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.

Firmly against women bishops/preachers/archbishops.

Mainstream Christianity regards Mormons as heretics as their beliefs are so far adrift from orthodox Christianity (with a small 'o') and Biblical canon.

Thanks for the answer.

So your branch of Christianity does not want women Bishops. Now I am not fishing, but that could mean you are ok with male bishops and not female as per Catholics, or you might be presbyterian, so against bishops of all sorts. No need to explore that further.

However, you say Mormons are heretics. And that is worth a look at I reckon, on the subject of the thread.

"Small o orthodoxy". Where is the line where you consider people who say they a Christian to not be a Christian ? Baptists, Methodists, Calvanists, Pentecostals , JWs, 7 day Adventists ?

All Christian ?

Because the OP is saying all Pagans believe the same. So where is the line for your Christianity that means others are not Christians.

Mormons are the worst example of organised religion - it’s a cult. We met their “followers “ in Salt Lake City. Best example of religious brainwashing.

@RedTagAlan

I addressed it in an earlier reply to you. If you go back through the thread, you will see where I explicitly replied to your post mentioning them.

To give a short summary: I have never once claimed that all polytheists are non-violent, so you are arguing against a statement that I never made.

All I have said is that polytheists do not reject the existence of other gods. I never once mentioned violence or said that no polytheists are ever violent or prejudiced/hateful against other religious communities.

Sorry. I genuinely missed that.

I did see a post where you narrowed your definition of what a polytheist is. Is that the one you mean. If so, I was going to mention that this id something Christians often do in discussions. Make a claim, then narrow the definition.

Basically the "not a true..." argument.

@RedTagAlan

I don't recall narrowing the definition of what polytheist means? If so, I should not have done that - but can you quote where you think I did this? That way, I can check if there was a misunderstanding/misinterpretation or whether I said something inconsistent?

I would like to see exactly what I said so that I can address it.

I've answered this before elsewhere. The Nicene Creed summarises the core beliefs of Christianity. If you leave out any of those beliefs a denomination may be Christian-adjacent but there are major problems with its doctrine.

I don't want to derail this thread further from the OP's intention so I will leave it there.

Sorry. I remembered wrong. This is part of what you said-

"If Christians had honoured the Abrahamic God but also agreed to pay lip service to the Roman Empire by participating in such civic rituals and practices, they likely would have been largely left alone. But the monotheistic nature of Christianity meant that they refused to even pay lip service to other deities, which the Romans thought threatened the well-being and security of the Roman Empire as a whole."

It was a reply to another poster where you narrowed your definition. From polytheist to pagan polytheist.

You did not narrow it in answering the violence question.

Apologies.

@RedTagAlan

Thank you.

I think you misunderstood what I meant there. I wasn't trying to narrow the definition of what 'polytheism' is. The definition of polytheism is believing that multiple gods exist, that's the sole definition. So that certainly includes Hindus.

I wasn't trying to narrow the definition of polytheism to just pagans - in another post, where someone asked if Hindus counted as polytheistic, I replied and said that they did. What I meant was that my own personal focus here is really on pagan polytheism, as that is where I have the experience and knowledge.

I don't have any experience of the Hindu community and don't know much about Hinduism, other than that it is polytheistic.

I was not excluding Hinduism from polytheism, or narrowing how the word 'polytheism' is defined - what I was saying is that my personal purview is pagan polytheism, and so that's where I personally tend to be focused in this thread. I don't feel that I have enough knowledge and experience of Hinduism and its related community to speak about them.

Well, the Nicene creed does have this in it.

"I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

So that cuts a lot of denominations out. Baptists and Pentecostals apparently.

For me, many theists don’t understand why I am an atheist. My atheism is very simple and comes down to not believing that god or gods exist and sitting comfortably and happily with that. It isn’t about rejecting the link between religion and morality or about any philosophical position. The excerpt about polytheism is interesting but it doesn’t engage me as an atheist which is something very different.

Aha no the 'catholic' there means 'universal' church, not Roman Catholic which would be a capitalised 'C'. That can confuse people.

This could also be said of some atheists though. They do not understand why some people have faith. I think ( I could he wrong) that OPs issue is that some atheists argue against religion by making assumptions about her based on her belief in Paganism. But some atheists are dismissive of all people who have any faith based on the fact they believe in God or Gods and make assumptions about any people of any faith ( uneducated/thick etc) . Whether people believe in God or God's is irrelevant to their core beliefs about religious people. About 40% of people in the UK don't believe in any God. I suspect the vast majority couldn't care less about what other people believe as long as they aren't hassling them about it. But the kind of atheists who are arguing the toss with Pagans are likely not bothered about whether or not they understand what Pagans believe about their relationship with the Gods but are making assumptions about OP because she believes in Gods.

I don’t understand why anyone has a faith but not something which bothers me - just confuses me when we now have so much scientific evidence and knowledge disproves what those with faith claim to be true

And there you go. Shows you how much I know about the Nicene creed. And that is because when I was a Christian I did not agree with it.

Does that mean I was never a Christian ?

Well, I'll tell you my history if you like ( not sure if it's a derail) I was brought up Catholic- believed in God, went to church- then lost faith in the church but still believed- then lost my faith in God and didn't go to church. TBH it did feel like a physical thing I had lost, and I wasn't glad about it. It just went. I went through a difficult time and TBH being married into a very vocal atheist family, as an initial act of rebellion and a reclaiming of a bit of my cultural identity I felt Id let go of, I started going back to church. Went to Confession, the whole shebang. I would say I am now agnostic. However, I now sit in church not really believing in God but I find myself far more able to deal with the week if I go. I can't explain it, there is literally no logic to it, I know there is little evidence and logical explanation but there you go. I do meditation, yoga etc but it doesn't have the same effect. That's kind of why, going back to the OP I feel the discussion she and the author of the linked piece was talking about was nothing to do with atheists, it's an argument between theists. Atheists want evidence and that's fine. But they will never get it, so it's an endless fruitless and ultimately pointless exercise because the basis of their belief is that they don't believe in God. ( TBH I'm not sure I do either) but there are some things about faith and the practice of faith that has not been able to be replicated in a secular setting. My thinking is that it doesn't really matter if God exists or not. There is a human need that some people have to have faith in something and if that is of benefit to people as a community then it's no one else's business really. Obviously if you're blowing people up it's different but humans are violent and territorial and would do it anyway, religion or not.

Quite possibly. What did you disagree with? Did you ever acknowledge that you are a sinner and in need of the forgiveness of God? Did you actually believe that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for your sins? Did you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and that He is alive in Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God? Did you ask Him into your life and to be your saviour and guide in this life? Those would be the relevant questions.

Ah, well I knew about your dislike of Catholics, but I had the impression you were coming at that from a low Church perspective, not an atheistical belief.
I cannot forget your suggestion that the Pope wrote his latest encyclical himself with the help of AI! 😆😆

I personally don't dislike Catholics. Not at all. Even though I am Scottish and my dad's brothers were Orangemen.

I think though there was a cultural bias against them that was programmed into me as a kid that did take a lot of shaking off. That's for sure. I was pals with a Catholic on the estate as a teen, and lets just say that friendship was "discouraged". And I never really understood why at the time. When I was a kid it was segregated, Catholic and protestant schools and all that.

And here I can reply to a bit of @GentleSheep too. Because when I was "born again", (while living in the US for a while so yeah.. that sort of Christian), I did have a sliding scale of Christian denominations that I agreed/disagreed with. With Catholicism I did not agree with saints etc, Southern Baptist too far right wing and way too much about "what do I get out of it". The other end of that scale would be the Amish, who I did respect a lot.

I was more of a red letter Christian. Along the lines of a personal relationship rather than "too fixed and rigid". For me it was about Jesus, and not what old men in robes told me.

As a good example. Catholics said Jesus had no brothers and sisters. Other children of Mary. That Mary was always a virgin. But the Bible says he did. So I went with what the Bible says.

Out of interest, when you studied the Bible yourself, did you use any aids to help you? Like a bible dictionary or commentaries? Or were you literally trying to figure it out yourself?