The origins of atheism

[Wryetui]

So primitive polytheism it is?

Idolatry it is which leads to polytheism inevitably theologically speaking.

 

[Chriliman]

Hm... that would mean that God is and atheist, wouldn't it?

Or it would mean that you are wrong... pick your choice. )

Logically God would be an "atheist" because there is no God above him. Does this mean he wants his created beings to be atheists? Heavens no!

 

[quatona]

Atheism posits non-belief

Word salad.

The reason it's a valid explanation is because it's rational to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God who created the universe (this has nothing to do with statues on Saturn)

Yes, it has.
The mere fact that something is possible doesn´t render the belief in it rational any more than lack of belief of disbelief in it. It just means that it is possible.

This means it's rational to assume God exists

No, it doesn´t. You don´t get to jump from "it´s rational to believe in the possibility" to "it´s rational to believe in the actuality".

 

[quatona]

Idolatry it is which leads to polytheism inevitably theologically speaking.

So then why did you appeal to it as being the original belief?

 

[Freodin]

Logically God would be an "atheist" because there is no God above him.

No, that would not be "logically". But I already know that you use "logical" in the same way as you use "rational": wrongly!

Does this mean he wants his created beings to be atheists? Heavens no!

Well, I don't care what my created beings think about me.

 

[Foxhole87]

Ok, let us verify that. Put a babyborn in the jungle alone, with no contact with civilization and if he miraculously lives until, let's say, the age of 20, visit him, and you will see that he will already have a pantheon of gods.

How do you know that?

EDIT: The idea that someone could be born a Christian is like saying someone was born a Yankees fan.

 

[Foxhole87]

Atheism posits non-belief in a valid explanation for the universe. The reason it's a valid explanation is because it's rational to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God who created the universe (this has nothing to do with statues on Saturn) This means it's rational to assume God exists and expect confirmation from this God. Millions of people claim to have received confirmation, yet many atheists continue to refuse to assume God exists even though it's rational to do so. The position that it's irrational to assume God exists does not change the truth that it is reasonable to assume God exists at any point in time.

This is what I find interesting about atheism.

That's a stretch, if not highly contended, if not false.

 

[Davian]

Why wouldn't the garden exist?

Where did I say that?

He created them ex nihilo, not poofed them.

Because saying "out of nothing" in a different language sounds so much more sophisticated than "poofed into existence".

If you want to talk seriously with someone start by having educated tone and by measuring your words in order for the people to don't get insulted.

It may that there is no way to politely address closely held personal beliefs; any criticism of your beliefs may be interpreted as a personal attack.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

Why is the boat unbuildable?

I don't know the details, but you could ask one of the many highly motivated and well-financed individuals attempting to build replicas of that Biblical boat, yet failing to do so from period-specific materials.

Why does it only appears to be 65 million years ago?
Why is the earth 6000 yo?

I am only putting together what I gather from religionists in these forums. I ask, this the same "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? If not, in what way does your theology differ from this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, let us verify that. Put a babyborn in the jungle alone, with no contact with civilization and if he miraculously lives until, let's say, the age of 20, visit him, and you will see that he will already have a pantheon of gods.

I'm guessing you've never heard of feral children. There are examples of this...and not only do they not have gods, they lack language entirely.

Humans are social animals. Removed from social contact they appear "wild".

 

[Chicken Little]

How do you know this? Do you have one of those mind-reading hats?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Belief is not a conscious choice.

it is a conscious choice when you have learned that your choices have amounted to nothing good and aren't worth the match to light them up. then the choice to believe becomes rational. and continuing to following what you have done before that resulted in such failures. as the only thing that is irrational.
so we wait for your crop to come in.. as most of you sit in your parents basement addicted to porn and video games. completely insulted and isolated from reality and everything else ? Yes HE can and will wait for life to catch up to your choices.

 

[Freodin]

Atheism posits non-belief in a valid explanation for the universe. The reason it's a valid explanation is because it's rational to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God who created the universe (this has nothing to do with statues on Saturn) This means it's rational to assume God exists and expect confirmation from this God. Millions of people claim to have received confirmation, yet many atheists continue to refuse to assume God exists even though it's rational to do so. The position that it's irrational to assume God exists does not change the truth that it is reasonable to assume God exists at any point in time.

This is what I find interesting about atheism.

What is interesting about this post...

... you know, in philosophy, it is often useful to question your "ratio" - your reasonings. To not plod simply from A to B, but to ask what else may come from that, what sights to see on the way... and where that way might end.

In this case, just let's take a look at what else is "rational" and "a valid explanation"... and what you do not believe in.

It is "rational" to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God-less existence. It is "rational" to believe in the possibility of an uncaused generation of something from nothing. It is "rational" in the same way as the postulation of a deity is "rational"... it postulates the existence of an unexplained mechanism to result in a certain observation. (I'd like to postulate that "something from nothing" is a lot more rational than "God did it". )

All this is rational... and you don't believe it. You might even think it irrational. But that doesn't change the truth that it is "reasonable"... in the same way as your version is.

This is what I find interesting about... certain theists: the ability to sell their faith as "rational" and ignore the logical consequences of it.

 

[Davian]

Atheism posits non-belief

Atheism does not posit anything. It is simply, "I am not convinced".

in a valid explanation for the universe. The reason it's a valid explanation is because it's rational to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God who created the universe (this has nothing to do with statues on Saturn) This means it's rational to assume God exists

I think the term you are looking for is rationalize, for what you are doing:

"In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

and expect confirmation from this God.

How does this "confirmation" differ from "self-deception"?

Millions of people claim to have received confirmation,

Yet not one can demonstrate that this "confirmation" is not simply imagined.

yet many atheists continue to refuse to assume God exists even though it's rational to do so.

You think it rational to believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? What of all the scientific knowledge that must be tossed in order to accommodate your beliefs?

The position that it's irrational to assume God exists does not change the truth that it is reasonable to assume God exists at any point in time.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

This is what I find interesting about atheism.

What do you know of the subject?

 

[Davian]

it is a conscious choice when you have learned that your choices have amounted to nothing good and aren't worth the match to light them up.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

then the choice to believe becomes rational. and continuing to following what you have done before that resulted in such failures. as the only thing that is irrational.
so we wait for your crop to come in.. as most of you sit in your parents basement addicted to porn and video games.

We don't all live like you do.

completely insulted and isolated from reality and everything else ? Yes HE can and will wait for life to catch up to your choices.

How about yourself then? Can you make this conscious choice? Can you decide to believe that gods are nothing other than characters in books for the next three days?

 

[fat wee robin]

Is there a particular reason you capitalised "Truth"?

Because there is an objective truth which cannot be accessed through the pragmatic part of the brain ,the part of the brain which can process material facts . So it is actually impossible for those who erfuse to 'enter in ' as one might do in order to have a true loving relationship, one must give up control of another ;It is a risk ,but one that has to be taken . Only then does the world of God ,and the unseen, but provable truth , become known .
All great scientists have with the gift ,as well as true believers .Yes atheists are 'tone deaf ' ,they can see the notes ,but not hear them ,so they deny their existence .

 

[Tinker Grey]

My suspicion is that the first mumbo-jumbo chanting priest/shaman/prophet and the skeptic who didn't believe may well have been one and the same person.

Hello Freodin

DId you go by "David Gould" back in the day? Welcome back!

 

[fat wee robin]

Atheism does not posit anything. It is simply, "I am not convinced".

I think the term you are looking for is rationalize, for what you are doing:

"In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

How does this "confirmation" differ from "self-deception"?

Yet not one can demonstrate that this "confirmation" is not simply imagined.

You think it rational to believe in a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? What of all the scientific knowledge that must be tossed in order to accommodate your beliefs?

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

What do you know of the subject?

Any one knows more than you it would seem if this is all you have learned .
Time for a real education outside the confines of your locality .

 

[Deidre32]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

I think there could be a few causes as to what leads someone to an atheistic stance/view. Most of it having to do with logic. Logically, and I still feel this way, there is no actual evidence for the existence of a deity. Feelings and emotions, and experiences even, aren't factual. I'm going through a change now, where I gradually came to an atheist position, and now...I'm believing again, but only from feelings. I can't pass my feelings to someone as if they were truth. That's the problem that some atheists have with religion, and spirituality, that religious people often try to pass off their own feelings and passion for a faith, as truth. It is only truth to me or to you, but it can't be truth for everyone, unless they come to feel that way.

Having said that, I've lived on both sides of the fence, and it would be nice if the communication between the two ''sides'' could become more understanding and constructive. Not either side trying to shame or bash the other, but just ...understanding.

 

[Wryetui]

So then why did you appeal to it as being the original belief?

I did not say that the humans are naturally christians (even if I don't know that), but I just showed you that the human is naturally religious.

 

[Wryetui]

Where did I say that?

Because saying "out of nothing" in a different language sounds so much more sophisticated than "poofed into existence".

It may that there is no way to politely address closely held personal beliefs; any criticism of your beliefs may be interpreted as a personal attack.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

I don't know the details, but you could ask one of the many highly motivated and well-financed individuals attempting to build replicas of that Biblical boat, yet failing to do so from period-specific materials.

I am only putting together what I gather from religionists in these forums. I ask, this the same "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? If not, in what way does your theology differ from this?

Didn't you imply that? If you didn't then you implied that the garden existed.

Maybe you should try without using mocking words.

I will.

That may be an error. I am an Orthodox christian (nothing of what you met before), not a "Bible alone" christian, because for me truth is not gathered in the Bible only, but on the Church, the Church has supreme authority and only the Church is infallible, so you shouldn't talk to me like to one of those literallist creationists that call themselves christians because the True, Church of Christ is nothing alike.
If you are asking me in which way my theology differs from theirs then in your head a huge mess takes place, since when theology is arguing about the age of the earth? Since when theology is speculative philosohpy? This is what I referred about in my post when I talked about the causes of atheism.

 

[David Colin Gould]

Regarding Plato, great thinker, completely wrong about pretty much everything ...

As to the rejection of Plato leading to atheism, methinks that you are too focused on Western philosophy. There were Eastern philosophies that we know were atheistic at around the time of Plato, or perhaps a century after him.