The Existence of Pagan Gods rather than One Christian/Jewish/Muslim God
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent will be for the Monotheistic God, while I will be supporting the Pagan Gods.
Opponent does not have to believe in God, only argue the fact that One God is more likely to exist than the Pagan Gods.
First round is for acceptance only
Second Round is Opening Arguments
Third Round is for rebuttal of opponents
Fourth Round is for conclusion
However, these ancient Gods could exist without the myths. It is proven that the sun is a giant fireball in space, not some boat/chariot pulled by a God. We know that Zeus doesn't throw lighting bolts either. Some ancients knew this as well.
Socrates, an Ancient Greek Philosopher was executed for trying to teach that the myths were stories, and that the moon was rock. He tried to show people the "true nature" of the Gods.
Think, almost every single ancient civilization had multiple Gods, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Scandinavians, Native Americans, so many of them, and no monotheistic civilizations. Than suddenly Judaism was created, and that spread and branched off into Christianity, who spread, than Muslim split off and spread.
How could you say all these Ancient Civilizations were wrong in their religious practice? The Romans, who conquered much of the known world, The Greeks who even still today contribute to our society, the Egyptians who built the greatest civilization known to man. All these civilization have one thing in common, many Gods. Different names for the Gods, yes, different forms maybe, but still many Gods. Is it very far fetched to believe that maybe these were the same Gods, going by different names?
Christians conquered and killed any who refused to believe in their "One and True" God, destroyed priceless artifacts and very valuable pieces of information in attempts to try to destroy these ancient Civilizations from history. People were forced to convert, or be killed/never raise in the social ladder. That is why Christianity succeeded, because of the Nobility using a new religion for more power.
The Ancient Gods have been prominent in almost every single Civilization known to Man, it is much more likely the Gods exist, especially since "God" and "His" bible has so many borrowed stories and holidays from the Pagan ones.
Monotheism says the universe is created by one creator and governed by natural law also created by one creator. This being is omnipotent and is far beyond our comprehension. The polytheistic religions have gods that are not omnipotent. In their mythology, the gods are very human and flawed. The creation myths of polytheism give no explanation for the universe and are rather silly. Con says he rejects the myths of the gods, but without the myths what are the gods? They are nothing! Furthermore, these clearly imperfect gods could not have created a perfectly balanced, mathematically designed universe that is incredibly beautiful in it's own simplicity. These gods would fight among themselves and could not create a universe like ours. Polytheism has each god given a special role in the universe. It seems foolish that one god can control the molecular structure of plants, but of nothing else. Any god capable of controlling even a portion of our universe would be capable of controlling the whole universe because all matter is based around the same basic atoms. If so this god had that power, it could not be perfect because there are varying other gods. These powerful gods couldn't co-create a universe. If they divided up the universe, different parts of the universe would follow different patterns of creation but this is not true.
Again, any nature god is a total fallacy because no god could only control part of nature. This shows polytheism is a highly primitive religion and philosophy. It is based around nature myths and if you deny the myths then they don't exist. The myths are their only evidence. I believe that only a perfect god could have created this universe and if there are multiple gods, they can't be perfect. All evidence points to monotheism.
Bdrro forfeited this round.
I would say that the Hebrew religion historical light very early and monotheism has been practiced in tribal Africa since before history. Zoroastrianism goes back to ancient Persia. So you can't say polytheism was definitely the first. As for polytheistic religions having simaler gods. That isn't totally true. The greek gods seemed to rule over certain elements, sea, sky, fire, plants. Egyptian gods seem to be more metaphysical. The god of the moon is also the tricky magic god. The greek goddess of the moon is a hunter. Ra and Osiris, sun and death, are the two great gods. In Greek mythology Zeus is the greatest god. The underworld god is much more positive then the greek underworld god. The egyptian gods seem to be good vs evil, horus vs seth, and spirtual, magic gods, burial gods, two underworld gods. Everything in the egyptian religion is more about life and death and good vs evil. The greek religion is totally devoid of major good vs evil and also just explains nature.
He says nature myths don't disprove gods, but again, one god controls the sea. Why can this god only control the sea? And if Thor doesn't control lightning, how is he the lightning god. By the way, it's false to say that Socrates defended polytheism. He didn't write any philosophy, he just taught it so we don't really know his religious beliefs, but at his trail, he says that morality is non existent in polytheism because each god has a moral code. Also his student Plato founded western monotheism and taught it at his academy. As for Hinduism and Buddhism being polytheistic, that is false. Buddhism has saints, the Buddhas, but not gods. Hinduism has many gods but teaches that these gods are just faces or parts of the one god.
Bdrro forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Ff. Well done con, I actually learned a lot. Clear win.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.