But both Christianity and Islam are invasive and if Europe didn't get rid of them it would surely devistate the world.That's not nationalism. You seem to be describing world domination.Nationalism cares about unifying a single nation, sure, but then after unification, there still is a tribalistic divide, divide between nations. Nation-scale tribal groups, if you will.
The only way "nationalism" could destroy all tribalism would be if the whole world was united in one nation, but nationalism as a political philosophy is based on the idea that there should be separate sovereign nations.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How reasonable is monotheism, even hypothetically?
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
Which is why it is a dead end, not at all worth the huge amounts of blood that it demands.That's not nationalism. You seem to be describing world domination.
The only way "nationalism" could destroy all tribalism would be if the whole world was united in one nation, but nationalism as a political philosophy is based on the idea that there should be separate sovereign nations.
"Two or more equally powerful deities, why not?"
Sure, but go back to my original post. I am speaking of a typical monotheist's definition of a "god" because we are talking about monotheism's viability.
We could have multiple deities with varying levels of power, but they would not be all powerful, and thus would not fit the a typical monotheist definition of a "god".
In my original post: I left open the implication of polytheism being perfectly viable using a typical polytheist's definition of a "god". But with what monotheists' use to define a "god", there are logical constraints limiting the number of a thing that fits that definition to either being one or zero.
Cool story bro, but that wasn't what I was talking about at all so why reply to me when I never used a "hardly impressive feat" as a standard of omnipotence.
If you want to discuss something that I am not discussing, go for it, but why reply to me then??
And this has what exactly to do with my comments on nationalism and your explanation thereof??
Perhaps I should stop responding to you. I'm pretty sure you're responding to someone else in your own mind rather than responding to me, since none of what is in your replies seems to actually follow from or be relevant to my posts you reply to.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
OK, though I should point out that "zero gods" = atheist. The monotheists are sooo close to getting it right!
OK, though I should point out that "zero gods" = atheist. The monotheists are sooo close to getting it right!
Jeesh, it feels like I'm talking to people who aren't talking to me.
My whole original premise was simply that monotheism and atheism are the only two possibilities using the definition of "god" that monotheists use.
I said nothing more on the subject. And I've already myself pointed out that based on the logic I described atheism is one of the two possible options for the state of existence.
Why do you feel the need to point out something that I pointed out in the original post??
Me: It's either monotheism or atheism, those are the only two possibilities because [reasons + logic given].
You: Well that means atheism's an option.
No duh, I already pointed that out.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Okay, calm down dude, it was more about me working in the "monotheists are so close to being right" gag.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
I think it is inconsistent due to the inherent nature they give a deity that would otherwise be impersonal, bizarre personal qualities. For example if a god is as omnimax as monotheists often assert then its interest in the affairs of man would be highly bizarre considering that this said beings would negate its own free will by being omniscient.
Monotheism does not even take into account often the other nature of monotheism since even the belief in one weak deity can also be a monotheism. So if one cannot make legitimate their own monotheism then they have lost all argument as to why their belief in a single deity is valid.
Monotheisms exist due to mass circle j**king and not do to rational insight. This is why the 2 major Abrahamic religions were hell bent on snuffing out any polytheistic competition.
Monotheism does not even take into account often the other nature of monotheism since even the belief in one weak deity can also be a monotheism. So if one cannot make legitimate their own monotheism then they have lost all argument as to why their belief in a single deity is valid.
Monotheisms exist due to mass circle j**king and not do to rational insight. This is why the 2 major Abrahamic religions were hell bent on snuffing out any polytheistic competition.
The true controller is in control of numbers and is not limited by the number one.
Monotheism is the belief that there is something that ties everything together. We call that thing "one" not because it is one in and of itself -- what could we possibly say about it in and of itself? -- but because it ties everything together for us and thus is perceived by us as having the functionality of something we would call "one."
Monotheism is the belief that there is something that ties everything together. We call that thing "one" not because it is one in and of itself -- what could we possibly say about it in and of itself? -- but because it ties everything together for us and thus is perceived by us as having the functionality of something we would call "one."