Right! — Pattern-chaser

This is the old matrix type of thinking that led to so many movies.
If there is one matrix type of reality, then there could be thousands overlaying it just like fractal math has multiple never ending layers. One supernatural god opens the door to many of the same.

Regards
DL

Being imaginary, the supernatural can cover whatever people say it covers.

If Yahweh or any other mainstream god can live in some supernatural realm, then so can Odin and Thor.

Right?


I agree.
"Imaginary" is literally correct, as in: we're creating images of things that are, per se, invisible.
These images are obviously influenced by our culture and our environment. And why should an early Iron Age Levantine weather god be more "true" than any other?

I mean, is there any category by which we could judge one image of god to be more "true" or "real" than another?
I can think of some categories, but none of them is really convincing to me.
1. Do you think that religion is a majority vote? As in: The god with the largest number of followers must be the true one? (I don't think so. That's quite unfair towards religions whose ideology never demanded that the "true faith" must be spread across the globe and all the "infidels" converted.)
2. Or is it a matter of age? The most ancient texts and traditions must be the most true?
As in: Christianity is different from a Star Trek Fanclub because the Bible is older than the Teachings of Surak? Then what's the minimum age that a religious text or movement must have in order to count?
3. It could also be a matter of quality. Is a deity more "real" if He or She demands a higher ethical standard from the followers, or offers a more coherent explanation of the world? But then, who would be qualified to judge the quality or a religion?

1. Do you think that religion is a majority vote? — WerMaat

Basically, all religions are just tribes and in that sense, the majority votes and which god is the tribal god. I.E. In Judaism they idol worshiped, was it Baal, until the majority voted Yahweh in.

2. Or is it a matter of age? The most ancient texts and traditions must be the most true? — WerMaat

The respect for the people of the book indicates it was text based, yes, but the ancient Jews were esoteric ecumenists like Jesus before Christianity turned stupid and began to read myths literally and become dumbed down. This link speak of those better, pre-literalist days.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

3. It could also be a matter of quality. Is a deity more "real" if He or She demands a higher ethical standard from the followers, or offers a more coherent explanation of the world? But then, who would be qualified to judge the quality or a religion? — WerMaat

You and I are to judge, even if others do not. There is not a lot of wisdom in scriptures but that idea is there.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I do not think people want a moral guide or god. They want a powerful one as their security, not their moral fibre is why they are in a tribe/religion to begin with.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6138/what-good-is-a-good-god-when-people-want-an-evil-god

Regards
DL

In the OP you said the gods or God does not have good moral fiber. Why do you say that? Which religion are you talking about? — christian2017


Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You said Slave holding, why do you phrase it like that? If i owe you $1000 in someways i'm your slave. This is a very ancient concept. Globalist International Bankers enslave people, i can promise you that. Lets move on to the next subject because it appears you don't understand the modern political and economic situation we live in. If someone owes you $1000 are you going to expect them to pay it or not? Please don't make assumptions about my ethnic nor historic ethnic background. You can however make the assumption that i consider myself a christian.

As to mysogynous, i disagree with that. How do you come to that conclusion? There is nothing mysogynous in the whole Bible other than people in the old testament making poor decisions (keyword is people). Many practices in ancient times were based on a violent almost anarchisitc (note the use of anarchy) world they lived in. Women typically only gain rights when economic factors are stabilized (read civilization). Having extra physical muscle and also the willingness to die young (normally associated with male rather than female) is a biological unfair advantage if you live in a world ruled by hand to hand combat. China which is in some ways an Atheist country is guilty of more oppression of femailes than any country in world history.

Christian2017, do you consider your initial argument to be intellectually honest?

Owing money to a person is quite different to being permanently enslaved to them, and if you do not wish to admit that, I will not discuss it further.

As to your later statement that women only gain rights in stable environments, does that not clearly prove a misogynistic society? "Might makes right" is common amongst uncivilized people, for sure, but are you saying that should always be the way it is? The Bible encourages this approach, stating that it takes twice as many females to legally witness a crime, as well as decrying the menstrual cycle as "unclean", labeling women as part of a man's belongings, and rarely even giving names to the females in stories. If a person made such comments and generally behaved as such, I think one could very reasonably assume he didn't like women very much...

As if they'd be able to admit it freely. "None" is absurd. There must be a degree of weakness of mind allowed for describing those who believe in the supernatural. I think it comes down to how much a person needs to know the answer to the questions; why are we here? And, what happens when we die? Because religion offers the only answers other than the truth (that there is no reason for us being here and it's simply lights out). Some people can't handle that reality, regardless of intelligence.

There must be a degree of weakness of mind allowed for describing those who believe in the supernatural. — Razorback kitten

There must be a degree of weakness in those, too, that light themselves a fire because the night is chilly.
Admittedly a matter of convenience. Huddling at the fire may dull our natural resistance against the elements and we'll get burned if we're not careful. But still, many decide that the comfort it offers makes up for the disadvantages.
Would you call that 'weak', or would you call it 'inventive'?

Because religion offers the only answers other than the truth — Razorback kitten

Is that so? I tend to be suspicious of anyone who claims to know "the truth" in an absolute sense.

the truth (that there is no reason for us being here and it's simply lights out). Some people can't handle that reality, regardless of intelligence. — Razorback kitten

Well, in that case, I freely admit that I'm one of those who can't handle it.
Because let me tell you a secret: I'm a human, and I'm not very rational - regardless of intelligence.
Therefore I cling to the stories and concepts that help me make sense of the world, as they give me comfort and hope. ( I also try to avoid staring into the flames until I'm blind to the rest of the world, as the fanatics tend to do. )

It's not about me knowing the truth. It's about how all the questions are pointless to begin with. You're talking about hope and making sense of the world with the sense that without some form of supernatural fiction, it's harder or lesser somehow. I'm sorry to be so blunt but I really wish people could just stop with all the bull. Let's keep fantasy and fiction in the same box. I've got as much "hope" as the next human and I doubt anyone's understanding of the (real) world will ever be improved by invoking the supernatural.

Tooth fairy
Lock Ness monster
Santa
God
Ghosts
Sponge Bob

All together in one list.