Poll for Religious Monotheists

[Rational Agnostic]

I know I have discussed this topic before, but I don't believe I've ever created a poll, so I thought it would be interesting. It seems as though many monotheists automatically dismiss the possibilities of the existences of other gods, while asserting that their god must exist. I believe the reason for this is because Yahweh/Allah is the most popular god today, particularly in the United States. But this wasn't always the case. Other deities have been more popular in the past. So, my question is (to use an example of just one of the thousands of other manmade deities) why do you believe in Yahweh/Allah, but not Thor? And, more particularly, why do you believe that all of the thousands of other gods that are being or have been worshiped fervently and believed in fervently were manmade, but somehow this one particular god is not manmade? I recognize that this is a common atheist question, but I don't think it's something that Christians/Muslims/Jews actually think through very often.

 

[savagewind]

The God of cause is just one. Every other god is a variation of that one. imo.

 

[rational experiences]

The self of cause is just one, a scientist, who in a group aware conscious status thinks self powerful for all of his brothers who think the same.

How self deism genetically a taught variation to science concepts, is realized as the same stories, with a different name for genetics are varied also...but the concepts are the same. Why DNA diversity allows for argument, when the theme, science is the exact same concept.

Then science will say, but I argue science, and it is the very reason why you argue.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe in God, not Yahweh/Allah/ Jesus as God nor Thor. God is not defined by tehe ancient world view of Yahweh/Allah, nor Thor.

 

[syo]

why do you believe in Yahweh/Allah, but not Thor?

I am a polytheist, but I want to answer the question.
I worship Thor and He is a great God.
I also believe in the Christian God but he is the worst God that exists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe in 33 million Hindu Gods and Goddesses. I also believe in all native Gods of all people, but not in the manufactered ones (Yahweh/Christian God/Allah).

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe in 33 million Hindu Gods and Goddesses. I also believe in all native Gods of all people, but not in the manufactered ones (Yahweh/Christian God/Allah).

Why be selective as to what people call the 'Source' some call Gods when if your assumption above is true, all cultures of humanity throughout history manufacture God(s)?

Argument from popularity of what you believe is a fallacy. Human nature has not changed since humans first became human including the Hindus..

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I believe the "gods" of polytheism are angels in service of God. But worshiping angels is wrong.

Thor is the angel of hammers and thunder and stuff.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why be selective as to what people call the 'Source' some call Gods when if your assumption above is true, all cultures of humanity throughout history manufacture God(s)?
Human nature has not changed since humans first became human including the Hindus.

There is a difference. Nobody has claimed to be a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation /mahdi in Hinduism or other native religions while the Abrahamic religions have such claims, which being a strong atheist, I strongly deny.

 

[Quintessence]

To go deeper - because I think the framing of the question could use a bit of polishing - consider what it means to "believe in."

I've long found that phrase to be problematic, because it can actually mean several different things:

• Ontologically real, whatever that means in your philosophical worldview; this is the most superficial and meaningless understanding of what it means to "believe in" something
• Devoted to, or practice ritual worship/behavior that demonstrates veneration of that particular god; this is a far more relevant meaning for the phrase "believe in" when it comes to religion
• Trustworthy, or relied upon to be honest or truthful as is relevant to the particular god; this meaning of "believe in" is also much more relevant when it comes to the topic of religion

When thinking about Hubert's question, think about in terms of these three meanings of "believe in." As a polytheist, I do the same thing when it comes to your god. I do not deny your god is ontologically real thus I "believe in" your god in that way. Considering I outright reject partitioning of reality into "real" and "not real" it is impossible for your god not to clear this bar of mine, though. I do not "believe in" your god in the ways that really matter - I am not devoted to your one-god, nor do I place much trust in your one-god. Why? Fundamentally, I do not like and am not interested in your god. I already have my own relationships and am not interested in breaking those up and replacing them with yours.

Your logic may be similar. You already have a relationship with your one-god and you are not interested in the other gods. You might even reject that they are gods at all. You don't need to explain yourself to anyone other than yourself. Your religious traditions are your own, and you are their keeper.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

That certainly makes sense. But the first of the three cases is not really a matter of belief. If I say that I believe something, it surely implies that I don't actually know it. I believe that it may rain tonight, but I know that I'm typing.

The monotheist has to believe, for they have no evidence. The worshiper of Thor has either encountered him, or is relying on the evidence of others who have.

 

[Sundance]

Although as a monolatrist, this question isn’t addressed to me, since I am drawn to the Christian God, I feel that I can answer in a relevant manner.

I don’t at all deny that the gods of other religions and cultures. Absolutely not. In fact, I personally unequivocally acknowledge and affirm their existence and accord them their respect as due by virtue of their identities as such. Even so, I dispense with their worship. Why? Simply put, I myself have had far more individual encounters and experiences with the Christian God than with any others. On top of this, you’ve got an all-encompassing, all-purpose God (at least as far as Abrahamic religions go) as differentiated from a particular god of the Sun, or of Thunder, or a goddess of Truth, or of animals, or of the State. Something all-purpose is much easier to handle.

I don’t disrespect other gods, but I have mine already, so I don’t really pay them regard in any way that’s meaningful or worth anything.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I know I have discussed this topic before, but I don't believe I've ever created a poll, so I thought it would be interesting. It seems as though many monotheists automatically dismiss the possibilities of the existences of other gods, while asserting that their god must exist. I believe the reason for this is because Yahweh/Allah is the most popular god today, particularly in the United States. But this wasn't always the case. Other deities have been more popular in the past. So, my question is (to use an example of just one of the thousands of other manmade deities) why do you believe in Yahweh/Allah, but not Thor? And, more particularly, why do you believe that all of the thousands of other gods that are being or have been worshiped fervently and believed in fervently were manmade, but somehow this one particular god is not manmade? I recognize that this is a common atheist question, but I don't think it's something that Christians/Muslims/Jews actually think through very often.

Thor is part of a pantheon of gods that represent, i.e., forces of nature. I simply choose not to personify the forces of nature, etc. I think that polytheism is inferior in that it fractures the divine into inconsistent pieces. It makes no sense to me that today I'll worship the god of war, and tomorrow I'll worship the goddess of love.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is Echad, "One." He is not simply a force of nature, but the source of all of nature, the entire universe, the Creator. Thunder and lightening and the laws that control them are due to him. But so is everything else. In other words:
1. He is the source BEHIND the natural world, the creator.
2. He is the source of ALL the natural world, not just this part or that part, and holds and absolute and unparalleled unity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is Echad, "One." He is not simply a force of nature, but the source of all of nature, the entire universe, the Creator. Thunder and lightening and the laws that control them are due to him. But so is everything else. In other words:
1. He is the source BEHIND the natural world, the creator.
2. He is the source of ALL the natural world, not just this part or that part, and holds and absolute and unparalleled unity.

Judaism is a native religion, I do not contest it. In that way, a pagan religion. Just as we have no proof of Krishna, You have no proof of your God being a creator.