(Some) Polytheists are Atheists

[AquinasD]

Before I give my demonstration, I would like to explain how I distinguish between polytheists and monotheists.

Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

[His Name Is John]

That is brilliant and interesting.

I guess the only other thing I could say is that you must define the term God. Zeus is considered a 'god', so I guess different people have different views of what God is. But this could be a case of equivocation, as actually the word 'god' means different things in different cases. Very interesting thread, I am supprised I haven't heard this before.

[revelationtestament]

Before I give my demonstration, I would like to explain how I distinguish between polytheists and monotheists.

Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

I disagree with the premise. Polytheists not only believe in multiple powerful beings, they worship them. Atheists find no being worthy of worship. I consider myself to be a monotheist because I worship one God, but I don't accept the concept of this being one indivisible being. I consider the one God to be like one family. Hence the Father and Son. They are one God in the sense they act as one. I do not accept the doctrine of the trinity. It is limiting and defines God in ways not found in scriptures.

[McCulloch]

If there really is only one True God, then all who believe in the many false gods are, in fact, atheists. If you start, as AquinasD did, with your own religion's definition of a god, then all those who disagree with you are atheists, by definition.

[revelationtestament]

If there really is only one True God, then all who believe in the many false gods are, in fact, atheists. If you start, as AquinasD did, with your own religion's definition of a god, then all those who disagree with you are atheists, by definition.

And what religion's definition did AquinasD use? He didn't - he used the general definition of atheist, and monotheist. From a monotheist's position, a polytheist may be an atheist, but not from the polytheist's perspective. A better term may be pagan, since both may agree on that term.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

I could maybe grant that for the majority of polytheists, while noting that history indicates many considered these beings so equivalent to "G"od as to be indisguishable.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

Sounds about right to me.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

"Disputes" indicates to me a strong atheist such as myself, as opposed to those many (majority of?) atheists who simply reject theistic belief. Perhaps a mere quibble, but I feel the distinction should be made.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

In considering one is a theist - whether 'poly' or not - I can't agree with your conclusion. I propose that where there is theistic belief, it's impossible to reasonably say that belief ain't there - except to use 'specialist' definitions. I don't propose you do so with nefarity, as I consider your definitions legitimate (to a limited extent), but in error.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

For me, the relevance would include, but not be limited to, notions such as none of these being shown to exist, fanciful and unproven claims attributed to them, and my amateur understanding of various fields of study relating to the issue.

I note that the god concept is a warehouse for all of our unproven and unprovable notions, but that such may well have an overall advantage, at least for the individual, whether the god of the concept is real or imagined.

So, if only to me, the act of 'theisticing' is what I consider a theist. The act of not accepting such is what I consider an atheist.

[Autodidact]

Before I give my demonstration, I would like to explain how I distinguish between polytheists and monotheists.

Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

You might want to check out the definition of atheist, before proceeding.

[AquinasD]

So it is the general opinion of others on the board that the existence of powerful but limited beings is relevant to the question of an infinite being's existence?

What is the principle of relevance, save that the same words happened to be applied to these different things? Or is it to be stipulated that there is no essential difference between belief in a powerful but finite being as opposed to belief in an infinite being?

[1213]

Before I give my demonstration, I would like to explain how I distinguish between polytheists and monotheists.

Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

Theist means person who believes in God. Atheist means person that don’t believe God/gods is/are. If one believes in at least one God he can’t be atheist, if those definitions are true.

The difference is, theists don’t think other things as God, even if they exist. It is not question of existence. It is question about what people are ready to keep as God. And god is really only title, not a proper noun. And the title means highest lord/master.

Bible says that people should not keep anyone else as God than he who is presented in Bible as the only true God. Therefore I don’t really care other god’s because I don’t think they are really God’s. They are only things that some people keep as their god’s. To me it is irrelevant if those false god’s exist. And I don’t really see any reason to take a stand on that matter do they really exist. They may exist or may not exist, I don’t know. And even if they exist, I wouldn’t keep them as God.

I think god is title, which means highest lord. And peoples usually show with their acts who they keep as their god. For example, if you lie because of money, then money is your god, because it defines your moral and rules you. Also evolution can be seen as god, because many think it has “created� us and so it is really pagan god “Mother Earth� that they think as God.

[blueandwhite1789]

Before I give my demonstration, I would like to explain how I distinguish between polytheists and monotheists.

Polytheists believe in the existence of powerful, but limited, beings. Some contend that these beings have had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that a troupe of these kinds of beings had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites polytheists is their belief in the literal existence of superhumanly powerful beings.

Monotheists believe in the existence of an infinite and indivisible being. Some contend that this being has had a direct part in recent human history, some only posit that this solitary being had a hand in the creation of the universe. But what unites monotheists is their belief in the literal existence of a foundationally necessary being.

An atheist is one who disputes the existence of this infinite and indivisible being.

Do all polytheists believe in the existence of this infinite being? No.

Therefore, some polytheists are atheists.

Question: What is the relevance of the existence of beings like Ra or Zeus in discussing the existence of God?

Theist means person who believes in God. Atheist means person that don’t believe God/gods is/are. If one believes in at least one God he can’t be atheist, if those definitions are true.

The difference is, theists don’t think other things as God, even if they exist. It is not question of existence. It is question about what people are ready to keep as God. And god is really only title, not a proper noun. And the title means highest lord/master.

Bible says that people should not keep anyone else as God than he who is presented in Bible as the only true God. Therefore I don’t really care other god’s because I don’t think they are really God’s. They are only things that some people keep as their god’s. To me it is irrelevant if those false god’s exist. And I don’t really see any reason to take a stand on that matter do they really exist. They may exist or may not exist, I don’t know. And even if they exist, I wouldn’t keep them as God.

I think god is title, which means highest lord. And peoples usually show with their acts who they keep as their god. For example, if you lie because of money, then money is your god, because it defines your moral and rules you. Also evolution can be seen as god, because many think it has “created� us and so it is really pagan god “Mother Earth� that they think as God.

We don't think it created us, we can very easily and confidently demonstrate that evolution the expanation of the diversity of life on earth. We both agree on who created each and every one of us. It's our parents.