Are ponies atheists?

They worship the Alicorns

>I just don't believe in Celestia. Think about it, when has "she" actually stopped any threat to Equestria?

>>42266501

>>42266497
but alicorns aren't gods

>>42266503
>neckbeard sparkle

>>42266501
She wouldn't say that

>>42266501
She would say that

>>42266501
Would she say that?

>>42266562
no

>>42266562
yes

>>42266467 (OP)
their gods live in a castle up the street so they'd have to be pretty dense not to believe in their next door neighbour.

>>42266562
No or else...

>>42266467 (OP)
I have a whole system of pony spiritual cosmology I've worked out. I like to think they have an afterlife and all that, only it's less ornamental, rigid, and ritualistic.

People who treat Celestia and Luna as God are so cringe.

Are they all-powerful? All-knowing? No? Then they're not God.

>>42267001
Ponies are Trinitarians. Celestia, Luna, Fausticorn. Don't ask where Cadence or Twilight fit in.

>>42267167
>Ponies are [headcanon]
Done.

>>42267001
they’re not capital G God but they are gods, its like how the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Norse ect all believed their gods were super flawed retards and assholes but they were still gods

Abrahamic religions arent the only religions to have goods in them, doofus

>>42267300
Those are called demigods.

>The Greeks, Romans...
Don't even bother bringing up such ancient backwards cultures.

>>42267332
>zeus and odin and ra were all demigods
actual braindead retard, you don't know what that word means

>Celestia's mom appears,
>She's one of the Gen2 Princess Ponies.

>>42266467 (OP)
Well, lets say that ponies are atheists, hypothetically.

They live two goddesses who control the sky. One of them is directly obeyed for over 1000 years and beloved. The other, though reviled, may shape their dreaming worlds if she wishes, and so change who they are without anyone knowing what she has done. Luna, in this way, represents a power equivalent to the possession of demons and angels.

If ponies are athiests, despite the princesses looking like gods and acting as gods, and despite the ponies acknowledging their greatness and forming their society around them, this would imply something. If the ponies are athiests despite being exactly like thiests, then this would mean that the ponies are athiests specifically because the princesses are real. That's the remaining difference. The princesses are real, and people, and are a specific way which cannot be projected onto freely and subjectively. This would imply that there cannot be a religion focused around a real god, and that worship of a true god in the flesh, just a person god, would be considered atheism. Theism would imply falsehood.

If the ponies are thiests, this wouldn't mean anything nearly so interesting.

>>42267941
Any god that is not all-powerful and all-knowing is a demigod, because logically there will ALWAYS be something above it: the real God.

>>42268665
That's a definition you made up. Also, christian God can't lie, so he's not omnipotent.

Unicorns would most likely be the least cult of personality ish.

>>42266467 (OP)
They do have Priests

>>42266503
>oh yea,, well atheists have a neckbeard and fedora, which is like... totally lame and unfashionable!
I can't believe after all this time the internet still can't come up with a valid counterargument against atheism.

>>42268774
Being an ESL third worlder who doesn't know what the word "omnipotent" means is not an argument against God's omnipotence.

>>42266467 (OP)
no, ponies aren't cringe like that

>>42267332
>ancient backwards cultures
What? Greece and Rome were quite literally the opposites. If anything Medieval Christian Europe was closer to a backwards culture (though imo neither really fit that label)

>>42267167
Cadence is worshipped in the Crystal Empire

>>42268774
>God, who is by definition the embodiment of goodness, can't do evil
>This is somehow a bad thing

>>42270575
The best argument against it is that atheism is basically a belief in itself.

The truly enlightened path is agnosticism. The knowledge that you can not really know anything.

>>42270858
Can you have a person who is both not a theist and not an atheist?

>>42270849
>>42270577
So he's not omnipotent, got it.
I don't know why you have such a problem with admitting this, it literally isn't a requirement for being a god besides your baseless assertion that it is.

>>42271015
Logically you could deduce that God isn't omnipotent (see the unmovable stone thought experiment). Thing is, God doesn't even have to follow the rules of logic, since he can rewrite them to suit his wishes if he so pleases. That's what it means to be omnipotent.

Anything he "can't" do he merely doesn't do because he wishes not to.

>>42271030
Problem is that then leads to problems with omnibenevolence, since what good is it to say he's 'all good' if he can just rewrite morality to make anything he does good? At that point, morality isn't objective anymore, it's whatever God says it is that day, which completely contradicts the objective morality most christians believe in.

>>42271015
>>42271030
Both of you are wrong, God can't lie in exactly the same way as he can't lift a stone too heavy for God to lift (or any alternate form of that problem). It's because it's logically impossible for either of those things to exist or happen, and logic comes from God's essence itself. Thus, either a lie from God or a too-heavy-for-God-to-lift stone would contradict God's essential nature. This kind of gotcha question is like asking "can God make himself cease to exist" and the answer is "no" because God's existence is necessary by definition. It doesn't conflict with God's omnipotence because God can do anything that's possible, which is what doesn't conflict with himself.

This anon >>42271061 actually addresses a good point, but it's not that God makes everything he does good, but that everything that God does is "good" by definition. God doesn't rewrite morality, he writes it in the first place, and it's still objective because God is the only being whose will defines what is objectively true.

>>42271124
>but that everything that God does is "good" by definition. God doesn't rewrite morality, he writes it in the first place
This still ultimately falls into the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good because God commands it, or is does God only command things objectively good? If it's the former, then morality isn't objective, it's whatever God feels like and is subject to his whims changing(which the bible shows God can indeed change his mind on things). If it's the latter, then that means morality is something even beyond God which even he is beholden to, and now you don't actually need a God to have objective morality. It would also theoretically mean God is capable of performing an 'immoral' act, which would directly disprove omnibenevolence as a quality.

>>42271124
>headcanon

>>42271152
>Is something good because God commands it, or is does God only command things objectively good?
My answer is "that something being so is good" and "that something is commanded by God to be so" are identical. From a theist perspective, God's essential nature is the ultimate source of the objective universe, so to say that anything lacks objectivity purely on the basis of its being commanded by God would imply that nothing in the universe is objective, which wouldn't be a useful definition of objectivity. I'd say that this means that morality is beholden to God, rather than the other way around, but that this doesn't mean that morality is arbitrary any more than the laws of logic are arbitrary. It's also a little different than the laws of physics, since we might say that physics are created along with the universe, while morality or logic are inherent to God directly.

God does indeed command different things at different times, but the theist would have to view this as merely reflecting an incomplete understanding of God's nature or higher intentions, since God's (assumed) perfect rationality means that he can't contradict himself. I mean, even we humans can say that "doing X in Y circumstance is morally acceptable, but doing X in Z circumstance is not". It just means that there are more complicated rules than "X is always good" or "X is always bad". By the way, I'm trying to prove that any of this is definitely true over an atheist perspective, but that the theist perspective makes sense on its own and is internally consistent.

>>42271203
>By the way, I'm trying to prove that any of this is definitely true
I'm NOT trying to prove, rather.

>>42271203
>o to say that anything lacks objectivity purely on the basis of its being commanded by God would imply that nothing in the universe is objective
Yes. Because if God's whims can change anything, then nothing is objective.
>I'd say that this means that morality is beholden to God,
So divine command theory.
>I'm trying to prove that any of this is definitely true over an atheist perspective, but that the theist perspective makes sense on its own and is internally consistent.
But that's the problem, it isn't internally consistent. Looking just at the claim of omnibenevolence, and nothing else, the bible itself shows God to not be consistent with his own commands.
Exodus 32:14
>And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
We straight out have an example where God considered doing something he himself considered evil, to the point that he felt the need to repent for it. I have no issue with saying God is generally benevolent or well intentioned, but to say he is incapable of acting immorally is patently false, as God himself shows times in the bible where he regrets his actions at points, meaning he considers certain acts he did 'not right'.

>>42266467 (OP)
No, all ponies are Christian, they just don't do anything interesting enough for an episode on Sunday because it's the day of rest, so you don't see them go to church.

>>42266467 (OP)
In my headcanon they practice forms of ancestor and nature worship. Much of their religion is practiced outside in nature or sacred places. We don't see a lot of temples or shrines because nature is their temple.

I imagine that there are also various cults dedicated to the Alicorns similar to the Roman Imperial Cult. They are some dedicated to Discord too since he essentially is a sort of god.

Simple offerings are made in nature or by the graves of ancestors.

I imagine there are probably varying ideas on the afterlife like there was in ancient Greece.

>>42270575
I mean I don't think it's mean as like a serious argument against atheism, its moreso just making fun of r/atheism and similar communities.

>>42271253
>Because if God's whims can change anything, then nothing is objective.
Leibniz makes the argument that God's essence is necessary, which means that it can only exist in one way and lacks contingency. God's desires are informed by his perfect omniscience (of the objective nature of himself/the world), so what God desires (his "whims") have a basis of objectivity to them.
>So divine command theory.
In the sense that God is the authoritative source of morality, then yeah.
>Exodus 32:14
The chapter of Exodus 32 is about how the Hebrews start worshipping a golden calf while Moses is up on the mountain, and God says that he will punish them for being stubbornly impious. Moses expresses willingness to try and persuade the Hebrews back to proper morality, so God puts punishment on hold and gives Moses the tablets with the law. That's not contradictory, it just means that God is allowing Moses to give the Hebrews a chance to avoid punishment.
>doing something he himself considered evil
It's not God calling his punishment evil, but the authors of the book of Exodus. You could just as easily interpret it as a superlative for "bad" or "unpleasant", or perhaps merely appearing evil from a flawed human perspective. It's also entirely possible to regret (or more accurately feel remorse for) actions that one still considers to be morally right. For example, a police officer might regret imprisoning a criminal, since it would separate him from his wife and children, but it would still be the morally right thing to do. In the same way, God could regret that certain things happen while still being perfectly moral.

>>42271336
>It's not God calling his punishment evil, but the authors of the book of Exodus
But if the words of the book are suspect because it was written by humans, than nothing in this book can be taken at face value. If we're to disregard certain verses because they were written by human, and humans are fallible, then that means the book is fallible, and then none of it can really give you a good idea of what God is or isn't. This is why I lean more towards the deist idea of God than the christian one. If the bible can be wrong or mistaken, then there's no reason to believe any one thing is more correct than the other, unless actual irl evidence proves it. And by that point, you're better off just going by how things are irl rather than what was written in a book a few thousand years ago by some guy who says God spoke to him.

>>42266467 (OP)
Rainbowshine is watching the janny tranny closely.

>>42271357
>But if the words of the book are suspect because it was written by humans, than nothing in this book can be taken at face value.
Yeah, I mean, you're not a Protestant, are you Anon?
>then there's no reason to believe any one thing is more correct than the other
This is an oversimplification. Just because the exact diction and connotations of certain words, or how literally some events or verses should be interpreted, isn't 100% certain, doesn't mean that the entire thing is totally unreliable. You have to compare and analyze different parts critically, and in their historical contexts, to understand the underlying themes and ideas.

The Bible itself, as a historical document, also has great secular value in depicting historical events. Secular history is often founded on much flimsier evidence than a book that has been reproduced and widely disseminated over thousands of years, even if it's just a single collection of sources. I agree that believing in a personal, Abrahamic God is much more demanding than believing in a deist one, but even the deists of the Enlightenment claimed God's omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence.

>>42271401
>but even the deists of the Enlightenment claimed God's omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence.
To be fair though, a lot of deists also reject the idea that God intervenes or is involved in the lives of humans. So in the case of Deism, those properties aren't necessarily contradictory, since they don't ascribe acts and motives to God the way Abrahamic religions do.

>>42271438
Very true, it's perfectly possible to have a (deist) theist point of view with a "simple" God. For an Abrahamic religion, you'd need a more complicated metaphysics to make everything work and describe how God interacts with humans and how those interactions are "actually totally not contradictory even if they might seem like it", like with the Exodus example.