Monism or polytheism which is better?

[Helm]

Monism is somewhat intangible and mystical which appeals to me but a polytheist is ideally what I should be if I want to become proper Norse man like my ancestors. So it's a tough choice, unless you can be both?

And no monothesm for me, though monism is the same kind of thing. but a little less personified.

Anyone who votes for the third option just wants to ruin everyones fun.

[Lordinquisitor]

You know, you can`t really say what`s better or worse in matters of religion. (Except that you should be open minded and not fanatic.)

Everyone has to make up their own mind.

[Helm]

Everyone has to make up their own mind.

I know but I'm 50/50 either way on this one. As it stands I would say all gods are aspects of the one God, but then I see no reason why fully individual gods couldn't exist.

[Lordinquisitor]

Then i`d go with polytheism. It is a lot cooler.

Or become an agnostic theist. I think it could suit you, too.

[Helm]

I already am an agnostic theist it's a question of how many gods I'm agnostic toward. What we have are two options.

1) The universe was created by one infinite eternal God that can take many forms.

2) A combination of primal elements resulted in the creation a number of gods who helped formed the universe into a specific shape.

The second one is closer to original European paganism while the first is a little more like Hinduism or Wicca.

[PointOfViewGun]

You shouldn't choose one based on which one looks better on paper.

[Helm]

You shouldn't choose one based on which one looks better on paper.

Of course I'm using what is within my inner most heart/soul whatever you want to call it rather than just reading it. But I could swing both ways on this one. Monism would the universe represented as unified as a whole which appeals to me while with polytheism you have a universe of diverse and opposing conflicts, chaos and order, which seems appropriate as well. So it's either a unified whole or in balanced state of conflict. Or keeping atheism as an option it's all completely random. It won't have been made by one all loving omnipotent God as some kind of test of devotion for his subjects though, I'm on a strictly Abrahamic free diet.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course I'm using what is within my inner most heart/soul whatever you want to call it rather than just reading it. But I could swing both ways on this one. Monism would the universe represented as unified as a whole which appeals to me while with polytheism you have a universe of diverse and opposing conflicts, chaos and order, which seems appropriate as well. So it's either a unified whole or in balanced state of conflict. Or keeping atheism as an option it's all completely random. It won't have been made by one all loving omnipotent God as some kind of test of devotion for his subjects though, I'm on a strictly Abrahamic free diet.

Don't see it as a place of testing but as a place for souls to mature. Nonetheless, if you look at all polytheist religions you'd realize that there is usually one God or Force of Nature that creates or responsible of other Gods. In monotheism, these multiple Gods simply decent into being angel-like creatures created by one God again. So in essence there isn't much difference between polytheism and monotheism.

[MaximiIian]

You shouldn't choose one based on which one looks better on paper.

This, pretty much. I'm a hard polytheist myself, but Helm has always seemed more inclined towards Monist soft-polytheism. He needs to figure it out on his own and come to his own conclusion; which can only be done by personal introspection. He needs to stop begging other people for ideas and looking for his beliefs in the words of others.

You can have it both ways. The Trinity doctrine; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a thinly disguised polytheism.

Please, please don't start this here.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

My problem with polytheism, at least my understanding of it, is that it kind of cancels itself out. The God that invented the earth, the moral law and what not is the "real" God and all the lesser ones (i.e. the god of fire) are all just angels, super humans, or even patron saints. So, at least in my mind, it just leads back to monotheism.

Also I can't vote in the poll. It's because I'm rich isn't it.

[Boyar Son]

There is no evidence for atheism.

[Theseus1234]

There is no evidence for atheism.

Theists are claiming that there is a god. The burden of proof is on THEM. Atheists don't have to prove the negative, the theists have to prove the positive.

[PointOfViewGun]

Theists are claiming that there is a god. The burden of proof is on THEM. Atheists don't have to prove the negative, the theists have to prove the positive.

Except if you look at history of mankind it's safe to say that atheism emerged way after theism. So the burden falls on atheists.

[John I Tzimisces]

I vote stop being so goddamn impressionable.

[Pious Agnost]

I vote stop being so goddamn impressionable.

Can't find that option.

Voted last one.

[cardnals100]

Except if you look at history of mankind it's safe to say that atheism emerged way after theism. So the burden falls on atheists.

Erm...no that's not how it works...the theists made a positive claim to knowledge and therefore have to prove which they have not yet in the case of god.

[PointOfViewGun]

Erm...no that's not how it works...the theists made a positive claim to knowledge and therefore have to prove which they have not yet in the case of god.

Theists have been living on Earth for centuries and in their own time they used this or that as a proof of existence of Gods. Then atheists came and claimed that there is no God after all. So with respect to logic that many people use the burden lies on atheists. From a different point of view it's completely retarded to ask for someone to prove the existence of his beliefs.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

I must be a total noob because I think the burden of proof falls on everyone.

[Col. Tartleton]

It ultimately comes down to how you define it. A polytheistic God 99% of the time is not a God by a monotheist stance. However several "Monotheist" religions have room for "gods". The Djinn and Angels of Islam are pretty reminiscent of the deities of polytheistic religions. Polytheistic gods aren't God, but beings more perfect and powerful then humans. You end up most of the time with a creator/natural process, which leads to life. Platonic thought offers a Demiurge which is basically the Allah-El thing. But even then it's not quite there. Plato offered a God composed of a physical (as in observable), intellectual, and spiritual part. In short, a trinity, but it would seem to be one being like any man.

In short it is Phanes the Lightbringer. The one who wrought Order from Disorder. The Cosmos from the Khaos. It is not a perfect universe, but it is a good universe.

[PointOfViewGun]

Hmm I guess I was wrong then. It still doesn't change my stance on religion. IMO the evidence for atheism outweighs the evidence for theism.

The evidence that atheism brings forth may explain most pagan religions as they put the power on forces of nature but it doesn't bring forth any evidence against the existence of a higher being.