Why Atheism?

[epronovost]

So your belief that ancient Israel and Christians believed in a humanoid God and the transcendent conception is a "post biblical innovations derived from greco-roman philosophy" is flat out wrong. You are welcome to provide references we can explore.

These are the two most famous book on the subject. It's the academic consensus amongst the scholars of the Bible and theologians that early Christians and Jews believed in a humanoid God and that god as a transcendent being is largely a post biblical innovation influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy; the fact you can see this slow transformation in the books of the OT from the oldest to the newest one is evidence of this influence amongst other things.  

https://www.amazon.ca/God-Anatomy-France...db653131c9

https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481311687/gods-body/

[Paleophyte]

Emphasis mine. Your own select verses clearly describe a male deity that "sits", "stoops", and has "hands". That's about as anthropomorphic as you're going to get.

I agree. And since anthropomorphic means not actually having those attributes, I'm fine with that.

So what you just said is the opposite of true. Anthropomorphic means having human form or attributes. Sitting, stooping, hands. They're all human.

These verses you highlight point out nicely my point. If one creates the universe, does one really have to "stoop down" to look at it? The male pronoun (as is 'father')is the language we use to relate to another person. Why in the world would anyone think of God as a male or an actual paternal progenitor? That does not even make sense.

Makes perfect sense once you realize that those verses were the campfire stories of bronze age goat herders who believed in a very human deity.

It is imagery and relational language: anthropomorphic language.

A book full of imagery and allegory. Got it. Still needs more dragons.

[Minimalist]

Of course he will..... ignorant religious shitheads always think their god is real and all the others are phony.

We know that they are all phony!

Better watch out, Steve will pray to his old testament vengeful god, then we'll  all be in trouble.

Quetzlcoatl will protect me!

[Cavebear]

I am sometimes amused that friends sometimes think that there are greater and lesser amounts of infinity.

There are.  The infinity of numbers between zero and 1 is a smaller infinity than the infinite set of numbers between zero and 2.  The number of discrete infinite sets is itself infinite.

Infinite is not a straightforward mathematical concept, closer to cousin to imaginary numbers (square root of -1).  Or that 0! = 1.  Or reckoning that the word "before" is inappropriate to describing the beginning of the universe.

The we have a faculty of mind able to make sense of these counter-intuitive notions is remarkable.

I agree with some of what you said. But defining infinity using "zero to 1" is complicated by zero. Since zero means "nothing", infinity doesn't quite apply to the concept. This is beyond my math level (I'm better at concepts than long lines of formulas), but it seems to me that you probably can't logically have infinity and nothing at the same time. If that's possible, please send me a link and I'll try to learn something new.

So zero to 1 seems tricky but I'll say there is as much "infinity" between 1 and 2 as there is between 1 and 1,000 or even 1 to Googleplex, etc... That is the whole concept of "infinity" as best I understand it. Infinity is uncountable.

I think I get the concept of "infinity". I know most people think of it as a "really large number", like stars in the inverse or grains of sand. I know better than that. I think of infinity as an idea that is outside of my practical life.

BTW. I liked your suggestions of infinity as related to imaginary numbers. "i", for example. And I assume you mean 0! as "zero factorial"? I sure never contemplated "zero factorial". So I did a search. I found some sites that went into long math details. But maybe the most useful was a math discussion forum where one person said "My Algebra II teacher admits that he doesn't know [why 0!=1]. I have also asked the two physics teachers. Everyone tells me 'because it does'." Another poster said it was because "zero" messes up too many formulas. LOL!

See, I learn something new every day.

[Chas]

There are.  The infinity of numbers between zero and 1 is a smaller infinity than the infinite set of numbers between zero and 2.  The number of discrete infinite sets is itself infinite.

Infinite is not a straightforward mathematical concept, closer to cousin to imaginary numbers (square root of -1).  Or that 0! = 1.  Or reckoning that the word "before" is inappropriate to describing the beginning of the universe.

The we have a faculty of mind able to make sense of these counter-intuitive notions is remarkable.

I agree with some of what you said.  But defining infinity using "zero to 1" is complicated by zero.  Since zero means "nothing", infinity doesn't quite apply to the concept.  This is beyond my math level (I'm better at concepts than long lines of formulas), but it seems to me that you probably can't logically have infinity and nothing at the same time.  If that's possible, please send me a link and I'll try to learn something new.

So zero to 1 seems tricky but I'll say there is as much "infinity" between 1 and 2 as there is between 1 and 1,000 or even 1 to Googleplex, etc...  That is the whole concept of "infinity" as best I understand it.  Infinity is uncountable.

I think I get the concept of "infinity".  I know most people think of it as a "really large number", like stars in the inverse or grains of sand.  I know better than that.  I think of infinity as an idea that is outside of my practical life.

BTW.  I liked your suggestions of infinity as related to imaginary numbers.  "i", for example.  And I assume you mean 0! as "zero factorial"?  I sure never contemplated "zero factorial".  So I did a search.  I found some sites that went into long math details.  But maybe the most useful was a math discussion forum where one person said "My Algebra II teacher admits that he doesn't know [why 0!=1]. I have also asked the two physics teachers. Everyone tells me 'because it does'."  Another poster said it was because "zero" messes up too many formulas.  LOL!

See, I learn something new every day.

Zero is not nothing in this context, it is a number. It is simply the lower limit of a range of numbers.

[Cavebear]

I agree with some of what you said.  But defining infinity using "zero to 1" is complicated by zero.  Since zero means "nothing", infinity doesn't quite apply to the concept.  This is beyond my math level (I'm better at concepts than long lines of formulas), but it seems to me that you probably can't logically have infinity and nothing at the same time.  If that's possible, please send me a link and I'll try to learn something new.

So zero to 1 seems tricky but I'll say there is as much "infinity" between 1 and 2 as there is between 1 and 1,000 or even 1 to Googleplex, etc...  That is the whole concept of "infinity" as best I understand it.  Infinity is uncountable.

I think I get the concept of "infinity".  I know most people think of it as a "really large number", like stars in the inverse or grains of sand.  I know better than that.  I think of infinity as an idea that is outside of my practical life.

BTW.  I liked your suggestions of infinity as related to imaginary numbers.  "i", for example.  And I assume you mean 0! as "zero factorial"?  I sure never contemplated "zero factorial".  So I did a search.  I found some sites that went into long math details.  But maybe the most useful was a math discussion forum where one person said "My Algebra II teacher admits that he doesn't know [why 0!=1]. I have also asked the two physics teachers. Everyone tells me 'because it does'."  Another poster said it was because "zero" messes up too many formulas.  LOL!

See, I learn something new every day.

Zero is not nothing in this context, it is a number. It is simply the lower limit of a range of numbers.

Well, I disagree in concept, friendly. Yes, zero is a numeral on our ordinate scale, thanks to the Asian Indians. But it doesn't have an actual "value". Approaching zero from 1 seems like infinity in reverse. Numbers are quantities. Zero is not a quantity. So zero really means "nothing" in quantity. It isn't "simply the lower limit of a range of numbers"; it is the lack of number. You can have "one". You can have less than one. But I don't think you can have zero as a "quantity".

I never thought I would be discussing "nothing" as a quantity, but there I go... The concept of zero is very interesting.

[Chas]

Zero is not nothing in this context, it is a number. It is simply the lower limit of a range of numbers.

Well, I disagree in concept, friendly.  Yes, zero is a numeral on our ordinate scale, thanks to the Asian Indians.  But it doesn't have an actual "value".  Approaching zero from 1 seems like infinity in reverse.  Numbers are quantities.  Zero is not a quantity.  So zero really means "nothing" in quantity.  It isn't "simply the lower limit of a range of numbers"; it is the lack of number.  You can have "one".  You can have less than one.  But I don't think you can have zero as a "quantity".  

I never thought I would be discussing "nothing" as a quantity, but there I go...  The concept of zero is very interesting.

You are conflating ordinality and cardinality.
Cardinality is quantity, so in simplest terms, the cardinality of zero is 'nothing'.
The ordinality of zero is the integer between -1 and 1, for example.

[Cavebear]

Well, I disagree in concept, friendly.  Yes, zero is a numeral on our ordinate scale, thanks to the Asian Indians.  But it doesn't have an actual "value".  Approaching zero from 1 seems like infinity in reverse.  Numbers are quantities.  Zero is not a quantity.  So zero really means "nothing" in quantity.  It isn't "simply the lower limit of a range of numbers"; it is the lack of number.  You can have "one".  You can have less than one.  But I don't think you can have zero as a "quantity".  

I never thought I would be discussing "nothing" as a quantity, but there I go...  The concept of zero is very interesting.

You are conflating ordinality and cardinality.
Cardinality is quantity, so in simplest terms, the cardinality of zero is 'nothing'.
The ordinality of zero is the integer between -1 and 1, for example.

Well, actually "nothing" (a null value) as a "number" is a concept developed by the Asian Indians. From what I've read at various sites, no one had created a symbol for "nothing" before them. I can't find why the symbol for "nothing" was a circle. I might guess it represented an "empty hole" but that is sheer speculation. It would be interesting to know the origin of the symbol...

And where would we be without it? We would have to refer to some extremely wealthy people as multiples of "$999,999,999 plus $1". Very awkward at best. LOL!

Well, it beats Roman numerals. Just out of curiousity, is there even a Roman numeral representing "billion"?

[MrGodgeneCarrier]

Greetings, SteveII!




MrGodgeneCarrier in 2020 (Post 181 text / Post 201 quote):


“a seemingly infinite number” / “in effect, an infinite number” / “PRACTICALLY AN INFINITE NUMBER” / “a virtually infinite number”



SteveII in 2024  (Post 221):


“ . . . ‘Virtually infinite’ is a stupid concept if you think about it.  The difference between a virtually infinite number of events and an infinite number of events is…well…infinite. . . . “



[extremely useful] Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (5th ed. 2009) purchased in 2023 and consulted in 2024 after a reading of Post 221:


“virtually”:                         “1 almost”             [ “2 on a computer, . . . “ ]

“practically”:                      “1 . . . almost”       [ “2 in a sensible way . . . “ ]

“practically/virtually”:         “very nearly”          (p. 46)



UNAVOIDABLE CONCLUSION (2024):


As you, SteveII, so rightly observed at 02:32 PM (or 02:33 PM) on 04-02-2024, “ . . . ‘Virtually infinite’ is a stupid concept . . . “



HOWEVER . . .



[unabridged] Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2nd ed. 1983) consulted in 2020:


“vir tu al ly, adv. in a virtual manner; in effect if not in actuality; for all practical purposes; as, virtually identical.”



REASONABLE CONCLUSION (both in good ol’ 2020 and now, again, in 2024):


“Virtually infinite” is just another way of saying, “infinite   FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES   but   NOT IN ACTUALITY.”



Anyway, SteveII, all the best to you! 



Webster’s:


prac ti cal ly, adv.

3. for all practical purposes; in effect; virtually; as, he is practically the boss.
4. almost; nearly. [Colloq.]

[skyking]

Simple question.
Answer: Nobody tried to indoctrinate me, and when I was a teenager I examined religion and it never passed the smell test.

[SYZ]

The now-banned OP, answering his own question said.....

Now, the most obvious would be you don't believe in, or worship gods. But there seems to be a stark contrast between your everyday atheist and the atheists you encounter on forums like this. I had checked other forums, most of them long dead, before I settled here and this doesn't seem like something exclusive to this forum. You seem so angry, mean, hateful and facetious.

He or she obviously has no understanding of what atheism is,
or what constitutes describing oneself as an atheist.

I have a sneaking feeling that Steve may well fit this mindset too,
as he doesn't seem to understand that atheism is nothing more
than a personal state of mind.  

It's just like feeling happy, or despondent, or fearful, or excited.

Atheism has no dogma or a book of instructions about life; it has
no halls of worship in every town; it has no gods to worship or
any concept of heaven or hell; it has no preacher telling his or
her congregation about how to live their everyday, personal lives;
and fear and superstition and bloodlust have no part in atheism,
nor do hypocrisy and bigotry and exclusivity.

[Phaedrus]

It never surprises me any more that theists do not comprehend the meaning of a prefix.

[no one]

Theists, ain't much on thinking. Just reciting the stale, tired, familiar tune of absurd prattle they've been swallowing their whole lives.