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?

[bluethread]

Exactly! You use GOD in a similar manner. Sometimes GOD is useful and other times not.

OP wonders if even one GOD is necessary and it would appear that it is not.

I refer to deities when they are integral to the point. The point I am addressing is your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity. If you are willing to withdraw that assertion, then by all means the OP question can be addressed. Otherwise, I can not let such a slanderous assertion stand uncontested.

"the permanence of order through abolishing chaos" no. However, we have myriad examples of the reduction of chaos and the increase of order by means of vilence and the military. Again, I have not argued for the necessity for a deity in that regard.

Well not specifically in this thread you haven't. But you have done elsewhere on this board.
Point being, your argument for violence and the need for it show plainly that GOD is not necessary to humanity, civilization, fighting against perceived 'chaos' etc et al. and need not be 'mentioned' as in line with what the OP is asking.

What I have said elsewhere would be subject to the context and topic being discussed. Here I am addressing your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity. My point that violence is a resource of last resort in resolving conflict does not say anything about the necessity of a deity. It speaks to the concept that what is and is not an atrocity is subject to whoever wins the conflict, whether that one is a human or a deity.

Certainly your belief that atrocities are not necessary to building civilizations is not supported by historical evidence. What you have done is to simply say that 'atrocity is in the eye of the beholder', which btw can be equally argued away in a similar manner about any claims to do with ideas of GOD - including the biblical.

So what does the reader get from all this?
That atrocity is in the eye of the beholder and that no GOD is necessary.

They don't get the latter from me. I was simply stating that, depending on what one considers to be an atrocity, it may not be necessary to establish and maintain social order and, therefore, is not inherent in military activity.

Other than that, do you have any other problems with what I was saying, in the context I was saying them?

All I am interested in, at this time, is how you support the view that atrocities are inherent in military activity. If you can not do so, simply retract the assertion and we can both go on our merry ways.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

I refer to deities when they are integral to the point. The point I am addressing is your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity. If you are willing to withdraw that assertion, then by all means the OP question can be addressed. Otherwise, I can not let such a slanderous assertion stand uncontested.

I would be hard pressed to name a war that atrocities didn't occur.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

I refer to deities when they are integral to the point. The point I am addressing is your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity. If you are willing to withdraw that assertion, then by all means the OP question can be addressed. Otherwise, I can not let such a slanderous assertion stand uncontested.

I would be hard pressed to name a war that atrocities didn't occur.

That is differnet from saying that atrocities are integral to military activity. That said, if one considers collateral damage and interdiction as atrocities, then that might be the case. However, that is not what most people think of when they hear the term atrocity.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

The point I am addressing is your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity. If you are willing to withdraw that assertion, then by all means the OP question can be addressed. Otherwise, I can not let such a slanderous assertion stand uncontested.

My comment stands and I can only withdraw it if you can show this is not the case throughout the history of human civilization, that atrocities did not occur through military action in any or all of these. I have asked you twice already to show even one instance where a civilization did not use such atrocity through military action as part of the process of building itself. You haven't yet provided any, or even attempted to name a civilization which wasn't built on the back of military atrocity.

Here I am addressing your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity.

In the context of building civilizations. You forgot to include that part of my assertion.

My point that violence is a resource of last resort in resolving conflict does not say anything about the necessity of a deity. It speaks to the concept that what is and is not an atrocity is subject to whoever wins the conflict, whether that one is a human or a deity.

My point was that in cases where civilizations have used deity as the authority of their laws and military activity where the activity is atrocious is something you have argued for in the past as being acceptable and 'not atrocious' because the deity who ordered it was allowed to do so because the deity can do whatever [he] wants to do with his creation.

Consistency in one's position and argument is important to maintaining the integrity of the position one is ultimately arguing for. In your case you are saying you can argue from a number of positions and hold none of them as something you are arguing FOR, which basically muddies the waters and causes confusion in the reader as to your actual position.

I realize that this is regarded as the hallmark of a great debater, to be able to debate from any position and hold none of them as something one actually believes in.

If that is what you are saying you are doing, then my bad. I apologize and will no longer take you seriously in regard to whatever position you are arguing from as there would be no point in doing so, as flip-flops - like politicians -are not possible to pin down, which - coincidentally - is why politicians are regarded as great debaters.

I was simply stating that, depending on what one considers to be an atrocity, it may not be necessary to establish and maintain social order and, therefore, is not inherent in military activity.

So your argument is that it all depends on how the individual chooses to understand atrocity as to whether it can be regarded as inherent military activity.
This would leave it up to the individual to decide, therefore your argument that atrocity is NOT inherent in military activity is one that you as an individual has decided, because you do not personally see any inherent atrocity in military activity.

You do, I don't and you and I asking for evidence which supports either of our arguments is pointless because we have different interpretations as to "what is atrocity" and "what is not atrocity" because 'atrocity' is in the eye of the beholder.

'Move along folks - there is nothing to debate here."

All I am interested in, at this time, is how you support the view that atrocities are inherent in military activity. If you can not do so, simply retract the assertion and we can both go on our merry ways.

There in nothing to 'retract' as both our understanding of what is inherently military atrocity, or even 'what is atrocity' is allowably different. Going on our merry ways is thus all we can do. There is no thing to debate.