Are less deities better?

[2Dbunk]

One mark of civilization has been the claim of steady progression (or regression) toward a single deity. Many religionists have touted the debunking of multiple omnipotent spirits, reducing them to that of the Abrahamic God. If this is such a milestone of achievement, then why not carry it one step farther and proclaim "There is no God?"

Think of that achievement for a moment, as you hum "Imagine." Less wars, living for today instead of tomorrow ("'cause tomorrow never comes" says another tune) --
that would indeed be an achievement!

Is it logical to think that no gods are better than a plethora of gods, or just one god?

[William]

In the context of civilization, is no god better than having one god?

I guess it depends on one's definition of 'civilization' and 'GOD'.

I think human beings are an aspect of GOD-consciousness 'in the form of human' - and thus it is essentially this aspect of GOD which creates the problem for itself by creating lesser ideas of GOD and setting these up as humanoid images on thrones - a false idea of what GODs do - based on human misconceptions as to what GODs really are, when GODs are not created in the image of those ignorant of what GODs really are.

I have lots more to say about this subject here;

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

As to the other part of the OP question...'civilization'... one can argue that those who get it so very wrong about 'what is a GOD' are not likely to get it very right about 'what is civilization'? Those two go hand in hand, and removing one isn't going to help the other, because the ignorance is in the species itself, and largely this ignorance is willful.

I touch on this in more detail here;

♦ The Necessity of Changing Our Present Systems of Disparity.

Generally the impression I get is that people appear to be less interested in creating actual civilizations than they are in arguing about GOD.

[bluethread]

In practicality, no deities is equivalent to multiple deities, because one is left with balancing roughly equivalent priorities on a purely subjective basis. Even if one does not personify it, a fixed or stable moral code is practically equivalent to having one deity. In essence, monotheism as compared to polytheism or atheism, is like monarchy as opposed to oligarchy or anarchy. This is, of course, a philosophical assessment. How it aligns with various doctrines and dogmas, is another matter. Also, it does not take into account societal structures.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

Generally the impression I get is that people appear to be less interested in creating actual civilizations than they are in arguing about GOD.

Very succinct William. People are more interested in their salvation than constructing a REAL solution to endemic problems. Self-service -- though delusionary -- is more important than addressing REAL problems, problems that endanger us on Earth as opposed to an ephemeral, wishful, hopeful attitude toward expectation of eternal survival?

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by 2Dbunk]

Very succinct William. People are more interested in their salvation than constructing a REAL solution to endemic problems.

Well in that, a person's 'salvation' needn't amount to what they store up in the hope of heaven. Many are storing up earthly wealth with the same idea re personal 'solution/salvation' which in some way is indeed a REAL construct towards some type of solution re the endemic problems, 2Dbunk. Only not en-mass...just the selective who are enabled.

Sometimes 'GOD'= 'Money', 'tis all.

Self-service -- though delusionary -- is more important than addressing REAL problems, problems that endanger us on Earth as opposed to an ephemeral, wishful, hopeful attitude toward expectation of eternal survival?

To be honest, sometimes I find myself wondering what the 'problem' is 2Dbunk. I know if humans fail, the earth is unlikely to be permanently damaged - she recovered from the meteor impact which devastated the dinos, right? Although if mass nukes are used, this may prove irreversible.

But there are plenty more ships in the cosmic sea and some think that the point of species failure to make Type One is a natural fail-safe of sorts which prevents any disease getting into the main system and polluting everything.

I am not one to be distracted by religious greed and hypocrisy to the degree where I am blinded to the secular greed and hypocrisy. Nor do I think that - if by some miracle - all the religious stopped with the greed and hypocrisy that this would somehow prompt the secular world to do the same. Frankly it is looking for all the world like it is 'business as usual' for secular and non-secular alike...I am not one to pretend the rock is not also the hard place.

I do understand that those most likely in the firing line 2Dbunk, are those who will tend put their genuine hopes in heaven, and I don't begrudge them the slightest for doing so either. There is nothing in the wind to signify anything of watershed importance is going to happen as a promise that the necessary dramatic turnarounds will actualize.

We didn't make the grade as a species. I am not losing any sleep over that.

[marco]

In practicality, no deities is equivalent to multiple deities, because one is left with balancing roughly equivalent priorities on a purely subjective basis.

Whether we believe in a God or not we have human priorities. Attending to them is not worship; attending to a God distracts us from our bonds with humanity, though Christ, realising the importance of human duties to humans astutely suggested that a cup of water given to our neighbour is a cup given to God. If we continue to give cups of water, without associating our good deeds with God, we are in the position of having no God. If we later discover that God was indeed watching our generosity and is waiting with a welcome, so be it. One good result might be that we'd stop hearing God is great, over dead bodies.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

[Replying to post 4 by 2Dbunk]


Quote:
Very succinct William. People are more interested in their salvation than constructing a REAL solution to endemic problems.

William said:

Well in that, a person's 'salvation' needn't amount to what they store up in the hope of heaven. Many are storing up earthly wealth with the same idea re personal 'solution/salvation' which in some way is indeed a REAL construct towards some type of solution re the endemic problems, 2Dbunk. Only not en-mass...just the selective who are enabled.

Quite a premise that Jesus never taught.

Sometimes 'GOD'= 'Money', 'tis all.

Ditto

I am not one to be distracted by religious greed and hypocrisy to the degree where I am blinded to the secular greed and hypocrisy. Nor do I think that - if by some miracle - all the religious stopped with the greed and hypocrisy that this would somehow prompt the secular world to do the same. Frankly it is looking for all the world like it is 'business as usual' for secular and non-secular alike...I am not one to pretend the rock is not also the hard place.

Greed is with us all: "One never has enough money -- security." But civilization portends to make life salient with increasing harmony and livability. Religion or faith interferes with that progress, if only in subtle (and in some cases not so subtle) ways -- especially when it comes to harmony with those of other faiths.

I do understand that those most likely in the firing line 2Dbunk, are those who will tend put their genuine hopes in heaven, and I don't begrudge them the slightest for doing so either.

The only reason why your "understanding" is true about standing a firing line is because the faithful (or assumed they themselves are "faithful") are in the majority: "there are no atheists in foxholes!" That may be true because up 'til a few years ago it was IMPOSSIBLE to have "ATHEIST" imprinted on one's dogtag. The Allies fighting spirit in WWII was for love of a way of life, not necessarily God's Kingdom. The Germans were more obvious about THAT with "Gut is mit uns" stamped on their belt buckles.

As an Atheist and a Marine, I take exception to your "understanding."

[bluethread]

One good result might be that we'd stop hearing God is great, over dead bodies.

Another is that can see the same dead bodies with no invocation of a deity, as in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. Neither believing in a deity or no deity guarantees there will be no tyrants. That is why I think constitutional philosophies are best and I think that it is pretty clear that monotheism is better for establishing that than polytheism. Whether atheistic philosophies can provide a better structure for constitutionalism than monotheistic philosophies is subject to debate. However, I think monotheistic philosophies are better at it.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by 2Dbunk]

As an Atheist and a Marine, I take exception to your "understanding."

So? Is that gonna get me killed? Does that put me in your firing line?

Civilization portends to make life salient with increasing harmony and livability.

The way civilization goes about this, fails the majority.

Religion or faith interferes with that progress, if only in subtle (and in some cases not so subtle) ways -- especially when it comes to harmony with those of other faiths.

So sell them weapons in which they can kill each other and thus remove the problem and profit at the same time. Profit which can then be contributed to the building of civilization.

The only reason why your "understanding" is true about standing a firing line is because the faithful (or assumed they themselves are "faithful") are in the majority: "there are no atheists in foxholes!" That may be true because up 'til a few years ago it was IMPOSSIBLE to have "ATHEIST" imprinted on one's dogtag. The Allies fighting spirit in WWII was for love of a way of life, not necessarily God's Kingdom.

I am not one to argue that a soldier does not relish killing or for that matter, the other spoils of war. What does it matter that he calls himself 'theist' or 'atheist' while he does so?

There is nothing in the wind to signify anything of watershed importance warfare is doing which is going to assist the promise that the necessary dramatic turnarounds will actualize.

We didn't make the grade as a species. I am not losing any sleep over that.

I wrote this song...do you like it soldier?

[yt]SaHyzAz0Bh8[/yt]

[jgh7]

One mark of civilization has been the claim of steady progression (or regression) toward a single deity. Many religionists have touted the debunking of multiple omnipotent spirits, reducing them to that of the Abrahamic God. If this is such a milestone of achievement, then why not carry it one step farther and proclaim "There is no God?"

Think of that achievement for a moment, as you hum "Imagine." Less wars, living for today instead of tomorrow ("'cause tomorrow never comes" says another tune) --
that would indeed be an achievement!

Is it logical to think that no gods are better than a plethora of gods, or just one god?

Well I'll try to look at it based off evidence rather than guessing. I found a site listing the 6 most atheistic countries in the world. They are:

1. China
2. Japan
3. Czech Republic
4. France
5. Australia
6. Iceland

source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 46291.html

Many of those countries are considered to have a nice standard of living with low crime rate, looking pretty good for atheists I must say. There is ofcourse China, so perhaps atheism doesn't dictate democracy vs. communism. I have no clue what the Czech Republic is like due to my own ignorance.

So overall one might guess that the nicer places (from a strictly standard of living perspective) in the world seem to be atheistic! However let's say that other countries somehow become atheistic. Would this stop the huge drug cartel problems in South America? Would it stop all the ethnic violence in Africa and the poor people in the blood diamond camps?

Hard to say. But for what it's worth a lot of the countries with high standards of living seem to be atheistic, so chalk one up on the scoreboards for yourselves.