Why is my argument "pitiful", "lame", and "dumbass"? Justify your statement, if you can that is — Agent Smith

@Angelo Cannata provided clear, plausible, documented evidence that your interpretation of the change from polytheism to monotheism is not correct. Your response? "That's just opinion." Then you went on with your half-baked theory that, coincidentally, just happens to work well with your knee-jerk atheism.

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

I don't have an argument for or against monotheism. It's not something I have an opinion about. I do have an opinion about irrational arguments for religious bigotry.

Angelo Cannata provided clear, plausible, documented evidence that your interpretation of the change from polytheism to monotheism is not correct. Your response? "That's just opinion." Then you went on with your half-baked theory that, coincidentally, just happens to work well with your knee-jerk atheism. — T Clark

:chin: No, no, he has a point.

Atheism isn't something one simply picks up off a shelf in some cheap store. Most intellectuals worth their salt are atheists. I simply see little point in wasting time on ground already covered, waypoints humanity has already passed through. Don't you realize theism is nearly 8k years old and it began with human sacrifices (re bog bodies in Denmark, Ireland and Incan mummies in the Andes). Do you still wish to endorse religion? I hope theism is true, and you have the opportunity to meet all the people who've played the role of the sacrificial lamb. Do send us a note on how that worked out for you.

@Angelo Cannata, no offense sir/madam. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers and it seems you have a minion viz. T Clark to come to your aid. I wish I had one or two, but I don't. :sad:

T Clark, since you seem to have gone through Angelo Cannata's link, mind sharing your insights on the matter. Would love to further the discussion. If you're on the right track, you likely are, I see great potential with regard to discovering truth.

Do you still wish to endorse religion? — Agent Smith

I don't endorse religion, I endorse arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice.

T Clark, since you seem to have gone through Angelo Cannata's link, mind sharing your insights on the matter. — Agent Smith

I don't see what more needs to be said. Your question about how and why polytheism evolved into monotheism in some, but not all, cultures has been asked by many people before. A lot of thought, research, and study has been put into it. The answers they came up with are plausible and documented.

The primary religions of the most populous countries, India and China, are still polytheistic.

I endorse arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice. — T Clark

That's setting the bar too high in my opinion and your "website" will get fewer, even though high quality, hits if you catch my drift. Also you'll miss out on what a fresh pair of eyes can provide in terms of novel insights into a problem, old and new. Just a thought, that's all.

answers — T Clark

Der candidat antwortet are...

Perhaps we can find a plausible answer to our question by looking at a similar situation in other fields/disciplines. Nothing comes to mind. Do you have one we could use?

There's a very good reason for having multiple deities: different properties/qualities/natures, especially if antipodal, meant that one "object" couldn't possess them. Since good and evil are opposites, Zoroaster posited two divine beings viz. Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Likewise, in other polytheisms too, different gods were personifications of certain qualities e.g. Athena (beauty), Mars (war), etc.

What signalled the end to this rather simple but intuitively sensible logic of polytheism? We still need Satan to make sense of reality or else whence all this evil?

Since you're into metaphysics, the above is an issue in that branch of philosophy, oui? A ball (can't be both) black and white and red all over? We instinctively split the ball into as many parts as there are colors (in this case a 3D peace sign).

I endorse arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice.
— T Clark

That's setting the bar too high in my opinion and your "website" will get fewer, even though high quality, hits if you catch my drift. Also you'll miss out on what a fresh pair of eyes can provide in terms of novel insights into a problem, old and new. Just a thought, that's all. — Agent Smith

Just to make sure I've got this right. Requiring arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice is setting the bar too high. Is that correct? Your directness is refreshing. I can't think of anything else of value to add in response.

Just to make sure I've got this right. Requiring arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice is setting the bar too high. Is that correct? Your directness is refreshing. I can't think of anything else of value to add in response — T Clark

Beware of adopting principles which when applied to yourself will only get you an F^-.

Your directness is refreshing — T Clark

Thank you. :smile:

Just to make sure I've got this right. Requiring arguments based on knowledge and reason rather than prejudice is setting the bar too high. Is that correct? Your directness is refreshing. I can't think of anything else of value to add in response
— T Clark

Beware of adopting principles which when applied to yourself will only get you an F-. — Agent Smith

I'm willing to be judged by that standard. When I fail to meet them, and I sometimes do, I deserve criticism. Have at it.

I sometimes do [fail] — T Clark

That's all that matters, no? I could be wrong of course.

Just curious, you mention two criteria
1. Knowledge
2. Reason

Why these two only? Creativity? Irrationalism? Is Taoism (one of your pet subjects) reason(able)?

I sometimes do [fail]
— T Clark

That's all that matters, no? — Agent Smith

As I said, if I fail, criticize me for my failure, as I am criticizing you for yours.

Creativity? Irrationalism? — Agent Smith

Are you proposing these as standards by which philosophical arguments should be judged?

Is Taoism (one of your pet subjects) reason(able)? — Agent Smith

Subjects aren't reasonable, arguments are. I think my discussions about Taoism have been reasonable. As I'll say again, if you find some that aren't, criticize them.

As I said, if I fail, criticize me for my failure, as I am criticizing you for yours — T Clark

But I haven't failed monsieur! :chin:

Are you proposing these as standards by which philosophical arguments should be judged? — T Clark

I rank/rate creativity highly, right up there with reason & knowledge. The reason it seems to have dropped out of philosophical discourse is because we're still in the early stages. Nevertheless parallel processing has been/is/will be done with amazing results. There should be another branch of philosophy specifically developed to beautify philosophy. Compare an automobile from the 1890s to one in 2022.

Here, for example: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/21944/

You can just put on Google something like "from politheism to monotheism" and you will find hundreds of studies that show the complexity of the transition, according to the specific context of each single religion. — Angelo Cannata

Read the link. A good-enough-for-government-work explanation for why polytheism was swapped for monotheism: Dread (of more calamities, catastrophes, Yahweh's wrath).

If so, shouldn't the holocaust (1900s) and the persecution of Christians by the Romans, cataclysms in their own right, have driven the Jews and Christians back into the arms of polytheism.

A one-way street?

I rank/rate creativity highly, right up there with reason & knowledge. The reason it seems to have dropped out of philosophical discourse is because we're still in the early stages. Nevertheless parallel processing has been/is/will be done with amazing results. There should be another branch of philosophy specifically developed to beautify philosophy. Compare an automobile from the 1890s to one in 2022. — Agent Smith

I had a thought that I think we both can agree is a good one. I plan to avoid discussions with you in the future.

Subjects aren't reasonable, arguments are. — T Clark

"The argument" can be very unreasonable though...

"The argument" can be very unreasonable though... — EugeneW

Yes. My point is that the term "reasonable" can apply to arguments but not to subjects.

I think subjects as well as arguments can be reasonable as well as unreasonable. For an atheist (is it me or is there unusual much activity abouts gods?) theism is unreasonable. Close to madness even. Is madness reasonable?

I think subjects as well as arguments can be reasonable as well as unreasonable. For an atheist (is it me or is there unusual much activity abouts gods?) theism is unreasonable. Close to madness even. Is madness reasonable? — EugeneW

Given that you and I are reasonable people, does that mean there are some subjects we should not be able to talk about? That doesn't make sense to me.

Neither to me. That's why reasonable applies to subjects as well as arguments.

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). — Shwah

I've no idea what you're attempting to say here.

It is established, well documented, undeniable knowledge that many people across the globe of history have attributed all sorts of things to supernatural beings, of which gods are species. As the gaps in our knowledge have been bridged, the need to posit supernatural beings like gods has diminished.

The interesting thing, however, is that there is still room to posit forces of unknown origin. Hence, I find the agnostic stance the most reasonable one when it comes to the origin(s) of the universe, despite having more than enough reason to reject the God of Abraham as well as the other mythical gods throughout history.

I'm just saying assuming the relationship is justified (that zeus created lightening), changing zeus to be of the mind but not changing lightening to be derivative of the mind (and thus keeping the relationship that zeus created lightening even while changing the substance) doesn't get a valid analogy for what they were saying and positing which means it never captures what their religious or spiritual thoughts were.

I don't think it's possible to ontologically negate/debunk anything (because we don't have epistemic certainty). I assume we just can't derive some things from particular chosen metaphysics/frameworks (such as science can't derive ghosts or even math but that doesn't mean neither don't exist).

I don't think it's possible to ontologically negate/debunk anything (because we don't have epistemic certainty). — Shwah

Well, that's another matter altogether, replete with it's own set of common problems as well as some that are much less well known. However, that being said, I do not agree with saying that we do not have epistemic certainty about many, perhaps most things. I'll leave it there, for it is irrelevant to this thread.

Were the Greeks justified in positing Zeus? That all depends upon what counts as being justified. On my view, logical possibility alone does not warrant belief, so...

Interesting, I assume belief is derived from truth or oughts are derived from personal is's (as they're just personal propositional statements). Whichever is happens to be the most fundamental truth for you is what you'll believe imo.

Edit: but I don't think validity is enough to be a most fundamental truth for anyone necessarily. Still needs to be personally sound.

I had a thought that I think we both can agree is a good one. I plan to avoid discussions with you in the future. — T Clark

Why? Am I now on your ignore list? :smile: Ask @SophistiCat, s/he has a browser add-on that lets you avoid certain posters you feel don't contribute to the forum.

As for me, I feel I can learn from you. So, no, I'll not download that charming piece of SophistiCat code. I can't afford it.

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem! — Stalin

Have a good day señor! Sorry it had to end this way.

The interesting thing, however, is that there is still room to posit forces of unknown origin — creativesoul

Ietsism/Somethingism.

Ietsism, as far as I can tell, is proto-religion. Over the course of history, that something in somethingism was assigned the value of powerful, knowledgeable, and good anthropomorphized beings [god(s)]. Deism is, inter alia, a return to ietsisim, god(s) don't square with facts as they stand. Reminds me of The Force (George Lucas' Star Wars).

I was thinking more along the lines of quantum entanglement(spooky action at a distance).

I was thinking more along the lines of quantum entanglement(spooky action at a distance). — creativesoul

Oh, I see. I never really understood why action at a distance would be "spooky"? Perhaps it violates the light speed law in Einstein's universe. That would be an inconsistency then, oui? Etiher Einstein is wrong or entanglement is impossible, but Einstein is right and entanglement has been experimentally verified. :chin:

Are you suggesting that spooky action at a distance is gods' doing? Why would they interest themselves in such seemingly minor aspects of reality unless...quantum entanglement has implications in ethics, the bailiwick of the gods?

@Agent Smith It helps to understand a so-called ‘theist’ by asking what they mean by ‘god’ or whatever term they pick.

You will find there is a limitation to how well they can define what they are talking about, and if they are genuine they might even say they cannot possibly state what they feel/mean.

Have you red much of Eliade? The Sacred and The Profane is a nice book.

It helps to understand a so-called ‘theist’ by asking what they mean by ‘god’ or whatever term they pick. — I like sushi

We use words, correctly at that, without being able to articulate what they mean. Sorcery! Bewitchment (by language) [re Wittgenstein].

‘Let there be light’ and so ‘light’ becomes ;)

‘Let there be light’ and so ‘light’ becomes — I like sushi

Sorry, was I supposed to have got something from that? Alas, my little grey cells are on holiday. No, they're underpaid. It must be a general strike! Oh, crap! Call the police! Call God! Call Mr. Magoo! Call...somebody for God's sakes! :lol: