Sorry, but I fail to see how or why anyone who has a modicum of rationality and respect for himself would even bother with such self-defeating, pointless silliness.
I have no dout that Pascal did not. And I most certainly do not intend to.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why would monotheism be a good thing, let alone a necessary one?
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
I have no dout that Pascal did not. And I most certainly do not intend to.
Monotheism is very often an enabler of abusive attitudes, as most clearly illustrated in Muslim communities.
Once people allow themselves to decide that they are acting with the approval of the "one true God", ethics tends to die a painful death.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
The same could very easily be said about atheism, polytheism, etc.
And it depends very strongly on which "God" you are referring to as well.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Shalom Luis
It seems to me that the way your post is written, presumes that some people came up with a religion, decided to make it monotheistic and you want to know 'why'.
Actually, we (i.e. the Jews) didn't make that decision. G-d did. G-d came to the entire nation of Israel and told us all that He is the only G-d that should be worshiped. That's it.
Actually, no, it can not. Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.
That, too. Monotheism tends to obscure that central consideration.
Shalom, Akivah.
Does it? If so, it was not deliberate. I was focusing on monotheism proper.
So I have been told. Of course, there are those who disagree.
In any case, that would not negate the need to consider and answer my question. Even if God-given, such a decision would still need critical and moral evaluation.
Thanks for confirming that you do not understand logic. Wh I says is not self defeating. Wht you replied is pointless, silly and not even about the subject.
Your brush is too wide. What you said is not true in conservative Christianity.
As of Nov. 2016, the pun shall always be considered intentional.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Is it a good thing? Well, all monotheists have been guilty of oppressing non-believers at some time or other, so the answer would appear to be no.
It it true? The evidence claimed by the monotheistic faiths can only be called dubious, and that's being charitable. All but Zoroastroanism are based on Judaism. When I read the account of Yahweh's conversation with Moses, it doesn't seem to me that he was claiming to be the supreme being, just the patron god of Israel. And that's ignoring the fact that the story was written hundreds of years after Moses was supposed to have lived, and that the whole story of Moses conflicts with both archeology and Egyptian history. As for Zoroastroanism, one can make out a case for Zarathushtra not having been a monotheist: belief in a single creator doesn't necessarily imply monotheism.
It it true? The evidence claimed by the monotheistic faiths can only be called dubious, and that's being charitable. All but Zoroastroanism are based on Judaism. When I read the account of Yahweh's conversation with Moses, it doesn't seem to me that he was claiming to be the supreme being, just the patron god of Israel. And that's ignoring the fact that the story was written hundreds of years after Moses was supposed to have lived, and that the whole story of Moses conflicts with both archeology and Egyptian history. As for Zoroastroanism, one can make out a case for Zarathushtra not having been a monotheist: belief in a single creator doesn't necessarily imply monotheism.
Last edited:
I take it that you see some rational sense in Pascal's Wager then?
Then I guess I won't satisfy your expectations. Best of luck.
It is not always true, of course. Often enough it is.
Possibly.
Have we all been guilty of that? How have I oppressed non-believers? Whatever a non-believer is, exactly.
Definitely debatable. As stated earlier, it depends on what is placed between Self and God. If all that is, is treated as the nothingness that it is, then self evident becomes self obvious. If instead, much is seen as 'not God' but 'existing' and further 'very real' then admittedly not self evident, though also not self evident what has occurred until one takes responsibility for what it is they (choose to) see.
The idea that 'reality is what it is' presumes as much as anything about God might.
That depends to what degree that 'reality' is defined, although generally someone making such a statement has some pretty firm ideas in mind about it.
Thank God for Q&A on forums.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Since you conceal your religion, I can hardly answer for your personal case.
If I say that monotheists have oppressed non-believers, then I obviously mean non-believers in the religion of those who are doing the oppressing. Examples are any amount of forcible conversion by Christians and Muslims, and even their persecution of "heretics" within their faiths. The Jews have had the disadvantage of lacking the power to persecute for most of their history, although Nehemiah and John Hyrcanus did their bit and the Zionists have been making up for lost time.
miodrag
Member
Because it reflects reality.
Pascal's Wager, if taken seriously, would lead you to worship the most cruel and merciless conception of god you could possibly conceive. How else could you be safe from the worst fate imaginable? What if I posited a god that not only punished you for disbelief, but also promised damnation for your parents and children because of your thoughts? If the point of the wager is to choose the "safest" bet, why settle for anything less than the biggest monster anyone could conceive of? This is one of many reasons why I do not take Pascal's Wager seriously as an argument. I interpret it as a tacit admission that the best thing the apologist can think of is to start giving empty threats, without considering that another religion could make even bigger threats.
At a personal level, that may often be true. Objectively, consensualy, it is rarely the case, yet there are strong social pressures to pretend anyway.
I'm a monotheist, and I don't oppress people. That's enough. I see no reason I should be held accountable for Pence or Adnan Ibrahim because we have that in common.
Certainly oppression is widespread, but to blame 'monotheists' for it is a bit much. This may be due to how you worded it, rather than what you meant to say. But we do not blame atheists for Soviet gulags and we do not blame polytheists for slavery under the Ancient Egyptians.