The Instigator
Patrick_Henry
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Silly Monotheists, Polytheism is the only thing that makes sense

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,000 times Debate No: 3045
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Patrick_Henry

Pro

Monotheism seems to be a very popular trend among religions these days, but Monotheism just doesn't make any sense.

There are a lot reasons why Monotheism is pretty silly. Monotheists often describe their god, which they arrogantly refer to as just "God", even though he usually has a name that they haven't bothered learning. (And in the languages that the Monotheist religions were created in, there's no doubt that it's a he.)

Some of the descriptions they use are that he is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. But somehow at the same time he has provided some sense of free will so that we can decide what to do, even though he knows what we're going to do, and by the way he's planning on punishing us for it too.

So, the god that loves everyone punishes some of us for "rejecting" his love. Well, if he were all powerful he could make us accept his love. And if he were all knowing, he didn't have to create someone that would reject is love that he'd have to punish, unless of course he wants to punish people, and how loving is that? Sort of reminds me of that father that beats his kids after saying, "I'm doing this because I love you." So that he can justify beating his kids to himself, instead of acknowledging that love probably has nothing to do with his motives.

Then there's this common question, why do bad things happen to good people? Typically when your all loving god does something bad to good people, it's for a purpose. Is it a test for giggles, like poor Job? Or a pissing contest, like convincing a father to sacrifice his son? When bad things happen to good people, it typically is seen as educational, or some how a part of his greater love and plan. This is similar to the battered wife who rationalizes her abuse by saying, "He loves me." It's not because its true, but it's because she needs to believe it to be able to live with herself.

Now, Polytheism is pretty great. In Polytheism, no God is all powerful because all gods are competing against each other. And not every god has the same strengths, or interest in the same things. Now, a lot of Polytheism is hoping that the Gods will ignore you, because they're not all loving. They're just more powerful beings that can influence events should they choose to. Now, you can have some gods adoration, and have some good things happen to you. Or, you can have some gods unhappy with you, and have some bad things happen to you.

The best part, is that this can happen at the same time. You can retain the favor of Apollo, even if his sister is angry at you for that thing you did. (And you know what you did.) Or you can have the favor of Athena, and the curse of Ares so that you're brilliant with tactics, but can't actually fight worth a damn. (Think of all of those kids playing Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, and so forth that couldn't win a fist fight, much less a fight to the death during a battle.)

It seems quite illogical to believe that there is just one god who controls everything. So, to make up for the fact that you've got this all loving fellow, and bad things still happen, there's this Satan guy. Well, Satan's not God, but for some reason Satan exists. You'd think God, if he really wanted to, could just destroy Satan. Instead, he rewarded Lucifer's behavior with the gift of sovereignty over hell, near divine powers, and the power to influence people. But, he's still all powerful, and all loving, to the point that he went ahead and let hell get created?

In fact, it's almost Polytheism. Unless of course God has Satan because he's bored, and if he's bored and toying with the fates of humanity and eternity, well then... Obviously he's not that loving.

Polytheism is the only structure to religion that makes any sense, and monotheism is full of logical fallacies that don't hold up to examination.
MoonDragon613

Con

Let me begin by stating just how offended I am by this topic. There is only room enough in this universe for one god, the almighty type. And thus when it comes down to it, it's the only type of theology that makes sense. Monotheism.

First let's look at the world as it is today. The two largest religions are Christianity and Islam. Imagine if in fact there were multiple gods, if the universe is in fact Polytheistic. Then why are we still here? Zeus or Ares would have long since obliterated the people of Earth. The fact that we exist in the universe in our monotheism is pure evidence that the universe is monotheistic.

Secondly, also looking at the world as it is today, with its blend of good and evil. Let's be honest, which makes more sense, one God or a dozen gods? Does it really make sense for there to be beings of pure absolute evil? I don't believe that there is a Seth to be the cause of all evil in Egypt. Any being of absolute evil by definition cannot be a God. Having no choice but to be evil, well, does that really strike anyone as being Godlike? Here's what's truly logical. One God explains both good and evil. The God of Abraham is loving, but remember he is also wrathful. Just like the humans he created in his image. Sure we love and sure we're loving, but we're also wrathful. Thus once again One God is the only explanation that makes logical sense.

Third, let's face it, the most powerful argument against polytheism is that it is impossible. For there to be polytheism, gods must have the power to reproduce. Apollo and Athena spawned from Zeus. Horus spawned from Osiris. I mean frankly it's either the Gods reproduce or some one entity created the Gods, whereby that one entity is really God. HOWEVER, unlike with humans, 1. Gods are immortal, and 2. they've been around since the beginning of time. And let's take time from the perspective of a black hole or other intense sources of gravity. If polytheism is correct, then one day the universe would only have Gods and nothing else. Which would be weird. Weird, illogical, and highly implausible. Therefore the world is monotheistic.
Debate Round No. 1
Patrick_Henry

Pro

Let me reply by saying just how offended I am that you neglected to fully respond to any of the points that I raised with my opening argument. You make some grave assumptions, such that the universe, which is infinite, is some how too small for there to be more than one supreme being. You also make the assumption that a supreme being must be almighty, or at the very least all powerful.

Risky assumptions considering that scientifically we've discovered certain constants and specific rules which seem to apply themselves completely across the Universe. So, now you have the risky task of defining how exactly an all powerful being interacts with a Universe with serious limitations on matter.

Thank you for noting the large number of individuals who practice monotheism, however I can also note the large number of people that once believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that the sun orbited around the earth. Or, better yet that the planet was flat in spite of many observations that could be made at the time to propose that it was spherical in nature.

You also assume that gods from a Polytheistic religion would be interested, or even capable of obliterating the people of Earth. It's very obvious from many stories of interaction with humans and polytheistic gods that polyteistic gods rely more on free will than any others. In fact, most stories involve a god persuading or convincing a mortal to do something, rather than commanding or mandating. The gods promise material things, instead of some sort of lofty eternity which would be spent worshiping at the feet of a monotheistic god. Unless, of course, the Christian 'heaven' is some how a contradiction to the piety that is suggested by the seven deadly sins, and the seven heavenly virtues.

Simply put, you assume that Zeus is vengeful, and that so is Ares. Truly, if they were gods themselves, they would still be influencing our world, whether or not we sacrificed to them. All of the conflict that has marked Christian history has more to do with the interests of Ares than to do with the kind and loving God of the Christians. It would hardly be the first time that the Greek Pantheon interacted with humanity indirectly.

I don't think it does make more sense to have one god isntead of a dozen. I noted this in my opening argument, so I'll restate it again. If there's only one god, then you're stuck with a god that's full of contradictions. God of peace, god of war, god of love, god of hate, god of charity, god of greed. All of these things must be manifested into one being.

To be honest, under most truly polytheistic religions there is no god of true evil.

The God of evil was an invention of Persian Zoroastrianism as a contradiction to the god of true good. The Persians ruled over the Canaan, and the area traditionally known as Israel or Palestine. It's very likely the Hebrews picked up their idea of Satan versus God.

You are also making broad assumptions of what defines a God. You're limiting the process of creating a god to be the sole trait of being a god. However, Christianity nor Islam state the creation of there God, therefore they must not actually be Gods, and what ever created the Islamic/Christian God is really God. So... Yeah, that argument really doesn't work against Polytheism.

There is no true rule stating whether or not gods or goddesses are composed of a physical matter. If they are, they can be destroyed. There are many lengends about gods being destroyed. The only difference in your argument is that there's several gods instead of one god. Unless of course your monotheistic god wants to preside over a completely empty universe.
MoonDragon613

Con

Patrick Henry has accused me of neglecting to respond to the points raised by his opening statement. And that I made "grave assumptions" (which of course ... he didn't) So before I begin addressing his (anemic) arguments, first I'll categorize the arguments and assumptions made in his opening:

A) Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 (paragraphs 1 and 2 didn't actually make any arguments)
The notion of there being one god is silly because some people describe him as all loving, all knowing, and all powerful.

The assumption here is that monotheism depends on us accepting the tenet that God is 1) all mighty and 2) all loving, and 3) all knowing. But where is it written (besides the bible, koran, and torah) that if there is only one God, he has to be all might, all loving, and all knowing? I ascribed human tendencies to God, e.g. the tendency to be wrathful. Ergo addressing the points made in those 3 paragraphs. I'll go more in depth later on.

B) Paragraphs 6 and 7
Polytheism makes sense because it explains why good and bad things happen.
Also addressed by argument. Why can't one God reward and then punish someone? Again addressed and will be further elaborated upon soon.

C) Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10
Nothing new is added here except implying that if there is one God then he is not all loving. Which .... why again is this an argument against monotheism?

So there, I'm not the only one making assumptions and I've addressed each of Pro's arguments.

So now back to the on case arguments.

1. Monotheism is logical because of the large number of individuals who practice monotheism.

Patrick Henry responded that people used to think the Earth was flat. Which has no relevance. I did not say monotheism was logical because it was popular, I said it was logical because otherwise the many other Gods who we've been neglecting would have been very angry and wiped us out.

To that point, he responds by making the assumption that gods can't obliterate the people of Earth. In fact, as far as I can tell .... he claims God(s) rely on indirect interaction with humanity ... but let's be frank here, which assumption is more logical?

The assumption God(s) CAN interfere directly (such as by iono, making the world, throwing lightening (Zeus), creating a flood (Zeus and God)) or the assumption God(s) CANNOT interfere directly (mmm, remind me, in which religion do the gods Only promise material things again?)

Certainly the power to interfere directly does not preclude the power to interfere indirectly, but that's not altogether relevant here. If we accept the (absurd) notion that there is a pantheon, then all those gods would at the moment be neglected by the entirety of humanity. Thus if those gods existed, they would have wiped out these ingrates occupying the world they created. The fact that we exist, in our monotheistic ways, is evidence that there is only 1 God, who is more or less happy with us for our faith and so does not visit us with Armageddon.

2. One God makes more sense in explaining good and evil than multiple gods.
The Bible tells us a lot of what God does ... but it doesn't tell us exactly how God's mind works. And furthermore, just because God let's the Bible exist / influenced it's creation, that is hardly conclusive evidence of the Bible's accuracy. Why should we believe God is all loving anyway? We would like to believe God is all loving ... but as Patrick Henry states himself ... a god can certainly be anything except all loving.

Now he believes we need a god of peace, a god of war, a god of love, etc. etc. He does not believe it can be manifested in one being. But that's not only an Assumption, it's a rather absurd assumption. Humans, all humans, manifests each of these attributes. We're sometimes peaceful, sometimes belligerent, sometimes passionate in love, and sometimes compassionate. We sometimes are fiercely righteous in justice, and sometimes we're evil, violent, malicious.

Patrick Henry believes that God(s) are less than humans. That they cannot be both compassionate and belligerent. But then he contradicts himself by mentioning Zeus or Apollo. These Greek Gods, as anyone well read in Greek Mythology should know, are often very capricious. They have emotions and changing feelings can can sometimes be wrathful and sometimes compassionate. Zeus, who started his own great flood to wipe humanity of sinners is also known to visit lonely human females and bless them with his compassionate company.

So yes, there've been assumptions thrown around here and there ... but who's assumptions are more reasonable? God(s) who have no choice but to be compassionate or warlike? Or God, who like the humans he created, to be kind or wrathful at different times of the day? Which assumption is more valid. that God(s) can only sit around and watch humans ... or God who has the power to interfere directly with humanity? If this debate comes down to which assumptions are more logical ... well, which assumptions are more logical?
Debate Round No. 2
Patrick_Henry

Pro

Patrick_Henry forfeited this round.
MoonDragon613

Con

woot, was afraid i had 4 arguments due. oh welz. hmmm that's the second time he's quit mid debate on me.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
james14
WHY is Pro winning? His arguments are "anemic" and pathetic. And he forfeited!!!
Posted by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
"My God is better than your Gods!"

Well guess what? They both suck.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
My business comes first, I'm afraid. We're up for our liquor license, and I'm currently getting the place rezoned. So, the hour or two it takes to form an argument really can't be prioritized over passing our fire inspection, and so forth.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I'd've said atheism is the only thing that makes sense... but I guess that's another debate.
Posted by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
Fantastic argument, I have actually felt the same way about monotheism before. I hope that this will be an enjoyable debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Spenser 9 years ago
Spenser
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Patrick_HenryMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03