Ive heard atheists comparing the existence of the God that created the heaven and the earth to Zeus, etc.
Is it really rational to do so, why and why not?
2007-09-04 04:30:38 · 23 answers · asked by lollipop 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Where are the believers?!?!?!??!?!?!??!!!?!?!??! All I see are atheists answering.
2007-09-04 05:51:09 · update #1
thrudheim, thx for insulting, thank you, you make atheists proud.
2007-09-04 05:52:49 · update #2
No. There is strong evidence for the existence of God - for example the 100% historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy of the Bible. Not a shred of evidence exists for the others.
2007-09-04 04:37:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 8⤋
It is rational, because the proof provided for the existence of these beings is the same as the proof provided for God.
Your question could just as easily be applied to Neptune.
It is rational to compare Neptune to Thor, Santa Clause and God?
I would guess that 2200 years ago, most of Greece would have thought that it wasn't rational at all, because obviously Neptune was real and the middle eastern theory of a single God called Jehovah was clearly false.
Especially considering that Alexander easily defeated this false God's followers.
See it is all based on upbringing and interpretation, there is no 'truth' in religious belief, just feeling.
2007-09-04 11:41:01 · answer #2 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Santa would kick their a**!
Religion is so subjective. It's a result of you environment, you morals and the time you lived in. The Catholics from the 1700's probably wouldn't recognize the Catholics from today. The religion evolved, but how can the truth become more truthful?
In my opinion, no, it's not a rational argument. There needs to be some basis in common to have a debate, and no one has hard proof that the other is wrong, nor do they have the proof that they are correct. It's faith based logic that changes with the times, but it's trying to make the truth more truthful again.
I don't know if this makes any sense, it sounded good in my head.
2007-09-04 11:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by The Forgotten 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's usually a type of what could (in a bit of a cacophonism) be called pessimistic induction, in which the particular ancient tribal deity still believed in today is compared against gods who at one time or another enjoyed a similar degree of worship. This is rational unless there is actually some unusual positive evidence in favor of Christian mythology (and enough to counter the mounds against the particular mythology of the Christians).
Since all evidence is against the Christian god existing, even just starting from traditional objections like the problem of evil, it is rational to say that Yahweh is no more likely to exist than those other creatures, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or what have you.
2007-09-04 11:43:12 · answer #4 · answered by Minh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is completely rational to compare the Christian God to Zeus and Thor. They were Greek and Norse gods. If Christians ask atheist why they don't believe in the Christian god, it is fair to ask the Christian why he/she does not believe in Zeus and Thor.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy etc. come up when Christians ask atheists to prove the non-existence of God. You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. While few, if any, adults believe in these myths, it is impossible to prove their non-existence. To say that God exists because you cannot prove that he does not, is no different to saying that Santa Claus exists because you cannot prove that he does not.
2007-09-04 11:41:42 · answer #5 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since Zeus and Thor are also Gods in other religions and mythologies, yes, it's completely rational to compare them to the Judeo-Christian God.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, not so much - they are more folkloric figures, not really deities.
2007-09-04 12:03:23 · answer #6 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is. There is as much proof of Zeus, and Thor as there is for Yahweh. But when you say god, you admit they are the comparable. They were all Gods. There were hundreds of thousands of people who factually believed in these deities, just because they have not withstood the test of modern times, some of these religions were followed for longer than Christianity. Santa Claus is admittedly fiction, but until you reach a certain age, you believed in him as well. It's all fiction. It's all comparable.
2007-09-04 11:38:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it's rational. Zeus and Thor were alternative explanations for all that exists in years past, and modern gods suffer from Santa Syndrome, so that's apt as well.
Santa Syndrome - a desire for humans to believe in you
2007-09-04 11:38:18 · answer #8 · answered by wondermus 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the context. If you asked someone the time and they replied "God is like Zeus" that would be irrational.
If it was in response to a question about, for example, levels of evidence then such a comparison would be perfectly rational.
2007-09-04 11:35:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think so.
Simply put: Because there is no more proof of the Abrahamic God than there is proof of Thor, Zeus, or Santa Claus.
2007-09-04 11:35:55 · answer #10 · answered by Christy ☪☮e✡is✝ 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
no. in greek mythology the gods were created by the universe, in hebrew yawheh was the creator of the universe.
yawheh was a celibate bachleor, zues did anything that walked and was married to his sister.
yawheh was a war god, the job of war was left to ares and athena
and Thor would smite you with his hammer for asking that!:-)
2007-09-04 11:38:42 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋