Gods for everyone!

when you get right down to it, they're all rather silly, and I don't have much interest in believing in any of them, let alone giving them my attention for a few hours a week.

Don't forget, you can always roll your own. No need to stick to the ones in the catalog.

But, but, but....

I'm stunned. How can I be omitted in the list of important divinities? Someone is growing to grow scales on their lips now.

PZ, are you familiar with Theosophy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

I recommend that you look over that site, then read The Secret Teaching of All Ages By Manly P. Hall

Then, if you still have questions about life, the universe, or anything, watch The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.

Hmm, separate entries for Jehovah and Yahweh on the top 10 list. The are both the same name; the first one is the result of a peculiar 17th or 18th century transliteration from the Hebrew. Now if there were a separate entry for Elohim, I wouldn't have a problem with it....

Spinner - from your recommendced site:
Reincarnation is universal
Like esoteric Buddhism, from which much of Theosophical thought springs, Theosophy teaches that beings have attained the human state through myriad reincarnations, passing through the mineral, plant and animal stages since the birth of life on earth. However, Theosophy differs from the exoteric belief that regression is possible. Humans cannot reincarnate as animals or plants again except in the rare cases of disintegrating "lost souls." Conversely, humans are considered only the epitome of physical life on Earth and not the end stage of evolution, which continues for three further stages in the form of the Dhyani Chohans or Buddhic beings.

If it sounds like wo wo and reads like wo wo it is wo wo. Maybe that should be our new god - the great wowo, it could accomodated nearly all religions under one roof.

I don't know why but that link is reminding me about how annoyed I got yesterday because I made the effort to watch "Drive Thru History" and found out that it's just Trinity Broadcasting produced garbage. I went online to get info and found this.
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800010035&message…
What is an "atheistic" view of history, one that CHECKS FACTS?!?!? I gave up when Saul really had to have had a vision of Jesus because people don't go from crucifying Christians to joining them during a hike that easily. It had to have happened, reeeeallly. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG!!!
(sorry, done venting now...)

QUOTE: "At least now I can send the annoying evangelicals off to a list of gods and ask them how many they disbelieve...and call them lousy atheists when they tell me they disbelieve nearly all of them."

HAHA! Best line of the month so far! Way to put things into perspective!

Dear Dr. PZ Myers and Readers,

In the 21st century, especially nowadays, debating about "Gods"--including Scientism vs. Religionism in general, and Evolutionism (Selfish genes, Memetics, etc) vs. Neocreationism (ID varieties) in particular--has become all too meaningless, especially all too intellectually and spiritually regressive and abusive, in our very dynamic US culture; a typical social phenomenon that neither the proponents (religionists) nor opponents (atheists) of these quarrels, have had a chance of reading my new book "Gods, Genes, Conscience: A socio-intellectual survey of our dynamic mind, life, all creations in between and beyond, on Earth; or A critical reader's theory of everything: past, present, future; in continuum, ad infinitum."

At your convenience, perhaps you would consider a review of my book for your keen readers herein, before we--as scientists or non-scientists alike--jump into this senseless foray, eversince the publication of Charles Darwin's The origin of species (1859), or Richard Dawkins' The selfish gene (1976)?!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing! :) :) :)

Best wishes, Mong 7/16/6usct10:27a; author "Gods, Genes, Conscience" and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006;" a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

I got why my divine name was omitted! I'm worshipped by snakes, not by people! It's ok then.

have had a chance of reading my new book

I need to get something I can promote in blog comments.

You didn't look hard enough. Echidna is the variant spelling of Echidne, and she's there in all her glory - head of a woman: body of a snake. Mother of all monsters. Mated with Typhon: slain by Argus Panoptes.

a cyberspace hermit-philosopher

Is that kind of like Fred Hutchinson's self-titled "scientific dilettantte"?

At least now I can send the annoying evangelicals off to a list of gods and ask them how many they disbelieve...and call them lousy atheists when they tell me they disbelieve nearly all of them.

The answer will be something like "those are all demons."

I've said here and there, over the years, perhaps even online (I'll check) that the only difference between a Christian and an atheist is the precise number of gods they don't believe in.

This straightforward and factual argument drives the fundies insane.

Based on the list of gods that PZ points to, a little math shows that atheists and Christians have a 99.965 % agreement in disbelief.

Heh.

Their god has this covered. He promised he'd kill them if they believed in any gods other than him. What could they say, really.

Thanks, PZ. This is great.

I now worship UKE-MOCHI, the Japanese goddess of vomit.

The Wiki description is a little better than the one at Godchecker:
"Uke Mochi (ä¿é£ç¥ Japanese; English: "Goddess Who Possesses Food") is a goddess of food in the Shinto religion of Japan. When Uke Mochi was visited by Tsukiyomi she prepared a feast by facing the ocean and spitting out a fish, then she faced the forest and bountiful game spewed out of her mouth (traditionally her anus), finally turning to a rice paddy she coughed up a bowl of rice. Tsukiyomi was so disgusted he killed her. Even her dead body produced food: millet, rice, and beans sprang forth. Her eyebrows even became silkworms."

UKE-MOCHI, spew forth your wonderful bounty!

P.S. to I now worship UKE-MOCHI, the Japanese goddess of vomit.

UKE-MOCHI will return one day to judge us. Those who have accepted her as savior will receive the blessing of her vomit, those who don't will burn in her anus for all eternity. It's your choice.

George Wrote:

UKE-MOCHI will return one day to judge us. Those who have accepted her as savior will receive the blessing of her vomit, those who don't will burn in her anus for all eternity. It's your choice.

Damn. I'm convinced. I will proceed to regurgitate for salvation.

Echidne -

You are properly noted in The Probert Encyclopaedia.

"UKE-MOCHI will return one day to judge us. Those who have accepted her as savior will receive the blessing of her vomit, those who don't will burn in her anus for all eternity. It's your choice."

So we become a hemorrhoid? Gives new meaning to "This will hurt me more than it hurts you."

One thing to be aware of... not all fundies will claim to disbelieve in all those gods. Some of them will insist that all those entities actually exist - and that they are demons. When I was a kid, I went to church with a number of them.

It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder if maybe I didn't give Christianity a fair shake before I left it, because all my youthful experiences with it were with the nutbars...

(One of my strongest memories was reading one of those kids' magazines, which told the gripping tale of an intrepid student stumping her biology teacher with the yucca moth/yucca plant conundrum. I found it quite convincing at the age of 12; when I got older and learned about coadaptation, I felt betrayed. If God is real, then the creationists are nothing less than false prophets - and if my apostasy dooms me to the lake of fire, they'll have me on their conscience, such as it is.)

At least now I can send the annoying evangelicals off to a list of gods and ask them how many they disbelieve...and call them lousy atheists when they tell me they disbelieve nearly all of them.

Yes, believing in God actually would make me a lousy atheist, since atheists aren't supposed to believe in any gods. Thanks, PZ. (And thanks for making yet another ridiculously incoherent point that's easy to taunt.)

Oh, sure. He looks out for the spirichal welfair of famous biologist bloggers, but his own brother can apparently go to hell, and I don't even know what kind of hells I have to choose from.

...believing in God actually would make me a lousy atheist, since atheists aren't supposed to believe in any gods. Thanks, PZ. (And thanks for making yet another ridiculously incoherent point that's easy to taunt.)

Jason, you flatulent Frenchman, here from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Martyrs is an amplification of PZ's point:

Acceptance of the national religion in antiquity was an obligation incumbent on all citizens; failure to worship the gods of the State was equivalent to treason. This universally accepted principle is responsible for the various persecutions suffered by Christians before the reign of Constantine; Christians denied the existence of and therefore refused to worship the gods of the state pantheon. They were in consequence regarded as atheists.

...it appears to be fairly well established that laws proscribing Christianity were enacted before the end of the first century. Tertullian is authority for the statement that persecution of the Christians was institutum Neronianum -- an institution of Nero -- (Ad nat., i, 7). The First Epistle of St. Peter also Clearly alludes to the proscription of Christians, as Christians, at the time it was written (I, St. Peter, iv, 16). Domitian (81-96) also, is known to have punished with death Christian members of his own family on the charge of atheism (Suetonius, "Domitianus", xv).

Oh, sure. He looks out for the spirichal welfair of famous biologist bloggers, but his own brother can apparently go to hell, and I don't even know what kind of hells I have to choose from.

I figured you were tired of me sending you all kinds of links, so I found another vict... um... recipient.

Christians denied the existence of and therefore refused to worship the gods of the state pantheon. They were in consequence regarded as atheists.

Man, those pagans sure were stupid. Someone else believing in a god or gods that you don't believe in yourself doesn't make them an atheist. The ancient Romans may have defined the word differently in their dictionaries, but here in the 21st century A.D., we define "atheist" as: one who believes that there is no deity. If you believe in even one deity, you're not an atheist.

As for the "amplification of PZ's point," it only amplifies how amazingly boneheaded someone who holds a PhD can be.

Every theist is atheistic with respect to other gods. You don't have to be an atheist to be atheistic regarding the gods of another religion. If you believe that there is no deity named Zeus, your position on the question of the existence of Zeus is that of an atheist.

Safely ignoring the prospect of syncretism in your case, Jason, you are atheistic toward all gods other than those you happen to believe in at the moment. It's customary to claim that as an atheist, I disbelieve in only one more god than you do, but with all the trinities and angels and demons these days, I don't bother to keep track. They're all the same to me.

Prof. Myers: Echidne wasn't a god(dess), hence her omission from the list.
...
Jason: Do realize that the Christians, especially the Roman Christians, persecuted other religions, cults, and undesirables (intellectual or otherwise) exactly like the Roman Pagans. If anything, the Roman Christians were more vociferous in their persecution. Ever read about how Christians burned down the libraries in Egypt, especially the Library of Alexandria, and the library in the Temple of Dagon, under the pretext of putting the pagans in their place (i.e. in the trash heap)?

"Atheist" in ancient times was often used to slander those who didn't believe in the official view of the state gods, too. Epicurus and Socrates were both theists of sorts, but since they held heterodox views (e.g. Epicurus was a metaphysical materialist) they were called atheists.

I hate to have side with Jason on this one, but the key point to believers is that you believe in a god/God, it doesn't matter too much which one. That way if I say I believe in Zeus then the believer will say well Zeus is just another name for God. See - it is the materialist view of the Universe that believers have a hard time with. So to them so long as you believe in "something", you are not an atheist in their eyes.

Strictly speaking, I understand the argument that Ken above and others are making. I have even used it myself many times, but it never seems to work because of what I tried to explain above.

Case in point: Recall the flak with the atheistic kid who wanted to join the Boy Scouts. The Scouts would have let him in if he admitted belief in anything. It didn't have to be Jehovah, it could have been Allah, Brahma or plain ole Mother Nature.

Syncretism isn't really a valid counterargument, Alan. Look at Bertrand Russell, imprisoned in 1918 having filled in the word "agnostic" in the religion form. The jailer responded, "We all worship the same god, don't we?" It's simple cluelessness.

When Alexander's army got to India, those two cultures compared gods with the Joseph Campbell line, "Whom you call Indra, we call Zeus!" That's the syncretism I explicitly ignored while addressing Jason. Had that been a typical American fundy nitwit, the phrase would have been, "Whom you call Indra, we call Satan!"

Jason's head explodes hearing that Romans (not pagans, Jason, Romans!) called Christians atheists for not believing in the gods of their pantheon. To Jason, the Christian believes in the One True GodTM and it's the Roman who's worshipping idols, other gods that don't exist. Jason isn't going to cede the notion that Jupiter might be a local masking (sorry, Campbell is handy at times) for Jehovah.

There's nothing wrong with the argument, it's just that you're addressing people who think their ignorance trumps everything else. Jason invoked one of many different ways to use a word and went all prescriptivist, as if that wrapped it up for employment of the word and concept.

As for the BSA, there's a formal nod to syncretism, unless you're a gay atheist. Sure, you can be Jewish and join a scout troop, but when it comes down to it, that kid is not going to heaven. Rove considered Bush's finest moment to be his admission in the 90s of his belief that no Jews get to heaven.

So no, I don't think syncretism is going to help Jason here. At this point, invoke the DF clause.

Ha! No list of the thousand (or more) Hindu Gods! Goddamn (oops)

Well, get to work on it, Gaurav!

I hate to have side with Jason on this one, but the key point to believers is that you believe in a god/God, it doesn't matter too much which one.

That's only true if you think that faith, in and of itself, is all that matters. If you believe that your God(s) require(s) specific forms of worship and observance, then you're really in trouble. Which day is the Sabbath? How should the Sabbath be observed? What is the proper sacrifice? What is His/Her/Its position on eating shellfish? Pick the wrong answer and go straight to Hell / Tartarus / Wherever.

The precise question of whether faith in itself is sufficient is, of course, also a doctrinal question whose answer varies according to the precise nature of the religious system in question.

The only way to win Pascal's wager is not to play. :)