I'm glad that you pointed out that most polytheists do not believing in mythic literalism. Most of these myths are just allegories to help ancient people understand various concepts.
100%. Non-polytheists generally hold the misconception that polytheists believe literally that Thor is in the sky with a literal hammer, Ganesh has an elephant head, or Jupiter throws lightning bolts. Or they think that we're doing revisionism and that the ancestors actually were mythic literalists. It's so important to create awareness of the fact that it's generally much more nuanced than this and always has been. Take our myth of Baldr the "bright god," which is a clear allegory for the "death" of the sun in winter (mistletoe being a well-understood symbol for winter in at least Celtic and Germanic traditions), and who later returns to our world after Ragnarok. It shows that the ancients understood many of the myths to be allegorical. Hindus, from one of the few uninterrupted polytheisms, also often understand myths as allegories, so it's not just a modern "neo-pagan" thing. Religious literalism is very Abrahamic and "new atheists" usually don't understand this.
Trying to understand here - What’s the difference, then, between a polytheist and an atheist (or nontheist) who appreciates mythology as metaphors, literature, and a rich source of idioms?
@@pechaa There are different types of polytheists and different perspectives. I can speak as a former "new atheist" and my own current polytheist perspective. When I was an atheist, I appreciated the myths as stories. In the same way you or I could appreciate symbolism and themes in Star Wars or superhero movies without believing they are any more than a totally fictional cultural product. As a polytheist, I see mythical themes, for example, the non-literal aspects of Thor, like his association with rain and thunder (symbolizing him as a giver of energy and abundance) or his hammer (a symbol of protection from the forces of chaos) and believe that there is not a god with a literal hammer, but there is a real god or divine sentient energy in our universe who can be better understood through these symbols. I don't think the being represented by Thor (or possibly by another figure in other pantheons) wields an actual hammer, but the hammer in the story helps me understand that it is in his nature to protect and preserve order. And his association with rain helps me understand he blesses with abundance and growth. We have evidence that ancient people saw the myths in similar ways. So I believe in an actual being, just not with the literal beard and hammer, while an atheist would not believe in a real being/entity, but maybe value the themes like the archetype of the protector, in the same way Superman could serve as the archetype of the protector but not be real.
@@ScottJB Thanks. I am pretty sure I understand what you’re saying. I am ex-Catholic these past 30 years, since I was a teenager, and an atheist for pretty much all those years. I do value pagan mythology as metaphor, humanism, and a framework for our experience that enriches our language and ways of thinking. And I can imagine gods, fairies, kami, and other spirits as non-sentient “forces,” probably figuratively so. But perhaps Thor disagrees. It is downpouring and thundering right on top of us here in Northern Virginia as I write.
As an atheist, belief wise, it comes down to the gods being unmeasurable and intangible outside of individual experience. But this style of polytheism is thoroughly wholesome and intellectually stimulating to me. The only real problem I have with religion is when people are made to serve a moral code, rather than moral codes being made to serve us. Otherwise, believe and practice what you want, if you’re happy I’m happy
Moral codes aren’t bad, tho. We don’t need gods to have morality and ethics; it’s entirely possible to build a good moral code out of the secular worldview. But a particular society’s moral codes, be they rooted in cultural values or local wisdom, are sometimes best preserved and passed down by religious tradition.
A wise man I know once told me that the Polytheist and the Atheist live in the same world. Both look around and see the world around us as ultimately what we're engaging with for the most part. The difference being that we believe there are numinous presences behind it and Atheists don't. A Polytheist will see Zeus or Thor or Shango or Indra within the force of lightning. An Atheist sees lightning. Either way, we both acknowledge that it's a powerful force
@@uncoherentramblings2826 Problem, eh? We don't have problems with other people's religions around here, friend. We respect that you don't believe. Please respect that we do.
@@uncoherentramblings2826 As long as youaccept the laws of physics, it doesnt matter. You theorethically could thing its from gods and the physical measurements that physics deliver and sources. As long a you accept physical proven explaination that neither seek to debunk or prove god or magic, wseriously you can thing what you want.
For a minute I felt attacked as an atheist, "I wouldn't use those weak arguments against a polytheist! He doesn't usually strawman us this bad?!" But then I realized I'm not the kind of atheist to attack people's beliefs and therefore probably not the kind being talked about. *shrug* I actually agree with most of the video though, polytheism makes way more sense than monotheism.
What I did was utilized some of the stronger atheist arguments in literature. The ones I think hit the hardest are PoE and Simplicity. But when used against monotheists, I think Divine Hiddenness and Non-Cognative objections also hit really hard. Objections to polytheism usually have some kind of appeal to contradictions between traditions. I'm probably going to have to make a dedicated video on that and the pluralistic approach that I take to address that objection.
@@OceanKeltoi those are some strong arguments; PoE and Divine hiddeness have always been hard walls against my belief in Christianity. But I don't think they apply to polytheism, not even PoE. Even if every one of the gods only meant good for us evil could still arise in the conflict between how they approach doing that. Like a divorced couple fighting over a child... only there are more than 2 parents and they have control over metaphysical concepts of reality. The kid might be loved but they are going to need some counseling when they grow up ;) Simplicity is probably the reason I can't be a heathen, but I don't think it's strong enough to really attack another's belief over either. I would love to see a video about how you approach any contradictions though, because that probably would be the angle I took if I was going to try to pick apart polytheism.
@@jasonrobertson9618 christianity could make their arguments strong if they they declared satan as a separate god and became a bitheism? Duotheistic? Religion instead. Both god and satan equally all powerful desiring the universe to exist in different ways and neither one has the power to remove the other, it is simply up to humanity to decided how to live within the chaos that is created from both gods. One desiring preservation and the other desiring change.
@@ThatKid22101 it would go a long way in making it make sense that is for sure. Growing up I did enjoy those old movies that depicted God and the devil playing chess to get our souls, usually played by the same actor (just wearing red vs white) They could even keep their moral dichotomy, though I think it would be more interesting your way, and it would still make more sense. As is they have to fall back on "God done did it and yous cant knows the why" and that is just so... unconvincing.
@@ThatKid22101 Since Christianity generally accepts the "Trinity" (3 distinct and separate beings or personalities in some mysterious one Divine Being) it wouldn't be much of a stretch to make it a Quadrality, with Satan being the 4th "personality". (a case of divine multiple personality disorder?) But then, since the attributes the Bible attaches to Satan actually better reflect the attitudes and actions of YHWH who's to say they aren't reversed, or even one and the same. Satan never actually does anything "evil" in the Bible unless and except under the direction or direct permission of YHWH.
@@devinsmith4790 I think Darth Fetid’s trying to say that they think you’re an agnostic rather than an atheist, which is true from a certain philosophical standpoint, but the phrase ‘agnostic atheist’ communicates that well
Occom's razor is very often (ironically) simplified as to miss part of its potency. I like the way Einstein put it: "The goal of all theory is to make the irreducible as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." It's that last part that people tend to forget. A more complex explanation can be the correct/favorable one if it also accounts for more of the data. Granted, you still get medical zebras. And the progression of science is based on hunting hypothetical zebras. So I'm not disagreeing with anything said. Just thought it worth expanding on a bit for the purpose of clarity.
Basically what Plato is telling you there is that you're the prisoner in the cave, the outside world is the ideal world, the cave is our material physical world, and all our perceibable reality is simply shadows, inferior forms from the ideal superior of the ideal world. This is the common interreptation o fthe myth used to explain the existence of a superior plane of existence over ours, but the other part is related as a ocnfirmation of it's existence, since in order to understand the objects around us we necessarily need a proper definition of them. This is what comes form the ideal world, the idea of something, which is necessary for us to define that something.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I'm sorry, what? How did you get Plato's allegory of the cave and an argument for a "higher plane of existence" out of a simple explanation of Occom's razor?
@@taproot0619 Plato's allegory doesn't appeal to Occam's razor. It really doesn't address that. This comment was to other response lol. Sorry about that
@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to make sure. If for nothing else, then to make sure the person you wanted to read that reply actually does lol!
These are definitely the kind of nuanced conversations that are very lacking and sorely needed in the TH-cam sphere. Again, I'm super stoked you've taken up bringing these topics some attention!
I'm one of them there polytheistic atheists. I left Christianity when I was in my teens, when I realized that the very idea of Satan was evil, but that Christian theology falls apart without it. And realized that if so many reasonable humans had worshiped multiple gods long ago, there's no reason I couldn't do that today, even if I were the only one (I soon discovered I wasn't the only one). About 20-ish years ago, when I was in my late 30s. I was listening to to a panel discussion between a Christian Minister, a Rabbi, and an Imam (no, the discussion did not take place in a bar, believe it or not), and they all agreed that, despite the differences in their faiths, they *knew* monotheism was more valid than polytheism, because our modern scientific theories all meld better with a monotheistic worldview than a polytheistic one. And I thought to myself: "Yeah, that's because our modern scientific theories were crafted by people living within a monotheistic culture, and so that's how they framed their metaphors to explain their discoveries." So I started playing a game of reframing our modern scientific understanding with polytheistic metaphors. And suddenly, when I looked at the world, it was like one of those ambiguity illusions (duck/rabbit, two profiles/vase), and my view of the world would flip between theist and atheist at a blink, without any loss of reciprocity, comfort, or beauty. And these days, it's mostly settled on the atheist side of the coin. I believe that any gods worth worshiping, should they exist, would respect my decision to focus my attention on building ethical and loving bonds with my fellow mortals on Earth. And any god that *demands* worship doesn't deserve it.
I’m a Norse Pagan, and I watched this with my agnostic fiancée. It was a really interesting conversation starter! Thank you for putting so much work into this!
I think 'help' is meant as in a net-positive; from a purely mono-theistic perspective, seeing that this arguments don't affect polytheism makes it look more appealing. From an atheistic perspective, it's irrelevant
Monotheism sucks all the oxygen out of the room when it comes to philosophical and theological conversation. Anytime you are decreasing the monotheistic domination of conversation you are basically expanding the room for polytheistic voices.
@@rogertheshrubber2551 I completely agree. I'm an atheist myself. But I would much rather have interesting conversations with people who have interesting beliefs than to have one more conversation with a monotheist who repeats the same dumb shit that I've heard thousands of times at this point.
I found myself over and over repeating the word counterargument, because why would a counterargument matter to a completely seperate argument from the one it's supposed to counter
As an ex-atheist now-pagan myself I must say that, having been exposed to philosophy and theology in atheist circles, it was philosophically a smoother transition for me from atheism to polytheism than I expected - despite the astonishingness of the UPG i experienced. This video is an pleasant surprise.
@@therealivydawg becoming a pagan in itself requires nothing more than a desire to learn, explore, and find something in common with some deity. I personally try to connect with: Väinämöinen Ancient Finnish hero / God of wisdom and knowledge. of course I worship other Ancient Finnish gods such as the Thunder God Ukko. and some other gods of different pantheons such as Ra and Odin. but in the end there is not only one way to be a pagan but it is a slightly different thing for everyone, each with its own path. so the only thing you need is a desire to learn and reflect on yourself.
@@therealivydawg It's quite simple, my friend. Just begin worshipping. Do you have some Gods you'd like to worship? Then do it. Build a shrine for Them, learn some basic offering rituals, and just do it. Open your heart and mind to it. Read up on lore, history, and philosophy from the ancient world. Go out and do things associated with the Gods you are trying to worship. Do you wish to worship Poseidon? Maybe go to the sea. Do you wish to worship Ra? Maybe try spending some time in the Sun contemplating its importance. It's all quite easy. There might be a few learning curves here and there as you re-work your brain towards thinking like a Polytheist (it can be a struggle for some; especially those who refuse to change) but it can be done. May the Gods be with you and may our ancestors inspire you
As a newer pagan, without knowing many others around me, it's always great to see this content. It helps so much when trying to explain or "argue" with others. It's nice to have this video to reference!
To me the issue with Divine hiddenness only comes into play in traditions which put belief before action. This is very specifically an Abrahamic/montheist issue in most cases. Even if we assume that there are a specific set of ethics encouraged or required by the Divine, seeing belief as required before ethics reduces the meanfulness of, and thus the importance and meaning of those ethics. The issue with the problem of Diversity is similar. We have limits to our knowledge, and in our ability to understand things beyond a certain level. To me, different faiths/pantheons are different language. If I explain my perspective in French, and you don't speak French, it doesn't matter how good my argument is.
The sound of clopping on the street behind could be a horse, a zebra, or a centaur. But the set of circumstances that would make the items on that list possible get more complex as we progress through it, and justifying a claim for any item being the source of the sound requires increasingly more evidence.
As a Neoplatonist, the whole "problem of evil" falls apart when one realizes that the tri-omni qualities often ascribed to the gods (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence) have different definitions within Platonism than they do within Abrahamic contexts. For example, omnipotence in Platonism refers to the fact that the gods presently *do* all things that are physically possible, not that the gods could perform random acts of whimsy in a theoretical scenario. Omnibenevolence means the gods love all of humanity equally and bestow gifts to everyone at different times, including your enemies. Omniscience means that the gods possess all knowledge and have infinite intellective faculties in the present moment, not that they are railroading the future on a predestined path. In other words, the gods do all that is *possible.* If it were at all possible to exist in a world without evil, then we would already be in one.
Atheist here (and I'd count myself an ally, don't throw rotten fruit please). I agree that a lot of these arguments work very well only against specific conceptions of what is usually a single god. Polytheism usually doesn't suffer as much, I believe, because the sources polytheists have with which to rebuild their ancient religions are scattered, few in number, and from various sources who may not even care about getting the nuances of these divine myths down with any degree of accuracy to how those early heathens might have communicated their beliefs. It's just a natural (and I hope uninflammatory, though I may be more callous than I realise) consequence that by virtue of having less in-depth sources to pull from that claim divine inspiration and infallibility, polytheists are left with MANY fewer vulnerabilities. Their claims are, when you step outside of those few mythic literalists, by and large unfalsifiable. Christians who are loath to give up any of those omni traits or most of what Paul said, though? In my opinion, simple logic dismantles those viewpoints. Polytheists have a greater-strength version of what very liberal and allegorical christians have -- a nebulous form of greater power which we can't comprehend with any wholeness, and who may not even be accurately-relayed by the authors of the bible, making the number of logical or evidential arguments they fall prey to significantly smaller than the mythic literalists, who are under much greater theological restrictions because they make the motte-claim and then have to defend it instead of retreating to the bailey of the liberal christian or polytheist. Polytheists are just up-front about the fact (most of the time) that you cannot demonstrate your deities to exist, and you don't push your religions on us, and don't seem bothered when people don't believe in the same (or any) gods as you do. So generally I have no problem with polytheists that aren't pushing dangerous woo-woo. I have to say though, I think your speculation on monotheistic gods being seen as 'contenders' with atheism in a probabilistic sense is really weird. Most of the world's population of theists were raised with a particular religion, and the largest of these religions have big perceived consequences for falling away from the faith, with many many people feeling as though they will be judged, ostracized, or will cause loved ones distress and pain for falling away. They have heavily-entrenched personal biases and legitimate concerns/fears (particularly of Hell, in Christian and Muslim cases) that may cause them to give these 'cumulative cases' or probabilistic arguments more weight than they deserve. Or maybe they don't want to give up the vague sense of spirituality, since it can feel like you're losing something, somehow, when you're separated from even a form of deism -- some notion of magic or the supernatural has been cut off from you, and that can be enough to create a bias. Whereas I and many other atheists/agnostics actively sought relationships with any gods who would listen, while continually running the odds. I personally WANT to believe in gods. I'd LOVE to believe in miracles and magic, souls, and potential afterlives. But when I'm intellectually-honest with myself, I know it's FAR more likely that I will be wrong, mistaken, or deceived, if ever I think I've witnessed something supernatural/divine in nature. Frankly put, it sucks. I'd love to believe. But I can't choose my beliefs.
When I was framing them as contenders I was talking about in the philosophical scene, not broader culture. I think if we consider the general sense of probability in broader culture, theism is seen as far more likely. And in America, specifically Christianity. When you get into philosophy, Atheism is far more strongly represented, but still generally seen as competitive, even if there are philosophers who hold strongly to one side or the other. William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher / debater, regards Graham Oppy, an atheist philosopher / debater, as a strong opposition, for example.
@@OceanKeltoi Well yeah, the popular thing is going to be seen as more likely true in broader culture, but what I was pointing out was with regard to philosophy. Philosophers are much more likely not to believe in a god than to believe in one (atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.). Given that theists make up such a big portion of the population, I would have assumed from the point it seems you were trying to make that these numbers were far more in line with 47.5/47.5/5, or something. But even with the considerable factors for bias theists have, with damnation on the line and such, that doesn't seem to inflate their numbers in their philosophical representation to be roughly equivalently competitive. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to communicate there. If so I apologize, but thank you for replying at all. Enjoyed the video.
@@CantonWhy Yeah, I see how you were interpreting it. What I was more communicating was not that there's an equal divide in population of philosophers. As you pointed out, most philosophers land on atheism, which I believe I referenced earlier in the video at the beginning of my comment on Occam's Razor, because the appeal to simplicity is seen as very convincing, as is the Evidentiary Problem of Evil. However, even in light of that, a lot of atheist philosophers will comment on the challenge presented by theist philosophers and that the intellectual game of chess between them is very much a respectful and competitive one. Such that with respect to the argument for likelihood, it can be seen as quite competitive, even if there are personal opinions of various philosophers as to where that likelihood lands.
Okay. I know I'm normally that guy who occasionally drops by and posts puns but I figured I'd actually write something somewhat serious. I'm an Atheist but arguing for atheism/against theism was never really my cup of tea. I never really take issue with matters of faith unless it is being forced upon others or being used to justify harming others and things of that nature, otherwise I just keep to myself. I must admit that I find most (if not all) of your content fascinating. I've always wanted to learn about Norse Polytheism (many of my ancestors were from the area where it was prominent in history) but I think that my interest is purely academic but regardless, if one day I were my interests in Norse Polytheism were to change from purely academic, I could always just keep watching. It now occurs to me that the two pun comments I have made on this channel have been about graves and corpses. I hope it has been Humerus because I may have just made a deathly mistake.
Science only describes matter, so it can never disprove the spirit. The spirit can only be known by conscious experience and your experience is the only real thing you have.
When all spirituality is broken, there is only the science of reality: that science is often more interesting than any fiction you could use to describe the world, assuming you're not an idiot.
@@christopherreichle6670 quantum physics and string theory already prove that matter as we experience it is an illusion and that matter is dependent on consciousness. The vedas already described the atom and knew the earth spins around the sun and the sun around the center of the galaxy. This was thousands of years ago while europe still believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago. The idea that consiousness arises from matter slowly fades from science. Your spirit may be broken but that doesnt mean spirituality is broken. It just means you turned away from it.
@@Apebek quantum physics is just the study of the quantized. Basically, studying the really small. It still treats matter as a real thing. As for strong theory, it's not even proven yet. So far models require a number of dimensions we don't currently have; but even if it was proven it doesn't prove matter illusory as it is actually describing the composition of matter. About your retort on spirituality: I never turned away from it, it simply doesn't exist. My remark was stating one day spirituality will die when our primitiveness fades and we don't rely on fairly tales to do our thinking for us.
@@christopherreichle6670 I cannot explain it logically but to me mind comes before matter. Math decribes matter, but numbers themself are not material. So from a scientific view you can prove that numbers don't exist. But everybody knows what a number is. Every number is an entity with a certain character. We work with them to manipulate or try to understand physical things. Numbers are a spiritual representation of matter. "two" doesn't exist. It is just one and another one. If you add another you'd call it "three". What I try to say is that the mind goes beyond the limitations of the physical world. How can the inferior be the creator of the superior? Spiritual means that it is not material, so it is logical that science will never touch it and the reason why science cannot explain consciousness. The physical world cannot exist without consciousness because without it there is nothing that can have an opinion on that matter. Time and space wouldn't exist because there would be no reference point to measure it from. I don't understand quantum mechanics but I heard of particles that can exist at two places at once. Also about entanglement where two particles react instantly two eachother while being lightyears apart.
I'm new to Paganism and Polytheism in general but your points on why the gods let suffering happen and that we have a relationship and responsibility from the gods to care for our Earth is what endeared me to Paganism. I feel more in touch with the gods, knowing I have a responsibility to the world and also that the gods aren't wholly good, which to me was always the greatest flaw of Christianity and such religions.
Growing up, I realized quite early that I was not monotheistic. I felt called by nature and understood it was alive. When I confessed my struggle to my Baptist father, he laid a question before me: If you don't think you are a Christian, what do you think you are? Not only did he acknowledge that faith was a person experience, but his example inspired me to try to understand what faith was. By the time I was a high school senior, I had frustrated monotheists with my questions, so I was reading deeper into the myths I read growing up. This is where I find your explanation on polytheism's diversity so encouraging because that is my experience! I also had the pleasure of sitting down with a friend that identifies as an atheist, asking if this was due to a lack of belief in gods or a lack of faith. He asked me to clarify, so I reminded him that faith is simply complete confidence in someone or something. Instead of getting caught up in titles and labels, what if spirituality was connecting with what you hold as your personal truth about life? I asked if science was any different when you consider that people place faith in how it explains the world we live in. Could that not be spiritually fulfilling to know in your core being that this is truth? He smiled at me, saying he wished monotheists made compelling points like that. It is my truth that the divine is not limited to the structure humanity transcibes to it, but that it reveals itself to the individual in a way that the person can perceive it. Just as two people can eat the same food and have opposite taste about it or react differently to stimulus of any kind, faith is found within only after looking there to find it. I also agree with Ocean that we do not choose our faith, for that is how we as individuals connect to the divine. Great video as always, sir! I always direct people to your channel for indepth explanation of polytheism.
When opposing Occam's Razor, it's also worth noting that even on a logical level, Reductionism ( i.e. oversimplification or selection bias) is also a fallacy therefore we can conclude a standard of simplify where possible but not so much that your model is miopic
If you go for the simplest possible explanation, you can't beat "God did it" or "It's God's will", however, that doesn't explain anything. What Occam's Razor suggests is that, among all the hypotheses with the same explanatory power, the one that makes the least assumptions is probably the closer to the truth.
I’m a big ole dumb dumb smoothbrain who thinks the gods are just kinda neat, but this was super interesting and cool! Also, wow some of those earlier arguments in the video were ones I used as a shitty highschool edgelord atheist.
This is why for my part I don’t actually care to argue against polytheism. I don’t do much arguing at all, to be fair, since I genuinely only care about others’ beliefs if they cause harm, and I don’t think most religious beliefs do. But insofar as I could argue, I personally don’t think polytheism is that unlikely. I don’t personally believe, but in my case it really is just a matter of non-belief when it comes to polytheism. And I actually think that if I ever came to believe in any sort of deity again, I’d end up in polytheism.
@@tietajavaskimaan296 I’ve been watching Ocean’s videos at least for a little while now. He’s certainly one of my favorite creators that I regularly watch. And as an atheist, I’ve never felt that it’s an unwelcoming space he’s got going here. And it’s always entertaining and informative. Ocean, Calon, as well as Wolf (though I haven’t watched his content as much) were three people whose content helped push me the final step out of that annoying “angry atheist” phase. I guess that’s a long way of saying…thanks
Appeal to Simplicity: The point of the naturalist's occam's razor argument is that deities aren't a necessary component to explain the natural world and its operations. Saying that deities could still exist despite that is a non sequitur. Sure, things could be more complex than the simplest "horse" case, but if so then, like in House, you're going to have to run tests and prove your diagnosis of "zebra", or more accurate in this case, "unicorn". When you get down to it, a logically sound occam's razor can't be countered with arguments at all, it can only be countered by invalidating a premise or providing solid prof that the more complex case is the reality.
Got this video showing up in my recommendeds and it led to me checking out a bunch of your channel. Just wanted to come leave a comment because I really appreciate what you've been doing here. I'm also an ex-Christian whose spiritual journey has led me towards embracing polytheism and working with multiple different gods. The popular discourse around theism vs atheism has long been one which I feel left out of, christians and counter-christians shouting each other down and pretending like nothing else even exists worth a mention. But your videos, your thoughtful approach to these topics, your respect for other cultures and other ways of being outside of the colonialist narrative, have been really uplifting for me, and I feel much more secure in accepting my experiential reasoning towards polytheism as a rational one. Keep up the great work, and may the gods bless you!
Thank you so much ^_^ i’m glad this channel is helping. You’ve pretty much articulated exactly what I’m going for with this channel so I very much appreciate you.
Fun fact the original name for House was "Chasing zebras, Circling the Drain." Also as an "atheist" my approach to deities, other than certain depictions of YHWH, is largely "my monkey brain can't tell the difference."
In 7 years of studying Philosophy and considering the question of religion I have never considered, nor been taught by, or read anybody who considered polytheism. While I still have my reservations, believing that any religious experience had can be explained by neurobiology, sociology, and anthropology, and that the likelihood of any deity or deities existing as they are concieved of by people, providing that one or many do exist, is substantively less likely than a deity that is either inconceivable or non existant and barring any evidence to the prior, I find the latter more compelling. In any event, I greatly appreciated this video and found it fascinating. Thank you for the novel insights, it was a delightful watch.
10:58 Given that you usually close out your chapters with something witty, the second you brought up Woodward's Zebra I predicted you were going to make a Monty Python coconut joke at the end of the chapter. I know your personality and dry sense of humor, and it's a joke that writes itself, so you could almost say I used Occam's Razor to make my prediction. I really enjoyed the video, and you're raising some very good points. Especially about mythic literalism, which I try endlessly to avoid on the rare occasion I let myself get suckered into some kind of ontological debate. It's low hanging fruit and applies to very few practitioners of any brand of theism. In my opinion, it should only be brought up in debates regarding said mythic literalism being taught in lieu of science in public schools.
TLDR: Thanks for the videos. I might be a heretical Christian, perennialist, Judeo-monolatrist, or a full-blown polytheist. Please let me be a productive member of your coalition. I love your take on faith, after all. You opened my mind to many life-changing ideas. May your pantheon bless you with wonder and adventure. I’m looking forward to this video! I’ve been binging your videos for 9 months, and this is my first comment, I think. I just wanted to say thank you very much for providing a very interesting perspective in regard to how our world may function amidst gods. In fact, I must admit that you have many compelling arguments that I personally love. Recently, I’ve been talking to my father a lot about the inconsistencies that I loathe in Christianity. I’m basically at the point where I definitely feel like a heretic if I still even classify as one. Ultimately, I have a really hard time defining what I really am. However, your videos have helped me feel more comfortable about searching for the truth in our universe. I’m going to attempt to label myself even though I don’t like labels per se. All right, I think I’m simply some type of perennialist. I do believe that it’s the most honest worldview since it claims that none of us can quite possibly know everything. Still, many of us are close to and desperately seek the truth. However, I am very open to the faiths of others and I might be willing to say that their traditions are true to a certain extent. Honestly, I’m not confident enough to state that any human could ever fully figure the truth of divinity out. That being said, I think we all owe it to ourselves to try. Long story short, I know some form of divinity must be real. All in all, I like how you express your faith and I want you to know that although I still revere the God of the Abrahamic faiths, I hope your pantheon and community of faith are treated with the utmost respect. In other words, I could also be considered a monolatrist with a special connection to this one God. Maybe that makes me just as much of a polytheist as you! Who knows!? But I think there is a beauty to not knowing. Good luck with your journey and life and may your gods bless you with a wonderful saga worthy of a place in the Eddas! I pray that someone like me can be a part of your coalition for peaceful coexistence and enriching the lives of our neighbors. Thanks for opening my mind to so many beautiful ideas.
My friend, you would not be the first Christian or even Monotheist to be friendly towards our people and our Gods. When you get some time today, look up the biography of a man named Nonnus of Panopolis. He was an archbishop of the Catholic Church that is famous for the Metabole (a paraphrase of the Gospel of John). However, he's also famous for the Dionysiaca: the longest Greek epic poem. Nonnus wrote the poem in honor of Dionysos (the Greek Wine God) and it is to this day hailed as one of the most comprehensive pieces of literature on Dionysos' myths. Guess which one Nonnus wrote first? Believe it or not, he the wrote the Metabole first! He was a a Christian (a high-ranking man of the cloth, no less) and he wrote the longest poem in honor of a deity other than Jesus. And this was during the 5th Century CE. This is but one example of the potential for peace between Christians and Polytheists. Know that you are on the right path!
and when it comes to heresy, we are only heretics if we ourselves believe so, for in matters of faith it is always most important to follow one's own heart / soul, for it is your faith / soul and not anyone else's.
You believe in many gods but choose to worship the God of the bible? Why do you like that guy and think he's worthy of worship? And why did he lie about being the only true God?
Wow! That was amazing ! The amount of work that you did on this is outstanding ! Now...to watch again for technical pieces...n applications for my life!! Thanks 👍!!! 👍🐺🧙♂️🐺✌!
One problem with the idea of a theodicy of allowing evil is the idea of the universe as a test. The idea of the physical universe as a test is even difficult to swallow from within a theological context. I've seen some preferentially reject the tri omni traits.
12:50 From my personal atheist perspective, the flaw in the theodice of 'greater good' is the question of; if an omnipotent god exists, and allows the evil to exist for the purpose of nurturing greater good happening in reponse, what is the point of worshipping said god? By the logic of this theodicy, the weight of nurturing the greater good is entirely on humans, and it will flourish regardless (as empirically evidenced by atheists also taking stances of good in response to evil) of a god. At this point crediting a god for it is just giving out a pity participation trophy for said god at best, and at worst taking credit away from those who actually took the stance against evil (ie. ye olde 'praise be jesus' after a doctor successfully performed a life-saving surgery). I've been an atheist my entire life (a quirk of mine, I live in an extremely catholic country, but I've never quite picked religion up, even as a child I was a sceptic at heart) and I've retreaded probably majority of arguments, I just love to Discourse. But one argument I'm really fond of, because it's half-sincere, half-meme, is the 'ad capitalism' argument. If a god or gods or any given supernatural phenomen would exist, would corporations not try to use seidr to predict stocks? Would US military not make a honest attempt to weaponize abrahamic god to Sodoma & Gomorrah-style nuke their enemies? ;) Either way, I'm really fond of polythetistic religions (at least when they're not being racist cocks like AFA - imagine my surprise when I found out they aren't even Scandinavians....- hell hath no fury like an American 'protecting' the 'ethnic heritage' of an ethnicity they weren't born into) and while I'm incapable of mustering up any sort of belief, I *do* appreciate the stories they tell, the philosophies and stances they embody, and while I can't believe in literal existence of, say, Odin, I still admire certain principles he might exemplify, like knowledge-seeking.
I really love this video! I think it was good not as a fight against atheism or monotheism but simply an exploration of how polytheism fits into these types of arguments especially when it’s normally unaddressed in modern conversations. I partake in monolatry because I believe in many gods but only personally worship one (somewhat, he takes different forms.) I’m very open to other religious ideas though and I find atheist arguments interesting so it was great to see them from a polytheist perspective. Thanks for the awesome video!
the problem with the medical zebra analogy is that there are criterion used to identify a rare disease, it may have many of the same symptoms but it can't be entirely the same therefore that disease is demonstrably different from a common disease. naturalism and supernaturalism both explain the world equally well but one adds unnecessary unfalsifiable claims. basically your diagnosing your patient with a rare disease when they just have a cold.
The premise of this video confuses me, maybe i missed something but from what i'm getting, it claims that atheist arguments against monotheism helps polytheism, but the way it goes about proving this is by showing arguments that work at dissproving monotheism but aren't as aplicable with polytheism, and i don't see how that necessarily correlates. This would be like claming that using arguments against cristianity with the specific purpose of disproving cristianity strengthens islam, just because that one argument doesn't adress islam. Or that saying "cars can't fly because they're too heavy" means that helps the idea that bikes can fly because they don't have that problem quite as much. I had a few other particular problems: 1:18 I think there's a weird overlapping of ideas here, i'm hearing: "atheist firmly claim there is no god only to then back peddle to just being unconvinced to that same propositon". But what usually happends is that theist re-define the concept of god first, it is perfectly resonable for example, to belive that the god described in the bible does not exists, but when redifined to an "Unmoved mover" or any other much more vague definiton, stripped of the atributtes the atheist finds firmly impossible, is when they respond with "well i'm not sure about that". In my experience, it's the theist who first conflicts the god that they belive in with the one they have to argue for first. 3:00 to this section i agree, i'd just like to mention that pointing out contradictions in scripture doesn't just disprove that one literal interpretation (thought that's mainly what it does) it also puts in doubt the content of the whole book, when something as clear cut as the order of events of gods creations can be poeticized, pretty much anything can be claimed to mean something else, making very shaking grounds a moral code, or anything else really. 9:46 while it's true that the most likely or simpler explanation is not necessarily the right answer, this is all said in the context of defending the possiblity of the super natural and i find this disingenuous, every possible answer from the horse to the zebra and even people with coconuts are grounded in natural explanations, yet what theism propouses is more like considering that a real unicorn might be behind you. I get the point is to discredit occam's razor as perfect rule that always yelds the right answer (which is not what it claims to be), but super natural explanations would still fail, because if not then literally anything can be argued to be making the sound of hoof clops behind you with just as much validity. The biggest offender of that problem is at 25:42 "the simplest explenation for the diversity of scripture" isn't "many diverse deities", it's no deities. 29:16 This next part isn't so much an argument against polytheism, more just a weird thing i noticed, but this is a problem for both monotheism and polytheism but in different ways. In the case of the monotheist it has to discredit other peoples experiences that don't adhere to their god, with no grounds that wouldn't devalue their own personal experiences (could be an emotional episode, could be hallucinations, could be lying, etc). Polythiest may excuse the number of experiences with a larger number of gods, but it still has to discredit other people's experiences at some point, when someone claims to have met a god that claimed to be the 1 true god. I guess you could argue that gods can lie like that, but then why ever listen to any gods if they can lie like that? 31:27 going back to my main point, it makes perfect sense to me that it is far easier to dissprove any single gods description than polythism, not because it's more likely but because it's a much more broad unfocused proposition, dissproving polythism takes specific arguments against polythism, but that would mean dissproving the posibility of any god existing at all, and like i said at the beginning, if you can define a god in a vauge unfalsifiable way counts then polythism will always have a get out of jail free card, but i also don't see any value in unfalsifiable beliefs. PS: English is not my first lenguage, if something is spelled wrong, too formal or makes no sense just know i tried :c PS2: I can't not see an among us crew member on the shelf.
I know that this isn't really the point of the video but as you brought it up I can't help but to talk about it. Trees from a biological standpoint are much less a type of plant in and of themselves. It is more accurate to say that Trees are more of a shape that plants can take.
Tbf though, this can start a whole nother philosophical debate about what constitutes a tree and what constitutes a bush. Gods I love philosophy. And I have polytheism to thank for that love!
I mentioned this in your epistemology video, but with you bringing up the non-resistant non-believer I feel it becomes even more relevant. Watching your content and the content/discussions of other polytheists, I have found myself sort of in the same spot as being described as "non-resistant non-believer," in that I do not have any personal experiences with deities. But clearly many many people claim to have experience with deities, and profess such experiences leading to beliefs that I can't solidly shoot down with arguments (as you point out in these recent videos). So in other words, I end up in a situation where I'm coming from atheism/nonbelief, have no personal experiences with deity, but also feel like to say they don't exist would be to invalidate the personal experiences of thousands of others. Is there a fairness in calling them all liars or mistaken? It hardly seems like it. But what would my own beliefs be considered if I don't do that yet still don't hold any relationship with deities because I have never had any deity-evidencing experiences? It feels like in my belief (or at least refusal to reject the beliefs and experiences of thousands of others) I'd be a polytheist, but I'd be lacking all practice or relationship with any deity and would be externally indistinguishable from an Atheist.
Acknowledging their existence is a big step, in my own experience. But no, experience with the gods isn’t required to come to this conclusion and be polytheist. What you do afterwards with this knowledge is up to you, always, as there are many paths to take. Good luck on yours!
This might have largely been the experience and position of the Godless Ones. My vid on them is linked in the description. They likely held that Gods existed but dont worship them. Its also entirely reasonable to be a pluralist atheist, holding a position based on your own experiences, but not seeking to invalidate others.
I worship a single, supreme god that does not deny the existence or possible existence of other deities. particularly Hinduism scriptures mention and praise numerous deities as if they are one ultimate unitary divine essence. I criticize Western theological and religious exceptionalism, focusing on a cultural dogma which held "monotheism" to be both fundamentally well-defined and inherently superior to differing conceptions of God. I view different deities to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence. For me a single god is central, but the existence or the position of other gods is not denied. I worship a single god from a pantheon of deities at a given time, depending on my choice, while accepting other deities and concepts of god. Its a middle position between unlimited polytheism and exclusive monotheism.
I think this should be required viewing for any atheist taking part in online arguments about divinity. Yeah some might think "of course, that's obvious" at some of these points, because anyone who doesn't know that the problem of evil is specific to a triomni god isn't qualified to use it in an argument. And personally, as an atheist, Occam's Razor is still kinda what I lean on even knowing about zebras. Sure, I might be proven wrong but as of now this is where I'm at. And that's why I call myself an agnostic atheist when pressed to specify. Of course, Occam's Razor is also why I think if I were to be convinced of any god's existence, I would probably conclude there are more out there. Let's take life on Earth as an example. Life exists on earth, we have proof of that. I have no reason to assume that Earth is special with regard to life being possible, so naturally it's probably just as likely to arise elsewhere. (obviously it's less likely on Venus, but given another planet with similar pre-life parameters as Earth, I have no reason to believe that the planet not being Earth would change anything). So, if I'm shown a god exists, I would now know that they can exist. So, provided there isn't any argument given for why that one is special or why others can't, it'd be reasonable to assume there's more of them.
I think I'm in a similar position: rationally and intuitively I think there could be entities out there who are often referred to as gods, but I personally haven't been convinced of their existence. However, what evidence/arguments I'm aware of for them would apply equally to at least a few different ones. So in the event I were to become confident that one of them exists the same type of reason is likely to convince me of multiple. Also, nice name @Storyspren
Telling someone "I worship Thor and wear his hammer proudly" usually elicits a response such as "You worship a movie character?" But watching your videos makes me more confident in telling people that I am a polytheist, without worrying about the strange looks I might receive. I should turn those interactions into a teaching moment and share who Thor really is, as well as the rest of the gods.
24:48 Fun fact this is somewhat correct Trees actually don’t exist from a taxonomic standpoint Since deciduous trees and coniferous trees don’t share a recent common ancestor they fail to form a monophyletic clade, therefore “Tree” is an invalid taxa
I love your content but TH-cam hasn't been notifying me when you post even when I rang the bell icon. I have to check your channel every couple of days
I think an argument on why genesis is relevant when discussing with christian is the fact their is a lot of elements that take that story literately, be it the idea of orginal sin, or the fact Jesus does refer to the flood as a literal event. The Buddhist concept of enlingtented beings becoming god like makes sense in a polytheistic concept too as a little addition.
The Bible also conflicts with reality in places that aren't recounting myths. And in some major, insulting ways; Romans 1:18-23 (which is often quoted by apologists) says that everyone "really" believes in the Christian God but just pretends not to because of "unrighteousness". (Christians tend to use it specifically against atheists these days, but 1:23 is specifically denigrating other gods.)
The literalist account of genesis comes up a lot for pragmatic and political reasons too, since a sizeable contingent of Christians like to advocate for "education reforms" that would have creation or intelligent design taught in schools as a scientific theory, despite it being a mythological account.
Matthew 24:38-39 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Now let me try: "The falling bomb went right down the ship's stack and into the boiler, causing an explosion that destroyed the ship instantly. It was a million to one shot, just like when Luke Skywalker used one shot to blow up the Death Star." Do I have to believe that Star Wars is literally true to tell this story?
@@fluffysheap No because star-wars was always seen as fiction, where as the Hebrew bible was seen as events that happened and where real, like genesis included on events Jesus would have thought where real, as he did with exodus. Plus with theology of original sin this wasn't just a fictional story but the explanation of suffering in the world, not just a parable. Which is more likely, that somehow that everyone from an age when people thought the sun rotated around the earth or that the earth was had a dome around it believed that this account of creation wasn't literal and that somehow, with knowledge they wouldn't have known about , made the creation story impossible. Or Ancient peoples with limited understanding of science would have believed the genesis account of their god creating the earth truth from god.
As someone who is raised Christian and kind of still am but thinking about leaving Christianity and head more towards Polytheism, I've always viewed each animals in the animal kingdom as creatures you'll see in any form of afterlife either in Polytheism or Monotheism or what have you.
I'm glad I stumbled across this video, because I find it incredibly interesting and surprisingly relatable. I grew up Mormon, and as such my beliefs of the time were oddly both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. Many of the arguments for or against God or gods that I heard simply didn't apply to my beliefs. A good example of this is in the idea of Divine Hidden Hiddenness. You see, Mormons believe in a sort of preparatory afterlife in which the open people described would directly be given that opportunity to directly find God. The atheists I met at the time while I was finding my own path simply didn't have the arguments relevant to me, and the ones they did were ones easily countered in ways similar to some of those mentioned in this video. While I am some flavor of atheist/agnostic now, this video reminded me of that point in my life while also showing me new perspectives I'd never considered before, and I'm very glad I found this video. Keep doing what you're doing mate! It's much appreciated.
I am Norwegian and pagan, and I always love watching your videoes for that reason-- but when you mentioned the zebra analogy I was so immediately excited! I have EDS and we often use the zebra analogy because it is rare, but also very underdiagnosed, so we like to say «hoofbeats in the hallway need to be seen to be believed» in hopes of having more doctors check for it! Anyways, keep being awesome!
What I don’t like is as a Christian is that only the loud conservative voices are heard..and as a bi girl and a witch it’s hard to stay a Christian Like I’m okay with norse Gods and other pantheons because I know their myths.
Today I was watching a video about The Dagda and my mom had a fucking meltdown she yell at me cuz I said "in just trying to learn about other religions" my mom said "there only 1 religion". Proceeded to list like 6 religions which made her madder. She then said you're a Christian and that's it nothing else. Good she didn't know I was a pagan that would've been hugely bad. Its Bull shit is what it is if I want to learn about something or worship something different from you then let me, all your doing is shoving me farther away from jesus. Can anyone relate to this? TL;DR conservative Christian mom has a mental brake down over me watching about the Celtic religion.
12:45 Plotinus addresses the ‘problem of evil’ with his point about it not having a positive, affirmative existence, but rather being a mere privation of the Good. There’s also the matter of the seirai and the way in which the Henads relate to the material world via emanation.
I loved this video and I'm probably going to send it to some of the people I know. A lot of Christians I know like to dismiss my beliefs by saying that the gods don't exist because "they are the fruit of my imagination" (even though, using that logic someone could say the same about God) and i should find God or I'll rot in hell. While some atheists I know simply say that the gods/God do not exist and most of the time they don't elaborate because "they know they're right and they don't want to get into a stupid argument" 💀maybe I'll be able to at least show them that it isn't completely impossible for the gods to exist. So thank you so much for this, we all appreciate the hard work you put in to create these videos.
I think it's a little unfair to accuse athiests of having a motte and bailey approach. It's important to remember that these conversations often start without an athiest knowing what it is you believe. For example: I believe that all of the major god-having religions I've spent any time investigating(for me, this is the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism) are made up. I'd also include any god I've ever heard of for whom interactions with humans are expected. If you think a particular ritual causes or is likely to cause a god to intervene in the material world, I think we have enough evidence to discount that. Were I to encounter a someone who identifies as a religious, I would probably make the assumption that they believe in a sort of god that I have good reason to believe doesn't exist. However, if they then specified that they were, say, a Spinozist, a pantheist, or some other form of deist, then I would have to concede that I merely lack a belief in their god. To me, this isn't a motte and bailey, it's merely me making an assumption, and then correcting my view if the assumption is not valid. It's basically a time saving measure, since the vast majority of the religious who engage online are from an Abrahamic tradition. Those are also the types of religious people who are more likely to try and impose their views on others, and I view stopping that as the primary reason for engaging. You're right that many of the arguments typically created to refute Christianity specifically don't fare so well when applied against other forms of God claim. I wouldn't necessarily describe that as "helping" polytheism. As an analogy: Let's say I described myself as an "a-cryptist". I don't believe in any cryptids. Let's just say that bigfoot is the cryptid with the most supporters. Were I to present an argument against bigfoot, I don't think it would be reasonable for a "cryptist" to say: "Ah, well that actually helps my belief in the Loch Ness Monster. You see, the widespread belief in cryptids demands an explanation, and the most likely explanation is that some sort of cryptid exists. Since we have good reason to believe it isn't bigfoot, that makes it more likely to be the Loch Ness Monster".
If the Bigfootists were claiming that Bigfoot is the _only possible_ cryptid, and that the truth of Bigfoot's existence is also proof that the Loch Ness Monster, Mothman, etc. don't exist (in the same way that Christianity asserts that its god is the _one true God_ and all others are false), then an argument against Bigfoot (at least in the sense of Bigfoot being the One True Cryptid) would "help" non-Bigfoot "cryptists."
@@kevincrady2831 I'm going to be honest. I can't find exactly where I think the logical break is, but I can 't accept the conclusion, and I think the abstracted version shows why. My justification for my belief in something shouldn't directly affected by how those who believe in something I don't define that thing in which I don't believe. Unless we restrict the sense in which it helps to something like "a direct comparison between the two ideas exactly", in which case, that definition commits the bigfootist to a stance they can't readily defend WRT every other cryptid, and therefore makes them probably wrong. But the "Bigfootist" defining bigfoot one way or another shouldn't affect the justification between a Nessieist and an a-cryptist
I would say that I find the gods unlikely: I am as of yet unconvinced that anything supernatural exists. If it does, I find polytheism more likely than any variant of monotheism that I know of. Though, even if the supernatural exists... that doesn't mean any gods do in fact exist.
@@BoboftheOldeWays Exactly, supernatural just refers to things which are not subject to the laws of nature. So if anything that we today consider to be 'supernatural' turns out to exist then it just means that our understanding of the laws of nature is incorrect/incomplete.
@@shadowdragon3521 We can, and should, safely assume that our current understanding of the laws of nature is deeply wrong. It’s highly useful, of course, but the way too many atheists refer to it almost as a sacred text is silly IMO.
Hmm, I guess I will also say I'm unconvinced of matterless minds, which are required of any definition of God I've heard of. I'm using supernatural as a catch all because there's such a wide variety of potential views that I can't realistically list them all.
@@leviangel97 Consider the fact that consciousness is poorly understood by the scientific community and there is no consensus of what causes it. One theory is that consciousness is related to neural oscillation (brain waves), so if consciousness is caused by electromagnetic activity then you could conceivably have a matter-less mind. Also consider that many people claim to have had out-of-body experiences in which they were able to in great detail describe things that happened that they should not have been able to see/hear.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.”
Mythic literalism has always been weird and fascinating to me. I can appreciate that people don't take things too literally - the world being cooked up in 7 days, the planet and the cosmos being the skull and remains of a dead jotun, etc. But then I always find myself asking, "how do you know what your god or gods are like if you believe that the stories are not literal?" How can we claim to know anything about the gods if the stories which provide us with information about their personalities, morality, and feats are all false, or at least written by flawed, mortal hands? And if they are not false, but also not literal, then what are they? How do we know what a god finds (dis)tasteful, or what their domain is? Can we say that Thor is a protector of humanity or that Hades is keeper of the dead if our source for that information is a story written by humans? Is it something that each person chooses as part of their hearth cult? That's reasonable enough, I suppose. But then it could be argued that one is putting whatever traits they want on a REAL entity, then worshipping it as if those assumptions were true. Which is fine, usually! But it raises questions for me, and could -- and surely has -- lead to conflict when two or more groups point their fingers at one another and say, "that's not how you worship ___!" At what point does a hearth cult become a headcanon for divine beings, and IF those divine beings are real and have traits and ideologies of their own, at what point does it become "disrespectful" to worship them in a capacity which they may not want you to? I suppose gods may not care, or see it that way. This may be a question from a mortal perspective. But still, I think it warrants philosophical consideration. But if we are to assume that the gods are real, then how can we learn about their nature if our sources are books and texts written by humans? Do the gods have traits, flaws, desires and dogmas, or is it up to the observer? And if it is up to the observer to choose what parts of a god they acknowledge, how do you know that your inspiration for your practice is a god and not just your 'headcanon'? It's like when you develop a crush as a child and start assigning all of these traits to a person that you don't REALLY know anything about until you get a chance to talk to them and get to know them. Is it wrong to act as though your imagined traits are reality? In the case of the crush, the answer is probably yes. But what about when your 'crush' is a GOD or GODDESS, and you CAN'T necessarily talk to them and get to know them directly? I love philosophy, and the concepts of Heathenry are beyond interesting to me. I can't say that I AM one, but I can say that I feel much, much more comfortable discussing and considering the Greek, Norse, or other polytheistic pantheons than I am considering monotheistic arguments. I started wearing Mjolnir around my neck after watching your videos for a time, and have had many wonderful experiences talking with people who saw my necklace and gave me a knowing, "ahhhh, I know what that is!" Perhaps I'm "growing out of the ground," as you say, or perhaps I am just incorporating elements of Heathen philosophy into my own, which is one of the fundamental parts of philosophy!
I think in terms of Pagan conceptions of gods the most intellectual and moral weight behind it is the ideas of the gods in the Timaeus which speaks of the perfect god the demiurge making the world out of pre eternal matter he then fashioned the gods also perfect images of himself to make the physical universe not through the disgusting act of murder but because god and the gods are good in and of themselves and according to the platonic view the universe has a world soul human beings to tap are also made up from that world soul and this is the connection 1 has with the divine demiurge. The God and the gods are without taint and have no mortal flaw 1 calls out to them if 1 is truly seeking to do that which is good. This also means things tradionally considered normal ''normal'' in Greek myths are to be rejected the gods for instance do not delight in rape murder or other forms of objectively evil stuff in other words certain aspects are in and of themselves evil because they contradict the demiurges nature and that which is evil ultimately cannot be godly. For the longest time I was wondering why did the concept of polytheism disgust so much but then I realized it's cause the gods themselves represented in Homer are inherently subjective in there morals god is not some inherently good being that creates because he is good in and of itself rather the gods create man as a format of an abortion. In this aspect they share the in the disgusting dogma of evolution that the concept that man's soul is a result of natural process in nature and not an divine creation from the gods who are perfect in this world view there is no objective right and wrong because in nature things are all immoral in every aspect. When 1 gets dualism you can trancend earthly morality for a higher plane of morality the reality itself starts to become an imperfect copy of the real reality where the almighty demiurge dwells and our purpose is to become more like the Demiurge to be more perfect in mind and soul. I think the creation happened like this the Demiurge used the pre existent matter to create the physical universe in a perfect origin he then created the gods to be perfect mirrior images of himself and those gods created the realm of man perfectly but humans have free will so we all do evil despite the gods wishes. we did not evolve from a single celled organism to an complex multi cellular organism over millions of years no the gods got the process right the first time the gods made intelligently designed
I am still having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around the concept of gods as anything other than metaphor, or as archetypes of qualities that we observe in either ourselves or the world around us. These are used to tell stories, and embody good qualities to be emulated as well as bad qualities to be avoided. I have been digging deep into pagan content online and I cannot find a modern pagan or polytheist explanation for the material existence of gods. I am open to the idea, but content creators in these spaces seem to be answering every question on the subject except for the one that matters the most, and it's driving me bonkers. Can someone please answer me this: is belief in the gods (and/or the concept of magic) as more than metaphor not mythic literalism?
The "greater good" explanation doesn't work when there is little to no apparent good to come out of the evil which has happened. I can imagine a universe in which evil exists, but where good always triumphs, and the good which results from the bad always outweighs the bad. That, however, is not the universe in which we live. Childhood cancer, for example, is unnecessarily cruel. Any good that comes out of it is not outweighed by the suffering that is caused. I see no possible universe in which a good god can exist, wherein he allows innocent children to die slow, painful deaths to diseases which cannot be prevented or cured. The same is true of the idea that evil makes us grow. That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger...except when it doesn't. Sometimes what doesn't kill you leaves you emotionally scarred for the rest of your life. Is God unable to allow only the kinds of evils which result in growth? If God's goal is for us to grow, then who does PTSD exist, or major depressive disorder? These things seem counterintuitive to that goal, robbing people of the resilience it takes to grow from a bad experience. Even if polytheistic gods aren't all powerful, there are still things that I feel I would do if I were in their shoes, which no gods seem to do for some reason. Why is there no god hanging out primarily in a children's hospital, providing healing to them? Why is it single, powerful people are able to commit great acts of evil, without being struck down in divine judgement, usually living the rest of their lives without justice? If I were a god, Putin would have a huge target on his back right now. If world leaders realized they had to behave honorably or else suffer divine wrath, I'd wager there'd be a lot less corruption in the world.
One could argue that in addition to the gods, there are other entities which are adversarial to humanity which the gods are in conflict with. So if the gods are off fighting some malevolent entities then it makes sense that they wouldn't necessarily have the resources to go around healing every child or delivering divine retribution to every corrupt leader. Plus we know Christians would just take credit for all of these deeds and that's a whole other can of worms.
@@shadowdragon3521 - In Catholic tradition, there are angels and demons in constant war with one another. I...don't know why the angels are necessary, especially the ones who guard the throne of God, if God is omnipotent and omnipresent, but whatever. Some angels are believed to be stationed to specific areas, or even specific people. This is how I imagine the gods would be with polytheism. Almost like Christianity is polytheistic in all but name... But say I'm a god, and I say, "This children's hospital is my domain. No children will die here under my watch." Even if there were some evil entities trying to sabotage me, you'd think the survival rate would be significantly raised by having a divine presence there. Assuming the gods are empathetic by nature, then if I had a chronic issue with evil entities killing children in my hospital, I'd send word to the other gods. Those other gods would say, "Oh, no they didn't! Fuck those guys! Let's get 'em!" They'd rally around the hospital, and those evil entities would think twice about coming back. I just don't see much reason to believe that is going on. Even if the battle were invisible, the effects of it would still be detectible.
@@TheZeroNeonix If you were a god, then you'd also be able to see the bigger picture. Maybe you'd really like to stay at a children's hospital and do everything you can to heal children all day long, but you'd understand that your power would be better spent working to rid the world of whatever enemy of humanity that is antagonizing you. It's like treating the symptoms vs treating the disease itself. Maybe just taking medication is better in the short-term, but surgery is necessary for long-term survival.
Taking Corona for instance I realized something: Some people hate it and some people love it. For instance someone who worked in retail and lost his job which really badly affected his family will hate Corona. But someone who had a debititating or stigmatizing illness in some form will be very happy to work from home. Let's say a bad psoriasis and people avoid you which means you have to take jobs far below your capability. Now that you work from home you are suddely equal. So one could claim that Corona was sent by the Devil while another could claim it was sent by God. A theodicy is tricky because we can't even agree with what is good. But that's not childhood cancer fair enough. Even though one could argue that you can grow from childhood cancer. Firstly there's the researchers looking for a cure. There's also the parents dealing with it. And even the child has the choice to accept it gracefully or become Schrödingkitten, drug lorg extraordinaire. If we go back to my first statement. We could ask: Why does childhood cancer exist? The answer wouldn't be "because God wanted" but "because cells work that way". And then you could say why can't they work differently? But then if they did, wouldn't that have other effects? Maybe you'd have old people with worn down teeth and joints existing forever because they just don't die. Or something. Science doesn't have good or bad, it just has effects and other effects. And then you could ask, well why have a world with natural laws then? But would you be happy in a magic world full of unpredictable wizards just getting wishes granted before they even pop up? Well, would you? Or maybe a world built just for you, population one? So tdlr the response would be that some natural evils exist because we exist in a largely deterministic world that we share with others and that's just strictly better than the alternatives. I think the argument for "greater good" is really sketchy but it cannot be actually ruled out.
I like my definition of what makes a god, a god: “A person, place, or thing of perceived agency that is seen as being emanate and/or transcendent in nature, whom forms of prayer and/or veneration is given to, in either the hope or expectation of some form of reciprocity/benefit in return.” The conversation usually ends right after I put this out...... Great video, btw!
I wish I would’ve been here at the beginning, I myself am an (agnostic) Atheist, I am willing to accept that there might be gods out there if evidence comes to me, until then I remain unconvinced of the existence of any gods and especially to the ones man has created.
If you're looking for hard evidence, then you're going to be waiting quite a while. I think most polytheists take their personal experiences with the gods as evidence, so if you'd like evidence to come to you then you should seek this out.
@@Buffaloguy01 for example if you leave an offering and request luck 6 months later maybe you land that big promotion or maybe you see an animal like a Raven after your offering that stares at you hell even seeing more crows than usual could be some form of response you just don't think of it as such same for paranormal things it is caught on camera there is plenty of evidence of that but atheism can't explain that I've personally seen what people call UFOs however I don't jump to the conclusion of aliens because in my view what we consider magic and what we consider science are one in the same for all we know our deities might just have technology for example the Ulfberht sword was seen as magic by europeans even the Norse to some respect and the process of making them even down to their inscription might've been considered magic whearas today we know they work better because the steel used was Crucible steel a thousand years before anyone else so they "magically" beat all other swords of the time but It is magic we however call it technology something for you to think about
@@DabobbyG937 if the gods are real then they have made their peace known and I chose not to follow them, but if they can’t prove themselves to be real beings in the universe what’s the point, especially since there very low stakes for unbelief (thankfully)
I was actually a non-resistant non-believer for about 20 years. When I started studying the Norse religion, I started hearing the Gods talking to me and further research pulled me into the fold. Thanks for mentioning them! When I was an atheist it was often a topic that was brought up because a lot of monotheists didn't understand my premise and I thought I was crazy.
I believe in the Gods. But if the definition is creator of existence, then I don't believe any being has that title as existence is eternal. The Gods, just like us are part of existence. They're more powerful and larger in scope than mortals. My reasoning for them exiting, is that if you venerate them they will reveal themselves to exist. So they exist, but the nature of the gods I do not know.
As an atheist married to a polytheist, I can tell you from experience that we have very interesting conversations, especially with my love of exploring the history of the many stories we tell.
I don't know what's the difference, but when you characterized atheism, I'm instantly hooked. Within 3 mins. Great job! At least I feel this one is better than the last one. Maybe it's because atheists aren't the "spiritual" types typically?
I just found your channel, and this video in particular is something I've been wanting to find. As a polytheist who watches a handful of atheist channels, I often have the thought that these arguments, both atheist and Christian, don't really hold up again polytheism. I feel that simply getting rid of the tri-omni god idea makes things much harder to argue against. That and the lack of dogmatism within at least most polytheistic religions make it so much easier to believe in and live than christianity.
As far as the problem of evil with the religion of Shinto goes it's not really a thing mainly because in Shinto there is no expectations for the Kami or God's to act in a way which is seen as pleasant but that's also how at some pagans look at things well.
A secular scientist would not only assume that it is a horse and not a zebra, they would be required by science to actually investigate and prove or disprove that it is a horse. They would probably end up sequencing its entire genome. Religion would tell you it's a zebra and prohibit you from turning around (that's called faith). A little example from personal experience. I once was praying in a mosque and asked the scholar (Mulana) why do we lift our right index finger three times at the end of prayer? He told me "The prophet did it and so we also do it, we do not question it" in Islam you even have the concept of Bila Kayf (without asking how). Evil is a human construct. Even a virus or disease is not evil and is simply propagating its dna/rna. The corona virus or the ebola virus are no more evil than a human being. What annoys me about theism is this idea that somehow the universe revolves around humankind. The universe doesn't give a crap about mankind and will continue existing billions of years after humans are long gone. Life has been around for around 3 700,000,000 years. homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000.
@accelerationquanta5816 The universe has been around for billions of year before we crawled out of a pond and will be around for billions of years long after we've killed ourselves off.
As an atheist, I can confirm that no matter my beliefs, your beard is, in fact, omnipotent
As a Atheist, I second this.
Third.
As a polytheist, I feel like the beard by itself should be in the pantheon.
^
Fourth
I'm glad that you pointed out that most polytheists do not believing in mythic literalism. Most of these myths are just allegories to help ancient people understand various concepts.
this is especially true in Buddhism
100%. Non-polytheists generally hold the misconception that polytheists believe literally that Thor is in the sky with a literal hammer, Ganesh has an elephant head, or Jupiter throws lightning bolts. Or they think that we're doing revisionism and that the ancestors actually were mythic literalists. It's so important to create awareness of the fact that it's generally much more nuanced than this and always has been. Take our myth of Baldr the "bright god," which is a clear allegory for the "death" of the sun in winter (mistletoe being a well-understood symbol for winter in at least Celtic and Germanic traditions), and who later returns to our world after Ragnarok. It shows that the ancients understood many of the myths to be allegorical. Hindus, from one of the few uninterrupted polytheisms, also often understand myths as allegories, so it's not just a modern "neo-pagan" thing. Religious literalism is very Abrahamic and "new atheists" usually don't understand this.
Trying to understand here - What’s the difference, then, between a polytheist and an atheist (or nontheist) who appreciates mythology as metaphors, literature, and a rich source of idioms?
@@pechaa There are different types of polytheists and different perspectives. I can speak as a former "new atheist" and my own current polytheist perspective. When I was an atheist, I appreciated the myths as stories. In the same way you or I could appreciate symbolism and themes in Star Wars or superhero movies without believing they are any more than a totally fictional cultural product. As a polytheist, I see mythical themes, for example, the non-literal aspects of Thor, like his association with rain and thunder (symbolizing him as a giver of energy and abundance) or his hammer (a symbol of protection from the forces of chaos) and believe that there is not a god with a literal hammer, but there is a real god or divine sentient energy in our universe who can be better understood through these symbols. I don't think the being represented by Thor (or possibly by another figure in other pantheons) wields an actual hammer, but the hammer in the story helps me understand that it is in his nature to protect and preserve order. And his association with rain helps me understand he blesses with abundance and growth. We have evidence that ancient people saw the myths in similar ways. So I believe in an actual being, just not with the literal beard and hammer, while an atheist would not believe in a real being/entity, but maybe value the themes like the archetype of the protector, in the same way Superman could serve as the archetype of the protector but not be real.
@@ScottJB Thanks. I am pretty sure I understand what you’re saying. I am ex-Catholic these past 30 years, since I was a teenager, and an atheist for pretty much all those years. I do value pagan mythology as metaphor, humanism, and a framework for our experience that enriches our language and ways of thinking. And I can imagine gods, fairies, kami, and other spirits as non-sentient “forces,” probably figuratively so.
But perhaps Thor disagrees. It is downpouring and thundering right on top of us here in Northern Virginia as I write.
As an atheist, belief wise, it comes down to the gods being unmeasurable and intangible outside of individual experience. But this style of polytheism is thoroughly wholesome and intellectually stimulating to me. The only real problem I have with religion is when people are made to serve a moral code, rather than moral codes being made to serve us. Otherwise, believe and practice what you want, if you’re happy I’m happy
no it is utterly riddled with logical fallicies my dude.
@@DarthFetid cool story bro
Moral codes aren’t bad, tho. We don’t need gods to have morality and ethics; it’s entirely possible to build a good moral code out of the secular worldview. But a particular society’s moral codes, be they rooted in cultural values or local wisdom, are sometimes best preserved and passed down by religious tradition.
@@DarthFetid do you think monotheism had less contradictions?
People like Hitler are the result of this "morality is what we make it" bullshit
A wise man I know once told me that the Polytheist and the Atheist live in the same world. Both look around and see the world around us as ultimately what we're engaging with for the most part. The difference being that we believe there are numinous presences behind it and Atheists don't. A Polytheist will see Zeus or Thor or Shango or Indra within the force of lightning. An Atheist sees lightning. Either way, we both acknowledge that it's a powerful force
So basically Atheists see things as they are, while polytheists need to make up stuff to satisfy their childish urges of imagination?
The only problem being that one party thinks it's magic.
@@uncoherentramblings2826 Problem, eh? We don't have problems with other people's religions around here, friend. We respect that you don't believe. Please respect that we do.
@@uncoherentramblings2826 and what? God is fine tho? goofy
@@uncoherentramblings2826 As long as youaccept the laws of physics, it doesnt matter. You theorethically could thing its from gods and the physical measurements that physics deliver and sources.
As long a you accept physical proven explaination that neither seek to debunk or prove god or magic, wseriously you can thing what you want.
"Yes, my beard is in fact omnipotent."
Then why hasn't it's playlist been updated in a year!?
Checkmate, polytheists.
Oh, my... Now we lost :(
Don't point out the discrepancies just nod and walk along
Checkmate Lincolnites reference!
@@extrahistory8956 I think it's the 'checkmate atheists' meme but your reference of atunshei shows you to be a being of taste and culture
For a minute I felt attacked as an atheist, "I wouldn't use those weak arguments against a polytheist! He doesn't usually strawman us this bad?!" But then I realized I'm not the kind of atheist to attack people's beliefs and therefore probably not the kind being talked about.
*shrug* I actually agree with most of the video though, polytheism makes way more sense than monotheism.
What I did was utilized some of the stronger atheist arguments in literature. The ones I think hit the hardest are PoE and Simplicity. But when used against monotheists, I think Divine Hiddenness and Non-Cognative objections also hit really hard. Objections to polytheism usually have some kind of appeal to contradictions between traditions. I'm probably going to have to make a dedicated video on that and the pluralistic approach that I take to address that objection.
@@OceanKeltoi those are some strong arguments; PoE and Divine hiddeness have always been hard walls against my belief in Christianity. But I don't think they apply to polytheism, not even PoE. Even if every one of the gods only meant good for us evil could still arise in the conflict between how they approach doing that. Like a divorced couple fighting over a child... only there are more than 2 parents and they have control over metaphysical concepts of reality. The kid might be loved but they are going to need some counseling when they grow up ;)
Simplicity is probably the reason I can't be a heathen, but I don't think it's strong enough to really attack another's belief over either.
I would love to see a video about how you approach any contradictions though, because that probably would be the angle I took if I was going to try to pick apart polytheism.
@@jasonrobertson9618 christianity could make their arguments strong if they they declared satan as a separate god and became a bitheism? Duotheistic? Religion instead.
Both god and satan equally all powerful desiring the universe to exist in different ways and neither one has the power to remove the other, it is simply up to humanity to decided how to live within the chaos that is created from both gods.
One desiring preservation and the other desiring change.
@@ThatKid22101 it would go a long way in making it make sense that is for sure. Growing up I did enjoy those old movies that depicted God and the devil playing chess to get our souls, usually played by the same actor (just wearing red vs white)
They could even keep their moral dichotomy, though I think it would be more interesting your way, and it would still make more sense. As is they have to fall back on "God done did it and yous cant knows the why" and that is just so... unconvincing.
@@ThatKid22101 Since Christianity generally accepts the "Trinity" (3 distinct and separate beings or personalities in some mysterious one Divine Being) it wouldn't be much of a stretch to make it a Quadrality, with Satan being the 4th "personality". (a case of divine multiple personality disorder?) But then, since the attributes the Bible attaches to Satan actually better reflect the attitudes and actions of YHWH who's to say they aren't reversed, or even one and the same. Satan never actually does anything "evil" in the Bible unless and except under the direction or direct permission of YHWH.
I mean being an agnostic atheist myself I don't deny the possibility of there being gods, I just want to see evidence before I accept it as fact.
I find substantiated reasons enough, but i basically agree.
then your not an atheist, in my atheist opinion. i am a hardliner.
@@DarthFetid
Why? I don't accept that the god of the Bible exists, nor the gods of Norse myth; hence I'm an atheist when it comes to that.
@@devinsmith4790 I think Darth Fetid’s trying to say that they think you’re an agnostic rather than an atheist, which is true from a certain philosophical standpoint, but the phrase ‘agnostic atheist’ communicates that well
@@DarthFetid So, you’re a gnostic atheist?
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia? He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.
Occom's razor is very often (ironically) simplified as to miss part of its potency. I like the way Einstein put it: "The goal of all theory is to make the irreducible as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
It's that last part that people tend to forget. A more complex explanation can be the correct/favorable one if it also accounts for more of the data.
Granted, you still get medical zebras. And the progression of science is based on hunting hypothetical zebras.
So I'm not disagreeing with anything said. Just thought it worth expanding on a bit for the purpose of clarity.
This was a good clarification. I appreciate you posting it.
Basically what Plato is telling you there is that you're the prisoner in the cave, the outside world is the ideal world, the cave is our material physical world, and all our perceibable reality is simply shadows, inferior forms from the ideal superior of the ideal world. This is the common interreptation o fthe myth used to explain the existence of a superior plane of existence over ours, but the other part is related as a ocnfirmation of it's existence, since in order to understand the objects around us we necessarily need a proper definition of them. This is what comes form the ideal world, the idea of something, which is necessary for us to define that something.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I'm sorry, what?
How did you get Plato's allegory of the cave and an argument for a "higher plane of existence" out of a simple explanation of Occom's razor?
@@taproot0619 Plato's allegory doesn't appeal to Occam's razor. It really doesn't address that. This comment was to other response lol. Sorry about that
@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I thought that might be the case, but I wanted to make sure.
If for nothing else, then to make sure the person you wanted to read that reply actually does lol!
These are definitely the kind of nuanced conversations that are very lacking and sorely needed in the TH-cam sphere. Again, I'm super stoked you've taken up bringing these topics some attention!
I'm one of them there polytheistic atheists. I left Christianity when I was in my teens, when I realized that the very idea of Satan was evil, but that Christian theology falls apart without it. And realized that if so many reasonable humans had worshiped multiple gods long ago, there's no reason I couldn't do that today, even if I were the only one (I soon discovered I wasn't the only one).
About 20-ish years ago, when I was in my late 30s. I was listening to to a panel discussion between a Christian Minister, a Rabbi, and an Imam (no, the discussion did not take place in a bar, believe it or not), and they all agreed that, despite the differences in their faiths, they *knew* monotheism was more valid than polytheism, because our modern scientific theories all meld better with a monotheistic worldview than a polytheistic one. And I thought to myself: "Yeah, that's because our modern scientific theories were crafted by people living within a monotheistic culture, and so that's how they framed their metaphors to explain their discoveries."
So I started playing a game of reframing our modern scientific understanding with polytheistic metaphors. And suddenly, when I looked at the world, it was like one of those ambiguity illusions (duck/rabbit, two profiles/vase), and my view of the world would flip between theist and atheist at a blink, without any loss of reciprocity, comfort, or beauty. And these days, it's mostly settled on the atheist side of the coin.
I believe that any gods worth worshiping, should they exist, would respect my decision to focus my attention on building ethical and loving bonds with my fellow mortals on Earth. And any god that *demands* worship doesn't deserve it.
I’m a Norse Pagan, and I watched this with my agnostic fiancée. It was a really interesting conversation starter! Thank you for putting so much work into this!
I wouldn't say these arguments helps polytheism, they are just immune to the arguments against monotheism.
I think 'help' is meant as in a net-positive; from a purely mono-theistic perspective, seeing that this arguments don't affect polytheism makes it look more appealing.
From an atheistic perspective, it's irrelevant
Monotheism sucks all the oxygen out of the room when it comes to philosophical and theological conversation. Anytime you are decreasing the monotheistic domination of conversation you are basically expanding the room for polytheistic voices.
Full agreement here. In a purely philosophical space, deflating one philosophy does not fill another. You still have to show your assertions to exist.
@@rogertheshrubber2551 I completely agree. I'm an atheist myself. But I would much rather have interesting conversations with people who have interesting beliefs than to have one more conversation with a monotheist who repeats the same dumb shit that I've heard thousands of times at this point.
I found myself over and over repeating the word counterargument, because why would a counterargument matter to a completely seperate argument from the one it's supposed to counter
As an ex-atheist now-pagan myself I must say that, having been exposed to philosophy and theology in atheist circles, it was philosophically a smoother transition for me from atheism to polytheism than I expected - despite the astonishingness of the UPG i experienced.
This video is an pleasant surprise.
sibling pagan! i couldnt have said this better!
greetings and welcome to the community!
I'm a atheist and I am trying to understand how to become a pagon. I don't know how.
@@therealivydawg becoming a pagan in itself requires nothing more than a desire to learn, explore, and find something in common with some deity. I personally try to connect with: Väinämöinen Ancient Finnish hero / God of wisdom and knowledge. of course I worship other Ancient Finnish gods such as the Thunder God Ukko. and some other gods of different pantheons such as Ra and Odin. but in the end there is not only one way to be a pagan but it is a slightly different thing for everyone, each with its own path. so the only thing you need is a desire to learn and reflect on yourself.
@@therealivydawg It's quite simple, my friend. Just begin worshipping. Do you have some Gods you'd like to worship? Then do it. Build a shrine for Them, learn some basic offering rituals, and just do it. Open your heart and mind to it. Read up on lore, history, and philosophy from the ancient world. Go out and do things associated with the Gods you are trying to worship. Do you wish to worship Poseidon? Maybe go to the sea. Do you wish to worship Ra? Maybe try spending some time in the Sun contemplating its importance. It's all quite easy. There might be a few learning curves here and there as you re-work your brain towards thinking like a Polytheist (it can be a struggle for some; especially those who refuse to change) but it can be done. May the Gods be with you and may our ancestors inspire you
As a newer pagan, without knowing many others around me, it's always great to see this content. It helps so much when trying to explain or "argue" with others. It's nice to have this video to reference!
23:51 speaking of omnipotent beards, I for one would love to see that make a comeback sometime
To me the issue with Divine hiddenness only comes into play in traditions which put belief before action. This is very specifically an Abrahamic/montheist issue in most cases. Even if we assume that there are a specific set of ethics encouraged or required by the Divine, seeing belief as required before ethics reduces the meanfulness of, and thus the importance and meaning of those ethics. The issue with the problem of Diversity is similar. We have limits to our knowledge, and in our ability to understand things beyond a certain level. To me, different faiths/pantheons are different language. If I explain my perspective in French, and you don't speak French, it doesn't matter how good my argument is.
The philosophy videos you have been doing have been really helpful. I appreciate these concepts being explained in easy digestible ways. :D
The sound of clopping on the street behind could be a horse, a zebra, or a centaur. But the set of circumstances that would make the items on that list possible get more complex as we progress through it, and justifying a claim for any item being the source of the sound requires increasingly more evidence.
As a Neoplatonist, the whole "problem of evil" falls apart when one realizes that the tri-omni qualities often ascribed to the gods (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence) have different definitions within Platonism than they do within Abrahamic contexts. For example, omnipotence in Platonism refers to the fact that the gods presently *do* all things that are physically possible, not that the gods could perform random acts of whimsy in a theoretical scenario. Omnibenevolence means the gods love all of humanity equally and bestow gifts to everyone at different times, including your enemies. Omniscience means that the gods possess all knowledge and have infinite intellective faculties in the present moment, not that they are railroading the future on a predestined path.
In other words, the gods do all that is *possible.* If it were at all possible to exist in a world without evil, then we would already be in one.
Love the way you articulate yourself.
As an athiest, this was extremely engaging food for thought.
Atheist here (and I'd count myself an ally, don't throw rotten fruit please). I agree that a lot of these arguments work very well only against specific conceptions of what is usually a single god. Polytheism usually doesn't suffer as much, I believe, because the sources polytheists have with which to rebuild their ancient religions are scattered, few in number, and from various sources who may not even care about getting the nuances of these divine myths down with any degree of accuracy to how those early heathens might have communicated their beliefs.
It's just a natural (and I hope uninflammatory, though I may be more callous than I realise) consequence that by virtue of having less in-depth sources to pull from that claim divine inspiration and infallibility, polytheists are left with MANY fewer vulnerabilities. Their claims are, when you step outside of those few mythic literalists, by and large unfalsifiable. Christians who are loath to give up any of those omni traits or most of what Paul said, though? In my opinion, simple logic dismantles those viewpoints.
Polytheists have a greater-strength version of what very liberal and allegorical christians have -- a nebulous form of greater power which we can't comprehend with any wholeness, and who may not even be accurately-relayed by the authors of the bible, making the number of logical or evidential arguments they fall prey to significantly smaller than the mythic literalists, who are under much greater theological restrictions because they make the motte-claim and then have to defend it instead of retreating to the bailey of the liberal christian or polytheist. Polytheists are just up-front about the fact (most of the time) that you cannot demonstrate your deities to exist, and you don't push your religions on us, and don't seem bothered when people don't believe in the same (or any) gods as you do. So generally I have no problem with polytheists that aren't pushing dangerous woo-woo.
I have to say though, I think your speculation on monotheistic gods being seen as 'contenders' with atheism in a probabilistic sense is really weird. Most of the world's population of theists were raised with a particular religion, and the largest of these religions have big perceived consequences for falling away from the faith, with many many people feeling as though they will be judged, ostracized, or will cause loved ones distress and pain for falling away. They have heavily-entrenched personal biases and legitimate concerns/fears (particularly of Hell, in Christian and Muslim cases) that may cause them to give these 'cumulative cases' or probabilistic arguments more weight than they deserve. Or maybe they don't want to give up the vague sense of spirituality, since it can feel like you're losing something, somehow, when you're separated from even a form of deism -- some notion of magic or the supernatural has been cut off from you, and that can be enough to create a bias.
Whereas I and many other atheists/agnostics actively sought relationships with any gods who would listen, while continually running the odds. I personally WANT to believe in gods. I'd LOVE to believe in miracles and magic, souls, and potential afterlives. But when I'm intellectually-honest with myself, I know it's FAR more likely that I will be wrong, mistaken, or deceived, if ever I think I've witnessed something supernatural/divine in nature.
Frankly put, it sucks. I'd love to believe. But I can't choose my beliefs.
When I was framing them as contenders I was talking about in the philosophical scene, not broader culture. I think if we consider the general sense of probability in broader culture, theism is seen as far more likely. And in America, specifically Christianity. When you get into philosophy, Atheism is far more strongly represented, but still generally seen as competitive, even if there are philosophers who hold strongly to one side or the other. William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher / debater, regards Graham Oppy, an atheist philosopher / debater, as a strong opposition, for example.
@@OceanKeltoi Well yeah, the popular thing is going to be seen as more likely true in broader culture, but what I was pointing out was with regard to philosophy. Philosophers are much more likely not to believe in a god than to believe in one (atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.). Given that theists make up such a big portion of the population, I would have assumed from the point it seems you were trying to make that these numbers were far more in line with 47.5/47.5/5, or something. But even with the considerable factors for bias theists have, with damnation on the line and such, that doesn't seem to inflate their numbers in their philosophical representation to be roughly equivalently competitive.
Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to communicate there. If so I apologize, but thank you for replying at all. Enjoyed the video.
@@CantonWhy Yeah, I see how you were interpreting it. What I was more communicating was not that there's an equal divide in population of philosophers. As you pointed out, most philosophers land on atheism, which I believe I referenced earlier in the video at the beginning of my comment on Occam's Razor, because the appeal to simplicity is seen as very convincing, as is the Evidentiary Problem of Evil. However, even in light of that, a lot of atheist philosophers will comment on the challenge presented by theist philosophers and that the intellectual game of chess between them is very much a respectful and competitive one. Such that with respect to the argument for likelihood, it can be seen as quite competitive, even if there are personal opinions of various philosophers as to where that likelihood lands.
But I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and I'm happy to help clarify things. I appreciate the good faith questions.
@@OceanKeltoi Ah! I see. Fair enough. Makes sense now, thanks for the extensive replies.
Okay. I know I'm normally that guy who occasionally drops by and posts puns but I figured I'd actually write something somewhat serious.
I'm an Atheist but arguing for atheism/against theism was never really my cup of tea. I never really take issue with matters of faith unless it is being forced upon others or being used to justify harming others and things of that nature, otherwise I just keep to myself.
I must admit that I find most (if not all) of your content fascinating. I've always wanted to learn about Norse Polytheism (many of my ancestors were from the area where it was prominent in history) but I think that my interest is purely academic but regardless, if one day I were my interests in Norse Polytheism were to change from purely academic, I could always just keep watching.
It now occurs to me that the two pun comments I have made on this channel have been about graves and corpses. I hope it has been Humerus because I may have just made a deathly mistake.
Even if atheism proves to be true, it can't destroy my relationship with the world around me. I can't help but find spiritual experiences
Science only describes matter, so it can never disprove the spirit. The spirit can only be known by conscious experience and your experience is the only real thing you have.
When all spirituality is broken, there is only the science of reality: that science is often more interesting than any fiction you could use to describe the world, assuming you're not an idiot.
@@christopherreichle6670 quantum physics and string theory already prove that matter as we experience it is an illusion and that matter is dependent on consciousness.
The vedas already described the atom and knew the earth spins around the sun and the sun around the center of the galaxy. This was thousands of years ago while europe still believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago.
The idea that consiousness arises from matter slowly fades from science. Your spirit may be broken but that doesnt mean spirituality is broken. It just means you turned away from it.
@@Apebek quantum physics is just the study of the quantized. Basically, studying the really small. It still treats matter as a real thing.
As for strong theory, it's not even proven yet. So far models require a number of dimensions we don't currently have; but even if it was proven it doesn't prove matter illusory as it is actually describing the composition of matter.
About your retort on spirituality: I never turned away from it, it simply doesn't exist. My remark was stating one day spirituality will die when our primitiveness fades and we don't rely on fairly tales to do our thinking for us.
@@christopherreichle6670 I cannot explain it logically but to me mind comes before matter.
Math decribes matter, but numbers themself are not material. So from a scientific view you can prove that numbers don't exist. But everybody knows what a number is. Every number is an entity with a certain character. We work with them to manipulate or try to understand physical things. Numbers are a spiritual representation of matter. "two" doesn't exist. It is just one and another one. If you add another you'd call it "three".
What I try to say is that the mind goes beyond the limitations of the physical world. How can the inferior be the creator of the superior?
Spiritual means that it is not material, so it is logical that science will never touch it and the reason why science cannot explain consciousness.
The physical world cannot exist without consciousness because without it there is nothing that can have an opinion on that matter. Time and space wouldn't exist because there would be no reference point to measure it from.
I don't understand quantum mechanics but I heard of particles that can exist at two places at once. Also about entanglement where two particles react instantly two eachother while being lightyears apart.
Brilliant as always! I nominate you as the First Horseman of Polytheism.
I'm new to Paganism and Polytheism in general but your points on why the gods let suffering happen and that we have a relationship and responsibility from the gods to care for our Earth is what endeared me to Paganism. I feel more in touch with the gods, knowing I have a responsibility to the world and also that the gods aren't wholly good, which to me was always the greatest flaw of Christianity and such religions.
Loving these philosophy videos!
Growing up, I realized quite early that I was not monotheistic. I felt called by nature and understood it was alive. When I confessed my struggle to my Baptist father, he laid a question before me: If you don't think you are a Christian, what do you think you are? Not only did he acknowledge that faith was a person experience, but his example inspired me to try to understand what faith was. By the time I was a high school senior, I had frustrated monotheists with my questions, so I was reading deeper into the myths I read growing up. This is where I find your explanation on polytheism's diversity so encouraging because that is my experience!
I also had the pleasure of sitting down with a friend that identifies as an atheist, asking if this was due to a lack of belief in gods or a lack of faith. He asked me to clarify, so I reminded him that faith is simply complete confidence in someone or something. Instead of getting caught up in titles and labels, what if spirituality was connecting with what you hold as your personal truth about life? I asked if science was any different when you consider that people place faith in how it explains the world we live in. Could that not be spiritually fulfilling to know in your core being that this is truth? He smiled at me, saying he wished monotheists made compelling points like that.
It is my truth that the divine is not limited to the structure humanity transcibes to it, but that it reveals itself to the individual in a way that the person can perceive it. Just as two people can eat the same food and have opposite taste about it or react differently to stimulus of any kind, faith is found within only after looking there to find it. I also agree with Ocean that we do not choose our faith, for that is how we as individuals connect to the divine. Great video as always, sir! I always direct people to your channel for indepth explanation of polytheism.
When opposing Occam's Razor, it's also worth noting that even on a logical level, Reductionism ( i.e. oversimplification or selection bias) is also a fallacy therefore we can conclude a standard of simplify where possible but not so much that your model is miopic
If you go for the simplest possible explanation, you can't beat "God did it" or "It's God's will", however, that doesn't explain anything. What Occam's Razor suggests is that, among all the hypotheses with the same explanatory power, the one that makes the least assumptions is probably the closer to the truth.
I’m a big ole dumb dumb smoothbrain who thinks the gods are just kinda neat, but this was super interesting and cool! Also, wow some of those earlier arguments in the video were ones I used as a shitty highschool edgelord atheist.
This is why for my part I don’t actually care to argue against polytheism. I don’t do much arguing at all, to be fair, since I genuinely only care about others’ beliefs if they cause harm, and I don’t think most religious beliefs do.
But insofar as I could argue, I personally don’t think polytheism is that unlikely. I don’t personally believe, but in my case it really is just a matter of non-belief when it comes to polytheism. And I actually think that if I ever came to believe in any sort of deity again, I’d end up in polytheism.
welcome to the community if you so choose. greetings from Finland.
@@tietajavaskimaan296 I’ve been watching Ocean’s videos at least for a little while now.
He’s certainly one of my favorite creators that I regularly watch. And as an atheist, I’ve never felt that it’s an unwelcoming space he’s got going here. And it’s always entertaining and informative.
Ocean, Calon, as well as Wolf (though I haven’t watched his content as much) were three people whose content helped push me the final step out of that annoying “angry atheist” phase.
I guess that’s a long way of saying…thanks
@@lucideandre it is very good to hear. good day or night to you wherever you are.
Polytheism is nonsense
Appeal to Simplicity: The point of the naturalist's occam's razor argument is that deities aren't a necessary component to explain the natural world and its operations. Saying that deities could still exist despite that is a non sequitur. Sure, things could be more complex than the simplest "horse" case, but if so then, like in House, you're going to have to run tests and prove your diagnosis of "zebra", or more accurate in this case, "unicorn". When you get down to it, a logically sound occam's razor can't be countered with arguments at all, it can only be countered by invalidating a premise or providing solid prof that the more complex case is the reality.
Exactly. Occam's Razor is not a rule, but both a heuristic and a description of probability, nothing more.
Got this video showing up in my recommendeds and it led to me checking out a bunch of your channel. Just wanted to come leave a comment because I really appreciate what you've been doing here. I'm also an ex-Christian whose spiritual journey has led me towards embracing polytheism and working with multiple different gods. The popular discourse around theism vs atheism has long been one which I feel left out of, christians and counter-christians shouting each other down and pretending like nothing else even exists worth a mention. But your videos, your thoughtful approach to these topics, your respect for other cultures and other ways of being outside of the colonialist narrative, have been really uplifting for me, and I feel much more secure in accepting my experiential reasoning towards polytheism as a rational one. Keep up the great work, and may the gods bless you!
Thank you so much ^_^ i’m glad this channel is helping. You’ve pretty much articulated exactly what I’m going for with this channel so I very much appreciate you.
It is a phenomenological world. We are made of light. Our knowledge is photocognitive.
As an atheist and naturalist, I appreciate your care, not to strawman the arguments.
Fun fact the original name for House was "Chasing zebras, Circling the Drain."
Also as an "atheist" my approach to deities, other than certain depictions of YHWH, is largely "my monkey brain can't tell the difference."
In 7 years of studying Philosophy and considering the question of religion I have never considered, nor been taught by, or read anybody who considered polytheism. While I still have my reservations, believing that any religious experience had can be explained by neurobiology, sociology, and anthropology, and that the likelihood of any deity or deities existing as they are concieved of by people, providing that one or many do exist, is substantively less likely than a deity that is either inconceivable or non existant and barring any evidence to the prior, I find the latter more compelling.
In any event, I greatly appreciated this video and found it fascinating. Thank you for the novel insights, it was a delightful watch.
10:58 Given that you usually close out your chapters with something witty, the second you brought up Woodward's Zebra I predicted you were going to make a Monty Python coconut joke at the end of the chapter. I know your personality and dry sense of humor, and it's a joke that writes itself, so you could almost say I used Occam's Razor to make my prediction.
I really enjoyed the video, and you're raising some very good points. Especially about mythic literalism, which I try endlessly to avoid on the rare occasion I let myself get suckered into some kind of ontological debate. It's low hanging fruit and applies to very few practitioners of any brand of theism. In my opinion, it should only be brought up in debates regarding said mythic literalism being taught in lieu of science in public schools.
TLDR: Thanks for the videos. I might be a heretical Christian, perennialist, Judeo-monolatrist, or a full-blown polytheist. Please let me be a productive member of your coalition. I love your take on faith, after all. You opened my mind to many life-changing ideas. May your pantheon bless you with wonder and adventure. I’m looking forward to this video!
I’ve been binging your videos for 9 months, and this is my first comment, I think. I just wanted to say thank you very much for providing a very interesting perspective in regard to how our world may function amidst gods. In fact, I must admit that you have many compelling arguments that I personally love. Recently, I’ve been talking to my father a lot about the inconsistencies that I loathe in Christianity. I’m basically at the point where I definitely feel like a heretic if I still even classify as one. Ultimately, I have a really hard time defining what I really am. However, your videos have helped me feel more comfortable about searching for the truth in our universe. I’m going to attempt to label myself even though I don’t like labels per se. All right, I think I’m simply some type of perennialist. I do believe that it’s the most honest worldview since it claims that none of us can quite possibly know everything. Still, many of us are close to and desperately seek the truth. However, I am very open to the faiths of others and I might be willing to say that their traditions are true to a certain extent. Honestly, I’m not confident enough to state that any human could ever fully figure the truth of divinity out. That being said, I think we all owe it to ourselves to try. Long story short, I know some form of divinity must be real. All in all, I like how you express your faith and I want you to know that although I still revere the God of the Abrahamic faiths, I hope your pantheon and community of faith are treated with the utmost respect. In other words, I could also be considered a monolatrist with a special connection to this one God. Maybe that makes me just as much of a polytheist as you! Who knows!? But I think there is a beauty to not knowing. Good luck with your journey and life and may your gods bless you with a wonderful saga worthy of a place in the Eddas! I pray that someone like me can be a part of your coalition for peaceful coexistence and enriching the lives of our neighbors. Thanks for opening my mind to so many beautiful ideas.
My friend, you would not be the first Christian or even Monotheist to be friendly towards our people and our Gods. When you get some time today, look up the biography of a man named Nonnus of Panopolis. He was an archbishop of the Catholic Church that is famous for the Metabole (a paraphrase of the Gospel of John). However, he's also famous for the Dionysiaca: the longest Greek epic poem. Nonnus wrote the poem in honor of Dionysos (the Greek Wine God) and it is to this day hailed as one of the most comprehensive pieces of literature on Dionysos' myths. Guess which one Nonnus wrote first? Believe it or not, he the wrote the Metabole first! He was a a Christian (a high-ranking man of the cloth, no less) and he wrote the longest poem in honor of a deity other than Jesus. And this was during the 5th Century CE. This is but one example of the potential for peace between Christians and Polytheists. Know that you are on the right path!
welcome and may your God or Gods be your support. greetings from Finland.
and when it comes to heresy, we are only heretics if we ourselves believe so, for in matters of faith it is always most important to follow one's own heart / soul, for it is your faith / soul and not anyone else's.
It is a phenomenological world. We are made of light. Our knowledge is photocognitive.
You believe in many gods but choose to worship the God of the bible? Why do you like that guy and think he's worthy of worship? And why did he lie about being the only true God?
Wow! That was amazing ! The amount of work that you did on this is outstanding ! Now...to watch again for technical pieces...n applications for my life!! Thanks 👍!!!
👍🐺🧙♂️🐺✌!
Trying for ten minutes to pause at the right frame just to read "seize the means of production"... totally worth it
Could you please tell me when does the text appears?
One problem with the idea of a theodicy of allowing evil is the idea of the universe as a test. The idea of the physical universe as a test is even difficult to swallow from within a theological context. I've seen some preferentially reject the tri omni traits.
This was incredibly educational. Even loved the reference to cosmic skeptic. Would be cool to see a convo between the two of you.
12:50 From my personal atheist perspective, the flaw in the theodice of 'greater good' is the question of; if an omnipotent god exists, and allows the evil to exist for the purpose of nurturing greater good happening in reponse, what is the point of worshipping said god?
By the logic of this theodicy, the weight of nurturing the greater good is entirely on humans, and it will flourish regardless (as empirically evidenced by atheists also taking stances of good in response to evil) of a god. At this point crediting a god for it is just giving out a pity participation trophy for said god at best, and at worst taking credit away from those who actually took the stance against evil (ie. ye olde 'praise be jesus' after a doctor successfully performed a life-saving surgery).
I've been an atheist my entire life (a quirk of mine, I live in an extremely catholic country, but I've never quite picked religion up, even as a child I was a sceptic at heart) and I've retreaded probably majority of arguments, I just love to Discourse. But one argument I'm really fond of, because it's half-sincere, half-meme, is the 'ad capitalism' argument. If a god or gods or any given supernatural phenomen would exist, would corporations not try to use seidr to predict stocks? Would US military not make a honest attempt to weaponize abrahamic god to Sodoma & Gomorrah-style nuke their enemies? ;)
Either way, I'm really fond of polythetistic religions (at least when they're not being racist cocks like AFA - imagine my surprise when I found out they aren't even Scandinavians....- hell hath no fury like an American 'protecting' the 'ethnic heritage' of an ethnicity they weren't born into) and while I'm incapable of mustering up any sort of belief, I *do* appreciate the stories they tell, the philosophies and stances they embody, and while I can't believe in literal existence of, say, Odin, I still admire certain principles he might exemplify, like knowledge-seeking.
I really love this video! I think it was good not as a fight against atheism or monotheism but simply an exploration of how polytheism fits into these types of arguments especially when it’s normally unaddressed in modern conversations. I partake in monolatry because I believe in many gods but only personally worship one (somewhat, he takes different forms.) I’m very open to other religious ideas though and I find atheist arguments interesting so it was great to see them from a polytheist perspective. Thanks for the awesome video!
As one of my history professors said, disagreeing accounts weren't a problem it just meant there were multiple interpretations
the problem with the medical zebra analogy is that there are criterion used to identify a rare disease, it may have many of the same symptoms but it can't be entirely the same therefore that disease is demonstrably different from a common disease. naturalism and supernaturalism both explain the world equally well but one adds unnecessary unfalsifiable claims. basically your diagnosing your patient with a rare disease when they just have a cold.
A fine addition too the collection
Its been a year and I still come back to this video every now and then. Solid video, thanks for your contributions ocean!
I love stacking cairns at my local beach. Knowing they wont last gives a sense of release. My count is 12 stones high near my neck line.
The premise of this video confuses me, maybe i missed something but from what i'm getting, it claims that atheist arguments against monotheism helps polytheism, but the way it goes about proving this is by showing arguments that work at dissproving monotheism but aren't as aplicable with polytheism, and i don't see how that necessarily correlates. This would be like claming that using arguments against cristianity with the specific purpose of disproving cristianity strengthens islam, just because that one argument doesn't adress islam. Or that saying "cars can't fly because they're too heavy" means that helps the idea that bikes can fly because they don't have that problem quite as much. I had a few other particular problems:
1:18 I think there's a weird overlapping of ideas here, i'm hearing: "atheist firmly claim there is no god only to then back peddle to just being unconvinced to that same propositon". But what usually happends is that theist re-define the concept of god first, it is perfectly resonable for example, to belive that the god described in the bible does not exists, but when redifined to an "Unmoved mover" or any other much more vague definiton, stripped of the atributtes the atheist finds firmly impossible, is when they respond with "well i'm not sure about that". In my experience, it's the theist who first conflicts the god that they belive in with the one they have to argue for first.
3:00 to this section i agree, i'd just like to mention that pointing out contradictions in scripture doesn't just disprove that one literal interpretation (thought that's mainly what it does) it also puts in doubt the content of the whole book, when something as clear cut as the order of events of gods creations can be poeticized, pretty much anything can be claimed to mean something else, making very shaking grounds a moral code, or anything else really.
9:46 while it's true that the most likely or simpler explanation is not necessarily the right answer, this is all said in the context of defending the possiblity of the super natural and i find this disingenuous, every possible answer from the horse to the zebra and even people with coconuts are grounded in natural explanations, yet what theism propouses is more like considering that a real unicorn might be behind you. I get the point is to discredit occam's razor as perfect rule that always yelds the right answer (which is not what it claims to be), but super natural explanations would still fail, because if not then literally anything can be argued to be making the sound of hoof clops behind you with just as much validity. The biggest offender of that problem is at 25:42 "the simplest explenation for the diversity of scripture" isn't "many diverse deities", it's no deities.
29:16 This next part isn't so much an argument against polytheism, more just a weird thing i noticed, but this is a problem for both monotheism and polytheism but in different ways. In the case of the monotheist it has to discredit other peoples experiences that don't adhere to their god, with no grounds that wouldn't devalue their own personal experiences (could be an emotional episode, could be hallucinations, could be lying, etc). Polythiest may excuse the number of experiences with a larger number of gods, but it still has to discredit other people's experiences at some point, when someone claims to have met a god that claimed to be the 1 true god. I guess you could argue that gods can lie like that, but then why ever listen to any gods if they can lie like that?
31:27 going back to my main point, it makes perfect sense to me that it is far easier to dissprove any single gods description than polythism, not because it's more likely but because it's a much more broad unfocused proposition, dissproving polythism takes specific arguments against polythism, but that would mean dissproving the posibility of any god existing at all, and like i said at the beginning, if you can define a god in a vauge unfalsifiable way counts then polythism will always have a get out of jail free card, but i also don't see any value in unfalsifiable beliefs.
PS: English is not my first lenguage, if something is spelled wrong, too formal or makes no sense just know i tried :c
PS2: I can't not see an among us crew member on the shelf.
I know that this isn't really the point of the video but as you brought it up I can't help but to talk about it. Trees from a biological standpoint are much less a type of plant in and of themselves. It is more accurate to say that Trees are more of a shape that plants can take.
As someone who’s seen “trees” that look much more like bushes to me, this makes so much more sense.
Tbf though, this can start a whole nother philosophical debate about what constitutes a tree and what constitutes a bush.
Gods I love philosophy. And I have polytheism to thank for that love!
This is my new fave.
This is really interesting, as a hellenic Polytheist I'll have to play with these and see how they fit with my own beliefs of Deity(s)!
As one who worships Ygdrasil, Monotreeist is now what a call myself. Thank you for that. 😂
I mentioned this in your epistemology video, but with you bringing up the non-resistant non-believer I feel it becomes even more relevant.
Watching your content and the content/discussions of other polytheists, I have found myself sort of in the same spot as being described as "non-resistant non-believer," in that I do not have any personal experiences with deities. But clearly many many people claim to have experience with deities, and profess such experiences leading to beliefs that I can't solidly shoot down with arguments (as you point out in these recent videos).
So in other words, I end up in a situation where I'm coming from atheism/nonbelief, have no personal experiences with deity, but also feel like to say they don't exist would be to invalidate the personal experiences of thousands of others.
Is there a fairness in calling them all liars or mistaken? It hardly seems like it.
But what would my own beliefs be considered if I don't do that yet still don't hold any relationship with deities because I have never had any deity-evidencing experiences?
It feels like in my belief (or at least refusal to reject the beliefs and experiences of thousands of others) I'd be a polytheist, but I'd be lacking all practice or relationship with any deity and would be externally indistinguishable from an Atheist.
Acknowledging their existence is a big step, in my own experience. But no, experience with the gods isn’t required to come to this conclusion and be polytheist. What you do afterwards with this knowledge is up to you, always, as there are many paths to take. Good luck on yours!
This might have largely been the experience and position of the Godless Ones. My vid on them is linked in the description. They likely held that Gods existed but dont worship them. Its also entirely reasonable to be a pluralist atheist, holding a position based on your own experiences, but not seeking to invalidate others.
I worship a single, supreme god that does not deny the existence or possible existence of other deities. particularly Hinduism scriptures mention and praise numerous deities as if they are one ultimate unitary divine essence. I criticize Western theological and religious exceptionalism, focusing on a cultural dogma which held "monotheism" to be both fundamentally well-defined and inherently superior to differing conceptions of God. I view different deities to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence.
For me a single god is central, but the existence or the position of other gods is not denied. I worship a single god from a pantheon of deities at a given time, depending on my choice, while accepting other deities and concepts of god. Its a middle position between unlimited polytheism and exclusive monotheism.
I think this should be required viewing for any atheist taking part in online arguments about divinity. Yeah some might think "of course, that's obvious" at some of these points, because anyone who doesn't know that the problem of evil is specific to a triomni god isn't qualified to use it in an argument. And personally, as an atheist, Occam's Razor is still kinda what I lean on even knowing about zebras. Sure, I might be proven wrong but as of now this is where I'm at. And that's why I call myself an agnostic atheist when pressed to specify.
Of course, Occam's Razor is also why I think if I were to be convinced of any god's existence, I would probably conclude there are more out there. Let's take life on Earth as an example. Life exists on earth, we have proof of that. I have no reason to assume that Earth is special with regard to life being possible, so naturally it's probably just as likely to arise elsewhere. (obviously it's less likely on Venus, but given another planet with similar pre-life parameters as Earth, I have no reason to believe that the planet not being Earth would change anything).
So, if I'm shown a god exists, I would now know that they can exist. So, provided there isn't any argument given for why that one is special or why others can't, it'd be reasonable to assume there's more of them.
I think I'm in a similar position: rationally and intuitively I think there could be entities out there who are often referred to as gods, but I personally haven't been convinced of their existence.
However, what evidence/arguments I'm aware of for them would apply equally to at least a few different ones. So in the event I were to become confident that one of them exists the same type of reason is likely to convince me of multiple.
Also, nice name @Storyspren
Very intellectual pleasing video. A discussion with you or a person with similiar believes would actually be fun.
Telling someone "I worship Thor and wear his hammer proudly" usually elicits a response such as "You worship a movie character?" But watching your videos makes me more confident in telling people that I am a polytheist, without worrying about the strange looks I might receive. I should turn those interactions into a teaching moment and share who Thor really is, as well as the rest of the gods.
24:48
Fun fact this is somewhat correct
Trees actually don’t exist from a taxonomic standpoint
Since deciduous trees and coniferous trees don’t share a recent common ancestor they fail to form a monophyletic clade, therefore “Tree” is an invalid taxa
I love your content but TH-cam hasn't been notifying me when you post even when I rang the bell icon. I have to check your channel every couple of days
that's frustrating. I've heard this a lot, and it's unfortunate that youtube won't notify even when you want to be.
I am so excited for this video!
The only thing I learned from this video is that farts are evil.
Do I agree with the arguments and conclusion? No, not fully. Do I agree the beard is, in fact, glorious and omnipotent? Abso-fucking-lutely I do
I think an argument on why genesis is relevant when discussing with christian is the fact their is a lot of elements that take that story literately, be it the idea of orginal sin, or the fact Jesus does refer to the flood as a literal event. The Buddhist concept of enlingtented beings becoming god like makes sense in a polytheistic concept too as a little addition.
The Bible also conflicts with reality in places that aren't recounting myths.
And in some major, insulting ways; Romans 1:18-23 (which is often quoted by apologists) says that everyone "really" believes in the Christian God but just pretends not to because of "unrighteousness". (Christians tend to use it specifically against atheists these days, but 1:23 is specifically denigrating other gods.)
@@NovaSaber yup, also the fact Jesus said that people he was talking too would see the last days in their life time too.
The literalist account of genesis comes up a lot for pragmatic and political reasons too, since a sizeable contingent of Christians like to advocate for "education reforms" that would have creation or intelligent design taught in schools as a scientific theory, despite it being a mythological account.
Matthew 24:38-39 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Now let me try:
"The falling bomb went right down the ship's stack and into the boiler, causing an explosion that destroyed the ship instantly. It was a million to one shot, just like when Luke Skywalker used one shot to blow up the Death Star."
Do I have to believe that Star Wars is literally true to tell this story?
@@fluffysheap No because star-wars was always seen as fiction, where as the Hebrew bible was seen as events that happened and where real, like genesis included on events Jesus would have thought where real, as he did with exodus. Plus with theology of original sin this wasn't just a fictional story but the explanation of suffering in the world, not just a parable.
Which is more likely, that somehow that everyone from an age when people thought the sun rotated around the earth or that the earth was had a dome around it believed that this account of creation wasn't literal and that somehow, with knowledge they wouldn't have known about , made the creation story impossible.
Or
Ancient peoples with limited understanding of science would have believed the genesis account of their god creating the earth truth from god.
Really enjoyed this one, keep em coming!
As someone who is raised Christian and kind of still am but thinking about leaving Christianity and head more towards Polytheism, I've always viewed each animals in the animal kingdom as creatures you'll see in any form of afterlife either in Polytheism or Monotheism or what have you.
I'm glad I stumbled across this video, because I find it incredibly interesting and surprisingly relatable. I grew up Mormon, and as such my beliefs of the time were oddly both monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time. Many of the arguments for or against God or gods that I heard simply didn't apply to my beliefs. A good example of this is in the idea of Divine Hidden Hiddenness. You see, Mormons believe in a sort of preparatory afterlife in which the open people described would directly be given that opportunity to directly find God. The atheists I met at the time while I was finding my own path simply didn't have the arguments relevant to me, and the ones they did were ones easily countered in ways similar to some of those mentioned in this video. While I am some flavor of atheist/agnostic now, this video reminded me of that point in my life while also showing me new perspectives I'd never considered before, and I'm very glad I found this video. Keep doing what you're doing mate! It's much appreciated.
people who don't think farts are funny have less laughter in their lives and the same amount of farts.
I am Norwegian and pagan, and I always love watching your videoes for that reason-- but when you mentioned the zebra analogy I was so immediately excited! I have EDS and we often use the zebra analogy because it is rare, but also very underdiagnosed, so we like to say «hoofbeats in the hallway need to be seen to be believed» in hopes of having more doctors check for it!
Anyways, keep being awesome!
What I don’t like is as a Christian is that only the loud conservative voices are heard..and as a bi girl and a witch it’s hard to stay a Christian
Like I’m okay with norse Gods and other pantheons because I know their myths.
This is a very interesting discussion. Thank you for sharing it, as always!
Today I was watching a video about The Dagda and my mom had a fucking meltdown she yell at me cuz I said "in just trying to learn about other religions" my mom said "there only 1 religion". Proceeded to list like 6 religions which made her madder. She then said you're a Christian and that's it nothing else. Good she didn't know I was a pagan that would've been hugely bad. Its Bull shit is what it is if I want to learn about something or worship something different from you then let me, all your doing is shoving me farther away from jesus. Can anyone relate to this?
TL;DR conservative Christian mom has a mental brake down over me watching about the Celtic religion.
12:45 Plotinus addresses the ‘problem of evil’ with his point about it not having a positive, affirmative existence, but rather being a mere privation of the Good. There’s also the matter of the seirai and the way in which the Henads relate to the material world via emanation.
Give the people Splash Daddy's Philosophical Arguments!!!!
Just found your channel...very interesting..and informative..
I loved this video and I'm probably going to send it to some of the people I know. A lot of Christians I know like to dismiss my beliefs by saying that the gods don't exist because "they are the fruit of my imagination" (even though, using that logic someone could say the same about God) and i should find God or I'll rot in hell. While some atheists I know simply say that the gods/God do not exist and most of the time they don't elaborate because "they know they're right and they don't want to get into a stupid argument" 💀maybe I'll be able to at least show them that it isn't completely impossible for the gods to exist.
So thank you so much for this, we all appreciate the hard work you put in to create these videos.
I think it's a little unfair to accuse athiests of having a motte and bailey approach. It's important to remember that these conversations often start without an athiest knowing what it is you believe. For example: I believe that all of the major god-having religions I've spent any time investigating(for me, this is the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism) are made up. I'd also include any god I've ever heard of for whom interactions with humans are expected. If you think a particular ritual causes or is likely to cause a god to intervene in the material world, I think we have enough evidence to discount that.
Were I to encounter a someone who identifies as a religious, I would probably make the assumption that they believe in a sort of god that I have good reason to believe doesn't exist. However, if they then specified that they were, say, a Spinozist, a pantheist, or some other form of deist, then I would have to concede that I merely lack a belief in their god. To me, this isn't a motte and bailey, it's merely me making an assumption, and then correcting my view if the assumption is not valid. It's basically a time saving measure, since the vast majority of the religious who engage online are from an Abrahamic tradition. Those are also the types of religious people who are more likely to try and impose their views on others, and I view stopping that as the primary reason for engaging.
You're right that many of the arguments typically created to refute Christianity specifically don't fare so well when applied against other forms of God claim. I wouldn't necessarily describe that as "helping" polytheism.
As an analogy: Let's say I described myself as an "a-cryptist". I don't believe in any cryptids. Let's just say that bigfoot is the cryptid with the most supporters. Were I to present an argument against bigfoot, I don't think it would be reasonable for a "cryptist" to say: "Ah, well that actually helps my belief in the Loch Ness Monster. You see, the widespread belief in cryptids demands an explanation, and the most likely explanation is that some sort of cryptid exists. Since we have good reason to believe it isn't bigfoot, that makes it more likely to be the Loch Ness Monster".
If the Bigfootists were claiming that Bigfoot is the _only possible_ cryptid, and that the truth of Bigfoot's existence is also proof that the Loch Ness Monster, Mothman, etc. don't exist (in the same way that Christianity asserts that its god is the _one true God_ and all others are false), then an argument against Bigfoot (at least in the sense of Bigfoot being the One True Cryptid) would "help" non-Bigfoot "cryptists."
The motte and bailey description is a very accurate for a certain subset of youtube atheists. I assume it's that group being referred to.
@@kevincrady2831 I'm going to be honest. I can't find exactly where I think the logical break is, but I can 't accept the conclusion, and I think the abstracted version shows why.
My justification for my belief in something shouldn't directly affected by how those who believe in something I don't define that thing in which I don't believe.
Unless we restrict the sense in which it helps to something like "a direct comparison between the two ideas exactly", in which case, that definition commits the bigfootist to a stance they can't readily defend WRT every other cryptid, and therefore makes them probably wrong.
But the "Bigfootist" defining bigfoot one way or another shouldn't affect the justification between a Nessieist and an a-cryptist
Been looking at your videos today.
Alright you win, I'm subscribing.
I would say that I find the gods unlikely: I am as of yet unconvinced that anything supernatural exists.
If it does, I find polytheism more likely than any variant of monotheism that I know of.
Though, even if the supernatural exists... that doesn't mean any gods do in fact exist.
Conversely, even if gods exist, that doesn’t mean “the supernatural” does.
@@BoboftheOldeWays Exactly, supernatural just refers to things which are not subject to the laws of nature. So if anything that we today consider to be 'supernatural' turns out to exist then it just means that our understanding of the laws of nature is incorrect/incomplete.
@@shadowdragon3521 We can, and should, safely assume that our current understanding of the laws of nature is deeply wrong. It’s highly useful, of course, but the way too many atheists refer to it almost as a sacred text is silly IMO.
Hmm, I guess I will also say I'm unconvinced of matterless minds, which are required of any definition of God I've heard of. I'm using supernatural as a catch all because there's such a wide variety of potential views that I can't realistically list them all.
@@leviangel97 Consider the fact that consciousness is poorly understood by the scientific community and there is no consensus of what causes it. One theory is that consciousness is related to neural oscillation (brain waves), so if consciousness is caused by electromagnetic activity then you could conceivably have a matter-less mind.
Also consider that many people claim to have had out-of-body experiences in which they were able to in great detail describe things that happened that they should not have been able to see/hear.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.”
I understood that reference
@dnsc4209 god never said anything because the Bible is a piece of fiction
Mythic literalism has always been weird and fascinating to me. I can appreciate that people don't take things too literally - the world being cooked up in 7 days, the planet and the cosmos being the skull and remains of a dead jotun, etc. But then I always find myself asking, "how do you know what your god or gods are like if you believe that the stories are not literal?"
How can we claim to know anything about the gods if the stories which provide us with information about their personalities, morality, and feats are all false, or at least written by flawed, mortal hands? And if they are not false, but also not literal, then what are they? How do we know what a god finds (dis)tasteful, or what their domain is? Can we say that Thor is a protector of humanity or that Hades is keeper of the dead if our source for that information is a story written by humans?
Is it something that each person chooses as part of their hearth cult? That's reasonable enough, I suppose. But then it could be argued that one is putting whatever traits they want on a REAL entity, then worshipping it as if those assumptions were true. Which is fine, usually! But it raises questions for me, and could -- and surely has -- lead to conflict when two or more groups point their fingers at one another and say, "that's not how you worship ___!" At what point does a hearth cult become a headcanon for divine beings, and IF those divine beings are real and have traits and ideologies of their own, at what point does it become "disrespectful" to worship them in a capacity which they may not want you to? I suppose gods may not care, or see it that way. This may be a question from a mortal perspective. But still, I think it warrants philosophical consideration.
But if we are to assume that the gods are real, then how can we learn about their nature if our sources are books and texts written by humans?
Do the gods have traits, flaws, desires and dogmas, or is it up to the observer? And if it is up to the observer to choose what parts of a god they acknowledge, how do you know that your inspiration for your practice is a god and not just your 'headcanon'? It's like when you develop a crush as a child and start assigning all of these traits to a person that you don't REALLY know anything about until you get a chance to talk to them and get to know them. Is it wrong to act as though your imagined traits are reality? In the case of the crush, the answer is probably yes. But what about when your 'crush' is a GOD or GODDESS, and you CAN'T necessarily talk to them and get to know them directly?
I love philosophy, and the concepts of Heathenry are beyond interesting to me. I can't say that I AM one, but I can say that I feel much, much more comfortable discussing and considering the Greek, Norse, or other polytheistic pantheons than I am considering monotheistic arguments. I started wearing Mjolnir around my neck after watching your videos for a time, and have had many wonderful experiences talking with people who saw my necklace and gave me a knowing, "ahhhh, I know what that is!"
Perhaps I'm "growing out of the ground," as you say, or perhaps I am just incorporating elements of Heathen philosophy into my own, which is one of the fundamental parts of philosophy!
I think in terms of Pagan conceptions of gods the most intellectual and moral weight behind it is the ideas of the gods in the Timaeus which speaks of the perfect god the demiurge making the world out of pre eternal matter he then fashioned the gods also perfect images of himself to make the physical universe not through the disgusting act of murder but because god and the gods are good in and of themselves and according to the platonic view the universe has a world soul human beings to tap are also made up from that world soul and this is the connection 1 has with the divine demiurge.
The God and the gods are without taint and have no mortal flaw 1 calls out to them if 1 is truly seeking to do that which is good. This also means things tradionally considered normal ''normal'' in Greek myths are to be rejected the gods for instance do not delight in rape murder or other forms of objectively evil stuff in other words certain aspects are in and of themselves evil because they contradict the demiurges nature and that which is evil ultimately cannot be godly.
For the longest time I was wondering why did the concept of polytheism disgust so much but then I realized it's cause the gods themselves represented in Homer are inherently subjective in there morals god is not some inherently good being that creates because he is good in and of itself rather the gods create man as a format of an abortion.
In this aspect they share the in the disgusting dogma of evolution that the concept that man's soul is a result of natural process in nature and not an divine creation from the gods who are perfect in this world view there is no objective right and wrong because in nature things are all immoral in every aspect.
When 1 gets dualism you can trancend earthly morality for a higher plane of morality the reality itself starts to become an imperfect copy of the real reality where the almighty demiurge dwells and our purpose is to become more like the Demiurge to be more perfect in mind and soul.
I think the creation happened like this the Demiurge used the pre existent matter to create the physical universe in a perfect origin he then created the gods to be perfect mirrior images of himself and those gods created the realm of man perfectly but humans have free will so we all do evil despite the gods wishes.
we did not evolve from a single celled organism to an complex multi cellular organism over millions of years no the gods got the process right the first time the gods made intelligently designed
@@tysolbohan6446 We objectively did evolve from single celled organisms over millions of years, this is a demonstrable fact.
I am still having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around the concept of gods as anything other than metaphor, or as archetypes of qualities that we observe in either ourselves or the world around us. These are used to tell stories, and embody good qualities to be emulated as well as bad qualities to be avoided. I have been digging deep into pagan content online and I cannot find a modern pagan or polytheist explanation for the material existence of gods. I am open to the idea, but content creators in these spaces seem to be answering every question on the subject except for the one that matters the most, and it's driving me bonkers. Can someone please answer me this: is belief in the gods (and/or the concept of magic) as more than metaphor not mythic literalism?
The "greater good" explanation doesn't work when there is little to no apparent good to come out of the evil which has happened. I can imagine a universe in which evil exists, but where good always triumphs, and the good which results from the bad always outweighs the bad. That, however, is not the universe in which we live. Childhood cancer, for example, is unnecessarily cruel. Any good that comes out of it is not outweighed by the suffering that is caused. I see no possible universe in which a good god can exist, wherein he allows innocent children to die slow, painful deaths to diseases which cannot be prevented or cured.
The same is true of the idea that evil makes us grow. That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger...except when it doesn't. Sometimes what doesn't kill you leaves you emotionally scarred for the rest of your life. Is God unable to allow only the kinds of evils which result in growth? If God's goal is for us to grow, then who does PTSD exist, or major depressive disorder? These things seem counterintuitive to that goal, robbing people of the resilience it takes to grow from a bad experience.
Even if polytheistic gods aren't all powerful, there are still things that I feel I would do if I were in their shoes, which no gods seem to do for some reason. Why is there no god hanging out primarily in a children's hospital, providing healing to them? Why is it single, powerful people are able to commit great acts of evil, without being struck down in divine judgement, usually living the rest of their lives without justice? If I were a god, Putin would have a huge target on his back right now. If world leaders realized they had to behave honorably or else suffer divine wrath, I'd wager there'd be a lot less corruption in the world.
One could argue that in addition to the gods, there are other entities which are adversarial to humanity which the gods are in conflict with. So if the gods are off fighting some malevolent entities then it makes sense that they wouldn't necessarily have the resources to go around healing every child or delivering divine retribution to every corrupt leader.
Plus we know Christians would just take credit for all of these deeds and that's a whole other can of worms.
@@shadowdragon3521 - In Catholic tradition, there are angels and demons in constant war with one another. I...don't know why the angels are necessary, especially the ones who guard the throne of God, if God is omnipotent and omnipresent, but whatever. Some angels are believed to be stationed to specific areas, or even specific people. This is how I imagine the gods would be with polytheism. Almost like Christianity is polytheistic in all but name...
But say I'm a god, and I say, "This children's hospital is my domain. No children will die here under my watch." Even if there were some evil entities trying to sabotage me, you'd think the survival rate would be significantly raised by having a divine presence there. Assuming the gods are empathetic by nature, then if I had a chronic issue with evil entities killing children in my hospital, I'd send word to the other gods. Those other gods would say, "Oh, no they didn't! Fuck those guys! Let's get 'em!" They'd rally around the hospital, and those evil entities would think twice about coming back. I just don't see much reason to believe that is going on. Even if the battle were invisible, the effects of it would still be detectible.
@@TheZeroNeonix If you were a god, then you'd also be able to see the bigger picture. Maybe you'd really like to stay at a children's hospital and do everything you can to heal children all day long, but you'd understand that your power would be better spent working to rid the world of whatever enemy of humanity that is antagonizing you.
It's like treating the symptoms vs treating the disease itself. Maybe just taking medication is better in the short-term, but surgery is necessary for long-term survival.
Taking Corona for instance I realized something: Some people hate it and some people love it. For instance someone who worked in retail and lost his job which really badly affected his family will hate Corona. But someone who had a debititating or stigmatizing illness in some form will be very happy to work from home. Let's say a bad psoriasis and people avoid you which means you have to take jobs far below your capability. Now that you work from home you are suddely equal. So one could claim that Corona was sent by the Devil while another could claim it was sent by God. A theodicy is tricky because we can't even agree with what is good.
But that's not childhood cancer fair enough. Even though one could argue that you can grow from childhood cancer. Firstly there's the researchers looking for a cure. There's also the parents dealing with it. And even the child has the choice to accept it gracefully or become Schrödingkitten, drug lorg extraordinaire.
If we go back to my first statement. We could ask: Why does childhood cancer exist? The answer wouldn't be "because God wanted" but "because cells work that way". And then you could say why can't they work differently? But then if they did, wouldn't that have other effects? Maybe you'd have old people with worn down teeth and joints existing forever because they just don't die. Or something. Science doesn't have good or bad, it just has effects and other effects.
And then you could ask, well why have a world with natural laws then? But would you be happy in a magic world full of unpredictable wizards just getting wishes granted before they even pop up? Well, would you? Or maybe a world built just for you, population one?
So tdlr the response would be that some natural evils exist because we exist in a largely deterministic world that we share with others and that's just strictly better than the alternatives.
I think the argument for "greater good" is really sketchy but it cannot be actually ruled out.
8:56 - like its a strange wind, not a strange elf :)) or another mythological symbol assigned its property (in this case: creating/being weird winds)
I like the magic of such ideas, as a creative mind on behinds that loves symbolism ... ❤
I like my definition of what makes a god, a god: “A person, place, or thing of perceived agency that is seen as being emanate and/or transcendent in nature, whom forms of prayer and/or veneration is given to, in either the hope or expectation of some form of reciprocity/benefit in return.” The conversation usually ends right after I put this out...... Great video, btw!
I would really like to see a video covering your top book/source list for learning about heathenry. That would be great.
I wish I would’ve been here at the beginning, I myself am an (agnostic) Atheist, I am willing to accept that there might be gods out there if evidence comes to me, until then I remain unconvinced of the existence of any gods and especially to the ones man has created.
If you're looking for hard evidence, then you're going to be waiting quite a while. I think most polytheists take their personal experiences with the gods as evidence, so if you'd like evidence to come to you then you should seek this out.
@@shadowdragon3521 I have sought it out, I’ve prayed, given offerings to the gods and was constantly met with only silence.
@@Buffaloguy01 and silence doesn't mean there isn't a response it just means the response is different to how you imagine it
@@Buffaloguy01 for example if you leave an offering and request luck 6 months later maybe you land that big promotion or maybe you see an animal like a Raven after your offering that stares at you hell even seeing more crows than usual could be some form of response you just don't think of it as such same for paranormal things it is caught on camera there is plenty of evidence of that but atheism can't explain that I've personally seen what people call UFOs however I don't jump to the conclusion of aliens because in my view what we consider magic and what we consider science are one in the same for all we know our deities might just have technology for example the Ulfberht sword was seen as magic by europeans even the Norse to some respect and the process of making them even down to their inscription might've been considered magic whearas today we know they work better because the steel used was Crucible steel a thousand years before anyone else so they "magically" beat all other swords of the time but It is magic we however call it technology something for you to think about
@@DabobbyG937 if the gods are real then they have made their peace known and I chose not to follow them, but if they can’t prove themselves to be real beings in the universe what’s the point, especially since there very low stakes for unbelief (thankfully)
I was actually a non-resistant non-believer for about 20 years. When I started studying the Norse religion, I started hearing the Gods talking to me and further research pulled me into the fold. Thanks for mentioning them! When I was an atheist it was often a topic that was brought up because a lot of monotheists didn't understand my premise and I thought I was crazy.
I believe in the Gods. But if the definition is creator of existence, then I don't believe any being has that title as existence is eternal.
The Gods, just like us are part of existence.
They're more powerful and larger in scope than mortals.
My reasoning for them exiting, is that if you venerate them they will reveal themselves to exist.
So they exist, but the nature of the gods I do not know.
As an atheist married to a polytheist, I can tell you from experience that we have very interesting conversations, especially with my love of exploring the history of the many stories we tell.
I don't know what's the difference, but when you characterized atheism, I'm instantly hooked. Within 3 mins.
Great job! At least I feel this one is better than the last one. Maybe it's because atheists aren't the "spiritual" types typically?
I just found your channel, and this video in particular is something I've been wanting to find. As a polytheist who watches a handful of atheist channels, I often have the thought that these arguments, both atheist and Christian, don't really hold up again polytheism. I feel that simply getting rid of the tri-omni god idea makes things much harder to argue against. That and the lack of dogmatism within at least most polytheistic religions make it so much easier to believe in and live than christianity.
As an atheist I am hyped.
Oh yeah, me too!
What are your thoughts on monolatry/henotheistic religions such as ancient Judaism and Mormonism?
I guess I'm a beardtheist now
Respectable.
"Think horses, not zebras!"
Y'all hear about the ELEPHANT running around Butte, MT?? 😂😂😂😂😂
As far as the problem of evil with the religion of Shinto goes it's not really a thing mainly because in Shinto there is no expectations for the Kami or God's to act in a way which is seen as pleasant but that's also how at some pagans look at things well.
New subscriber here …love your channel.
A secular scientist would not only assume that it is a horse and not a zebra, they would be required by science to actually investigate and prove or disprove that it is a horse. They would probably end up sequencing its entire genome.
Religion would tell you it's a zebra and prohibit you from turning around (that's called faith). A little example from personal experience. I once was praying in a mosque and asked the scholar (Mulana) why do we lift our right index finger three times at the end of prayer? He told me "The prophet did it and so we also do it, we do not question it" in Islam you even have the concept of Bila Kayf (without asking how).
Evil is a human construct. Even a virus or disease is not evil and is simply propagating its dna/rna. The corona virus or the ebola virus are no more evil than a human being. What annoys me about theism is this idea that somehow the universe revolves around humankind. The universe doesn't give a crap about mankind and will continue existing billions of years after humans are long gone. Life has been around for around 3 700,000,000 years. homo sapiens has been around for about 300,000.
@accelerationquanta5816 The universe has been around for billions of year before we crawled out of a pond and will be around for billions of years long after we've killed ourselves off.