that’s the maybe, baby.
KAOS, and yeah. you can’t not be a discordian pope under any circumstances, except if you don’t want to be. such is the whim of eris.
1 Like
Your assertions that my assertions are based on assumptions is based on a great deal of assumptions.
And no, I’m not suggesting it’s like that because of an individual; I’m saying the entire population and culture had issues.
Well let’s clear this up right now.
Which is better?
- Monotheism
- Polytheism
0
voters
1 Like
6 Likes
While all cultures both historical and contemporary have issues big and small, I doubt polytheism could ever be considered either a contributing cause of cultural issues nor could it be the result of cultural issues either.
You doubt, but can’t say for certain.
Which is better? That’s like asking whether blue or red is better; you can’t decide on superiority when none of the options are an absolute.
The belief in and worship of multiple gods for multiple different aspects of reality just seems odd to me. You have a god for sky, one for water, one for earth, one for the dead, one for fertility, one for war, one for speed, etc… It’s all confusing, and hopping from one foot to the other trying to show supplication to one god and not piss off another seems like a comedy, almost. That’s why, one of the most profound decisions in the history of humans reflecting on the Great Unknown was when someone actually thought: if we’re gonna believe that all these different gods have to cover all these various different things, why not believe that there was actually just one that covers it all? If one is believable, why not the other?
Monotheism, for all its flaws, is an expression of one of the few things I admire about human beings as a whole: the conscious decision to strive for efficiency. It’s a consolidation of the very notion of belief. Such simplicity appeals to a mind focused on efficiency and simplicity brought about out of complex systems, like my own.
Not that I really consider myself theistic in any category at this point in my life. I’m more of a skeptical and disappointed agnostic, than anything.
Because I am not a time traveller nor can I see into the future.
How? The Romans thought mercury was good for cosmetics and even they never mixed up a god.
Lucky for my argument, polytheism doesn’t work like that. When it came to worship no god ever got angry for using another’s temple. If you were Greek and needed healing you went to a temple of Asclepius if you needed to sail to get there then you could worship Poseidon and if you needed to make it a quick trip then you beseeched Hermes.
Need I remind you that the one god that hates you having other gods before Him is the most widely worshipped monotheistic god? The one whose followers have tried stamping out any polytheistic religion?
The same reason atheists like myself exist because we know that a being also can’t be responsible for so may things at the same time only they went in the opposite reaction to me. They went “Maybe they have multiple gods and that is why so many things happen”.
This doesn’t account for cultural assimilation, cultural appropriation, syncretism, cultural hegemon, the absorption of other gods into groupings and cross-cultural exchange which are also go a long way to explaining why polythestic religions exist.
What a very atheistic way of viewing religion. Having seen a Sunday service in action once, seeing the missionaries in my area on the weekend and been around religious friends I can say it is much more expedient and efficient to believe God is a social construct, the universe began in an explosion of matter, we came from apes and when we die there is nothing after.
in polytheism gods can have drama. and zeus the coomer wouldnt exist without it
5 Likes
Polytheists are more willing to acknowledge other gods and incorporate them into their own beliefs or merge into another’s.
Monotheists can’t even agree on how to believe in the same god.
It’s most obviously 22.
I’ll skip responding to most of that because the last thing we need is a religious argument on here. But, to move from one group of delusional people to another…
What are your thoughts on the nature of UFOs?
- Definitely extraterrestrial in origin
- Something with no clear explanation, but definitely not extraterrestrial
- Can’t decide
0 voters
On this subject, all I feel like saying is, for those who believe it’s aliens: highly advanced beings, technology beyond our capabilities or understanding, can move silently at supersonic speeds through a foreign atmosphere, can avoid being detected while outside of or when entering our atmosphere, can hide from radar, don’t want to make contact with us directly, supposedly trying to observe and study us secretly… and yet somehow, just can’t seem to figure out how to turn off the lights outside the craft that plainly broadcast their presence to anyone within ten miles who has working eyes and/or a camera. Uh huh… right.
this really isn’t worth a vote. ufos are very clearly the recursive refractions of future/ancient phasmic entities that occupy the non-euclidean penumbra cast by n-dimensional hypercubes intersecting with the involuntarily projected positronic thought-forms produced by human consciousness, and i’m sick to the back teeth of so-called ‘experts’ claiming otherwise.
8 Likes
It’s probably government aircraft. Not that I don’t believe aliens exist. I think they do, space is just far, far too vast for them to not. I just don’t think that any alien race with the technology to be able to travel safely through space in less than a single life time of one of their people, would waste their time coming here to study the aggressive hairless apes. It would be like an American person building an airplane from scratch by hand to fly to India to ask an ant a question. Not worth the time or effort.
3 Likes
This is not as significant a factor to the chances of life existing elsewhere in the universe as most people think it is.
What if UFOs aren’t necessarily “Aliens” but men using technology obtained from Aliens? 
3 Likes
That still makes aliens being involved, or there’s be no UFO in the first place, ergo, still aliens.
- Butt Dial
- Booty Call
- Wut?
0 voters
you’re gonna have to talk me through this one, chief.
You hit the nail right on the head. I do indeed find that very insulting. I’m not religious, I don’t believe in Gods as living beings. But I believe in what they represent in nature and humanity. Claiming that old mythologies and their heritage suffer from a lack of commitment is extremely narrow minded statement, based on little to no insight.
8 Likes
Basically, although there are worlds beyond count in the universe, the thought process that life had to have arisen on some of them simply from the fact that there are so many is a flawed conclusion. The fact that there is a high probability for the potential of life, in the sense that there’s a place for it to happen, does not mean that the probability of that potential being fulfilled increases in any appreciable way.
Think of the whole thing about reshuffling a deck of 52 cards in the exact same way more than once: it’s said that there isn’t enough information being processed in the lifetime of the known universe for it to happen. Sure, those odds could be beaten, but then, the odds of a third time? The chances of life of any sort, let alone intelligent life that managed to find a way to work around the limitations of light speed and the accelerating expansion of the universe, is far greater than that reshuffled deck.
That it happened once, on this planet? A practical miracle. Reset earth from stage one with all of the exact same conditions? A virtual certainty that it wouldn’t happen again. Happening on another planet? Slightly less of a certainty, but close enough to matter. An intelligent species arising anywhere in the universe to confirm that it can happen? The chances of it happening within our local cluster of galaxies is remote even among those odds, and any outside of that are too far-gone outside the range of the universal expansion to ever be confirmed, reducing them to irrelevance and rendering them as unconfirmable as the existence of a god. We might as well be alone.
1 Like