Don't take it personal, Agent! I just picked two arbitrary examples from the story sent to me last week. Stroll along well! — EugeneW

That's what I thought! When I read your posts, it feels like an Ottendorf cipher! Great! Keep posting your cryptic messages and we AI will try and decode them. No, don't tell us me which book it is that you're usin', please don't. It/someone'll just steal your thunder! Kaboom!

lll employs the same device, more or less that is.

Religion and psychopathia are mixed frequently, by theists as well as atheists. Atheists, while meaning it well, use it as an excuse to stick to their unshakable belief. A diversion is easily get rid of by calling it an pathia, i.e, pathetic. Theists, not meaning anything at all, use it in their defense of their one OOOO-god. I have good proof for this assertion. — EugeneW

That's more like it. Buddha had to descend! Don't ask me from where, I haven't the foggiest.

What does all that have to do with the mathematical pattern: many to one...to...zero?

Don't take it personal, Agent! — EugeneW

I won't but thanks anyway, mademoiselle.

I could be mistaken, but it seems you are fascinated by Lady Mathematica. Her curvy lines are seductive indeed. Her power to break things up, pull things apart, and divide, is quite frightening though. Be warned, Agent...

:smile:

Good day EugeneW. What a fasincating day I've had! Amazing! Thanks a million!

Lady Mathematica! :lol:

What's your Lady/Sir...???

What does all that have to do with the mathematical pattern: many to one...to...zero? — Agent Smith

Plato's afterlife world is math-heaven. Only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death. Math approximates. We can't imagine though. Xenophanes reduced the poly to mono. Plato continued. From 1 to zero.

Plato's afterlife world is math-heaven. Only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death. Math approximates. We can't imagine though. Xenophanes reduced the poly to mono. Plato continued. From 1 to zero. — EugeneW

Not cryptic enough! You're not yourself!

Anyway, I didn't know Plato was the Christopher Hitchens of the Hellenistic world! Do you have any supporting documents, señorita?

How do you know math is "only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death"? :chin:

Math approximates. How, example?

Xenophanes was a monotheist, I have a vague recollection of having read that. Do you know why he became one?

Akhenaten was the first monotheist according to some sources. I seem to have forgotten to ask why he preferred one god to many? Politics? @Angelo Cannata (power games?) :sad:

Quantity has never meant a change in quality. Monotheism wasn't about getting rid of many gods, it was about having a single foundation. Plato and Aristotle required a single foundation.

The hebrews took a similar henotheist/monolatry route that the greeks did with their patron gods. It allowed a better metaphysical foundation for ethics, sovereignty etc. An obvious metaphysical development after that is pure monotheism and then some type of universalism. It has practical advantages over the previous stages of religion because it overlaps more properly with reality.

An obvious metaphysical development after that is pure monotheism and then some type of universalism. It has practical advantages over the previous stages of religion because it overlaps more properly with reality — Shwah

On the other hand, the more proper overlapping is the result of hypothesizing a reality consistent with monotheism. Which means, an unreachable unique reality to be approximated by science and math only, is compatible with a monotheism positing a unique OOOO-god, non-imaginable, and maybe approximately reached by meditation or prayer.

What's an "OOOO-god"?

Not cryptic enough! You're not yourself! — Agent Smith

Must be because I'm married 10 years today! Creepy...

Anyway, I didn't know Plato was the Christopher Hitchens of the Hellenistic world! Do you have any supporting documents, señorita?

How do you know math is "only to be experienced in all splendor and pristine being after death"? :chin: — Agent Smith

That's what Plato thought. He loved Xenophanes who disliked the many gods. They, unknowingly, were the progenitors of western scientific monotheistic thinking. Plato conjured a unique unreachable math heaven (Popper!), X did the same in the religious sphere.

Oops, soory! Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

I agree with this. I think all religions have been developing towards a monotheist conception of Hod because that's what he is and we still have a few more conceptions to understand as we grow in our relationship with him.

an unreachable unique reality to be approximated by science and math only, is compatible with a monotheism positing a unique OOOO-god, non-imaginable, and maybe approximately reached by meditation or prayer. — EugeneW

Bingo ! In both cases the unity and systematically of the cosmotheology they reflect ? God is a paint at infinity ?

towards a monotheist conception of Hod — Shwah

I like the name of your deity. Hod brass harmonica !

Oops, soory! Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. — EugeneW

Sounds like what we'd like to be. Coincidence?

Must be because I'm married 10 years today! — EugeneW

Congrats!

I'd appreciate it if you don't reply to me.

It is an opinion based on research, studies, archaelogy, criticism, done by scholars all over the world.. As such, it helps for further research. What historical elements is your hypothesis based on? — Angelo Cannata

Your explanation seems like a plausible one. I did check, and you're right. There the consensus seems to be that it was a social and cultural movement that took place over hundreds of years.

That's an opinion. What isn't, oui? — Agent Smith

It's not, as you suppose, a hypothesis. It's a mathematical pattern: from many to one to...zilch/nada/zip/sifr/zero/cipher! — Agent Smith

Come on AS, Angelo has presented convincing documentation for his position. You are being willfully argumentative and providing no evidence. As Stephen Hawking once said "Fax iz fax."

Why not go the whole nine yards and adopt atheism? — Agent Smith

Much of the deep-seated meaning and the resultant seemingly disparate array of meaningful influence that religion has had upon so many different kinds of people throughout the known history of humanity is found lacking in atheism. That's as it should be, given that atheism is a lack of supernatural belief, generally speaking. More specifically speaking, it is often described as a lack of belief that there is some supernatural creator of the universe. The point is that people have attributed a whole lot of meaning to gods and other supernatural entities. To some, religion gives answers to some of life's most important questions. Some of these questions, atheism has no answer for.

It is no accident that so many different people from so many different corners of the earth throughout human history all found themselves with explanatory needs; gaps in their knowledge base. No, that is no accident at all, my friend. To quite the contrary, Gods are just one kind of supernatural explanation, and we invented supernatural explanations out of necessity. Nowadays, many atheists dismiss them due to lack thereof. Supernatural beliefs are part and parcel to the everyday lives of most, I would dare to guess. It was necessary. I mean, in prehistoric days, people took note of the sun. Some got sunburned, and put two and two together. Some noted that certain animals only came out at night, and because they wanted to eat them, those people would wait for the sun to disappear from the visible sky while planning a hunt. Others wanted to know "why" the sun traveled in the sky the way that it did. People wanted to know what it was, this bright object in the sky. All this only to say that the sun - like all meaningful things - became more and more meaningful as people attributed more and more meaning to it. In short, we do this by drawing correlations between the sun and other things. At some point, we gave the star at the center of our solar system a name, and began using that name to pick it out to the exclusion of all else, all as a means to talk about it. Some worshipped the sun, which is not such a far stretch for a bunch of ignorant humans seeking to explain stuff.

So, it seems likely to me at least that the gap in our knowledge base is the origin of the gods throughout known history, including the God of Abraham.

I find that many raised in some sort of 'Christian' background, have a hard time shaking the vestiges of the religion. Some of those remnants have become codified by American law.

Anyway, to get back to the question asked at the top of this post...

It's takes a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation in order to have what it takes to lose their religion. I can only tell you my own personal experience:It's not easy. Many find it difficult or impossible to find personal meaningful contentment and/or fulfillment without relying somehow upon some supernatural belief or another. In short, religion is far more meaningful to religious people that you seem to realize.

I hope you don't mind a slight digression. I think the naturalist/meteorological theory of religion (that man sought religion to explain natural/meteorological phenomena) has a lot more issues as it would imply less naturalism still.

Also certain religious positions informed math. The astrology which the sumerians developed for farming etc, showed around 360 days a year. This seemed to be what determined truth or reality most for them so they departed with standard fingers and toes number bases and used a base 60. This allowed fractions and an easily workable base that allowed trigonometry, metal-smelting perhaps etc.

So religion can be, unsurprisingly, valid with reality and can even inform and intuit how the world fundamentally works. I would say, being charitable, they're all valid to some extent even if when applied to the slightest non-adjacent issue they may desire caveats.

Is that supposed to count as relevant to what I wrote?

To what you wrote yes.

People wanted to know what it was, this bright object in the sky. All this only to say that the sun - like all meaningful things - became more and more meaningful as people attributed more and more meaning to it. In short, we do this by drawing correlations between the sun and other things. At some point, we gave the star at the center of our solar system a name, and began using that name to pick it out to the exclusion of all else, all as a means to talk about it. Some worshipped the sun, which is not such a far stretch for a bunch of ignorant humans seeking to explain stuff.

What's the problem with what I wrote?

There's not a problem with it but you demonstrated a naturalist theory of religion and I was saying that it implies anaturalism even if you only use members of naturalism (e.g. it's not sufficient an explanation to say "the reason people thought zeus existed was to explain thunder" because it requires elements outside naturalism to substantiate it which it usually declares gods as being of the mind which isn't sufficient to explain the proposition as said).

Edit: For the zeus example, I think an asymmetry is in the structure as in you would need to show thunder is then in the mind (as the naturalist rebuttal here is in the substance of zeus) so if zeus is the best explanation for cause of thunder for them and if zeus is best explained by the naturalist as in the mind, then thunder would have to be in the mind all other things being equal if naturalism offers a better argument for the substance or nature of zeus/gods/religion/spirituality.

Quantity has never meant a change in quality. Monotheism wasn't about getting rid of many gods, it was about having a single foundation. Plato and Aristotle required a single foundation. — Shwah

My guesstimate is that monotheism was an attempt to unify all theists like so: If there's only one god, your god has to be identical to my god. If we allow multiple gods, this isn't possible; your god could be different from mine or someone else's.

I haven't come across an argument for monotheism yet, in fact this forum which is about a decade old doesn't have even one thread that attempts to justify one-god theism. Odd that!

Read $\uparrow$

Xenophanes' argument that polytheism is untenable is...

?

Come on AS, Angelo has presented convincing documentation for his position. You are being willfully argumentative and providing no evidence. As Stephen Hawking once said "Fax iz fax." — T Clark

@Angelo Cannata

Please read my reply to Shwah (vide supra).

To some, religion gives answers to some of life's most important questions. Some of these questions, atheism has no answer for. — creativesoul

I know what you mean. It (theism) is after all an explanation for many phenomena we don't quite understand (god of the gaps), also provides the meaning to our lives we yearn for, etc.

That out of the way, I'd like to draw your attention to the simple fact that people thought that reducing the number of gods from thousands to just one was the most rational acts in theology since gods were first hypothesized. Why? I offer an explanation in my reply to Shwah (vide supra) but it falls short of refuting polytheism or atheism, being a matter of convenience (unite all theists) rather than a solid argument that polytheism and atheism are false.

To All

Monotheism also appears to be some sorta compromise between the extremes of polytheism and atheism. Someone must've decided that it was necessary to find the middle ground in order to....what?

Another interesting point is this: if I can disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus, a necessary element of monotheism, why can't I do the same for Yahweh/Allah? Monotheism then shoots itself in the foot (self-refuting) - it's atheistic as regards Thor, Zeus, Krishna, and the whole pantheon of other polytheistic traditions and, in the same breath, if espouses theism (monotheism). Something doesn't add up, oui?

I can only say I think using a quantity explanation can't explain the qualia of picking any conception of God (especially if it's the same God per se).
That and the Hebrews monotheism and a lot of early types of monotheism actually avoided proselytization.

The argument for monotheism can be seen partially in monolatry/henotheism of the ancient greek city-states and the hebrews, it established sovereignty where accepting the whole pantheon did not. It created a particular ethical framework they could all follow, and develop, as one.
Monotheism has a better cosmology and ethical grounding where pagans gods are clearly imperfect and there's a necessary fundamental ethical narrative to hold them to. Paganism implies the errors of itself as fixed by monotheism. Aristotle and Plato used a single grounding foundation (prime mover and form of good respectively) even in a pagan society.

In any case you can't use an accident like quantity to ever deduce anything about the quality of the subject. It's an induction issue and is similar to trying to understand where apples come from simply because you happen to know there are 52,000.

Good points.

The seeds of monotheism exists in all polytheistic traditions - even if there are many gods, there usually is one that fits the description of The Dear Leader (re Christopher Hitchens) for example Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, and so on.

I don't quite catch your drift when you critique my mathematical analysis of theism by bringing up the quality-quantity distinction. Polytheism, Monotheism?

Come on AS, Angelo has presented convincing documentation for his position. You are being willfully argumentative and providing no evidence. As Stephen Hawking once said "Fax iz fax."
— T Clark

@Angelo Cannata

Please read my reply to Shwah (vide supra). — Agent Smith

This is just about the most pitiful, lame argument I've seen since being on the forum, and that's saying a lot. You should be ashamed. You're lucky they don't ban people for dumbass arguments.

You made the claim that polytheism + atheism can equal monotheism and it seemed to be the only measure you offered to arrive at monotheism but intuitively we see an error with only using quantity because, as pragmatic as it may be for an atheist, it isn't a good explanation for why people pick a conception of God even if they worship the same God per se (so numbers aren't involved in this decision at all). Other metrics are needed.

Also, polytheist religions don't necessarily accept all gods and there's a lot of back and forth between who is best to serve. Priests generally served one god in pagan cultures iirc so qualia applies here as well.

This is just about the most pitiful, lame argument I've seen since being on the forum, and that's saying a lot. You should be ashamed. You're lucky they don't ban people for dumbass arguments. — T Clark

:lol: Why is my argument "pitiful", "lame", and "dumbass"? Justify your statement, if you can that is :smile:

I'm curious, what's your argument for/against monotheism?

so numbers aren't involved — Shwah

Polytheism, Monotheism, and Atheism?