What were you before you became and atheist?

Post by **Hermit** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:54 am

Svartalf wrote:
Feck wrote:If our cultural root is Christianity... Explain the names for the days of the week please !
less visible in English or German, but looks at Spanish where saturday is sabado (sabbath), and sunday domingo (Lord's day).

In German Thursday (Donnerstag), is named after the god of thunder, Thor, Friday (Freitag) after the goddess of love, Freyja, Saturday (Samstag or Sonnabend) the day before the day of the sun, which is Sonntag. Monday (Montag) is named after the moon and Tuesday (Dienstag) after the god of war, Tyr. Wednesday (Mittwoch) is a concession to christianity. It means "middle of the week".

Post by **JimC** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:57 am

Seraph wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Feck wrote:If our cultural root is Christianity... Explain the names for the days of the week please !
less visible in English or German, but looks at Spanish where saturday is sabado (sabbath), and sunday domingo (Lord's day).
In German Thursday (Donnerstag), is named after the god of thunder, Thor, Friday (Freitag) after the goddess of love, Freyja, Saturday (Samstag or Sonnabend) the day before the day of the sun, which is Sonntag. Monday (Montag) is named after the moon and Tuesday (Dienstag) after the god of war, Tyr. Wednesday (Mittwoch) is a concession to christianity. It means "middle of the week".

I always assumed Wednesday was an alteration of "Wodensday"... (Woden being an alternative form of the Norse god Odin)

Post by **Hermit** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:04 am

JimC wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Feck wrote:If our cultural root is Christianity... Explain the names for the days of the week please !
less visible in English or German, but looks at Spanish where saturday is sabado (sabbath), and sunday domingo (Lord's day).
In German Thursday (Donnerstag), is named after the god of thunder, Thor, Friday (Freitag) after the goddess of love, Freyja, Saturday (Samstag or Sonnabend) the day before the day of the sun, which is Sonntag. Monday (Montag) is named after the moon and Tuesday (Dienstag) after the god of war, Tyr. Wednesday (Mittwoch) is a concession to christianity. It means "middle of the week".
I always assumed Wednesday was an alteration of "Wodensday"... (Woden being an alternative form of the Norse god Odin)

That's in English. Mittwoch literally means "middle of the week".

Post by **Ronja** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:17 am

JimC wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Feck wrote:If our cultural root is Christianity... Explain the names for the days of the week please !
less visible in English or German, but looks at Spanish where saturday is sabado (sabbath), and sunday domingo (Lord's day).
In German Thursday (Donnerstag), is named after the god of thunder, Thor, Friday (Freitag) after the goddess of love, Freyja, Saturday (Samstag or Sonnabend) the day before the day of the sun, which is Sonntag. Monday (Montag) is named after the moon and Tuesday (Dienstag) after the god of war, Tyr. Wednesday (Mittwoch) is a concession to christianity. It means "middle of the week".
I always assumed Wednesday was an alteration of "Wodensday"... (Woden being an alternative form of the Norse god Odin)

Yes. In (current) Swedish:

Söndag - the Sun's day
Måndag - the Moon's day
Tisdag - Tyr's day (god of war, victory and heroism)
Onsdag - Odin's day (god of wisdom, death, poetry and seid (divination/magic) )
Torsdag - Tor's day (god of thunder, strength and protection)
Fredag - Freja's day (goddess of fertility, love, beauty and seid - she taught Odin)
Lördag - the washing day ("löga" for wash, from the older "Laugr" for water)

Post by **JimC** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:40 am

Holy Roman Empire, Batman!

I just had an urge to type that, I'm sorry...

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:50 am

Laugr used to mean water? funny... in old Icelandic it meant baths, particularly Iceland's famous natural hot baths... don't remember the word for water.
IIRC, the Islenska for water is 'vatn', which also means (or used to mean) a lake.

Post by **Schneibster** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:15 am

Svartalf wrote:Laugr used to mean water? funny... in old Icelandic it meant baths, particularly Iceland's famous natural hot baths... don't remember the word for water.
IIRC, the Islenska for water is 'vatn', which also means (or used to mean) a lake.

Betcha you could clean clothes in a big bath of hot water.

Just sayin'.

Post by **Robert_S** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:53 am

Svartalf wrote:
Robert_S wrote:It is a nice trolling tool, to associate everything you don't like with Christianity and/or theism.
By Eris Robert, I'm going to believe you're a christian.

Project much?

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:38 am

JimC wrote:
PordFrefect wrote:What Seraph said. If you try to discuss something with him where you disagree you'll find it impossible as he never stays focused on a central point. He'll often argue circles around a vague notion that your supposed to guess at. When his argument is refuted he'll often cherry pick something else and respond to that as if it was the focus all along. It's more than a little irritating.
I agree, but there are also some interesting and thought-provoking ideas in many of his posts. As someone else said, it's not the ideas that are the problem, it's aspects of his mode of interaction with other posters... And it is not a problem in any serious way; it would be ridiculous to term it trolling, for example. Just a bit annoying...

I've been calling it "Duck & Cover Posting" lately. "I'm always right because I refuse to see anything that would show that I'm wrong." I won't say pigheaded because that would be offensive to pigs.

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:14 pm

Robert_S wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Robert_S wrote:It is a nice trolling tool, to associate everything you don't like with Christianity and/or theism.
By Eris Robert, I'm going to believe you're a christian.
Project much?

touché subgenius.

Post by **apophenia** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:11 am

Exi5tentialist wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Exi5tentialist wrote: Only God is eternal. To deny something into eternity is to make an alliance with God. Therefore 'never' is a deeply, deeply religious idea. I would never use the word, personally.
Fail. No mention of eternity is necessary. I've been in existence 56 years, and have been an atheist all that time. Therefore I've "never been anything but an atheist".

You really aren't very good at this, are you?
You only need to mention the last 56 years then. To bring in the whole of eternity and everything that preceded it is not only unnecessary but profoundly religious. But given what you said, I doubt you'd ever understand that.

I think, though have no immediate proof, that Cantor, Frege, Dedekind, Hilbert and Godel, to name just the mathematicians I know off the top of my head who have addressed the issue, would disagree with you on the nature of the infinite or the transfinite, and any concepts such as immortality and omnipotence / benevolence / whateverness that might flow from such concepts. I know from my own investigations of such as Anselm's original ontological argument, and commentators both pro and con on the question, that, to my mind, your ideas on the matter seem somewhat sophomoric. In a nutshell, the transfinite is smarter than you. And far more subtle.

Post by **Hermit** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:35 am

apophenia wrote:
Exi5tentialist wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Exi5tentialist wrote: Only God is eternal. To deny something into eternity is to make an alliance with God. Therefore 'never' is a deeply, deeply religious idea. I would never use the word, personally.
Fail. No mention of eternity is necessary. I've been in existence 56 years, and have been an atheist all that time. Therefore I've "never been anything but an atheist".

You really aren't very good at this, are you?
You only need to mention the last 56 years then. To bring in the whole of eternity and everything that preceded it is not only unnecessary but profoundly religious. But given what you said, I doubt you'd ever understand that.
I think, though have no immediate proof, that Cantor, Frege, Dedekind, Hilbert and Godel, to name just the mathematicians I know off the top of my head who have addressed the issue, would disagree with you on the nature of the infinite or the transfinite, and any concepts such as immortality and omnipotence / benevolence / whateverness that might flow from such concepts. I know from my own investigations of such as Anselm's original ontological argument, and commentators both pro and con on the question, that, to my mind, your ideas on the matter seem somewhat sophomoric. In a nutshell, the transfinite is smarter than you. And far more subtle.

Good one.

Also. More down to earth, though, bringing in the notion of eternity in the context of "I've never been anything but an atheist" makes as much sense as bringing it in if Geoff had said "I've never had any more than twelve toes" or "I've never been to Spain."

Post by **Schneibster** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:51 am

Seraph wrote:More down to earth, though, bringing in the notion of eternity in the context of "I've never been anything but an atheist" makes as much sense as bringing it in if Geoff had said "I've never had any more than twelve toes" or "I've never been to Spain."

It's called "changing the subject."

Post by **Schneibster** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:02 am

apophenia wrote:I think, though have no immediate proof, that Cantor, Frege, Dedekind, Hilbert and Godel, to name just the mathematicians I know off the top of my head who have addressed the issue, would disagree with you on the nature of the infinite or the transfinite, and any concepts such as immortality and omnipotence / benevolence / whateverness that might flow from such concepts. I know from my own investigations of such as Anselm's original ontological argument, and commentators both pro and con on the question, that, to my mind, your ideas on the matter seem somewhat sophomoric. In a nutshell, the transfinite is smarter than you. And far more subtle.

Gödel did a version of Anselm's ontological argument; what he did was codify Leibnitz' version of it into modal logic in order to use mathematical methods to rigorously prove it, but he didn't release it for a very long time because he was afraid people would think he was asserting belief in God, or that it would be twisted to that purpose. The real point, of course, was to show that it would be subject to the Incompleteness Theorem; which in turn implies that a formal system, such as reality, with God in it is either incomplete, or inconsistent.

It's a pretty cute method, leading to an internal inconsistency in reality introduced by the assertion of the existence of God.

So, you're correct, apophenia; Gödel, at minimum, would disagree with Exi.

You have an interesting mind, apophenia.

Post by **Hermit** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:03 am

Schneibster wrote:
Seraph wrote:More down to earth, though, bringing in the notion of eternity in the context of "I've never been anything but an atheist" makes as much sense as bringing it in if Geoff had said "I've never had any more than twelve toes" or "I've never been to Spain."
It's called "changing the subject."

That's a charitable way of putting it.

rationalia.com

What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Re: What were you before you became and atheist?

Who is online