Polytheism not fitting into the binary positions some many atheists and monotheists hold in debates

[SorcererGaheris]

I read this post by polytheist G B Marian and found it very thought-provoking. Discussions/debates on theism vs atheism almost always centre upon atheism and monotheism, with polytheism often excluded.

GBM:

I've been seeing lots of posts about "theism versus atheism" lately, and they all seem rather disingenuous. The discussions in these posts are always framed as conflicts between monotheism and atheism, without fail. No other kind of theism seems to be included or accounted for, except for random occasional commenters like myself.

The monotheists in these discussions always claim that "morality is impossible without God." Meanwhile, the atheists conclude that "all religion is crap" because people don't actually need religion to be good. Neither side makes any leeway with the other, and that's not really the point anyway. These conversations tend to function more as "echo chambers" (and for both sides).

For polytheists like myself, who acknowledge and believe in many different Gods, neither side of this argument really seems to understand the actual purpose of "religion" (as we understand it at least). For us, religion and morality are two completely separate categories. "Religion" is what you do to build a relationship with one or more Gods, spirits, etc., while "morality" is how you treat other living people and creatures.

In polytheism, being a good person is just a social and natural duty. You don't have to worship any particular deity to be good. Atheists are not "sinners," and their disbelief is not a "moral failing." They're just people who don't engage with any Higher Powers, that's all. They are not predestined for hell; in fact, they are entitled to a happy afterlife just as much as anyone else, so long as they are good people at least.

Polytheists do not worship our Gods because They will "send us to hell" if we don't. Nor do we worship Them because we think it is "necessary" for us to be good people. We worship our Gods because we love Them and enjoy Their company; that's literally all there is to it. If you do not already love a God or enjoy Their company, then there is no reason for you to worship Them, and you are not expected to. End of story.

Yes, there are certain ways in which religion and morality can intersect for polytheists. Our Gods are more likely to listen to us when we are good people and we treat others with dignity. But this is very different from thinking you absolutely HAVE to believe in order to be considered "good" in the first place.
If your religious life is likewise centered around relationships, reciprocity, ritual, devotion, and presence with multiple Powers, then the standard “morality needs God" vs. "religion is unnecessary” dichotomy does not apply. When a monotheist says “morality requires God,” a polytheist can fairly respond: “That may be YOUR theology; but it isn’t the only way religion relates to ethics.”

At the same time, polytheistic religion—especially where devotion is elective, plural, and relational—does not fit neatly into the “religion = authoritarian moral policing” template that most atheists are typically reacting to. We are here to demonstrate that religion can (and, indeed, SHOULD) be about practice and relationship WITHOUT hinging on “believe this or be damned.”

Remember these things the next time you're invited to a group that presents itself as being some kind of "showdown" between "theists" (read: monotheists) and atheists.

Where is this evidence and why wouldn’t everyone be aware of it

Ah now. See here. Quotes from you in bold.

"It should be noted that some (perhaps many) atheists say that the non-existence of deities is not an established fact and that they do not know for certain that deities do not exist."

That is the scientific model. One can't prove a negative, in general terms anyway.

"Fundamentalists (both monotheists and non-theists) seem (at least some of them) not to be okay with anything less than 100% certainty, which is why they tout their views as the only single valid truth/only single way.

Non theist fundies ?

That is pretty close to the Christian apologists claim that science is a religion.

Quote "But that is not the case."

You are stating that as fact. That all polytheists accept all Gods, while at the same time you are saying atheists can't disprove Gods exist.

Why does this feel like a discussion with a Christian?

As an experiment, name one of your Gods, and say what supernatural powers it has.

Of course their responses apply to all religions. As far as atheists are concerned, there is nothing to believe in.

But his argiment is that the argument atheists have about religion doesn't apply to pagan polytheism. It does. Because the basic belief that overrides all others for atheists is that God doesn't exist not that there should be more Gods! The morality or non morality of it is not for atheists to discuss because morality cannot come from something that doesn't exist. He has concocted a convoluted response to some people to on social media based on a lack of understanding as far as I can see of both atheism and monotheism ( and possibly paganism). I'm not sure why. What is the point he is trying to make? He's in with the cool kids ( atheists) because he believes in God's not God? They would still not let him play with their ball at break time.

@RedTagAlan

That is the scientific model. One can't prove a negative, in general terms anyway.

Yes, I realise that. I was simply pointing out that some atheists do not claim absolute 100% certainty to their position, just as pagan polytheists generally don't. I think that is a positive thing.

Non theist fundies ?

I would consider non-theist fundies to be firm materialists (philosophical materialism, not consumerism) who desire to marginalise or outlaw any other perspective of way of thinking. For example - in addition to being a pagan polytheist, I am also an occultist, and I hold a vague dream of making that my profession at some time in the future, though I'm not actively taking steps towards that now. There are people who call for the practice of occultism to be illegal - both professionally and as a personal hobby.

I do not think that science is a religion and I have never claimed it as such.

But wanting to ban people from being psychic, practicing astrology and practicing magic is most definitely fundamentalism, in my book.

Quote "He has concocted a convoluted response..."

I hope you don't mean me, and that you mean the person the OP quoted ?

This thread is making my head spin :-)

I mean the person the OP quoted! Yes it's making my head spin too 😂

@RedTagAlan

It is a fact that contemporary pagan polytheists accept the existence of all deities. We just don't seek to engage with all of them or honour all of them.

I don't expect atheists to disprove deities. It is not possible, it is not their responsibility to do so, and I do not ask that of them.

I made the point about atheists acknowledging that the non-existence of deities is not an established fact, simply because you implied that anything less than 100% certainty in the existence of gods would equate to agnosticism, rather than polytheism. I was pointing out that some atheists themselves do not claim 100% certainty in the non-existence of deities - but that doesn't change them into agnostics. They are still atheists, because they favour a particular position.

Likewise, theists (of whatever) stripe are still theists - not agnostics - even if they don't have total one hundred percent certainty - because they favour a particular position.

@OutOfApricots

Not all of their responses/arguments apply to all religions, because some of their arguments are based upon beliefs and claims that some religions do not hold or make.

So you have just made a massive jump to "But wanting to ban people from being psychic, practicing astrology and practicing magic is most definitely fundamentalism,", when that has not even been mentioned.

This bit. Quote "Yes, I realise that. I was simply pointing out that some atheists do not claim absolute 100% certainty to their position, just as pagan polytheists generally don't. I think that is a positive thing."

Scientific model and proof of a negative.

As a matter of interest, I think science will discover God (or Gods) one day. Via "God of the Gaps" if you like.

Because we are a social species, and working together as a group gives an evolutionary advantage. Not some higher power, but simply that those outside of a society do not pass their genes on so well. And I think that is where science will find Gods. In our genes. A predisposition to religion gene.

The irony if that happens would be off the scale.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

But his argiment is that the argument atheists have about religion doesn't apply to pagan polytheism

He is saying that one specific argument (that some atheists make) does not apply to pagan polytheism. That singular argument more or less amounts to "all religions are undermined because belief in deities is not required in order for a person to be a moral individual.

That sole argument does not apply to pagan polytheism, because pagan polytheism does not make the claim that people must believe in deities to be moral.

Because the basic belief that overrides all others for atheists is that God doesn't exist

That is not the belief/argument which the OP was referring to, though. He was referring to another argument that some atheists put forward.

What is the point he is trying to make?

The overall point he is making is that polytheist paganism has a vastly different philosophical paradigm to Abrahamic monotheism. He is also saying that some atheists make arguments that are based solely upon the paradigm of Abrahamic monotheist. Many of those particular arguments don't apply to pagan polytheism, because pagan polytheism does not share the same philosophical paradigm.

Yes, the belief/argument that no deities exist applies equally to monotheism and polytheism. But that is not the particular argument that is under discussion here.

@RedTagAlan

It may not have been mentioned in this particular thread, but people like that do exist. I have come across them.

I never accused any individual in this thread of being a fundamentalist non-theist, I am simply saying that there are some non-theists who do want to make my lifestyle and practices illegal.

Richard Dawkins said that all astrologers should be in jail. (Admittedly at some point in the 1990s, I believe, so it's possible he may have changed his view on that, but I wouldn't bet on it.) That is an example of non-theist fundamentalism. Wanting to lock up people who think and practice differently.

I have never bothered with Dawkins. I don't know what he says. That is not me handwaving him away of course. Just saying that I don't know his views so I can't say if I agree or not. Is that the neo-atheism thing ?

However, if you want to be a professional pagan, I don't think it's atheists that are your problem.

Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (KJV)

That is not in any Atheists Bible. I don't think atheists have a Bible. I think you are ok with UK Christians on that verse. They tend to say that the "new covenant" negated that. But US Southern Baptists ? Hmm, they do tend to like that stuff.

@RedTagAlan

Well, I should perhaps make clear as a matter of course that I understand that being an atheist does not equate to disbelieving in (and being actively against) psychics, astrology, tarot reading, witchcraft/occultism.

As you are most likely aware, atheism is simply the non-belief in any deities. It doesn't cover anything else. So an atheist can believe in spirits, an afterlife, astrology and magic. Indeed, there are atheists who practice witchcraft and I personally met an atheist that believes in ghosts and an afterlife. It is my perception that (at least in the West) atheists who believe in spirits and spirits worlds and magic and divination are a distinct minority, but they do exist and some of them are a part of the occult community.

However, if you want to be a professional pagan, I don't think it's atheists that are your problem.

Atheists in general do not present a problem for that, I agree. However there is a faction of strict materialist-sceptics (who are always either atheist or agnostic) who desire for the marginalisation and the banning of various practices of occultism. These people are a small subset, but they exist, and if they gained power, they would be a threat to my freedom to be myself and live as I choose.

I am in the UK, where Southern Baptists are not a problem. There is evangelical Christian fundamentalism in the UK, of course, but they don't appear to have much of a foothold. I view them as a potential threat to my freedom and rights as well, but in my experience, it looks like sceptic-materialists are more prevalent.

I reckon a risk assessment might be in order. The risk being you being imprisoned if you become a professional pagan.

Start the UK witchcraft laws. I recall they were repealed in the late 1940's. And I think they were last used against proven spiritualist frauds.

So for the risk to happen, you need new laws. Can you name any UK MPs who are militant atheists, or neo-atheist ? I can't. For sure, far left Marxists might be an issue. What with Marxism being anti-religion of sorts. But having said that, you are really looking at late era Mao for that. His 4 olds of his Cultural Revolution. But I think Corbyn and Sultana are the closest to Marxists we have. And I can't see "your party" gaining power. In any case, they appear not to be against religion.

Christians though? Not Labour, not really the Tories. Reform say they want a Christian nation. But I doubt any of them could even quote the Bible TBH. There is restore. They might want to do some burning at the stake when they run out of " others". But Restore won't win power.

So that's just Reform really.

I would say there is a pretty low risk. But best not to vote for Reform, just to be safe. And might be best to "do your bit" against reform. On social media etc.

If you are in Scotland, that's easy. Vote SNP. They like witches. They apologized a few years back for all the Witch burnings and persecution. And quite right too.

Ironically, those Scottish Witch burnings were mostly down to King James 6th/1st, as you likely know. Him of Bible fame also wrote a book on demonology.

@RedTagAlan

I never said that oppression of pagans and occultists is a high-risk in this country. I agree that it's low-risk. All I'm doing is making the point that there are a small number of secular materialists who would like to make it illegal for me to live the lifestyle I do and engage in my practices.

As a matter of fact, some months back, I visited a Communist subreddit and asked them how, in their view, a communist state would accommodate occult workers - those who work professionally as psychics, mediums, Tarot readers, astrologers, sorcerers, etc. I was curious, because Communism is often underpinned with a philosophically materialist worldview.

I wasn't unsurprised to see that a lot of responses said that in a Communist state, those professions would be illegal. Some suggested that they might be allowed to be practiced as a hobby, but others implied that they would like to see it all done away with in its entirety.

Anyway, I do not think Communists are likely to come into power in this country, at least not at this moment in time.

I didn't say that oppression of pagans and occultists was forthcoming or likely to happen. All I'm saying is that there are some secular people who would like to oppress pagans and occultists if they could.

@RedTagAlan

I would strongly recommend reading the below article in full (in order to gain a fuller understanding of the theistic inclusiveness and plurality that is inherent to the polytheist worldview.

White Rose Magazine: When God Becomes Fragile

I think that some people find the idea of a theist believing in the existence of deities outside of their own religious pantheon to be surprising, perhaps because they have really only been exposed to monotheists who deny the existence of other deities. So the idea of an inclusive approach perhaps seems strange - but that is the norm in polytheism.

"This inquiry begins with a longstanding paradox: polytheistic cultures routinely absorb new deities, while exclusivist monotheisms consistently resist them. In Hindu, African, and other pluralistic contexts, the presence of Jesus, Allah, or local gods produces no theological rupture; the divine is understood as intrinsically plural. For strict monotheisms, however, recognizing an alternative divine presence threatens the coherence of salvation itself. This contrast prompts a deeper question: why do Islamic and Christian fundamentalisms generate the category of the “infidel,” and why does plurality become a threat rather than a possibility?"

So if you are not setting up in the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam or the US deep south, you should be ok.

Communists have a thing where it's not just religion they are sort of against, it is more like they are against everything that is not communist. In the PRC for example Party needs to run everything. Sort of explains why the the men's national football team are so bad. But the women are quite good. Cos the women are sort of left alone.

As an aside that might interest you, check out this re the Chinese law on reincarnation.

Central government approval is fundamental principle, legal safeguard of Grand Living Buddha reincarnation: signed article - Global Times

Sort of on subject. The CPC are atheist, yet they put themselves above the supernatural. So logically the CPC recognizes that reincarnation is real.

One for you to bookmark for your next debate.

Now you are proselyting... to an atheist.

Nah. I had a look though, and to quote the last line :

"Thus our reply is both concise and unassailable: the word “infidel” does not describe us—it reveals you."

That word does not reveal me. There are no Gods after all. And yes, I say that with 99.9% confidence because in thousands of years, with the greatest minds working on it, there is zero evidence.

Why 99.9% ?

Well, that 0.1% is uncontacted tribes. Specifically, the Sentinelese of the Andamans. If there is a God anywhere, it is likely hanging with them. It's the only reasonable God of the gaps left.

But you could pick out anything out of any religion! He has picked something that even you now say not all people who roll w monotheist religions believe. If now you are arguing about atheists wanting to ban astrology then that is not because they are arguing the point about where morality comes from it's because they believe these people either believe in nonsense or are deliberately hoodwinking the vulnerable.

It’s quite hard for anyone to make ‘leeway’ with atheism when the leeway they want is some kind of admittance that God/s are in existence. That would mean the atheist giving up on their entire belief system and its core. Hardly leeway more capitulation in entirety.

Atheists shouldn’t have to defend their position because their position is a lack of belief and therefore the burden of proof doesn’t fall on them. 1 God or 100, the atheist believes in none.

I'm not trying to be mischievous just for the sake of proving a point or anything, I am genuinely curious -

Are you implying that Polytheists, or some of them at least, will unconditionally accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a legitimate Deity?

@RedTagAlan

I don't consider that to be proselytising. I suggested reading it in order for you to have a wider understand of the polytheist way of thinking - not to change your mind about the existence of deities.

I consider proselytising to be when someone tries to convert another person. I'm not trying to convert you to believing in polytheism, I merely recommended you read it in order to have a better idea of the pluralistic basis that polytheism is based on - since that plurality seemed to be confusing you, as you said before that you were struggling to understand how a Norse pagan (or something like that) could also believe in the existence of the Christian deity.

That word does not reveal me.

The article wasn't addressing atheists, it was addressing fundamentalist monotheists. If you read the full article, I would have thought that would have been clear?

So when the article says "the word infidel describes you" they are addressing intolerant monotheists, no one else.

And yes, I say that with 99.9% confidence

So you should. I've maintained that there is no reason for you to believe in deities and I have no desire to change your mind about that.

there is zero evidence.

That isn't really correct, considering that anecdotal evidence exists for the existence of deities.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia

If you find anecdotal evidence unconvincing, then fine - like I said, you should absolutely be an atheist. I am just saying that the anecdotal evidence is there, in people's personal testimonies of their experiences.

@oliviaAustin

Neither the author whom I quoted from, or I, am looking for 'leeway' or asking atheists to give up their view that deities don't exist.

Atheists shouldn’t have to defend their position

Atheists shouldn't have to defend their position of atheism, I agree. Nowhere were they asked to.

But if someone makes an inaccurate claim about a particular religion, or makes a generalisation about all religions, that turns out to be partly inaccurate (i.e. the generalisation in question doesn't actually apply to certain religions) then it's fine to challenge that and point out where there is a mistake.

The topic of this thread is not about whether or not deities exist, others have just brought that up as an aside.