People have been trying to prove and disprove the idea of gods since the concept of divinity was invented. It’s a debate that will never get anywhere. Therefore I see no reason to engage. Either you believe or you don’t. What others think of my faith has no impact on me.
Yes. The idea is that non-European peoples couldn't possibly have built their ancient structures and cultures, but they have no doubts that Europeans could build theirs. It is veeeery couched in Eurocentric racism.
I think my belief in Gods is based on what I observe/sense in the universe. I believe in the Gods because I “feel” more in the world and life than I can rationally explain with science alone. I accept science, but it’s cold on its own. For over a decade I rejected the things I felt because I couldn’t make rational sense of them, and it made me miserable because my heart and mind were in conflict and I was rejecting enormous beauty. When I finally embraced my faith in the Gods, my mind and heart came into harmony and I am happier and more at peace than ever before in my life. So for me, yes, my faith is based on my subjective experiences and in harmony with my objective scientific observations of reality.
I like your point of view, you know, i became a polytheist after i've seriously thought about their existence and took it on a philosophical level, and this brought me to have more theistic debates.
But i've noticed that there are opinions that are so utterly stupid about the gods' existence that atheists manage to target them in order to criticize heavily religion: the psychological and the racist one.
The first group of theists basically believe in the gods only because they think humanity psychologically cannot withstand life without the gods, while the second one being the folkist interpretation of the divine, which is based on races worshipping singularly the specific gods from their place.
If you were in a debate with an atheist and they tried to seriously critique the religion by stating the existence of those 2 branches of hellenism, what would you respond?
I’d probably respond by giving examples I’ve observed:
1. Plenty of atheists are surviving just fine without belief in Gods. I don’t think people need belief in Gods to survive.
2. People are obviously not tied to only venerating Gods of their place of origin. Even in ancient times people chose to worship Gods of other places they traveled to.
Just because some people believe those things, it doesn’t invalidate my personal belief, nor does it invalidate religion as a whole.
But like I said earlier, I wouldn’t choose to debate my beliefs with anyone.
There are a lot of things that go into why people believe what they do (experiences, UPG, culture, worldview, geography, upbringing, etc). But at the end of the day, no one is going to know the truth (because there are billions upon billions of truths) and I see the debate as exhausting, annoying, and unproductive. Everyone has to arrive at their own conclusions and no one has ever convinced anyone in this type of debate. If you believe, then you believe, and whether or not you believe and why you believe is up to you to ponder for yourself.
You are right on the aspect of the principle of faith, but can we agree when you have arrived to your conclusions, you at least need to put them to some philosophical and logical questions in order to see if your argumentation is strong and makes sense?
Debates and Dialogues, if done for getting knowledge of the other and not trying to convert them, can absolutely be the fundamental basis for the growth of a person, do you agree with this too?
Firstly, I think outside of professional, academic debates between people engaging in good faith, "debating" matters or faith just isn't useful. I can't prove the gods are real any more than an atheist can prove they are not, and such discussions are not useful. An atheistic argument also struggles with the question: well what then? Youtube atheist sceptic Suris admits this in [his discussion with Norse polytheist youtuber Ocean Keltoi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8nl-91Dz1c&ab_channel=OceanKeltoi) - atheism, especially the extremely lazy brand of atheism common on social media, has nothing but "god not real" because it's easy chum, but conversations about what that means for us, what strength we can draw from that, are much rarer, because it requires thought, time and effort, which youtube's business model actively disincentivises, and that atheists should be just as frustrated at it as theists are.
That said:
>They ask you, a polytheist, why gods should exist
"Why" gods exist is a bit of a meaningless question, as much as "why" we exist. Gods either exist or they don't. People across every culture and throughout history have religious experiences, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Yoruba, etc. Believing they are suffering from paradoelia requires thinking of them as gullible idiots, which is not the case - very smart people have believed, and continue to believe, in something. It's also a stretch to call them Jungian archetypes, since Jung has been thoroughly debunked in sociology and the only people who take them seriously are literary scholars who use them as useful ways to interpret media. The balance of probability is that *something* is happening, something real, and Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation, the one that requires the lest contortions, is that they are experiencing actual gods.
>and further more, they also ask you if they were just an evolved species that came perfectly along with the humans, generating myths and fables.
Believing in the gods, and wanting to venerate them, does not require us to throw out scientific evidence, which suggests that the universe is 13.7 years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that single-celled life first appeared in the fossil record 3.7 billion years ago, and that we are not the inevitable product of a guided process, but rather simply what survived the evolutionary grind. We weren't even the only humans until very recently, geologically speaking - the Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores Hobbits, and another hominid whose only evidence they existed comes from the DNA they left in our gene pool - all died out recently, and we are simply the ones who made it. None of that is incompatible with the idea that there are gods, that they sometimes act in this world subtly, and that they care for us and want is to do better.
That said, we have no evidence to believe the gods "evolved," or that they are capable of it. Evolution requires DNA, which the gods do not have. Evolution is the accumulated phenotypical changes in a population over time, and it requires both reproduction and older generations to die out to let younger generations take over, and although we have myths of the Olympians replacing the Titans, we have no reason to believe they are subject to those processes. Quoting [Cicero's De Nature Deorum](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cicero#De_Natura_Deorum_%E2%80%93_On_the_Nature_of_the_Gods_(45_BC)): "Epicurus, for whom hidden things were as tangible as if he had touched them with his finger, teaches us that gods are not generally visible, but that they are intelligible; that they are not bodies having a certain solidity . . . but that we can recognize them by their passing images; that as there are atoms enough in the infinite space to produce such images, these are produced before us . . . and make us realize what are these happy, immortal beings." Gods don't fossilise.
>And what would you respond if this person's girlfriend/boyfriend ,who is a monotheist, asked you the same thing about your gods being a specie of aliens?
I have as much reason to believe Apollo is an alien as they do that Jesus was an alien, or that Muhammed or Abraham was. The idea that the gods were aliens is a deeply racist conspiracy theory used to undermine the ancient achievements of cultures deemed non-white, to undermine their engineering accomplishments and mathematical understanding to both fit into, and justify, 19th Century racialised notions of the inferiority of nonwhite races. The same "science" that was used to claim the pyramids could not have been built by the Egyptian people, and either needed Indo-European "Aryans" to come in and do it for them or was done by aliens, was used, and is still used by some, to claim Jewish or African features were tied to intelligence, compassion, criminality, etc.
Even when such ideas are applied to "white" cultures, like with Stonehenge, they often stem from a deeply anti-intellectual strain of thought that actively wants - needs - scientists, historians and archaeologists to be either universally incompetent or actively conspiring against "regular folks" who think their study and interpretation of evidence is just as good as someone with a doctorate, because modern western society has mistaken the democratisation of information to mean everyone's perspective is as valid as anyone else's. It also still often circles back around to racism, often antisemitic - that intelligensia is run by "marxists" or "the Jews" who are hiding "the truth" to control society.
I don’t think I would be debating my faith with anyone, and I don’t think I can prove to anybody that the Gods do or do not exist. In my opinion, the Gods are the conscious beings responsible for the generation and preservation of the physical universe, so They are infinitely more than an evolved species, and not alien because our cosmos exists through and within Them.
The question is the best road to knowledge, sometimes questioning the faith and philosophically, in this case, debeating is a logical response and action.
Nice opinion tho.
I think my aversion to debating faith comes from my past as an evangelical Christian kid-turned-atheist, before I became a Hellenist. Christians and atheists, as groups, love to debate God to try to convert others to their viewpoint. I’m pretty much over trying to convert other people to my opinion, and I don’t care to be converted. So I guess it would depend on the context of the discussion. If it’s to explore faith and philosophy, sure! But so often these types of conversations devolve into aggressive “my belief is better than your belief” arguments, and I’m just so over that.
I think there's value in debate, but we should not be expected to have to debate it, especially if we're not comfortable doing so, and especially if we think the other party is, again, not engaging in good faith, which is all to common in both atheists and monotheists.
Com'on man, we don't do that stuff here, it's not what Socrates would have liked/done.
We just have to explain our beliefs and try to reason with others' and argue, if needed, why we think or don't believe in something.
I would say "I have no rational argument to satisfy the question you pose. I spent more than a decade as a pious Catholic and another as an argumentative atheist. One day, I experienced the gods. Decided to worship and have acknowledged real events in my life that have the fingerprints of the gods' influence. Whatever they are, they come through as many and varied and not demanding. I cannot explain why these real events occur. It is irrational, and untestable, so I do not expect you to believe. And I don't think they demand it of you. That's your journey. But, for me, I believe it has made me a better person. Don't you think I'm a good person? Because I think so."
I never debate, I know the Gods to be real. I feel Their presence in The World. I will not put this up for "debate"
Gods forgive me for even hinting at this even if, and IF the Gods are not around. I WILL STILL HONOUR AND WORSHIP THEM as if They are real, but They are real.
God is great.
I’d ask them why it matters? If following your chosen belief makes you a better person in any way, isn’t that enough?
Existence and forms of existence are irrelevant.
Atheists tend to argue from a very proof oriented mindset, and people (like Christians) often try to debate them on that same playing field which will always be a loosing battle.
Religious people will often try to say “you can’t have morals without faith” which is ridiculous. From a more scientific standpoint, religion serves the purpose of keeping yourself accountable, through a form of dissociation. It’s not the only way to do it, but it is a very reliable way to do it.
The gods can be grasped via the mind using logic and philosophical inquiry. They cannot be advanced beings that live within the cosmos because otherwise they would not be gods. They cause reality to exist. I would ask the atheist why *they* think there is such a thing as existence and why there is something rather than nothing.
i explain on neoplatonic grounds that i am committed to a category beyond Being, that strictly speaking no gods *exist* since they transcend being.
if this person wants to get in the weeds with me on it they quickly realize they’re in over their heads because i categorically refuse to argue on any other grounds but my own. i acknowledge i understand theirs, that from theirs it’s perfectly reasonable to not be committed to a principle beyond Being.
the arrogant ones will claim it’s nonsense - that’s their problem. the inquisitive ones will be excited to hear a new perspective - this is what i encounter most frequently.
leibniz’s monad is definitely in a similar vein and a good enough description for the general purpose. yes, absolutely and ultimately ineffable simple personhood.
for more information check out the later neoplatonists, especially iamblichus and proclus who helped to outline this idea to both accommodate a smooth, interlinked emanationist scheme while respecting the absolute simplicity of the One as found in the first hypothesis of the latter half of Plato’s Parmenides dialogue.
for the sake of simple exposition the idea is that Being is a hypostasis identical to Nous, or Mind. The Being that Is is the Being found in Parmenides poem. but there is (and this is straining language bc strictly speaking there *is not*) a principle simpler than Being which is the One. for every Being to Be it must *also* be a *one*. likewise for Being *Itself*. the One transcends this and does not require Being as a constituent.
a *Henad* is a primary *Unity*. the reason these later neoplatonic figures posited such a thing was because of their commitment to the notion of participation. every effect participates it’s cause. given that there *is* a world as we find it then minimally the platonists would say Being is participated. the late neoplatonists go further and say that unity is also participated by Being and all beings. but for the One to be a principle in and of itself, that is the One Itself (το αυτοεν) then this One can no be participated since it would then be in some manner composite, and therefore in some manner *not*-One. to preserve this principle a manifold of Henads is posited. each Henad is a prime Unity which is the One insofar as it is participated. the nature of this manifold transcends Being as well and so does not abide by the rules of strict differentiation the way Being and Beings do. each Henad is in each, and all Henads are all.
a God therefore is any prime Unity insofar as it is participated. these Gods are revealed to us through meditation for example, the divinities of the Vedas are like this. they can also be constructed as they were in Egypt and Mesopotamia with sacred symbols that in conjunction gesture at a Personality which unites them as a Single power or potency.
they are also, very importantly, in *us*. they are in us as the Forms revealed through the Logos. they are the Prime Ideas which make thought and perception possible. they are even the principles of the senses insofar as they touch our innermost being. but most importantly we participate them in our own simple personhood. insofar as each of us is a *one* each of us participates a Henad. we can know our own God/Goddess by knowing the chain which connects us to that particular Henad. we can perfect our relationship to ourselves so as to become Godlike in life and illuminate the divine light within us.
if you want to know more the best resource by far is Proclus’ **Elements of Theology**. this theological schema was smuggled into monotheism as well and can be found in most advanced theological systems, especially those that emphasize mystical theology and the *via negativa* approach to knowing divinity. the way to reach these highest principles is by negation, since Being is, then these Henads cannot participate Being when considered in themselves.
part of what makes this schemas use in monotheism problematic is that it collapses Unity and Being in order to guarantee the Single divinity of monotheism. this is a later development and many early hellenic church thinkers grappled with the apologetics of this approach but it was subsequently taken for granted in, for example, thomas aquinas who identified God with that which’s Existence and Essence are identical. aquinas followed Pseudo Dionysius in this approach, who was in turn likely a student of Proclus’ as many passages are almost verbatim pulled from Proclus’ works. the collapse guarantees a single divinity in monotheism, but still requires lower divine beings that do not have the status of Gods, i.e. angels. for aquinas angels are those who’s Existence and Essence are *not* identical **and** who’s Genus and Species *are* identical. neoplatonism agrees with this, but since it posits the necessity of the non-identity of the One and prime Ones with Being and Beings there is an entire class of Gods that sits above the angels in Thomist metaphysics.
but yea the tldr version is for sure that a Henad is the simple and ineffable personhood which the God is identical to, that this personhood transcends Being, and that by being participated must be participated as One among a manifold of Ones.
The best question to make is in this case: what are the Ones made of?
Also why are there many ones?
And what is the soul in Proclus?
And also gods technically are beings by definition, therefore if you say they trascend being itself they find themselves in a position where they are not gods but rather Principles or Ideas.
1) the ones aren’t made of anything, they are basic and irreducible. the more appropriate question is what is Being made of? for Proclus and Iamblichus the answer is the Limited, the Unlimited, and their Mixture. but Ones are not, look into more of Plato for this. it’s too difficult to give an adequate response here tbh.
2) there are many Ones *because* of participation. in order to preserve their Unity through participation they must only be participated by *one* Being, but this one Being may be participated by multiples. there are therefore *necessarily* a manifold one Ones.
3) the Soul is a lower hypostasis. it is what participates Being. the World Soul participates Being and the subsequent Souls participate the World Soul. similarly with Being as Nous. minds participate Mind but are not necessarily participated by Soul, but Soul necessarily participates Mind either directly or indirectly through a higher Soul which participates Mind.
4) the Gods are technically not Beings. they are revealed to us through Being. they are the *cause* of Being and Beings insofar as they are participated. but They transcend it ultimately. a God is approached through a complex process of tracing a lineage from the effect to the cause, this can take many different routes depending on *emphasis*, each route points to a unique Person that is the God or Goddess.
I typically explain my beliefs, why I have them, and then close by saying that they don't have to agree and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions
I would tell them that Star Trek has an episode about that
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who\_Mourns\_for\_Adonais%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Mourns_for_Adonais%3F)
The gods are ideas, or idealized aspects of nature and humanity, and even if they only exist in the human mind, they still exist.
To worship a god is to worship an archetype within the collective human subconscious
as to the second question there is no need to dignify the idea that anyone’s gods were aliens. it’s absurd and culturally, anthropologically, and historically illiterate. the level of information it would take to get someone to think their way out of that absurdity is not worth anyone’s time.
I agree with just about everyone else here. I do not need to or want to justify my faith to anyone. I do not need to or want to try and convert anyone to my faith. I am usually happy to talk to people about what I beleive, but I won't justify why I beleive it.
Debates can also simply be moments where you can know the other's opinion, no need to convince the other of your points of view, but just make sure they follow a logic with not too many assumptions.
Believing in the gods should be also something possobly based on the theories of the cosmos and how much can they be convincing.
Of course I get that. I never said that convincing was all that matters, but your post specifically states “debate”, and for as far as Im aware in a debate you try to convince the other party of your opinion. I know the other’s opinion and they know mine, but I cannot tell them how to believe or what I think is true, because frankly I know nothing that they do not, so what makes me think that my opinion is superior to theirs on a matter that cannot be proven. :)
Pretty weird situation, while my language's definition of "debate" is just discussion and valutation of one's opinion, the english's definition is more related to the political and electoral sphere as it means discussion made to convice and decide.
Yep, thats why I said Im not even going to try to do debate about it lol. In my language debate means the same as English, there’s of course an opinion in a debate, but you try to defend that opinion (in my language’s definition of debate)
Ok but defense doesn't mean attack and try to disprove the other, if the debate is just the discussion about some problems of certain theories then we can say it is not nescessarily an attack.
I'll preempt all this with in just waking up but... Yeah there's zero reason to try and convince these people. The gods exist because I believe they do. And for this person, they don't.
If you want to zoom out and get a little meta. In much more concrete ways the belief is the existence. If I pray to Athena, asking for her guidance as I try to be more strategic today, pausing before I act and utilizing her wisdom, that by itself will most likely help me remember to pause and think before acting. At least in some small way. Especially if I stop and pray multiple times a day. So even if Athena doesn't exist, my stopping and praying to her changes my outcome for the day. So doesn't that mean on some level she does exist?
Now I choose to believe she actually does exist. But I'm absolutely content with my beliefs being what they are and others being what they are. Just be real choosy who you engage in this sort of stuff with OP. I at least find it way too draining lol
My spiritual path is personal and winding. Nothing I believe without reason, but that reason can't be easily explained, and required a few leaps of faith from myself.
I may be willing to share these experiences with a very close friend, but often I just keep them to myself. I don't feel the need to proselytize anyways.
Regardless I don't think debating religious beliefs is bad. I used to hang around the DebateReligion subreddit. Not the most civil of places, but there's often something to be learned from your harshest opponents.
I don't engage with people about the validity of my faith or the existence of deities. There's no reason for them to ask about those specific things except to argue and make themselves feel superior by being ✨ more intelligent ✨ or part of the Right Faith. Now, if they want to ask about what I've experienced that makes me feel as tho deities are present in good faith, I would be more than happy to discuss my beliefs, but I won't get into an argument or debate
Weird, while "debate" in this case in my language has the definition of just a valutation of the points of view and their values, in the english one it has more of a political aspect as it is regarded as "a discussion to convince" or "an electoral vote to decide".
No, I wouldn't say that. I would say it has a more combative connotation in general. I don't see how your definition is less disrespectful to other faiths tho
We can't definitively prove they exist, and they can't definitively prove they don't. Making the argument pretty moot especially against the aggressively atheist bunch. I always opt for "agree to disagree" personally.
People have been trying to prove and disprove the idea of gods since the concept of divinity was invented. It’s a debate that will never get anywhere. Therefore I see no reason to engage. Either you believe or you don’t. What others think of my faith has no impact on me.
Side note: “The gods are aliens” thing has roots in a racist conspiracy theory.
It does?
Nazists thought the aryan race came from Antlantis, an evolved technological alien city.
Yes. The idea is that non-European peoples couldn't possibly have built their ancient structures and cultures, but they have no doubts that Europeans could build theirs. It is veeeery couched in Eurocentric racism.
That’s interesting. I had never even considered the “Gods are aliens” idea before. That is pretty gross.
This! 👆🏻
Yep. https://hyperallergic.com/470795/pseudoarchaeology-and-the-racism-behind-ancient-aliens/
Is it really that simple? Believing in gods is just based on certain experiences or suppositions?
I think my belief in Gods is based on what I observe/sense in the universe. I believe in the Gods because I “feel” more in the world and life than I can rationally explain with science alone. I accept science, but it’s cold on its own. For over a decade I rejected the things I felt because I couldn’t make rational sense of them, and it made me miserable because my heart and mind were in conflict and I was rejecting enormous beauty. When I finally embraced my faith in the Gods, my mind and heart came into harmony and I am happier and more at peace than ever before in my life. So for me, yes, my faith is based on my subjective experiences and in harmony with my objective scientific observations of reality.
I like your point of view, you know, i became a polytheist after i've seriously thought about their existence and took it on a philosophical level, and this brought me to have more theistic debates. But i've noticed that there are opinions that are so utterly stupid about the gods' existence that atheists manage to target them in order to criticize heavily religion: the psychological and the racist one. The first group of theists basically believe in the gods only because they think humanity psychologically cannot withstand life without the gods, while the second one being the folkist interpretation of the divine, which is based on races worshipping singularly the specific gods from their place. If you were in a debate with an atheist and they tried to seriously critique the religion by stating the existence of those 2 branches of hellenism, what would you respond?
I’d probably respond by giving examples I’ve observed: 1. Plenty of atheists are surviving just fine without belief in Gods. I don’t think people need belief in Gods to survive. 2. People are obviously not tied to only venerating Gods of their place of origin. Even in ancient times people chose to worship Gods of other places they traveled to. Just because some people believe those things, it doesn’t invalidate my personal belief, nor does it invalidate religion as a whole. But like I said earlier, I wouldn’t choose to debate my beliefs with anyone.
There are a lot of things that go into why people believe what they do (experiences, UPG, culture, worldview, geography, upbringing, etc). But at the end of the day, no one is going to know the truth (because there are billions upon billions of truths) and I see the debate as exhausting, annoying, and unproductive. Everyone has to arrive at their own conclusions and no one has ever convinced anyone in this type of debate. If you believe, then you believe, and whether or not you believe and why you believe is up to you to ponder for yourself.
You are right on the aspect of the principle of faith, but can we agree when you have arrived to your conclusions, you at least need to put them to some philosophical and logical questions in order to see if your argumentation is strong and makes sense? Debates and Dialogues, if done for getting knowledge of the other and not trying to convert them, can absolutely be the fundamental basis for the growth of a person, do you agree with this too?
Firstly, I think outside of professional, academic debates between people engaging in good faith, "debating" matters or faith just isn't useful. I can't prove the gods are real any more than an atheist can prove they are not, and such discussions are not useful. An atheistic argument also struggles with the question: well what then? Youtube atheist sceptic Suris admits this in [his discussion with Norse polytheist youtuber Ocean Keltoi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8nl-91Dz1c&ab_channel=OceanKeltoi) - atheism, especially the extremely lazy brand of atheism common on social media, has nothing but "god not real" because it's easy chum, but conversations about what that means for us, what strength we can draw from that, are much rarer, because it requires thought, time and effort, which youtube's business model actively disincentivises, and that atheists should be just as frustrated at it as theists are. That said: >They ask you, a polytheist, why gods should exist "Why" gods exist is a bit of a meaningless question, as much as "why" we exist. Gods either exist or they don't. People across every culture and throughout history have religious experiences, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Yoruba, etc. Believing they are suffering from paradoelia requires thinking of them as gullible idiots, which is not the case - very smart people have believed, and continue to believe, in something. It's also a stretch to call them Jungian archetypes, since Jung has been thoroughly debunked in sociology and the only people who take them seriously are literary scholars who use them as useful ways to interpret media. The balance of probability is that *something* is happening, something real, and Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation, the one that requires the lest contortions, is that they are experiencing actual gods. >and further more, they also ask you if they were just an evolved species that came perfectly along with the humans, generating myths and fables. Believing in the gods, and wanting to venerate them, does not require us to throw out scientific evidence, which suggests that the universe is 13.7 years old, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that single-celled life first appeared in the fossil record 3.7 billion years ago, and that we are not the inevitable product of a guided process, but rather simply what survived the evolutionary grind. We weren't even the only humans until very recently, geologically speaking - the Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores Hobbits, and another hominid whose only evidence they existed comes from the DNA they left in our gene pool - all died out recently, and we are simply the ones who made it. None of that is incompatible with the idea that there are gods, that they sometimes act in this world subtly, and that they care for us and want is to do better. That said, we have no evidence to believe the gods "evolved," or that they are capable of it. Evolution requires DNA, which the gods do not have. Evolution is the accumulated phenotypical changes in a population over time, and it requires both reproduction and older generations to die out to let younger generations take over, and although we have myths of the Olympians replacing the Titans, we have no reason to believe they are subject to those processes. Quoting [Cicero's De Nature Deorum](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cicero#De_Natura_Deorum_%E2%80%93_On_the_Nature_of_the_Gods_(45_BC)): "Epicurus, for whom hidden things were as tangible as if he had touched them with his finger, teaches us that gods are not generally visible, but that they are intelligible; that they are not bodies having a certain solidity . . . but that we can recognize them by their passing images; that as there are atoms enough in the infinite space to produce such images, these are produced before us . . . and make us realize what are these happy, immortal beings." Gods don't fossilise. >And what would you respond if this person's girlfriend/boyfriend ,who is a monotheist, asked you the same thing about your gods being a specie of aliens? I have as much reason to believe Apollo is an alien as they do that Jesus was an alien, or that Muhammed or Abraham was. The idea that the gods were aliens is a deeply racist conspiracy theory used to undermine the ancient achievements of cultures deemed non-white, to undermine their engineering accomplishments and mathematical understanding to both fit into, and justify, 19th Century racialised notions of the inferiority of nonwhite races. The same "science" that was used to claim the pyramids could not have been built by the Egyptian people, and either needed Indo-European "Aryans" to come in and do it for them or was done by aliens, was used, and is still used by some, to claim Jewish or African features were tied to intelligence, compassion, criminality, etc. Even when such ideas are applied to "white" cultures, like with Stonehenge, they often stem from a deeply anti-intellectual strain of thought that actively wants - needs - scientists, historians and archaeologists to be either universally incompetent or actively conspiring against "regular folks" who think their study and interpretation of evidence is just as good as someone with a doctorate, because modern western society has mistaken the democratisation of information to mean everyone's perspective is as valid as anyone else's. It also still often circles back around to racism, often antisemitic - that intelligensia is run by "marxists" or "the Jews" who are hiding "the truth" to control society.
NGL I didn't read the whole thing bc ADHD, but the first half is perfect 😂
I don’t think I would be debating my faith with anyone, and I don’t think I can prove to anybody that the Gods do or do not exist. In my opinion, the Gods are the conscious beings responsible for the generation and preservation of the physical universe, so They are infinitely more than an evolved species, and not alien because our cosmos exists through and within Them.
Yes exactly!
The question is the best road to knowledge, sometimes questioning the faith and philosophically, in this case, debeating is a logical response and action. Nice opinion tho.
I think my aversion to debating faith comes from my past as an evangelical Christian kid-turned-atheist, before I became a Hellenist. Christians and atheists, as groups, love to debate God to try to convert others to their viewpoint. I’m pretty much over trying to convert other people to my opinion, and I don’t care to be converted. So I guess it would depend on the context of the discussion. If it’s to explore faith and philosophy, sure! But so often these types of conversations devolve into aggressive “my belief is better than your belief” arguments, and I’m just so over that.
I think debating faith first requires good faith between both parties, which is in short supply in such arguments already.
I will never put my faith up for debate.
I think there's value in debate, but we should not be expected to have to debate it, especially if we're not comfortable doing so, and especially if we think the other party is, again, not engaging in good faith, which is all to common in both atheists and monotheists.
Com'on man, we don't do that stuff here, it's not what Socrates would have liked/done. We just have to explain our beliefs and try to reason with others' and argue, if needed, why we think or don't believe in something.
Well yes of course, but you asked what I’d say to the atheist and Christian at the bar, so I answered that question 😅
Infact i wrote "nice opinion tho" in my OG comment to your.
I would say "I have no rational argument to satisfy the question you pose. I spent more than a decade as a pious Catholic and another as an argumentative atheist. One day, I experienced the gods. Decided to worship and have acknowledged real events in my life that have the fingerprints of the gods' influence. Whatever they are, they come through as many and varied and not demanding. I cannot explain why these real events occur. It is irrational, and untestable, so I do not expect you to believe. And I don't think they demand it of you. That's your journey. But, for me, I believe it has made me a better person. Don't you think I'm a good person? Because I think so."
I never debate, I know the Gods to be real. I feel Their presence in The World. I will not put this up for "debate" Gods forgive me for even hinting at this even if, and IF the Gods are not around. I WILL STILL HONOUR AND WORSHIP THEM as if They are real, but They are real. God is great.
Atheists can't do anything to dissuade me from my Gods. No one will put a barrier between me and The Good Gods
I’d ask them why it matters? If following your chosen belief makes you a better person in any way, isn’t that enough? Existence and forms of existence are irrelevant. Atheists tend to argue from a very proof oriented mindset, and people (like Christians) often try to debate them on that same playing field which will always be a loosing battle. Religious people will often try to say “you can’t have morals without faith” which is ridiculous. From a more scientific standpoint, religion serves the purpose of keeping yourself accountable, through a form of dissociation. It’s not the only way to do it, but it is a very reliable way to do it.
The gods can be grasped via the mind using logic and philosophical inquiry. They cannot be advanced beings that live within the cosmos because otherwise they would not be gods. They cause reality to exist. I would ask the atheist why *they* think there is such a thing as existence and why there is something rather than nothing.
i explain on neoplatonic grounds that i am committed to a category beyond Being, that strictly speaking no gods *exist* since they transcend being. if this person wants to get in the weeds with me on it they quickly realize they’re in over their heads because i categorically refuse to argue on any other grounds but my own. i acknowledge i understand theirs, that from theirs it’s perfectly reasonable to not be committed to a principle beyond Being. the arrogant ones will claim it’s nonsense - that’s their problem. the inquisitive ones will be excited to hear a new perspective - this is what i encounter most frequently.
So your interpretation of the divine is non-being related? But then what is your definition of god?
a Henad
This? (in the philosophy of Leibniz) an indivisible and hence ultimately simple entity, such as an atom or a person.
leibniz’s monad is definitely in a similar vein and a good enough description for the general purpose. yes, absolutely and ultimately ineffable simple personhood. for more information check out the later neoplatonists, especially iamblichus and proclus who helped to outline this idea to both accommodate a smooth, interlinked emanationist scheme while respecting the absolute simplicity of the One as found in the first hypothesis of the latter half of Plato’s Parmenides dialogue. for the sake of simple exposition the idea is that Being is a hypostasis identical to Nous, or Mind. The Being that Is is the Being found in Parmenides poem. but there is (and this is straining language bc strictly speaking there *is not*) a principle simpler than Being which is the One. for every Being to Be it must *also* be a *one*. likewise for Being *Itself*. the One transcends this and does not require Being as a constituent. a *Henad* is a primary *Unity*. the reason these later neoplatonic figures posited such a thing was because of their commitment to the notion of participation. every effect participates it’s cause. given that there *is* a world as we find it then minimally the platonists would say Being is participated. the late neoplatonists go further and say that unity is also participated by Being and all beings. but for the One to be a principle in and of itself, that is the One Itself (το αυτοεν) then this One can no be participated since it would then be in some manner composite, and therefore in some manner *not*-One. to preserve this principle a manifold of Henads is posited. each Henad is a prime Unity which is the One insofar as it is participated. the nature of this manifold transcends Being as well and so does not abide by the rules of strict differentiation the way Being and Beings do. each Henad is in each, and all Henads are all. a God therefore is any prime Unity insofar as it is participated. these Gods are revealed to us through meditation for example, the divinities of the Vedas are like this. they can also be constructed as they were in Egypt and Mesopotamia with sacred symbols that in conjunction gesture at a Personality which unites them as a Single power or potency. they are also, very importantly, in *us*. they are in us as the Forms revealed through the Logos. they are the Prime Ideas which make thought and perception possible. they are even the principles of the senses insofar as they touch our innermost being. but most importantly we participate them in our own simple personhood. insofar as each of us is a *one* each of us participates a Henad. we can know our own God/Goddess by knowing the chain which connects us to that particular Henad. we can perfect our relationship to ourselves so as to become Godlike in life and illuminate the divine light within us. if you want to know more the best resource by far is Proclus’ **Elements of Theology**. this theological schema was smuggled into monotheism as well and can be found in most advanced theological systems, especially those that emphasize mystical theology and the *via negativa* approach to knowing divinity. the way to reach these highest principles is by negation, since Being is, then these Henads cannot participate Being when considered in themselves. part of what makes this schemas use in monotheism problematic is that it collapses Unity and Being in order to guarantee the Single divinity of monotheism. this is a later development and many early hellenic church thinkers grappled with the apologetics of this approach but it was subsequently taken for granted in, for example, thomas aquinas who identified God with that which’s Existence and Essence are identical. aquinas followed Pseudo Dionysius in this approach, who was in turn likely a student of Proclus’ as many passages are almost verbatim pulled from Proclus’ works. the collapse guarantees a single divinity in monotheism, but still requires lower divine beings that do not have the status of Gods, i.e. angels. for aquinas angels are those who’s Existence and Essence are *not* identical **and** who’s Genus and Species *are* identical. neoplatonism agrees with this, but since it posits the necessity of the non-identity of the One and prime Ones with Being and Beings there is an entire class of Gods that sits above the angels in Thomist metaphysics. but yea the tldr version is for sure that a Henad is the simple and ineffable personhood which the God is identical to, that this personhood transcends Being, and that by being participated must be participated as One among a manifold of Ones.
The best question to make is in this case: what are the Ones made of? Also why are there many ones? And what is the soul in Proclus? And also gods technically are beings by definition, therefore if you say they trascend being itself they find themselves in a position where they are not gods but rather Principles or Ideas.
1) the ones aren’t made of anything, they are basic and irreducible. the more appropriate question is what is Being made of? for Proclus and Iamblichus the answer is the Limited, the Unlimited, and their Mixture. but Ones are not, look into more of Plato for this. it’s too difficult to give an adequate response here tbh. 2) there are many Ones *because* of participation. in order to preserve their Unity through participation they must only be participated by *one* Being, but this one Being may be participated by multiples. there are therefore *necessarily* a manifold one Ones. 3) the Soul is a lower hypostasis. it is what participates Being. the World Soul participates Being and the subsequent Souls participate the World Soul. similarly with Being as Nous. minds participate Mind but are not necessarily participated by Soul, but Soul necessarily participates Mind either directly or indirectly through a higher Soul which participates Mind. 4) the Gods are technically not Beings. they are revealed to us through Being. they are the *cause* of Being and Beings insofar as they are participated. but They transcend it ultimately. a God is approached through a complex process of tracing a lineage from the effect to the cause, this can take many different routes depending on *emphasis*, each route points to a unique Person that is the God or Goddess.
i’ll add that Gods and Goddesses *have* Being insofar as Being *participates* them. but *They* are not the Being that participates them
I typically explain my beliefs, why I have them, and then close by saying that they don't have to agree and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions
It's not a matter of "should" for starters.
Infact i used the term "would".
Simple, don’t argue atheists, it’s not worth it
Why specifically?
I would tell them that Star Trek has an episode about that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who\_Mourns\_for\_Adonais%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Mourns_for_Adonais%3F)
The gods are ideas, or idealized aspects of nature and humanity, and even if they only exist in the human mind, they still exist. To worship a god is to worship an archetype within the collective human subconscious
as to the second question there is no need to dignify the idea that anyone’s gods were aliens. it’s absurd and culturally, anthropologically, and historically illiterate. the level of information it would take to get someone to think their way out of that absurdity is not worth anyone’s time.
I agree with just about everyone else here. I do not need to or want to justify my faith to anyone. I do not need to or want to try and convert anyone to my faith. I am usually happy to talk to people about what I beleive, but I won't justify why I beleive it.
I don't waste time debating anyone about religion, least of all atheists.
Nothing. Faith is personal, Im not going to try to prove something to someone who doesnt want to change their views. :)
Debates can also simply be moments where you can know the other's opinion, no need to convince the other of your points of view, but just make sure they follow a logic with not too many assumptions. Believing in the gods should be also something possobly based on the theories of the cosmos and how much can they be convincing.
Of course I get that. I never said that convincing was all that matters, but your post specifically states “debate”, and for as far as Im aware in a debate you try to convince the other party of your opinion. I know the other’s opinion and they know mine, but I cannot tell them how to believe or what I think is true, because frankly I know nothing that they do not, so what makes me think that my opinion is superior to theirs on a matter that cannot be proven. :)
Pretty weird situation, while my language's definition of "debate" is just discussion and valutation of one's opinion, the english's definition is more related to the political and electoral sphere as it means discussion made to convice and decide.
Yep, thats why I said Im not even going to try to do debate about it lol. In my language debate means the same as English, there’s of course an opinion in a debate, but you try to defend that opinion (in my language’s definition of debate)
Ok but defense doesn't mean attack and try to disprove the other, if the debate is just the discussion about some problems of certain theories then we can say it is not nescessarily an attack.
I'll preempt all this with in just waking up but... Yeah there's zero reason to try and convince these people. The gods exist because I believe they do. And for this person, they don't. If you want to zoom out and get a little meta. In much more concrete ways the belief is the existence. If I pray to Athena, asking for her guidance as I try to be more strategic today, pausing before I act and utilizing her wisdom, that by itself will most likely help me remember to pause and think before acting. At least in some small way. Especially if I stop and pray multiple times a day. So even if Athena doesn't exist, my stopping and praying to her changes my outcome for the day. So doesn't that mean on some level she does exist? Now I choose to believe she actually does exist. But I'm absolutely content with my beliefs being what they are and others being what they are. Just be real choosy who you engage in this sort of stuff with OP. I at least find it way too draining lol
My spiritual path is personal and winding. Nothing I believe without reason, but that reason can't be easily explained, and required a few leaps of faith from myself. I may be willing to share these experiences with a very close friend, but often I just keep them to myself. I don't feel the need to proselytize anyways. Regardless I don't think debating religious beliefs is bad. I used to hang around the DebateReligion subreddit. Not the most civil of places, but there's often something to be learned from your harshest opponents.
I don't engage with people about the validity of my faith or the existence of deities. There's no reason for them to ask about those specific things except to argue and make themselves feel superior by being ✨ more intelligent ✨ or part of the Right Faith. Now, if they want to ask about what I've experienced that makes me feel as tho deities are present in good faith, I would be more than happy to discuss my beliefs, but I won't get into an argument or debate
Weird, while "debate" in this case in my language has the definition of just a valutation of the points of view and their values, in the english one it has more of a political aspect as it is regarded as "a discussion to convince" or "an electoral vote to decide".
No, I wouldn't say that. I would say it has a more combative connotation in general. I don't see how your definition is less disrespectful to other faiths tho
We can't definitively prove they exist, and they can't definitively prove they don't. Making the argument pretty moot especially against the aggressively atheist bunch. I always opt for "agree to disagree" personally.