you point to an event which is described in two contradictory ways to claim that Christians worship one specific concept of god. I didn't even have to dig up contradictory accounts of your god's actions - you did it for us.
It has been said by many an atheist: You worship a god, but which god is it? Then the atheist goes to make it "clear" that there are hundreds, if not thousands of gods out there. Are you sure you are worshipping the right God you ask?
True to a point, but this ruse really doesn't work for the Christian or other Monotheists.
The point missed is that Christians worship the God who created the Universe. It is that simple. For the monotheist it is a silly question and falls flat as ridicule. So just so you know. Not very effective. We worship the Creator of All (aka God)
Point to consider. God is huge and not fully understandable. Every Christian denomination has the basics down, but the details are too large for any one group to have it all. Thus the variations. I cannot speak for the Jews or other Monotheists. But we have 30,000 denominatons who worship the same God and agree on 95% of the understanding of God
OTOH for the polytheist, you have a valid point and it would not be taken as ridicule but rather as a valid question.
With that said, be advised to not waste your time using the "which God" arguement. It is not effective.
I think the better question would be...not which God...but which concept of God? Monotheistic religions believe in ONE God...but they have vastly different concepts of the nature and character of their ONE God...so, in essence, you can't possibly say you are all worshipping the SAME God. Muslims believe in the same God as you do (the Abrahamic God)...but you also believe Jesus is God...which they do not (they see Jesus as nothing more than a prophet)...so are both these Monotheistic religions believing in the same God?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
simply because there is no evidence even for any 'god', it is illogical to believe in 'It' and even more unreasonable to believe in any particular one of the models currently on offer in 'Which god' magazine.
