Polytheism vs. Monotheism

[Tails Turrosaki]

I don't believe in any monotheisms or polytheisms, but to me, polytheism seems more probable than monotheism.

I'm going to quote this from another site o' mine:

In a discussion with a christian friend asking why he denounces all other gods, i realized that i myself find polytheistic religions much more logical and palatable than monotheisms. let's agree now that belief in any god or gods is unfounded and not logical, and put that outside this discussion. so, presuming we each had to pick a religion, do you think a polytheistic or monotheistic system makes more sense?

polytheisms makes more sense to me because they tend to attribute dozens of different small things to different gods who war and contradict each other at least occasionally. seems a much more sound representation of the chaos in the world than one god who's bipolar or has multi-personality disorder.

I'll have to agree with them. :S What seems more probable (even though they both may be false); monotheism or polytheism?
Discuss...

[Secularone]

I don't believe in any monotheisms or polytheisms, but to me, polytheism seems more probable than monotheism.

Logically, if it is possible for there to be one god, it is possible for there to be many gods. Any leap of faith that facilitates god belief, facilitates polytheism.

[littlegrimlin1]

Yesss, the god in the bible seems to act like a little spoiled 8 year old when he doesn't get his way. Plus, he knows everything, and still acts surprised at what we do. All-Knowing for a god is a stupid attribute based on this.

[Minimalist]

“I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in”

Dan Fouts

[Violet]

Depends on how the god / gods are defined.

[Tails Turrosaki]

Hm... Let's use the example of Greek mythology, then (since I'm awesome and obsessed with Greek mythology 8D). Wouldn't they seem more probable than the Christian God? Not like living on Mt. Olympus or anything, but just in general "existing"...
I mean, first of all, the Greek gods were NOT omniscient; they were deceived many times throughout their immortal lives. Also, there's not many contradictions to their names, and they were not perfect. God, on the other hand, seems to contradict himself many times. And is also a hypocrite at many points throughout the Bible.

[Edwardo Piet]

Any one god lacks evidence as far as I know. Extra gods on top of that would require extra evidence I presume? So isn't that more improbable?

The chance of one die out of a handful of dice is 1 in 6, the chances of all 6 others, for instance - is 1 in 36. So I think, by that logic it makes more God's existing without evidence, to be more improbable than 'just' the one?

EvF

[Tails Turrosaki]

This isn't the matter of evidence, this is the matter of realism... Er... Imaginism?
BAH... Basically, regardless of evidence that is needed (just pretend that only one of the religions are real and true), which god(s) seem more probably to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

How can it be judged non-evidentially?

If it's not a matter of evidence then it's one of absolute proof. And there is no absolute proof either way as far as I know. Proof is about 100% probability one way or the other, and we have no proof. Evidence is for judging the probabilities in-between.

EvF

[Tails Turrosaki]

LDFKJLKFJGENOVSDSLDJ D:>
Er...

let's agree now that belief in any god or gods is unfounded and not logical, and put that outside this discussion. so, presuming we each had to pick a religion, do you think a polytheistic or monotheistic system makes more sense?

^!!!