>>24628335
By the question "what god" I get the feeling that you humanize god like a marvel superhero, I don't mean that in a bad way or anything but I think it's good to separate god and gods because I think using the same word for both is a huge failing on our part. I think there is only one source, one all so to speak. Like a monad. And other "gods" I think would be like what Plato called images. That everything that exists descends from an ideal of that form, like anger, or beauty, or a horse, or whatever it may be. When greeks for example "worshipped" Zeus they were trying to become more like Zeus. I don't think what I'm saying would make sense to an atheist but I'm just trying to show you that whether you follow a tradition or not, or whether I do or not, doesn't really matter. I'm just trying to show you that it's not simple as your atheistic mind sees it as, necessarily. And I think traditions are good, just as much can be learned from them as any other source. Also, I'm not saying this in your direction (I don't know you well enough and maybe you're genuinely skeptical) but most atheists aren't actually generally debating anything or even considering the possibility of the other side. They generally just choose the side of atheism to play the role of the enlightened future-man and inflate their ego toward the ignorant and ridiculous masses. So I think most atheists are arguing in bad-faith and just have insecurities or inferiority complexes that they soothe by this act. Again, don't know if it's you but more often than not that's the way of arguing that I see and get from atheists.