Yohan wrote:I have brought this topic of the morality advantage of monothiest religions earlier. (I consider Buddhism monotheist.)
Weird that you consider Buddhism monotheist, considering that, depending on the sect, there are many gods or none at all. It's a non-theistic religion; not monotheist, not polytheist, but something else.
The replies to counter it have only mentioned exceptions in polytheist religions, and were not worth my reply. There are good and bad morality, but everything considered and balanced, Monotheist religions do have an advantage. Islam is an example of bad morality, neverthless it points to the hold of morality in monotheist religions.
How exactly are monotheistic religions more moral? Monotheistic religions simply have hijacked the morality found in earlier religions- stolen it, really- and said either that other religions before them were from 'the Devil' or were put there by god to prepare the superior morality of their religion.
Which is bunk on both accounts. I cannot imagine how someone could say that Plato's or Aristotle's beliefs were less moral than montheists', especially considering that one of the monotheistic religions (Christianity) ripped off the morality of those two *whole cloth* and claimed they were making something entirely new.
Another poster also brought up how the Romans had a god for °each virtue*. That's just one example.
Do not bringup the bad deeds of monotheists to disprove this point. That would be like bringing up Gandhi to prove polytheist religions have better morality.
Fair enough. Though it does happen all the time, from all the sides. It really makes the case more that everyone's wrong and that gods are all made up, anyway, because if followers of any religious or philosophical system can be equally horrible to other human beings, it shows that god or the gods don't care, are indifferent, are malicious or don't exist. If any of the first three are the case, they *may* exist but aren't worthy of worship. If the last is the case, then it doesn't matter anyway.
I had also mentioned that Hinduism is the only living major polytheist religion, and its core belief is all men are NOT created equal. That means Hinduism can in no way claim any moral high ground. Other now dead polytheistic religions had its own problems, mainly due to a lack of moral hold on the religions, which led to its demise.
The core belief that all men are not created equal is not unique to Hinduism. Monotheistic religions may have paid lip service to the idea of human equality, but just looking at what many of the monotheistic religions did to other human beings belies that idea. They still had slaves- whether permanent or temporary, or even slaves with inherited status from their parents- and they still treated women horrendously. NOBODY got it right until very recently- then everybody decided to ride the coattails of social change and act like it had always been that way. Sort of like the Catholic Church and the mass enslavement of Africans in the New World.
'Moral hold,' BTW- strange term for 'autocratic control over doctrine.' That was and remains the *strength* of polytheistic religions- that they can actually consider philosophical questions without getting the bonfires ready for a burning or the horses ready for a drawing and quartering. What led to their demise was, in each case, a state (or horde, in the case of Islam) that accepted the monotheistic religions as their guiding force, then started attacking or massacring those in their way. That Islam's way was prepared by about 300 years of monotheism in most of the Middle East and the Roman Empire at the time goes unnoticed by most, but it's important to understand that the scutwork for the third monotheistic religion was already taken care of by those who outlawed and persecuted the polytheistic groups at the time (later 300s).
So again- it was by the sword. Not by any ideological supremacy.