Fake Gods

[Stevicus]

Since we have a thread on Real Gods up right now, I was thinking about many gods and goddesses which people don't believe in. What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?

How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"? Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept). Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

 

[Erebus]

Since we have a thread on Real Gods up right now, I was thinking about many gods and goddesses which people don't believe in. What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?

How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"? Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept). Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

I explained in the other thread that I view gods as something worthy of worship. This leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation as to what, if anything, would qualify. A "false" god in this sense would be something you just don't worship.

However, the impression I get from your post is that you're asking about gods I don't believe exist.

For me personally, the easiest answer would be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. Given the amount of suffering in the world, I would say that for all practical purposes I'm certain that such a god doesn't exist. I've found all attempts to square those three qualities with a world in which creatures can suffer an agonising death through no fault of their own to be completely unconvincing. I will concede that as I'm not omniscient myself, I have to allow at least a modicum of doubt. However, that doubt is so slim that claiming to not be certain feels like splitting hairs.

Outside of that particular god concept, my stance on gods I don't believe in tends to be more agnostic. I genuinely don't know if there is an omnipotent creator who isn't also omnibenevolent for example. My disbelief in this instance can be expressed as an inability to say, "yes, I believe there is such a being" rather than "I find it probable that there is no such being" if that makes sense?

 

[Stevicus]

I explained in the other thread that I view gods as something worthy of worship. This leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation as to what, if anything, would qualify. A "false" god in this sense would be something you just don't worship.

However, the impression I get from your post is that you're asking about gods I don't believe exist.

For me personally, the easiest answer would be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. Given the amount of suffering in the world, I would say that for all practical purposes I'm certain that such a god doesn't exist. I've found all attempts to square those three qualities with a world in which creatures can suffer an agonising death through no fault of their own to be completely unconvincing. I will concede that as I'm not omniscient myself, I have to allow at least a modicum of doubt. However, that doubt is so slim that claiming to not be certain feels like splitting hairs.

Outside of that particular god concept, my stance on gods I don't believe in tends to be more agnostic. I genuinely don't know if there is an omnipotent creator who isn't also omnibenevolent for example. My disbelief in this instance can be expressed as an inability to say, "yes, I believe there is such a being" rather than "I find it probable that there is no such being" if that makes sense?

I'm also agnostic when it comes to any kind of belief in religion or deities. I don't reject anything outright, although I'm very skeptical when it comes to accepting any beliefs.

It seems to me that there must be one of two ways people decide which belief is true and which god or gods are worthy of worship. Either it was through direct communication with God - or someone else convinced/persuaded them to believe.

For the first group, those who claim to have had contact with God (which some religions refer to as "prophets" or "messengers"), I don't challenge them directly. After all, who am I to tell someone they didn't see something if they claim to have seen it? I don't necessarily believe them, unless they can produce some corroboration, but I respect that they believe something that emanated from their own personal experience. I make a distinction between those who say "I saw it" as opposed to those who say "someone told me."

Unfortunately, most of what we know is not based on personal experience but from books, writings, speeches, school, media, etc. - all variations of "someone told me." Trying to sift through all the writings, evidence, sources, academic support, etc. can be a daunting process to try to determine what is "real" and "true" versus what is "fake news." It's hard enough when it comes to political issues and scientific topics, but trying to determine which god is "real" and which gods are "fake" seems near impossible.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

There are certainly those who believe that absolutely everything is false.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept). Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

I don't think most are picking and choosing. They believe in the gods of their own culture, just as people will lack belief in gods of their own culture, as has been evidenced in other threads recently.

I think most have nothing to say about gods of other religions except of those exclusionary religions out there. Many accept the existence of other gods, but don't have practical any use for them in their own paradigm.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"? Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

Just out of curiosity, do you see no substantive difference between the viability of Thor and the viability of the God of Genesis 1?

 

[Erebus]

I'm also agnostic when it comes to any kind of belief in religion or deities. I don't reject anything outright, although I'm very skeptical when it comes to accepting any beliefs.

It seems to me that there must be one of two ways people decide which belief is true and which god or gods are worthy of worship. Either it was through direct communication with God - or someone else convinced/persuaded them to believe.

For the first group, those who claim to have had contact with God (which some religions refer to as "prophets" or "messengers"), I don't challenge them directly. After all, who am I to tell someone they didn't see something if they claim to have seen it? I don't necessarily believe them, unless they can produce some corroboration, but I respect that they believe something that emanated from their own personal experience. I make a distinction between those who say "I saw it" as opposed to those who say "someone told me."

Unfortunately, most of what we know is not based on personal experience but from books, writings, speeches, school, media, etc. - all variations of "someone told me." Trying to sift through all the writings, evidence, sources, academic support, etc. can be a daunting process to try to determine what is "real" and "true" versus what is "fake news." It's hard enough when it comes to political issues and scientific topics, but trying to determine which god is "real" and which gods are "fake" seems near impossible.

Gods are unfortunately an incredibly vague topic and this vagueness can easily lead to miscommunications. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm sympathetic to ignostics as I think it's a perfectly understandable conclusion to reach after spending time pondering what a god actually is.

I think there's a careful balancing act to be had when discussing gods. You're certainly allowed to favour one definition over others but you also have to acknowledge that no definition will be universally accepted. Similarly, you can accept that others view a thing as a god while not viewing that thing as a god yourself.

 

[Stevicus]

Just out of curiosity, do you see no substantive difference between the viability of Thor and the viability of the God of Genesis 1?

Of course there's a difference between the two, although how does the word "viability" fit into this question?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course there's a difference between the two, although how does the word "viability" fit into this question?

Good point. Better might have been something more like ...

" ... do you see no substantive difference between the plausibility of Thor and the plausibility of the God of Genesis 1?​

 

[Stevicus]

Good point. Better might have been something more like ...

" ... do you see no substantive difference between the plausibility of Thor and the plausibility of the God of Genesis 1?​

Not enough to convince me that one is true while the other is not.

 

[MikeF]

Good point. Better might have been something more like ...

" ... do you see no substantive difference between the plausibility of Thor and the plausibility of the God of Genesis 1?​

Both are myth and therefore equally plausible, as in not at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not enough to convince me that one is true while the other is not.

That was not my question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Both are myth and therefore equally plausible, as in not at all.

How very clever you are!

 

[Quintessence]

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

Yes. If it can be experienced or known in any way, it is in some way real. Only that which is utterly unknowable by humans is in effect not real, but even then that's more of a limitation of human capabilities than a reflection on the true nature of reality.

 

[JustGeorge]

Since we have a thread on Real Gods up right now, I was thinking about many gods and goddesses which people don't believe in. What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?

How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"? Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept). Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

I suppose I do, in a way.

Though, I question the existence of Baltic love Goddess Milda. She doesn't seem to have any firm roots, and doesn't quite culturally fit. Its been speculated that she was a later creation of people trying to equate the Baltic pantheon with the Greco-Roman ones.

I'm not certain she doesn't exist, though. Perhaps she came later, wandering into the pantheon like Aphrodite is sometimes said to have with the Greek pantheon. I try to make any judgements, because in the end, my judgement doesn't matter.

The idea of 'new Gods' interests me greatly. New people come all the time. Why shouldn't Gods?

I don't think most are picking and choosing. They believe in the gods of their own culture, just as people will lack belief in gods of their own culture, as has been evidenced in other threads recently.

I think most have nothing to say about gods of other religions except of those exclusionary religions out there. Many accept the existence of other gods, but don't have practical any use for them in their own paradigm.

I consider the Gods of other cultures somewhat in a way I consider those who are outside of my 'group'(immediate friends and family). They're out there. I don't often interact with them, but may from time to time due to circumstance. Some I like; perhaps I'd even call 'friend'. Others I don't, and may feel uncomfortable with and avoid. Most I let be.

 

[MikeF]

Yes. If it can be experienced or known in any way, it is in some way real.

While this is technically true, it utterly fails to acknowledge the real and practical need to make clear distinctions as to the *manner* in which something is real.

Only that which is utterly unknowable by humans is in effect not real, but even then that's more of a limitation of human capabilities than a reflection on the true nature of reality.

Yet still recognized and acknowledged. Not everyone grasps the full ramifications of this fact.

 

[Quintessence]

While this is technically true, it utterly fails to acknowledge the real and practical need to make clear distinctions as to the *manner* in which something is real.

Not really. It just means I don't ask "is this real" and instead ask "in what way do/can we know and experience this phenomenon" which gets at exactly what you're talking about. It's not hard and quite practical. In some ways, more practical because time isn't wasted on nonsensical arguments about whether or not something is "real" and can move on to actually discussing the phenomena in question. I find questions like "do gods exist" a waste of time that get in the way of better questions like "what do different cultures believe about gods" or "how are gods honored in ritual across the world's religions."

 

[Bthoth]

Since we have a thread on Real Gods up right now, I was thinking about many gods and goddesses which people don't believe in. What mental processes does one go through in order to logically determine which god is real as opposed to gods believed to be false?

Interesting question. As soon as I learned to think, it was easy for me to observe the majority of any 'god' as man made.

How does one know that the Abrahamic God is real, while declaring gods such as Zeus or Thor to be "false"?

I enjoy the wisdom of the abrahamic sects but well aware than NO god wrote a word

Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

Jupiter is observable.

There are some who reject all gods due to a lack of evidence of gods (or even any coherent, usable definition of the concept).

That was my problem..... lack of a pure definition.

Most believers seem to pick and choose, where they believe in one god or some gods, while rejecting others. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

my personal view is observing the wisdom of the variety of literature but maintaining the understanding that mankind created the dialogue, no matter the claims of authority.

Are there any people who believe in absolutely everything?

really? Can i send them rules of tithing by 'almighty' and a deposit slip?

 

[ChristineM]

Would an ancient Roman believe that Jupiter is real while Zeus is fake?

No, Rome had a policy of accepting most gods, they associated them with own gods

. Is the process of picking and choosing just a feeling that people have, or is it simply a matter of upbringing?

Mostly upbringing i think

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just out of curiosity, do you see no substantive difference between the viability of Thor and the viability of the God of Genesis 1?

Thor to me seems to be the more reasonable of the two. The God of Genesis is extremely powerful and also extremely ignorant and incompetent when one considers his supposed power and omniscience. One cannot see such a God screwing up as badly as he did. Thor on the other hand has very human behavior and a lot of power, but it not all powerful. His human nature makes his godhood seem to be the more reasonable of the two. One can understand how and why he makes mistakes. And I am talking of Thor of the Eddas here, not the Marvel Comic Book version.