Are less deities better?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

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

yes
3
100%
No
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 3

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Are less deities better?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Fewer Gods may be better.

Post #21

Post by bluethread »

William wrote: [Replying to post 17 by bluethread]
That is because for there to be civilization there must be order and it generally takes violent force to impose order onto chaos.
What chaos? The chaos of humanity not having one ruler to bind them all?
Yes, when there is not agreement there is conflict. If the conflict can not be resolved any other way it escalates to violence.
In the process, excesses do occur, but they are not integral to the process.
Show us the evidence. Show us a civilization building process where atrocities are not integral to those processes.

Is there an historically verifiable example you can give the reader to back up this assertion?

Whether or not something is integral is not a function of inevitability, but of logic. Conflict resolution does not require violence, let alone atrocities. The fact that violence does occur speaks to the degree of disagreement. However, atrocities are related more to the substance of the disagreement or the rationality of the combatants. In a well regulated military, atrocities would be rare and/or anecdotal, unless there is a philosophical reason for them. Generally, what one society deems to be an atrocity, another deems to be justifiable.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Fewer Gods may be better.

Post #22

Post by William »

[Replying to post 21 by bluethread]
Yes, when there is not agreement there is conflict. If the conflict can not be resolved any other way it escalates to violence.
So it is the conflict you are associating with chaos? What are you associating the violence with?
Whether or not something is integral is not a function of inevitability, but of logic. Conflict resolution does not require violence, let alone atrocities. The fact that violence does occur speaks to the degree of disagreement. However, atrocities are related more to the substance of the disagreement or the rationality of the combatants. In a well regulated military, atrocities would be rare and/or anecdotal, unless there is a philosophical reason for them. Generally, what one society deems to be an atrocity, another deems to be justifiable.
You appear to have given a circular argument.

The above answer does not give any example of historical civilizations which have not resorted in the illogical use of atrocity.

The addition of making room for possible 'philosophical reasons' for atrocities allows for atrocities to be committed - for example - 'because a god said it was okay under the circumstances'.


Your comment "Generally, what one society deems to be an atrocity, another deems to be justifiable." sits exactly where on the spectrum of atrocity/justified violence in the name of bringing order from chaos?

Essentially what you appear to be arguing for is secularism or secularist philosophy, which also incorporates ideas of GOD when it is seen to serve the purpose of this 'bringing order from out of chaos' but essentially is not necessary to the actual doing.

It has been used on occasion to justify to those who cling to belief in GOD, that 'Yes GOD is behind this push for order from chaos' in order that those peoples support can be got. But really it appears that it is just secular human logic at play here, and if bringing GOD into the mix serves the purpose then use it, and if leaving GOD out of the mix serves the purpose, then do that.

The important thing is that civilization is built, not what methods were used to build it?

The other important thing of note here is that we have no evidence of any civilizations built on such premise, as having survived the test of time, and certainly no example of any present civilization having attained the permanence of order through abolishing chaos.

All we do have is the logical conclusion that such a thing does not require an actual GOD actually existing.

(Didn't you argue some time ago something along the lines that humanity becoming a type 1 species was not something your GOD was interested in seeing happen? Words to that affect?)

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Fewer Gods may be better.

Post #23

Post by bluethread »

William wrote: [Replying to post 21 by bluethread]
Yes, when there is not agreement there is conflict. If the conflict can not be resolved any other way it escalates to violence.
So it is the conflict you are associating with chaos? What are you associating the violence with?
Argumentation, negotiation among other things. When they don't resolve the conflict it can escalate to violence.

Whether or not something is integral is not a function of inevitability, but of logic. Conflict resolution does not require violence, let alone atrocities. The fact that violence does occur speaks to the degree of disagreement. However, atrocities are related more to the substance of the disagreement or the rationality of the combatants. In a well regulated military, atrocities would be rare and/or anecdotal, unless there is a philosophical reason for them. Generally, what one society deems to be an atrocity, another deems to be justifiable.
You appear to have given a circular argument.

The above answer does not give any example of historical civilizations which have not resorted in the illogical use of atrocity.

No, I pointed out that correlation does not mean causation. It may be possible that every civilization may be deemed to have committed atrocities, but that does not mean that atrocities are an integral part of military action. In fact, the argument that every civilization has engaged in activities that have at one time or another been deemed atrocities, was one of the Nazi defenses at Nuremburg. The argument being, if one wishes to argue that atrocities are integral to military action, one would have to clearly define what is and is not an atrocity and apply the standard equally to all human activities.
The addition of making room for possible 'philosophical reasons' for atrocities allows for atrocities to be committed - for example - 'because a god said it was okay under the circumstances'.
Or, 'because it is in the best interests of society', or, 'I think it is okay under the circumstances'. A deity is not necessary. Without a clear agreed upon standard, there are an endless number of excuses that can be made. Really that is what wars are for. If the parties can not agree and it is sufficiently important to both sides, then both sides kill people and break things until one or both do agree to abide by a particular standard.
Your comment "Generally, what one society deems to be an atrocity, another deems to be justifiable." sits exactly where on the spectrum of atrocity/justified violence in the name of bringing order from chaos?

It doesn't. It notes how it is determined where the line between atrocity and justified violence is, when there is disagreement on such a matter.
Essentially what you appear to be arguing for is secularism or secularist philosophy, which also incorporates ideas of GOD when it is seen to serve the purpose of this 'bringing order from out of chaos' but essentially is not necessary to the actual doing.
I said nothing about a deity. All I did was address your assertion that atrocities are integral to military activity, by asserting that atrocities are really associated with either certain philosophical positions or chaotic activity.
It has been used on occasion to justify to those who cling to belief in GOD, that 'Yes GOD is behind this push for order from chaos' in order that those peoples support can be got. But really it appears that it is just secular human logic at play here, and if bringing GOD into the mix serves the purpose then use it, and if leaving GOD out of the mix serves the purpose, then do that.

The important thing is that civilization is built, not what methods were used to build it?
Ok, some people might make that argument, but I have made no such argument here.
The other important thing of note here is that we have no evidence of any civilizations built on such premise, as having survived the test of time, and certainly no example of any present civilization having attained the permanence of order through abolishing chaos.

All we do have is the logical conclusion that such a thing does not require an actual GOD actually existing.
"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 violence and the military. Again, I have not argued for the necessity for a deity in that regard.
(Didn't you argue some time ago something along the lines that humanity becoming a type 1 species was not something your GOD was interested in seeing happen? Words to that affect?)
I think I did on another thread. What does that have to do with whether or not atrocities are integral to the military. That is the assertion that I am countering here.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Fewer Gods may be better.

Post #24

Post by William »

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]
It has been used on occasion to justify to those who cling to belief in GOD, that 'Yes GOD is behind this push for order from chaos' in order that those peoples support can be got. But really it appears that it is just secular human logic at play here, and if bringing GOD into the mix serves the purpose then use it, and if leaving GOD out of the mix serves the purpose, then do that.

The important thing is that civilization is built, not what methods were used to build it?
Ok, some people might make that argument, but I have made no such argument here.
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.
"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.

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.

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

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #25

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 15 by marco]
jgh7 wrote:



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

Two other countries ranking very high in quality of life but not included in the study jgh7 cited have reputedly low esteem for religion:

1. Norway
2. Denmark

Another honorable mention is Australia which is approaching 30% apostasy.
Hmmm - I had the opportunity to test the low crime rate while in the Czech Republic. Prague has acquired a reputation for entertaining pick-pockets and I was thrilled to be part of this on my visit, having £50 secretly removed while on an overcrowded metro. I was aware of the risks but that didn't help.
Have you visited Greece lately, where pickpockets have perfected the use of razorblades in deftly slitting the underside of hip pockets to relieve one of excess cash. After riding the crowded Athens Metro, I returned to our hotel to find my wallet in place but with slit pocket -- I know I interrupted his efforts but couldn't pursue him.

I don't know how well this justifies the suggestion we are better off with fewer deities.
No, but it is an interesting sidebar.
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #26

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

It has been 32 months ago when I posted a similar question "Is One Less God Better?" It also was a polling question -- the results then were 5:1, now it is 2:0. RESULT: there seems to be no definitive support for the necessity of a god!

Of course everything is anonymous -- a shame that intelligent civil opinion remains shrouded.
Nothing will change until the intelligentsia rises out of the shadows to challenge the status quo.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #27

Post by William »

[Replying to post 26 by 2Dbunk]
RESULT: there seems to be no definitive support for the necessity of a god!
This is what I was arguing in post #24 in reply to Member Bluethread's position , as well as my general argument that organised religion is a political movement with political agenda and therefore GOD is only 'necessary' in that context.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #28

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to William]

Quote by 2Dbunk:

RESULT: there seems to be no definitive support for the necessity of a god!

William answers:

This is what I was arguing in post #24 in reply to Member Bluethread's position , as well as my general argument that organised religion is a political movement with political agenda and therefore GOD is only 'necessary' in that context.
Yes, I've read it and am pleased that your argument confirms my premise. Thank you!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #29

Post by William »

[Replying to post 28 by 2Dbunk]

Your welcome!

My own theology sees consciousness as 'GOD' so whether or not consciousness is necessary, is irrelevant.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Re: Are less deities better?

Post #30

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 29 by William]
My own theology sees consciousness as 'GOD' so whether or not consciousness is necessary, is irrelevant.
Fair assertion.

It seems that our consciousness is malleable -- mine has bypassed the God premise altogether (through quite a lengthy vetting process -- too many flawed demands, too many missed opportunities to advance humanity). It is interesting that my dreams confirm my conscious attitudes (as probably your dreams confirm same for you).
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

Post Reply