What were you before you became and atheist?

[Schneibster]

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.

We're supposed to be nice.

[Hermit]

Pappaaaaaaaaa! Come here, quick! Someone's hijacked Schneibster's account!

[JimC]

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.

Have you read "Gödel , Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter?

I read it many years ago; I think I should read it again...

[Svartalf]

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.

Would 'moving the goalposts', or, 'introducing red herrings because you want to discuss shit rather than the subject at hand' fit better?
Me, thinking on it, I think we (and certainly myself) did fall for the trolling.

[Hermit]

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.

Would 'moving the goalposts', or, 'introducing red herrings because you want to discuss shit rather than the subject at hand' fit better?
Me, thinking on it, I think we (and certainly myself) did fall for the trolling.

In order to maintain focus on the ball rather than attack the man I prefer to stick with what I said on the matter in the first place.

[Animavore]

Before I became an atheist I was an alcoholic, a drug abuser and a wife beater. I was lost in the dark but Richard Dawkins found me and he's been with me ever since. He gave me the strength to give up drink and drugs. I've found a better way. I know I can never fully make it up to my family, the pain I caused them, but with the guidance of Dawkins I do my best to right wrongs.

[JimC]

Before I became an atheist I was an alcoholic, a drug abuser and a wife beater. I was lost in the dark but Richard Dawkins found me and he's been with me ever since. He gave me the strength to give up drink and drugs. I've found a better way. I know I can never fully make it up to my family, the pain I caused them, but with the guidance of Dawkins I do my best to right wrongs.

Cheeky bugger!

[Svartalf]

Before I was an atheist, I felt guilty because I'm a sex fiend and those impure thoughts, those self abusing deeds were supposed to be bad.
Now that I've understood that religion is crap, I also know those thoughts and deeds are natural, and I act on them without being bothered.
Of course, without religion to tell me that rape is OK, I've had to give up that.

[JimC]

Before I was an atheist, I felt guilty because I'm a sex fiend and those impure thoughts, those self abusing deeds were supposed to be bad.
Now that I've understood that religion is crap, I also know those thoughts and deeds are natural, and I act on them without being bothered.
Of course, without religion to tell me that rape is OK, I've had to give up that.

[Exi5tentialist]

It's difficult to tease apart the aspects that are religious in nature from more general cultural influence that has evolved over time as humans have evolved as a species ..

This is part of a post contains several interesting points, some of which I'm afraid (...sorry Charlou!) I disagree with. There's no doubt in my mind that the dominant ideology in our civilization is capitalism. Capitalism, viewed on a linear timescale, is a recent arrival but in a short period has absolutely taken over everything and indeed has moulded who we are. The support for capitalism to continue as the dominant cultural ideology depends on people taking on a number of beliefs which I think are analogous to religious belief such as the work ethic, submission to authority and so on. Of course such beliefs might also be characterised as natural beliefs because some of us see behaviours that look similar in wolves and dolphins etc, and think that things like punishment and hierarchy are given by nature. To me that view just entrenches the immovability of capitalist values by substituting nature for God and is just another way of denying our freedom.

So what I am saying is that "general cultural influence" is produced in our own time now, I don't think it's evolved over time as humans have evolved as a species.

[Ronja]

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

You have an interesting mind, apophenia.

Very.
Takes one to know one, it would also seem.

Have you read "Gödel , Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter?

One of the books that my most positively challenging boss ever (he's also a friend) recommended to me in 1995, and I kick myself every now and then for still not getting around to it.

[Exi5tentialist]

I think this is because religion has evolved with us.

So following on from my previous post, it is using the authority of God that capitalism imposed the ideological discipline necessary to guarantee its survival. In this sense, christianity as we know it was designed by capitalism to serve capitalism's ends; as long as this deference to religious superstition under capitalism remained strong, no amount of rational argument against capitalism being the optimal ideology for our civilisation could make any headway. The deference to authority in capitalism replicated the deference to authority in christianity.

For this reason I say that capitalism and religion are inseparably intertwined. One cannot survive without the other. That would not be the case for someone who thought that capitalism can be justified on rational grounds, in which case they won't think the evaporation of religion from the scene matters in the slightest. I am not of that school; I think capitalism is irrational, inefficient and unjustifiable for the demands of the world's population. Capitalism has moulded religion as a servant for its own ends, and wrapped religion around itself as protection.

This is not to say that the content of christianity was wholly invented by capitalism; obviously the stories have been co-opted by capitalism, and of course moulded by capitalism. By the way I maintain that Roman empire was the dominant force in the spread of religion; capitalism's intertwining with religion heavily co-opts Rome's intertwining with religion, through obviously Rome wasn't a capitalist civilisation as such. (I don't know where you all got to with the 7-day names debate. My argument was that it was a North European gloss on a Roman system, I hope that answered the question, I forget who asked it).

Given all this, I don't think that religion has evolved with us as you say. The religion we know is wholly an invention of civilisation, and has nothing to do with any religions that prehistoric humans might have known. Even if there were linkages of holy names or stories between the religion of those times and the religion of today, the accompanying belief systems themselves are impossible to trace and have no connection to each other. I say this partly because I think it's a feature of the progression of time that each generation invents its own culture, but partly because I resist any idea that our human freedom is constrained by any such evolutionary legacies.

[Geoff]

...I resist any idea that our human freedom is constrained by any such evolutionary legacies.

You resist any idea that isn't your own, no matter how patently ludicrous your ideas are.

[Exi5tentialist]

We're an interesting combination of curious, manipulative, herdlike and superstitious animals. For religion to arise out of that and become a tool for social manipulation was inevitable.

So for the reasons I've said above, I disagree that religion arose out of herdlike or superstitious animal-like tendencies or that it was inevitable that it would. The religion of today might manipulate our predisposition to fear and other emotional responses, but in the final analysis, after all the tracings of the history available to us (historical sources which are only present in our own time, incidentally) religion is an invention of our own time that we are free to discard at will.

[JimC]

We're an interesting combination of curious, manipulative, herdlike and superstitious animals. For religion to arise out of that and become a tool for social manipulation was inevitable.

So for the reasons I've said above, I disagree that religion arose out of herdlike or superstitious animal-like tendencies or that it was inevitable that it would. The religion of today might manipulate our predisposition to fear and other emotional responses, but in the final analysis, after all the tracings of the history available to us (historical sources which are only present in our own time, incidentally) religion is an invention of our own time that we are free to discard at will.

Your eccentric desire to live as a philosophical amnesiac living only in the "now"is a quirk which is not shared by 99% of your audience...

Damned 1 percenters...