You know that joke atheists tell Christians where they say “We both agree that most gods don’t exist, I just believe in one less than you. You and I aren’t so different.”? Well, that joke is more accurate than the atheists realise. The monotheism of the pre-roman Christians and Jews is very different to the monotheism of today.
Ancient Christians and Jews believed in the gods of every culture, but they only worshipped one. That’s how every culture treated foreign gods, back then. The Romans transformed the world forever when they used religion as a tool of cultural genocide through syncretism. As Roman polytheism was replaced by Roman Christianity, it became the custom to deny the gods of foreign religions. This was a new thing, back then.
Anyone who studies history knows that Europeans have been copying Rome ever since Rome fell. The colonisers of the new worlds copied Roman techniques of cultural genocide, by denying not just the power or worthiness of indigenous gods, but their very existence.
White modern atheism exists in the wasteland left in the wake of Christianity. The difference between a Christian coloniser and a white antitheist is one god. That’s insignificant. The antitheists are simply carrying on the traditions of Christianity, rather than attempting to actually move beyond a roman Christian worldview and learn from the way human thought worked before Christian genocide.
The monotheism that characterizes Judaism began in ancient Israel with the adoption of Yahweh as the single object of worship and the rejection of the gods of other tribes and nations without, initially, denying their existence.
Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh.
Maybe just read some encylopedias if you want to know more about the history of monotheism
No they don’t claim antitheism is colonial white people stuff.
First your own cited sources contradict you: you said that ancient Christians believed also in other gods but ancient Judaism was before that. Also in those sources you find that this happend in ancient Israel.
I don’t think the people there would be described as white.
You should try discussing instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Frankly you never stated how the behavior of Islam (that is also a monotheistic religion that denies all other gods) fits with the idea that antitheism is colonial white people stuff.
I’ve taken like four or five advanced trigonometry courses and I still can’t really define what trigonometry is. Mathematics is like Andrew Tate’s Hustler University scam. If you take one class, it only exists to prove that you’re a mark and sell you more classes.
I enjoyed the trigonometry unit in my highschool geometry class, but that’s because it was mostly proofs, and those were just philosophy about triangles.
The ancient Egyptians utilized neither wheels nor work animals for the majority of the pyramid-building era, so the giant blocks, weighing 2.5 tons on average, had to be moved through human muscle power alone. But until recently, nobody really knew how. The answer, it seems, is simply water. Evidence suggests that the blocks were first levered onto wooden sleds and then hauled up ramps made of sand. However, dry sand piles up in front of a moving sled, increasing friction until the sled is nearly impossible to pull. Wet sand reduces friction dramatically beneath the sled runners, eliminating the sand piles and making it possible for a team of people to move massive objects.
I’m not saying those are the exact techniques that were used to build the pyramids, but they demonstrate that massive stones can be easily lifted and accurately placed using only “primitive” resources and leverage.
This is the truth. I am a few months away from getting my PhD in particle physics and the core questions being raised in all levels of the field at the edges of our decent big-picture understanding are so exciting.
It is interesting, but it feels like there are too many compromises made at the expense of observational data.
The first issue is the reliance on a ~2eV neutrino to compensate. While sterile neutrinos could theoretically be that massive, we have yet to find conclusive evidence of steriles and don't know the absolute masses or the mass ordering of the neutrinos mass eigenstates we have observed. (I am in neutrinos, so this is the point I am most familiar with.) While the discovery of steriles could occur, my buddy works on a search for eV scale sterile neutrinos and all of his findings have shown that there is no preference for any sterile signal at or around 1-100eV. Normal neutrinos also can't work: While we don't know the masses of each neutrino mass eigenstate individually, we know the sum of the neutrino masses, ~0.06-0.1eV, eliminating normal neutrinos from contention as well. This is a core failing, as it relies on the presence of an equally unproven particle as DM, but isn't as good a fit as DM in many ways, leading into point 2...
It has a hard time fitting to galactic cluster data. The Bullet cluster is one of the best observational proofs of DM, and MOND doean't offer a good explanation for what we see. It also doesn't account for gravitational lensing, which is a problem given we can see that quite clearly. Since it is only effective at huge scales and can't be easily checked in a lab, it needs to at least consistently describe observations before I can consider it over DM, which does an excellent job of describing observation. This leads into my final point...
There isn't really any way to experimentally verify/refute it. I am an experimentalist, and while not every theory needs to have a labrotory confirmation, it seems like there is no way to falsify MOND. DM experiments have long proposed models that allow for some DM particle interaction mechanism, however infrequent, with barionic matter that would confirm/deny those models. While far from exhaustive, it at least allows for the ruling out of certain models if the expected flux isn't there. MOND seems opaque to even this sort of experimental checking.
There are other issue too, but I am not well versed in GR, which is where many other tensions exist. Overall, it seems like an interesting math problem, but I can't take it seriously until it gives us something to test or describes what we see much more accurately.
science_memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.