2006-10-16 05:38:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is the monotheists who tell me that their religion is an improvement on the older, pagan, polytheistice religions.
2006-10-16 05:45:00 · update #1
BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN
No, that's what jesusheads do.
The assumption is what I have been told by monotheists is truth...their religions are an improvement. My question merely makes the logical next step
2006-10-16 05:59:01 · update #2
SVARTALF
" but believing that there are no gods is no more rational than believing in any gods."
I disagree, it is not logical to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Atheism is not "believing in non-god", it is merely a philosophy of not accepting something on faith with no evidence. Believing in god is no more rational than believing in pink unicorn in my basement.
2006-10-16 06:04:39 · update #3
Where do we go from here?
2006-10-16 05:40:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO!!!! It does not follow logically. (Your question assumes that "Monotheism is an improvement from polytheism" is a true statement.) All the people who follow any religious faith believe it is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Monotheism should not be confused with Trinitarianism. A common analogy to explain trinitarianism is that water exists as ice, steam, and water. All forms of water have two hydogen atom and one oxygen atom per molecule (H2O). Trinitarianism is not polytheism. Polytheism means many gods. It is commonly associated with the ancient Roamans and Achient Greeks but some modern religions are also polytheistic. Atheist do not believe God or gods exist. Agnostics do not know whether or not God does exist. A common argument made for the existance of God is an appeal to nature. Design requires a designer. Creation requires a Creator. This argument has been made by philosophers and is also cited in the Bible. It should also be noted that there is the Oneness Doctine that has been embraced by the United Pentacostal Church, that teaches the Unity of the Godhead and that the names of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit is JESUS.
2006-10-16 07:01:05 · answer #2 · answered by David M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a) the monotheists are either deceived or lying. Monotheism certainly seems to have gotten a vastly upper hand over the older polytheistic faiths, but this has nothing to do with mono being any "improvement" over poly.
b) Unless you have definitive proof that no deity or divine supernatural beings exist, atheism is no improvement as it replaces one unfounded and unprovable creed with another, which denies being a creed as it asserts there are no beings to believe in, but believing that there are no gods is no more rational than believing in any gods.
2006-10-16 05:53:37 · answer #3 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only people who ever claimed monotheism is greater effectual than polytheism are probable monotheists. you need to argue that the thought in one god can unite human beings greater suitable than the thought in distinctive gods, yet there are various staggering exceptions. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Indians have been all polytheistic societies that had progressed civilizations for their era. in actuality, the rising superpower, China, is a majority polytheistic society. the only worry-unfastened thread between polytheism, monotheism, and atheism is the reality that they are all are religions. you are able to argue with me yet i think of the term you're quite finding for to describe your self is irreligious.
2016-11-23 14:40:17 · answer #4 · answered by muhammad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would seem a logical progression...
But is monotheism TRULY better than polytheism? Apparently not - Christains have been practicing polytheism under the guise of monotheism for about 20 centuries....
2006-10-16 05:41:29 · answer #5 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is monotheism an improvement on polytheism? Less tithing to do? Less work when it comes down to worshipping? Would polytheism be improved if we could develop assembly line followership?
2006-10-16 05:42:52 · answer #6 · answered by Muffie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Next step, realizing the paradox -- we neither exist nor non-exist, our perceptions aside.
That step will probably require the Grand Unified Theory though, 'cause it will be hard to get people to realize that 'self' is nothing but the emergent behavior of sub-atomic particles without it.
2006-10-16 05:42:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So, you start with an assumption, then try to proceed by assuming your assumption is a fact?
You sure got a huge ego.
2006-10-16 05:50:16 · answer #8 · answered by Born Again Christian 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mathematically.
2006-10-16 05:41:35 · answer #9 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess it depends on the person who believes in whichever ism of choice.
2006-10-16 05:41:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if zero is an improvement.
2006-10-16 05:44:16 · answer #11 · answered by ... 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋