"My deity/deities exist and yours doesn't" mentality

[Quintessence]

Sometimes when people keep pushing their religion on you, you've got to push back.

I suspect if Christians and Muslims would say this they'd find the rest of the world a lot more tolerant.

A lot of them do. Most of them do, at least in my exposure to them IRL. The only exceptions to that rule have been the bloody JW's harassing my doorstep.

 

[Glaurung]

The part where you say.. "Whether you like it or not"... It's a bit creepy. It reminds me a bit too much of what someone who wants to force his beliefs on someone else would say.. He is OUR god.. like it or not.. Sounds JUST like a veiled threat to me. Well, what happens if I DON'T like it?

Because reality doesn't care what you think. It's just a disagreement about what that reality is. Traditional Christians maintain that if you wilfully and determinately reject Christ and maintain that rejection to the very end, you will go to Hell. Christ is the only means to salvation whether you like it or not.

Right. Some people just HAVE to be wrong about the god they happen to believe in. So, what method do you propose to use in order for us to know if the god YOU believe in is a true god, as you said. Feelings don't count, you dismissed that rightly, so what method do YOU use then?

Of course they are and you very well believe that too. You certainly believe that I'm wrong, and what method exactly did you use to determine that? So what's your point?

If you believe in anything, you by default reject everything contrary to that as wrong. If you're an atheist for example, you very well believe that some people ARE wrong, so charging against Christianity that its implications lead to a very definite truth, thus some people being wrong, is hardly an argument. The real liars are those who deny any objective truth, because they are obsessed with 'feelings'.

People who have different beliefs than you also claim special revelation. Why should we accept just yours as true, and discount all the others?

I'm not telling you to accept anything, stop projecting. It's up to you to do the best you can to find the truth.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Because reality doesn't care what you think. It's just a disagreement about what that reality is. Traditional Christians maintain that if you wilfully and determinately reject Christ and maintain that rejection to the very end, you will go to Hell. Christ is the only means to salvation whether you like it or not.


Of course they are and you very well believe that too. You certainly believe that I'm wrong, and what method exactly did you use to determine that? So what's your point?

If you believe in anything, you by default reject everything contrary to that as wrong. If you're an atheist for example, you very well believe that some people ARE wrong, so charging against Christianity that its implications lead to a very definite truth is hardly an argument. The real liars are those who deny any objective truth, because they are obsessed with 'feelings'.


I'm not telling you to accept anything, stop projecting. It's up to you to do the best you can to find the truth.

I feel as if the true message is sometimes ignored. I personally feel as if listening to Jesus' message leads to salvation, not worshipping him. The message he and many other deities/prophets/guru's ect, are basically the same: Peace. The words are different in each religion, but the message is still the same. As long as you follow the message of peace and share it among others, that's all that matters.

But I am what I am. Your opinion won't change that. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus or other deities and really I'm open minded enough to listen to all of the good deities/prophets/gurus. I've learned things from not just Druidism, but Heathenry, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, ect. I don't pretend that my religion is absolute truth and everything else is false. It's a narrow minded view that gives you a narrow minded perspective on life.

 

[Glaurung]

I feel as if the true message ignored. I personally feel as if listening to Jesus' message leads to salvation, not worshipping him. The message he and many other deities/prophets/guru's ect, are basically the same: Peace. The words are different in each religion, but the message is still the same. As long as you follow the message of peace and share it among others, that's all that matters.

I'm sorry, but I can never accept modernist wishful whitewash over the attested Christian faith. The Christian faith is a definite claim, that it alone is the full truth in regards to God and salvation. And no, not all religions are the same. Not even close.

I don't pretend that my religion is absolute truth and everything else is false. It's a narrow minded view that gives you a narrow minded perspective on life.

Just don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I'm sorry, but I can never accept modernist wishful whitewash over the attested Christian faith. The Christian faith is a definite claim, that it alone is the full truth in regards to God and salvation. And no, not all religions are the same. Not even close.


Just don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.

You don't have to accept it and neither do I. I never said all religions are the same, but many of them share the same overall message, which is peace. Many of the religions I mention talk about having peace with yourself and with your fellow friends and loved ones. They use different words, but the message is still the same. Be good, be charitable, have honor, defend the helpless ect.

But don't keep your mind so tightly closed that your brain will get crushed.

 

[Bunyip]

Is it essential for anyone with a favorite color to think that they have the right favorite color?

What do you mean 'the right favorite color'? It is a personal preference, how could it be wrong?

(And yes, as a polytheist and a pluralist, that's just about how absurd the question seems to me)

Sorry, can't make sense of whatever you are arguing here. Polytheists and pluralists still by necessity reject almost as many gods as the rest of us.

 

[thau]

I don't mean to state the obvious - but wouldn't it be essential for any theist to think that they believe in the right god?

I think your question is legitimate one, in most cases, and I do not think anyone thus far has answered it properly.

Yes, it would be essential to believe they are the only ones right in that "their god is the only God" for all intents and purposes. Using Christianity as an example, we may very well believe that a Hindu or Muslim's adherence to a moral code that contains much good is pleasing to the true God in Christ and gains them some form of grace and merit, but that is different than us recognizing their "god" is the one speaking to them, etc.

So the top post message does not mean much for me. Just because some Christians may taunt "our god is the only God" or the like --- that may be very bad decorum but the underlying message still bears some civil debate. I guess a pompous witness is doing no one a favor, but the belief they possess is very much the same as a pious silent servant.

 

[Bunyip]

I think your question is legitimate one, in most cases, and I do not think anyone thus far has answered it properly.

Yes, it would be essential to believe they are the only ones right in that "their god is the only God" for all intents and purposes. Using Christianity as an example, we may very well believe that a Hindu or Muslim's adherence to a moral code that contains much good is pleasing to the true God in Christ and gains them some form of grace and merit, but that is different than us recognizing their "god" is the one speaking to them, etc.

So the top post message does not mean much for me. Just because some Christians may taunt "our god is the only God" or the like --- that may be very bad decorum but the underlying message still bears some civil debate. I guess a pompous witness is doing no one a favor, but the belief they possess is very much the same as a pious silent servant.

Thanks, yeah you got my point. I think that somebody who believes (for example) that Yahweh is the one god, must therefore believe that Ganesh (for example) is not a god.
For polytheists there would be gods outside of the set of gods they believe in. A polytheist could not believe a monotheistic god exists.

 

[Riverwolf]

What do you mean 'the right favorite color'? It is a personal preference, how could it be wrong?

That's the answer to the question.

Sorry, can't make sense of whatever you are arguing here. Polytheists and pluralists still by necessity reject almost as many gods as the rest of us.

No... not really. At least, not in the same sense that you guys (monotheists and atheists together) do.

I follow a selection of the late Germanic pantheon. But I don't outright reject the Hellenic, Kemetic, or other pantheons.

And even with fictional Gods, well, Cthulhu is, beyond doubt, a work of fiction. And yet in the right situation, I still say, quite seriously, "take care not to look upon the face of Cthulhu lest ye go mad", which should be clear as to what I mean depending on the context.

 

[Bunyip]

That's the answer to the question.

How is that an answer? It doesn't make sense.

No... not really. At least, not in the same sense that you guys (monotheists and atheists together) do.

Cthulhu is, beyond doubt, a work of fiction. And yet in the right situation, I still say, quite seriously, "take care not to look upon the face of Cthulhu lest ye go mad".

Given that you admit he doesn't exist, that seems a counter example to your position.

 

[Riverwolf]

How is that an answer? It doesn't make sense. Given that you admit he doesn't exist, that seems a counter example to your position.

Check my edit.

It makes perfect sense in the polytheist mindset. It's all about preference. "What Gods do you pray to?" asked Conan to Subotai.

It's not a counter-example at all, because I'm invoking Cthulhu for a specific purpose as if he were a non-fictitious being. I said he's "without a doubt, a work of fiction", not that he "doesn't exist in any way".

I understand this is a tricky mindset to understand, as it takes a lot of unlearning several basic assumptions we've been given ever since Christianity first showed up and gave them to us. Because these assumptions are so ubiquitous in our post-Christianized culture, there's very scant vernacular to accurately express it, which can make efforts to do so seem ... quaint, at best, and outright insanity at worst. "Metaphor" and "simile" simply aren't adequate, as they still imply total non-existence, which I don't believe in. If even fictional Gods still have enough power to influence our behavior, or even the behavior of just one person, that's enough for me to call them, at the very least, effectively existent even if they have no power over me, personally.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't mind if others tell me that they "think" or "believe" the God I believe in does not exist, but to force it on me like they are perfect in knowing that what I believe in does not exist is rude and disrespectful.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know I always personally found it rude when someone who is an adherent to a religion believes in a deity or pantehon but then says that only their deity/pantheon exists and the others don't. I personally think almost all of the deities exist and I think almost every religion has some truth to it. I for one thing would never say that I don't think their deity exists even though I don't practice that religion. Like with Ahura Mazda, who I think is cool, but I just don't practice Zoroastrianism or with others like Jesus or Allah or Thor or Vishnu. I'm sure we've all encountered folks like that who just assume all other deities are make believe and only theirs exist.

I would say, unless your specific religion or moral says all religions have truth, there is an underlining belief (just by having a different belief alone) says this belief is the truth. If ofher beliefs are true from an individual perspective, why have a belief? Its not a preference, its who you are. If both you and a Christian has shades on, each of you sees a different color, by default, if respectful, you will say "I see green". It is impying that the other person is wrong in what he sees even if the non christian puts on the same glasses as the christian.

There is healthier ways to say "my religion is the truth" without imposing on someone elses freedom of religion. In the end, "because" a person has a different faith, that faith IS true and reality to them even when they respect other beliefs.

You can still say something is the truth without imposing on others beliefs. How? I dont know.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I don't know I always personally found it rude when someone who is an adherent to a religion believes in a deity or pantehon but then says that only their deity/pantheon exists and the others don't.

Rude of the person ... or rude of the doctrine?

 

[Quintessence]

What do you mean 'the right favorite color'? It is a personal preference, how could it be wrong?

Exactly. Only an exclusivist thinks in terms of "right gods" and "wrong gods." The rest of us recognize it's a decision grounded in our personal values and preferences, as shaped by our culture and our personalities. Non-exclusivist thinking isn't limited to polytheism - I see it a lot on contemporary monotheistic adherents especially in my country - but it is the standard in polytheistic theology.

Sorry, can't make sense of whatever you are arguing here. Polytheists and pluralists still by necessity reject almost as many gods as the rest of us.

Huh? Since when? That sounds awfully (and unnecessarily) limiting and condemnatory, as well as contradictory to the essence of what pluralism means and how it manifests in polytheistic theology.

 

[Blastcat]

Because reality doesn't care what you think. It's just a disagreement about what that reality is. Traditional Christians maintain that if you wilfully and determinately reject Christ and maintain that rejection to the very end, you will go to Hell. Christ is the only means to salvation whether you like it or not.

Right.. Hell, that veiled creepy threat that I was talking about. If they ask me to believe in Jesus..and I ask why?.. and the reply seems to be .. or else, Hell.

Hell, isn't exactly the most evidenced place we know of.. and we can only seem to get ANY evidence for it after we die. So, as you say ONLY Jesus, in some people's view, will save us from that bad place. And I am supposed to also believe THAT claim...because they do?..

If some people display that kind of expectation.. that I will be frightened by their really scary story.. That FEAR ( a strong emotion if ever there was one ) is going to frighten me into believing that story is true, well, I find the idea creepy and weird.

I agree that reality is what it is, whether I like it or not.. but why should I buy into this creepy set of beliefs?.. I don't happen to be impressed with their very scary story. I think both Christians and atheists agree that reality exists.. but theists want to ADD a whole lot of things to reality.. and don't have a lick of evidence to support their magical claims.

But as I go away, shaking my head, I can't help thinking how creepy it is that these people can threaten others with their boogeymen and so on...

Of course they are and you very well believe that too. You certainly believe that I'm wrong, and what method exactly did you use to determine that? So what's your point?

Good question. Let's talk about methods for knowing what is true or not.

IF I am trying to determine if Hell is real.. I will ask for the evidence. If nobody can offer me any, other that the fact that the idea was written in a book... and that people believe it a LOT and so forth, I certainly don't conclude that HELL has been proved to be real, at least. So at BEST all I could ever expect to be is agnostic about HELL..

And I won't be swayed by how scary HELL is supposed to be. It's real or it's not.. What's the evidence supporting that it's true?.. that's it. No emotion on MY part, in fact, I have to fend off the emotional REVULSION such an image as HELL invokes.

A strong emotional revulsion.

Claims that Hell is real have to be false, by the standard of evidence. The best a BELIEVER can do is to be agnostic or admit to ignorance along with me.

But it's worse, in my view. Because when we have NO evidence for a claim, the mere fact that it can be POSSIBLY true or real, is as valid as Santa being real, Vishnu, Zeus, or every OTHER magical being that has no evidence supporting it.

Sure, Hell might be POSSIBLE.. but the probability I give to the possibility of Hell being true is just a little above zero. Just like any other claim that has zero evidence. Maybe the probability is not absolutely zero.. but close enough in my book.

That's the method I use.. I don't say that Hell is an IMPOSSIBILITY, but that's not a great admission. I would say the same thing about Santa being possible. That's my atheism. I don't say absolutely that Hell doesn't exist, but it's so close to being zero that it's close enough for me.

I don't go for believing in things that have .00000000000000001 or something probability of being true. I go for at LEAST a 51 per cent probability of something being true before I say I think it's true.

And I usually want WAY more than merely 51% .. I usually want around 99%. So, even if I gave HELL the probability of one percent.. or even ten percent.. that's still not going to convince me that Hell is true.

And IN the case of magical mystery fantastic eternal punishment places? I would require BETTER than 99% ... Yeah, I think Hell is a very SPECIAL CASE... it's not like the more mundane claims of geography. Does Árbæjarhverfi í Ölfusi exist ?

Well, it's supposed to be a village in Iceland. We can actually go and visit where it's supposed to be. It's there or it's really not there.

Now.. HOW on earth can we verify HELL'S nonexistence or existence... where is THAT supposed to be? .. I can't even EXPECT to find HELL.. and in fact, apparently, I can only hope to verify it AFTER I DIE!

I can't even USE a method right now to know if it's true or not.. That isn't a plus for those who claim that HELL is real... Just have to wait. Until we are dead. Some method THAT is.

But it's just not a method that we can use while we are alive. WE can LITERALLY not get any evidence for this HELL while we ARE alive.

And NOT having any evidence for HELL at all.. doesn't mean that we do have evidence for hell at all.. It really means, that if I am trying to KNOW if HELL is true or not, is real or not.. that I HAVE NO EVIDENCE for it being a real, true place. Like that small village in Iceland.

And when I don't have ANY evidence that something is real?.. not a point in favor of it being real. Things that aren't real ALSO produce no evidence. That's something HELL and nonexistent things have in common... a complete lack of verifiability.

If you believe in anything, you by default reject everything contrary to that as wrong.

Right. Otherwise, I would believe in contradictions. I don't want to do that. Agreed.

If you're an atheist for example, you very well believe that some people ARE wrong,

Yes, I'm an atheist. And yes, I agree.. I believe that people who use poor methods to acquire knowledge are more likely to be wrong.

so charging against Christianity that its implications lead to a very definite truth, thus some people being wrong, is hardly an argument.

I'm not sure I follow you.. I would not make that argument. Maybe you misunderstand something I wrote. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Allow me to clarify what I think you are trying to address.

If you mean that when I say that if many god believers claim that only THEIR god is true.. that WOULD imply that all other gods are false. If ONE believer says that HIS god is the ONLY true god, as I often hear from certain theists.. then all the OTHER gods must be false gods.. false idols and so on.

Only ONE of these claimants are correct, if it's true that only ONE god can be true.

RIGHT ! So at BEST, only one such belief is true. All the rest.. however many, need to be false. And at WORST, every believer is wrong. That's adding just one more claim to the already huge pile of false gods. That isn't a stretch of the imagination for me.

The real liars are those who deny any objective truth, because they are obsessed with 'feelings'.

Well, I would not call people obsessed with feelings LIARS.. but maybe they're not using the best reasoning method and just more probably wrong than right. I think you are accusing me of being led by my feelings and not using my reasoning. At least, I can see the implication.

I do have strong feelings on the matter. BUT.. I am trying to explain to you and anyone else how my reason works. I hope I haven't relied on any strong emotion to .. somehow explain my position. At least I didn't try to.

I'm not telling you to accept anything, stop projecting. It's up to you to do the best you can to find the truth.

Oh.. ok.. I thought you were trying to get me to accept something .. just because.. without much evidence or reasons. But if you are implying that YOU have found the truth, could you tell me about the method you used to know that it's true ?

I would be very interested.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly. Only an exclusivist thinks in terms of "right gods" and "wrong gods."

What? All theists think in such terms. Nobody believes in all gods. Sorry, but again, your objections make no sense to me I'm sorry. I don't think in in terms of right gods and wrong gods - not sure where you got that from. Nor am I taking an exclusivist position.

The rest of us recognize it's a decision grounded in our personal values and preferences, as shaped by our culture and our personalities. Non-exclusivist thinking isn't limited to polytheism - I see it a lot on contemporary monotheistic adherents especially in my country - but it is the standard in polytheistic theology.

Huh? Since when? That sounds awfully (and unnecessarily) limiting and condemnatory, as well as contradictory to the essence of what pluralism means and how it manifests in polytheistic theology.

How so? Seemed just like stating the obvious to me. No idea whatsoever how you could see it as condemnatory - or even a criticism at all. Nor does it in any way contradict the essence of pluralism.

 

[Bunyip]

Check my edit.

Thanks for clarifying then, sorry I must have missed this post yesterday.

It makes perfect sense in the polytheist mindset. It's all about preference. "What Gods do you pray to?" asked Conan to Subotai.

I have difficulty seeing belief as a choice, we do not choose what we believe - that is the pathway to self deception.

It's not a counter-example at all, because I'm invoking Cthulhu for a specific purpose as if he were a non-fictitious being. I said he's "without a doubt, a work of fiction", not that he "doesn't exist in any way".

So you believe Cthulhu exists or not?

I understand this is a tricky mindset to understand, as it takes a lot of unlearning several basic assumptions we've been given ever since Christianity first showed up and gave them to us. Because these assumptions are so ubiquitous in our post-Christianized culture, there's very scant vernacular to accurately express it, which can make efforts to do so seem ... quaint, at best, and outright insanity at worst. "Metaphor" and "simile" simply aren't adequate, as they still imply total non-existence, which I don't believe in. If even fictional Gods still have enough power to influence our behavior, or even the behavior of just one person, that's enough for me to call them, at the very least, effectively existent even if they have no power over me, personally.

No, I can't follow that - what I mean by a god existing is; Does the entity in question exist? Not does the metaphor exist - does the entity exist.

 

[Quintessence]

What? All theists think in such terms. Nobody believes in all gods.

Clearly, the existence of theists such as myself and Riverwolf (among a bunch of other theists) is proof to the contrary.

Sorry, but again, your objections make no sense to me I'm sorry. I don't think in in terms of right gods and wrong gods - not sure where you got that from.

Well, considering you said this:

I don't mean to state the obvious - but wouldn't it be essential for any theist to think that they believe in the right god?

It's not essential. At all. Thinking there are "right gods" and "wrong gods" is the mindset of exclusivists, not pluralists and not polytheists.

No idea whatsoever how you could see it as condemnatory - or even a criticism at all. Nor does it in any way contradict the essence of pluralism.

Exclusivism inherently condemns and is critical of other ways of thinking by claiming there is only one correct, true, or right position. It's how it defends itself and maintains its position - by denying the validity of all other perspectives. Exclusivism and pluralism are mutually exclusive mindsets. Exclusivism says "there's only one truth or right way" and pluralism says "there are many truths and right ways."

 

[Bunyip]

Check my edit.

It makes perfect sense in the polytheist mindset. It's all about preference. "What Gods do you pray to?" asked Conan to Subotai.

Thanks, that helps. So are then it is not really about belief for pantheists, but preference? You are conceding non-existence for gods?

It's not a counter-example at all, because I'm invoking Cthulhu for a specific purpose as if he were a non-fictitious being. I said he's "without a doubt, a work of fiction", not that he "doesn't exist in any way".

There is only one 'way' that is relevant to the question - does the entity in question exist in a real way, ie - does that god exist?

I understand this is a tricky mindset to understand, as it takes a lot of unlearning several basic assumptions we've been given ever since Christianity first showed up and gave them to us. Because these assumptions are so ubiquitous in our post-Christianized culture, there's very scant vernacular to accurately express it, which can make efforts to do so seem ... quaint, at best, and outright insanity at worst. "Metaphor" and "simile" simply aren't adequate, as they still imply total non-existence, which I don't believe in. If even fictional Gods still have enough power to influence our behavior, or even the behavior of just one person, that's enough for me to call them, at the very least, effectively existent even if they have no power over me, personally.

Yeah, I do think I am understanding your idea. And yes, I can resonate with looking a deities as representative, rather than existent.