NationStates Jolt Archive

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?

Easy: you pick no religion.

Next?

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?

I would presume that the reason for choosing a religion would have little to do with logic, regardless of the level of indoctrination a person received.

People with a strong emphasis on inner exploration and meditation might choose Buddhism because it suits their personal qualities well. People who enjoy being in community and have an ethic of care might choose Christianity. A very pragmatic person might choose their religion based on the social benefits it would have for them.

It'd be quite similar to what it is now, really.

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?
The one with the best pamphlets wins.

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?

Assuming no indoctrination, there is no "logical reason" to assume 99% of gods do not exist.

The only logical reason I know to choose one religion over another is that one speaks to you.

Assuming no indoctrination, there is no "logical reason" to assume 99% of gods do not exist.

Sure there is.
Out of all of the religions that exist, most of them are incompatible.
Therefore, at most, only a handful can be factual.

Sure there is.
Out of all of the religions that exist, most of them are incompatible.
Therefore, at most, only a handful can be factual.

An assessment of 'incompatibility' would come with some sort of familiarity, no? And familiarity comes with indoctrinization...

Otherwise, you're just assessing (judging) out of your ass.

I was planning on asking something similar: faith aside, which religion would you like to join, based solely on culture and rituals?
I'd go with the one that seems the most fun. If you aren't faithful enough in any religion to ask a question like this, you might as well go with the most exciting. I'm thinking Rastafarianism.

An assessment of 'incompatibility' would come with some sort of familiarity, no? And familiarity comes with indoctrinization...

Otherwise, you're just assessing (judging) out of your ass.

No, education of beliefs is not the same thing as indoctrination.

No, education of beliefs is not the same thing as indoctrination.

Please explain what you see as the significant difference.

Sure there is.
Out of all of the religions that exist, most of them are incompatible.
Therefore, at most, only a handful can be factual.

Monotheistic religions are incompatible with polytheistic religions (at least if you buy the gods propaganda that they are the only one in existence), but I fail to see how polytheistic religions are incompatible with each other.

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?

Because you enjoy it more. And since enjoyment is essential to happiness, that's pretty logical. Not as logical as simply having no religion, though.

Please explain what you see as the significant difference.

Education: "Religion X's beliefs are as follows..."
Indoctrination: "Religion X is absolute truth, and its beliefs are as follows..."

Education: "Religion X's beliefs are as follows..."
Indoctrination: "Religion X is absolute truth, and its beliefs are as follows..."

So those who are not indoctrinated know more about a religion, and what is being believed therein, than those who are indoctrinated?

Monotheistic religions are incompatible with polytheistic religions (at least if you buy the gods propaganda that they are the only one in existence), but I fail to see how polytheistic religions are incompatible with each other.

I'm no theologist, but if one polytheistic religion claims god X is the god of the sun and the sky, while another claims god Y is the god of the sun and the moon, there is a contradiction.

I'm no theologist, but if one polytheistic religion claims god X is the god of the sun and the sky, while another claims god Y is the god of the sun and the moon, there is a contradiction.

If God X is not God Y, what is the contradiction?

Monotheistic religions are incompatible with polytheistic religions (at least if you buy the gods propaganda that they are the only one in existence), but I fail to see how polytheistic religions are incompatible with each other.Well, how many gods can be the god of war, knowledge etc. How many gods can be the first one? How many gods can have created the world? Etc.
Once the job is taken it's taken. And merging all the different gods with the same job-description into one can be problematic, considering there's a whole network of family relations and interdependencies.

I'm no theologist, but if one polytheistic religion claims god X is the god of the sun and the sky, while another claims god Y is the god of the sun and the moon, there is a contradiction.

They would say X=Y, just under a different name for a different culture.

If God X is not God Y, what is the contradiction?That you have two "the god"s of the sun?

So those who are not indoctrinated know more about a religion, and what is being believed therein, than those who are indoctrinated?

No, not necessarily.
Indoctrination is being taught that a set of beliefs is the truth.
One can be taught what the beliefs are without claiming that they are the truth.

There's no point in playing favourites. All religions are just superstitions.

Well, how many gods can be the god of war, knowledge etc. How many gods can be the first one? How many gods can have created the world? Etc.
Once the job is taken it's taken. And merging all the different gods with the same job-description into one can be problematic, considering there's a whole network of family relations and interdependencies.
That you have two "the god"s of the sun?

Are Gods not particular to a certain culture? I don't get the contradiction.

They would say X=Y, just under a different name for a different culture.

What if in one religion, there is one god that created X, Y, and Z, and in a different religion, a god that created A, B, and X?

No, not necessarily.
Indoctrination is being taught that a set of beliefs is the truth.
One can be taught what the beliefs are without claiming that they are the truth.

Ah, we have a different perspective on indoctrination. I thought it simply meant to be educated from within, not to be brainwashed.

Easy: you pick no religion.Oh yes, you do.

What if in one religion, there is one god that created X, Y, and Z, and in a different religion, a god that created A, B, and X?

Well, likely they would simply say that that other God represents the actions of two of their Gods, and is another interpretation of the same deities.

Well, likely they would simply say that that other God represents the actions of two of their Gods, and is another interpretation of the same deities.That's what Christians constantly do...

if you dont believe in any of them the best choice is "none of the above"

if you feel you HAVE to choose one then you do what hotrodia suggested--either go for personal growth potential or social contacts--whichever is more important to you.

It was like this for me:

I had a starting point, which was my thought that there was a God, or higher spiritual being. That took me into a look into all different types of different higher beings and see what fit most with what I believed. I tried Native American Spirituality, and that was close to what I believe, because of the interconnectedness of nature and such. But I was drawn to more of a monotheistic religion, so I looked at the three major ones. I felt really close to Christianity(because it was what I grew up following), but also loved some parts of Islam, such as the oneness of God. Anyways, this was at the beginning of my freshman year of College. I decided to look more into Islam, and realized it wasn't the path for me, so I decided to go back and give christianity another shot, and that was honestly the best thing for me. I turned away from the American version of sunday morning Christian warrior, to devoting myself to knowing who God was, via personal experience. And because of the experiences I have had (seeing people really healed, feeling the presence of God, having visions and such, etc), I am able to choose Christianity over anything else.

I was planning on asking something similar: faith aside, which religion would you like to join, based solely on culture and rituals?
I'd go with the one that seems the most fun. If you aren't faithful enough in any religion to ask a question like this, you might as well go with the most exciting. I'm thinking Rastafarianism.

I would either join Asatru, Odinism, or Wicca. My top three choices there. :D

Are Gods not particular to a certain culture? I don't get the contradiction.Unless you have multiple suns, I don't see how multiple gods can control it, and ride it, push it, or otherwise move it across the heavens.
And how many lords of all the gods can you have?
How many different gods can be the moon, the earth or any single object?
Having multiple cultures doesn't help, they simply can't all be right.

It was like this for me:

I had a starting point, which was my thought that there was a God, or higher spiritual being. That took me into a look into all different types of different higher beings and see what fit most with what I believed. I tried Native American Spirituality, and that was close to what I believe, because of the interconnectedness of nature and such. But I was drawn to more of a monotheistic religion, so I looked at the three major ones. I felt really close to Christianity(because it was what I grew up following), but also loved some parts of Islam, such as the oneness of God. Anyways, this was at the beginning of my freshman year of College. I decided to look more into Islam, and realized it wasn't the path for me, so I decided to go back and give christianity another shot, and that was honestly the best thing for me. I turned away from the American version of sunday morning Christian warrior, to devoting myself to knowing who God was, via personal experience. And because of the experiences I have had (seeing people really healed, feeling the presence of God, having visions and such, etc), I am able to choose Christianity over anything else.
With all your personal experience, what does "Christ" mean to you? (i.e. do you feel you've been indoctrinated?)

Unless you have multiple suns, I don't see how multiple gods can control it, and ride it, push it, or otherwise move it across the heavens.
And how many lords of all the gods can you have?
How many different gods can be the moon, the earth or any single object?
Having multiple cultures doesn't help, they simply can't all be right.

So you make no allowance for multiple perspectives on one sun? You allow only for one objective absolute?

Are gods the things they represent?

Well, likely they would simply say that that other God represents the actions of two of their Gods, and is another interpretation of the same deities.

Hmm... that post really got me thinking.

If you consolidate everything like that, you could apply it to nearly everything and you'd have something like poly-mono-pan-theism.

Or, from an atheist's perspective, a common psychological phenomenon.

At what point would you say a religion distinguish itself from another, beyond cultural interpretations (if at all)?

I'd think that this would leave theism, deism, and atheism (with an overlaying independent a/gnostic spectrum).

It was like this for me:

I had a starting point, which was my thought that there was a God, or higher spiritual being. That took me into a look into all different types of different higher beings and see what fit most with what I believed. I tried Native American Spirituality, and that was close to what I believe, because of the interconnectedness of nature and such. But I was drawn to more of a monotheistic religion, so I looked at the three major ones. I felt really close to Christianity(because it was what I grew up following), but also loved some parts of Islam, such as the oneness of God. Anyways, this was at the beginning of my freshman year of College. I decided to look more into Islam, and realized it wasn't the path for me, so I decided to go back and give christianity another shot, and that was honestly the best thing for me. I turned away from the American version of sunday morning Christian warrior, to devoting myself to knowing who God was, via personal experience. And because of the experiences I have had (seeing people really healed, feeling the presence of God, having visions and such, etc), I am able to choose Christianity over anything else.

You had visions?

There is no point in following a religion you don't believe in. If one of them is close but you have some quibbles with it, come up with a modified denomination. If you don't like any of them, then stay atheist, follow a philosophy, or come up with a new religion.

In my case, I'm living by my philosophy: "Create happiness while removing unhappiness." No, it's not perfect (nothing is) but it's working well so far.

There is no point in following a religion you don't believe in.Shouldn't it rather be: "There is no point in following a religion that makes no sense" ? The whole religion thing is not just a personal affair, it's about objectively and accurately describing reality.

Trying to rationalize religion is a fruitless exercise. Don't bother.

The reason for picking one religion over all the others without being indoctrinated in it is simply because it just 'feels right.'

Since none do for atheists and agnostics, trying to comprehend this simply leads to frustration. I predict this thread will devolve into flaming and a lot of unpleasant feelings.

Shouldn't it rather be: "There is no point in following a religion that makes no sense" ? The whole religion thing is not just a personal affair, it's about objectively and accurately describing reality.

No, there's nothing objective about it. It's finding one's own meaning. It is indeed a personal affair.

Trying to rationalize religion is a fruitless exercise. Don't bother.

The reason for picking one religion over all the others without being indoctrinated in it is simply because it just 'feels right.'

Since none do for atheists and agnostics, trying to comprehend this simply leads to frustration. I predict this thread will devolve into flaming and a lot of unpleasant feelings.

What of atheists who "find god"?

Nah, many christians follow their religion because they believe in it, not because they think it makes sense. Just think of the people who say "The lord works in mysterious ways!"

What of atheists who "find god"?

Obviously they cease to be atheists at that point.

Edit: Let's to the time warp again!

What of atheists who "find god"?

I think we can safely say that they are no longer atheists once they "find God", and the comment you quoted would no longer be applicable to them.

I think we can safely say that they are no longer atheists once they "find God", and the comment you quoted would no longer be applicable to them.

A wiseass mod? :rolleyes::D
What about former atheists who "find god"?

No, there's nothing objective about it. It's finding one's own meaning. It is indeed a personal affair.What is "one's own meaning" supposed to mean? Is the factual setup of the universe a matter of personal opinion? Does the nature of a thing change depending on who looks at it?

Nah, many christians follow their religion because they believe in it, not because they think it makes sense. Just think of the people who say "The lord works in mysterious ways!"However, they cannot point out the particular sense it allegedly makes.

What is "one's own meaning" supposed to mean? Is the factual setup of the universe a matter of personal opinion? Does the nature of a thing change depending on who looks at it?

I said nothing about the set up of the universe. Not sure how we got onto the topic of the big bang, exciting as it must have been.

Edit: damn, there's some major time warping going on.

With all your personal experience, what does "Christ" mean to you? (i.e. do you feel you've been indoctrinated?)

Indoctrinated? Nope, to me there is no doctrine to be followed, only the example which Christ lived in his own life. That is why I am going else where in the world, to go help the unfortunate and give them hope. I won't be a person that says "I'll give you food/clothes/shelter" if you accept Christ. No, that is wrong. I will go help who ever is in need, and if they ask me why I do it, then I will give them a verbal witness. But my witness as a christian will be through good deeds towards other humans.

A wiseass mod? :rolleyes::D

Of course. I was a Generalite before I was a Mod. ;)

What about former atheists who "find god"?

Their existence could suggest any number of things, and those things will no doubt be hotly debated by both the religious and anti-religious.

A wiseass mod? :rolleyes::D
What about former atheists who "find god"?

What does it matter? Atheists have not found god, as that precludes being an atheist, so they can't exactly comprehend how a certain faith can 'feel right' to anyone.

Former atheists are not atheists.

I said nothing about the set up of the universe. Not sure how we got onto the topic of the big bang, exciting as it must have been.Big Bang? What are you talking about? I am talking about the universe as it is, with or without god(s). Are gods subject to someone's personal beliefs? Is belief meaningful at all?

No, education of beliefs is not the same thing as indoctrination.

I don't agree.

If a trusted person presents one system of explanation, it will be accepted as a trusted system. Especially where the recipient is too young or inexperienced to know to question (or even HOW to question), there is no difference between education of one system of beliefs, and indoctrination.

The only logical stance towards religion is agnosticism, any other conclusion is just an irrational belief that there is no proof for. You could study various theologies but you are not going to believe any of it just by reading about it. All you'll gain is knowledge about their traditions, culture and moral values. Which is very interesting, I wish I had time to read more about different religions.

The easiest way to choose is to go with whatever fits your opinions. For example the popular opinions "There is no higher being then humans, nobody is going to hold me accountable when I die so I do whatever I please, anything else is bullshit that only fools stupid people." or "I know the absolute truth and that makes me holier then you, you're a sinner and a bad person, if you disagree with me you're going to hell."

I've met many who choose religion based on personal experiences of miracles. Who've been healed from disease, freed from drug addiction or helped out of some other situation by faith. Maybe the cured ones would have gotten healthy anyway or maybe it was the placebo effect. Maybe the former addicts pulled themselves out of it once religion gave them moral support and something else to turn to. But for these people their experiences are real and good reasons to believe.

While I'm talking about religious experiences. My grandmother stopped smoking after seeing the devil. There is someone they should recruit for the anti smoking campaigns.

Others choose it for the community. You don't go to a church or temple to meet god, you go there to meet the fan club. You can pray at home, at my favorite place in the forest or anywhere. Generally the more mixed the gathering is the better chance of meeting someone interesting. Everyone are at their nicest mood and you can talk about things you wouldn't debate at home or work. Many religious organizations run charities so it's a chance to get involved and do something good. Besides, on rare occasions the preacher has some actually useful wisdom to share.

What does it matter? Atheists have not found god, as that precludes being an atheist, so they can't exactly comprehend how a certain faith can 'feel right' to anyone.

Former atheists are not atheists.

What about 'former' Christians? Christianity 'felt right'... until it didn't. How can I not comprehend?

Convenience.

I don't agree.

If a trusted person presents one system of explanation, it will be accepted as a trusted system. Especially where the recipient is too young or inexperienced to know to question (or even HOW to question), there is no difference between education of one system of beliefs, and indoctrination.

We can disagree where the line between education and indoctrination lies, but there is a distinction.
If I choose to take a class on religion, as an agnostic atheist, how is that indoctrination?
I think it is possible for a child to be educated about religion, though I don't think this is a common occurance.

We can disagree where the line between education and indoctrination lies, but there is a distinction.
If I choose to take a class on religion, as an agnostic atheist, how is that indoctrination?
I think it is possible for a child to be educated about religion, though I don't think this is a common occurance.

I'm an atheist. My wife is Southern Baptist. Our daughter was raised with 'education'. The people she trusts told her there are choices, and presented as many as we can. I don't know many 9-year-olds that are even aware of Babylonian scripture, let alone have read it.

If we had presented her either my atheism, or my wife's religion as 'truth'... we would have indoctrinated her.

I'm an atheist. My wife is Southern Baptist. Our daughter was raised with 'education'. The people she trusts told her there are choices, and presented as many as we can. I don't know many 9-year-olds that are even aware of Babylonian scripture, let alone have read it.

If we had presented her either my atheism, or my wife's religion as 'truth'... we would have indoctrinated her.

Exactly.
That's the distinction: presentation as truth.

Big Bang? What are you talking about? I am talking about the universe as it is, with or without god(s). Are gods subject to someone's personal beliefs? Is belief meaningful at all?

Misinterpreted your post. Thought you were referring to the origin of the universe.

Belief is meaningful to people who have beliefs. Obviously it isn't to you. I accept that my beliefs may be wrong, but there's no way to prove or disprove them, and my beliefs don't hurt me or anyone else, so I really don't see the problem.

What about 'former' Christians? Christianity 'felt right'... until it didn't. How can I not comprehend?

Well a former Christian I suppose would. I used to be a Christian, until it felt empty to me, which is why I no longer am. Fundamentalist assholes didn't help, either.

Easy: you pick no religion.

Next?

Ka-POW! :sniper:

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?

There is a logical reason for picking one religion if there is a religion that exists that is true and authentic.

How do you know which one, if any, is right? That takes investigation.

In my experience, people without indoctrination and without a cultural background that's shaped by religion generally tend to remain atheists. There are always a few exceptions, of course, but on the whole the concept of religion to them is even more puzzling than it is to me (and it is VERY puzzling to me).
If they do convert to any religion, they tend to pick the one closest to their culture. That can be observed in the former Soviet Union these days, some people are converting back to religion, and they go straight for the Russian Orthodox church.
I've long been interested in what makes people religious, but it's been fairly obvious what makes them pick a specific religion. Humans are social animals, and they identify with the culture (sum of social attributes) of the society they happen to live in. Very very few venture outside. Religion is an aspect of culture, Western culture has been shaped by Christianity and in turn has shaped Christianity to suit its needs. North Africa and parts of Asia have been influenced by Islam and in turn influenced Islam to fit their cultures. If Christianity had become the main religion not in Europe but, say, in China, it would be unrecognisable to us by now.
We generally feel most at home in our own culture, and so we generally pick the religion traditionally alligned with our own culture. Other cultures and religions tend to seem foreign and hard to comprehend to us.

As an atheist I think choosing any religion is daft - however if you did wish to choose there is only one sensible choice - Sun worship.

You can literally see the benefits your 'God' brings.

Just lying in the sun you can feel 'God's' warmth.

Without sunlight there would be no life - cuts out all those problematic creation myths.

The Egyptians and the Maori both have a Sun God called Ra - coincidence I think not.

Shouldn't it rather be: "There is no point in following a religion that makes no sense" ? The whole religion thing is not just a personal affair, it's about objectively and accurately describing reality.

Would you believe in it if it didn't make sense?

Exactly.
That's the distinction: presentation as truth.

So if one option is presented, it is presented as the "only truth," and if many are presented, a person has truths to choose from. Your distinction assumes that many options don't also present "the truth."

There is a logical reason for picking one religion if there is a religion that exists that is true and authentic.

How do you know which one, if any, is right? That takes investigation.

What if, in your investigation, you find that they are all equally true and authentic, and in fact presenting you with the same symbolic meanings that only vary in the form of the image used?

I still think indoctrination is an education from within, because unless you put yourself into it, you won't be 'educated' at all.

I'm no theologist, but if one polytheistic religion claims god X is the god of the sun and the sky, while another claims god Y is the god of the sun and the moon, there is a contradiction.

True but only in the claims. Is it not feasible that all Gods are one and the same? In which case there is no contradiction in the 'facts', and only one in the claims due to lack of knowledge.

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?

Yes of course there is.

Hmm, seems to me that unless one is brought up with a religious background, people adopt a religion because of a revelation or lif-changing experience.
It hardly has to do with choosing based on what seems the most pragmatic. That would constitute a false-faith, and really would only be done for tax reasons, not theological.
While i resent that statement that religion is irrational, i highly doubt logic, in the accepted sense of the word, takes a role in determining which religion you follow.

Hmm, seems to me that unless one is brought up with a religious background, people adopt a religion because of a revelation or lif-changing experience.
It hardly has to do with choosing based on what seems the most pragmatic. That would constitute a false-faith, and really would only be done for tax reasons, not theological.
While i resent that statement that religion is irrational, i highly doubt logic, in the accepted sense of the word, takes a role in determining which religion you follow.

Then I have to say I disagree on two counts.

Religion, or perhaps belife in God certianly is irrational, although having said that logic can also certianly be applied to choose which religion one wants to follow.

Shouldn't it rather be: "There is no point in following a religion that makes no sense" ? The whole religion thing is not just a personal affair, it's about objectively and accurately describing reality.
Science is about objectively and accurately describing reality. Religion certainly isn't.
Convenience.

"I can't come in today. Religious holiday. The Feast Of.....Maximum Occupancy"

Yes of course there is.

What is the reason?

Using logic to choose a religion is like sacrificing goats to make an aeroplane airworthy.

What is the reason?

They are many and veried according to the individual. One example though, if by choosing the right relgion for you, it brings happiness satisfaction, and fulfilment to your life.

Using logic to choose a religion is like sacrificing goats to make an aeroplane airworthy.

You have to do it a lot and under the light of the harvest moon?

Using logic to choose a religion is like sacrificing goats to make an aeroplane airworthy.

What as in, if you belive that both will work then it is logical to to do it?:D

Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition, is there any logical reason for choosing any one religion over another?
If >99% of gods do not exist, how can you pick one or a set?
Your mistake is in assuming that one's choice of religion has anything at all to do with the actual existence of a God or gods.

Religion exists to serve human needs. That's it.

If you have concluded that you require a religion to satisfy some need or needs, then choose the religion that best accomplishes that for you.

If you don't need a religion for anything, don't bother.

You will never, ever know whether or not God exists, nor will you ever know what form God may take, so don't bother trying to pick a religion based on which God is real. That is irrelevant.

They are many and veried according to the individual. One example though, if by choosing the right relgion for you, it brings happiness satisfaction, and fulfilment to your life.

But will it bring those things if there is "no indoctrination or predisposition"?

But will it bring those things if there is "no indoctrination or predisposition"?

Yes of course. Can you say for sure that it can't? Also remember that was but one example from a multitude.

Myself come from an atheist family, and so have not been indoctrinated into ay particular religoin. I choose the religoin that I do follow, because it most closely matches my personal thoughts and feelings. Is it then not logical that I choose such a religoin?

Look at this way, and lets take Wheelibinia's areoplane comment as an example.

If I belive that sacrifcing goats would make the plane airworthy, then it would be ilogical for me not to sacrifice goats wouldn't it. It does not matter that the belife is irrational, there is still an element of logic in the way I choose to act because of that belife.

Your mistake is in assuming that one's choice of religion has anything at all to do with the actual existence of a God or gods.

Religion exists to serve human needs. That's it.

If you have concluded that you require a religion to satisfy some need or needs, then choose the religion that best accomplishes that for you.

if you don't need a religion for anything, don't bother.

I think that most aptly sums up my POV.

But will it bring those things if there is "no indoctrination or predisposition"?
In my opinion, indoctrination is simply a process of convincing somebody that religion is the only way to satisfy a particular need or want that they are experiencing.

I think most humans feel the same fundamental needs which CAN lead to religiosity. It's just that some people satisfy those needs with religion, while others find different ways to satisfy their needs. So, in that sense, most of us could be said to be "predisposed" toward religiosity, in the sense that we all feel the drives that could be directed toward strong religious conviction.

...it most closely matches my personal thoughts and feelings.
That's predisposition.

That's predisposition.
Technically speaking, every one of our freely-made choices is going to involve predisposition. The only way you can have somebody make a choice that doesn't involve predisposition is if it's not really a choice...if you coerce them or introduce some artificial variable that will make them choose against their personal predispositions.

That's predisposition.

No not really, perhaps I should have said it most closely matches my own thoughts and feelings, and studies about God and Gods plan. What I understand via many years of searching, reading, experianceing and testing. But I hoped that you would pick that up.

Heh which just goes to show, you really should not be lazy in these places.

...and studies about God and Gods plan.
That's indoctrination.

lol

That's indoctrination.

lol

Heh so you are saying that all learning is indoctirination? If I have studied maths, have I been indoctrinated?

That you have two "the god"s of the sun?

Egyptian mythology has no problem with multiple sun gods: Amun and Ra may occasionally be depicted as the same person (a joint Amun-Ra), but they started out as two distinct individuals. A third deity associated with the sun is Horus.

Heh so you are saying that all learning is indoctirination? If I have studied maths, have I been indoctrinated?

Only if you now believe in math. Then you are indoctrinated. If the way mathematics explain the world to you makes sense to you, then you are now indoctrinated with a mathematical/scientific paradigm.

Only if you now believe in math. Then you are indoctrinated. If the way mathematics explain the world to you makes sense to you, then you are now indoctrinated with a mathematical/scientific paradigm.

In that case then Gbrooks question is a pointless one, as well as nowt but wordy trickery;)

Egyptian mythology has no problem with multiple sun gods: Amun and Ra may occasionally be depicted as the same person (a joint Amun-Ra), but they started out as two distinct individuals. A third deity associated with the sun is Horus.But when they were still two distinct individuals, did adherents of either accept the other as god of the sun besides their own? It would seem to me they could only do that once they unified the two.

Unless you have multiple suns, I don't see how multiple gods can control it, and ride it, push it, or otherwise move it across the heavens.
And how many lords of all the gods can you have?
How many different gods can be the moon, the earth or any single object?
Having multiple cultures doesn't help, they simply can't all be right.

Tips from an actual polytheist:

FIRST: Polytheistic gods tend to be local and/or personal. Their cults may make universal claims, but if you study their mythologies, you will see they are indigenous to one place or one culture group or sub-group, i.e. local. Some gods are even more specific, to very limited localities and even to families/clans, i.e. personal.

SECOND: Because of these limitations, polytheistic religions do not take the universalist viewpoints of the modern monotheistic religions. They do not assume that "their sun god" is "the sun god" everywhere. Instead, their sun god is the god who is in charge of the sun and sun-related phenomena or functions in their homeland. You can see this clearly if you study ancient polytheistic cultures. You will sometimes see in the Greek and Roman historians, for instance, references to the gods and religions of other cultures. Everyone who has studied the Roman Empire should know that the Romans in particular did not replace local religions with their own in order to cement political/social power (which had been the old way of doing it). Rather, they equated local gods with their own so that they could more easily "Romanize" the local population -- conquered people could be come Romanized but still remain themselves -- becoming Roman didn't mean you had to stop being a Gaul or whatever. But the equating of these gods was merely a way of saying, "Your god does more or less the same thing as our god, so we can use the same temples for both." It was not saying that the other people's god WAS the Roman god in disguise. Thus, the various Minervas of the various territories did not universally have the same powers or the same festivals or the same rituals. There was always the assumption that it was a melding of Minerva with something else.

Among modern polytheistic cultures, you will often hear reference to such things as "those people call their [sun/moon/etc] god [this], but ours is called [that]" (with or without sarcastic tones), or such remarks as "those people worship this kind of a god, but we don't have such a god" (with or without jealous tones).

THIRD: As for that "lord of all the gods" stuff, that's just polytheist BS, frankly. Just about any cult of any god can claim that its god is the "lord of all the gods," "supreme among/over all gods," etc. If you look at what they are really about, it becomes clear that no god is really the boss of all the others, except in some mythological literature, usually the relatively more modern stuff.

FOURTH: If you are trying to figure out which culture/group/religion/set of beliefs/etc is "right," good luck with that. Let us know when you've got it sorted out. Whatever.

This is all just FYI (except the fourth point). I get a tiny bit annoyed seeing atheists, who arguably may be lacking in understanding of religious constructs in general, and monotheists, who arguably may be lacking in understanding of non-monotheist religious constructs, basing arguments on erroneous notions of what polytheism is.

But when they were still two distinct individuals, did adherents of either accept the other as god of the sun besides their own? It would seem to me they could only do that once they unified the two.

When you see a child alone and ask who his parent is, cannot his parent be both his mum and dad. Why only one God of the sun?

But when they were still two distinct individuals, did adherents of either accept the other as god of the sun besides their own? It would seem to me they could only do that once they unified the two.
Your assumption is perhaps based on a lack of knowledge about what polytheists actually do.

If you go and research the mythologies of the Egyptian gods, to use the example, you will see that the various sun gods are NOT 100% the same entity. Depending on the particular source you are reading, they may be separate and distinct individuals (possibly connected as siblings or spouses or parent/child), or they may be described as avatars for different purposes/occasions of a larger conceptual entity. But there are subtle functional differences between Amun and Ra and Horus. They are not fully interchangeable. So a person who worshipped primarily Horus, could still worship Amun and Ra for different purposes at different times. It was somewhat similar to going to different officials within the same bureacracy for different purposes covered by that bureaucracy.

If you go further and research the histories of Egyptian religious beliefs, culture, and social constructs, you will see that the different sun gods began as local gods -- the gods of the sun that were worshipped in different parts of the region that eventually became the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Obviously, these became joined as the society grew and melded what had been isolated social groups together, but in terms of religious function, the individuality of the various sun gods was not entirely lost. Indeed, there is evidence that they maintained higher power in their original indigenous regions. So, in addition, to all being worshipped as both connected and individual entities by the mainstream society, each one would be called the supreme sun god within the confines of his own hometown neighborhood -- he was the supreme one in that place, i.e. the one the locals cared most about.

In that case then Gbrooks question is a pointless one, as well as nowt but wordy trickery;)

Haha. I was just promoting the OP, which asks, "Assuming no indoctrination or predisposition..."

When you see a child alone and ask who his parent is, cannot his parent be both his mum and dad. Why only one God of the sun?They're both "a" parent, not "the" parent. There isn't the implicit claim of a singular entity there.

Your assumption is perhaps based on a lack of knowledge about what polytheists actually do.Not really. My claim is that they can't give their gods universal claims and all be right.
And as you said:
SECOND: Because of these limitations, polytheistic religions do not take the universalist viewpoints of the modern monotheistic religions. They do not assume that "their sun god" is "the sun god" everywhere. They don't.

I say they can't, you say they don't. Hence, no problem.

FOURTH: If you are trying to figure out which culture/group/religion/set of beliefs/etc is "right," good luck with that. Hey, that wasn't my endeavor; I was just arguing that you can't just sweep all gods together, especially if some of them have claims to universal roles (which seems apparent from mythological accounts; but if as you seem to imply these are completely irrelevant, that's another problem out of the way.)

They're both "a" parent, not "the" parent. There isn't the implicit claim of a singular entity there.

Not really. My claim is that they can't give their gods universal claims and all be right.
And as you said:
They don't.

I say they can't, you say they don't. Hence, no problem.

Hey, that wasn't my endeavor; I was just arguing that you can't just sweep all gods together, especially if some of them have claims to universal roles (which seems apparent from mythological accounts; but if as you seem to imply these are completely irrelevant, that's another problem out of the way.)
You are backpedaling, or perhaps you are forgetting what your original argument was. At the beginning of your argument, you cited "they can't do this" as part of your attempt to show that doing it makes no sense. It was clear that you were assuming that they do actually do it -- that having multiple religions who all have a sun god, for instance, creates a conflict that can only be resolved if one sun god is accepted as supreme and all others as subordinate or false. This assertion is dependent upon the followers of each sun god believing their god to be "supreme". I showed you how the structures of polytheistic religions negate that issue because there is no requirement for supremacy in their gods, which in turn undermines your broader argument. You were attempting to use polytheism to illustrate a flaw in a certain kind of religious thinking or phenomenon. You cannot use polytheism for that purpose because that particular flaw does not exist in polytheism.