Polytheism is a form of atheism

[vijeno]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".
2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

 

[Father Heathen]

Except not everyone will agree that omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are prerequisites for godhood.

 

[LuisDantas]

In my personal experience, it is certainly easier to establish meaningful dialogue between this atheist here and polytheists than with monotheists.

Despite the established word usage, "god" does indeed mean very different things for the stereotypical forms of polytheism and of Abrahamic monotheism.

It would IMO be a good idea to establish different words for those rather different conceptions.

 

[Erebus]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".
2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Sure. If you restrict the definition of god to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being then you could claim that anybody who doesn't believe in that god is an atheist. I'm not entirely sure why you prefer that definition but you do you.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

Simply put, they don't share your view of what qualities are necessary for something to be considered a god.

 

[vijeno]

Except not everyone will agree that omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are prerequisites for godhood.

I'm sure. But then, what is a definition that works for both monotheism and polytheism, but not for beings like, e.g., Superman, that people normally wouldn't see as "gods"?

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm sure. But then, what is a definition that works for both monotheism and polytheism, but not for beings like, e.g., Superman, that people normally wouldn't see as "gods"?

Until we can get a sample down to the lab there is no objective, universal answer.

 

[Viker]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being

Can't be allowed. Even for the sake of this thread.

People worshipped deities/gods before monotheism. The premise ignores that and instead favors the monotheist view/definition of a god as if monotheism was the first god belief, specifically the most well known.

2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.

True. They could also cooperate with each other.

3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.

There's a strong likelihood there may not be an omnipotent god or possibly one omnipotent god employing multiple lesser gods. Omnipotent doesn't even have to mean omnipresent or omniscient.

4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings

See no. 1.

 

[LuisDantas]

Until we can get a sample down to the lab there is no objective, universal answer.

Besides, who would decide that it is a legitimate sample? What would give the decider any authority?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until we can get a sample down to the lab there is no objective, universal answer.

Nope, you are not going to get me to do that again!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".
2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

Step 1 is unnecessarily restrictive.

You didn't bother to define "omnipotent," so you didn't actually establish that step 3 is true.

Edit: this is just "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" but with more hand-waving.

 

[Bthoth]

Besides, who would decide that it is a legitimate sample? What would give the decider any authority?

The one with the magic wand held in the sample's paw.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sure. But then, what is a definition that works for both monotheism and polytheism, but not for beings like, e.g., Superman, that people normally wouldn't see as "gods"?

There isn't one. I would argue that there can't be a single definition that works for all god-concepts.

I mean, divine messenger Hermes is definitively a god, but divine messenger Gabriel is definitively not a god. Can you come up with a definition of "god" that includes one but excludes the other? I can't.

 

[viole]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".
2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

I am not convinced. I do not think you have enough logical warrant to justify the statement that "if one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not omnipotent".

I do not see the necessity of the conclusion from that inference.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Ahahahahah!

No.

But thanks for the reminder that our culture which is more or less brainwashed into thinking classical monotheism is the only type of theism utterly fails to understand other types of theism, including but not limited to polytheism.

 

[Quintessence]

So, to be a bit more articulate as why this just struck me as ridiculous, consider the fact that the very first thing we are asked to do -

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".

- is, more or less, assessing polytheism using theological assumptions and ideas that polytheism... does... not... actually... have. As a polytheist, I see this sort of nonsense almost constantly. We are almost constantly assessed from the lens of classical monotheism in spite of those assumptions not being applicable. The result? Fundamental misunderstandings and nonsense like "polytheism is a form of atheism."

No.

I could make a similar and equally ridiculous case that classical monotheists are atheists by interpreting their theology from a polytheist perspective. I could say "let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be aspects of reality and nature that are greater-than-human." Since their god is supernatural, it doesn't meet the "correct" definition of what a god is. Therefore, they are atheists.

No.

Just... no.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahahahahah!

No.

But thanks for the reminder that our culture which is more or less brainwashed into thinking classical monotheism is the only type of theism utterly fails to understand other types of theism, including but not limited to polytheism.

The argument doesn’t even work in a classical monotheistic framework.

The old "paradox" about God making a stone that's too heavy for him to lift gets resolved by saying that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do logically impossible things (e.g. thwarting omnipotence).

This response still works equally well regardless of how many omnipotent beings are involved.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be ...

The operative principle that comes to mind (from my old computing days) is:

Garbage in -- garbage out.​

 

[soulsurvivor]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".
2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.
3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.
4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Let me note that I have no stake in the matter, I'm atheist anyway - but I never understood how people can square belief in many "gods" with the idea that those beings are actually "gods".

Most Gods are not 'omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient'. The God of the Earth is powerful, but autonomous only so far as the Earth is concerned. He is responsible for the management and evolution of all creatures on Earth, but he is subordinate to the Solar God. The Earth God works with perfect harmony with the Solar God and would never be at odds or in opposition to him (they are Gods not fallible like humans). He has pretty much complete autonomy with respect to actions on Earth, however he does get the basic plan for Earth from the Solar God.

The Solar God also gets direction/instructions from the God of Sirius who probably gets his direction from the Galactic God. So, there is a hierarchy of Gods and they all work harmoniously with each other (that is why they are Gods). The Universal Supreme God above everything and everyone is not a person, so we cannot have a relationship with 'him' or 'it'.

 

[McBell]

1. Let the definition of god (for the sake of this thread) be "an omnipotent, onmipresent, and omniscient being".

How many polytheists believe that every single one the deities they believe in are your above definition of omnipotent?

2. If multiple gods exist, they can interfere with each other.

Um...
So what?

3. If one being can interfere with another, then that other being is not onmipotent. For one, if both beings are truly omnipresent - i.e., present throughout all time, and through eternity - then one cannot destroy the other. They necessarily limit each other's abilities.

So you present a paradox which makes your "argument" what?
Seems you shot yourself in the foot...

4. Therefore, if you believe in many gods, you don't believe in gods, but rather something akin to superheroes or other mythical beings.

Since you have already shot your "argument" in the foot, you really should go back to the drawing board and try again.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm sure. But then, what is a definition that works for both monotheism and polytheism, but not for beings like, e.g., Superman, that people normally wouldn't see as "gods"?

Here’s the fatal flaw in your reasoning;
Surely you understand that different people with different beliefs in different gods don’t often define their god/s the same as many others.

Different people of different belief systems (and even within the same belief system) have vastly varying understandings and beliefs about their god/s.
This is why it is best to ask them what there understanding of their god/s is as opposed to assuming it is what you may accept to be worthy of qualifying as a god/s.