The origins of atheism

[Colter]

Thanks for the info. I found it on Kindle for a $1.

It will blow your mind! But you have to stick with it, the early papers are like Chinese because the start with the Paridise Father and work backwards to Jesus, so lots of new words and concepts. One thing I can say, it answers a lot of philosophical questions which lead to plenty of new ones. I've been studying it for 30 years and still find new concepts and truths.

 

[SteveB28]

This wasn't addressed to me and is the flip side of of the question raised in the OP, however, I'd like to respond.

As the earliest humans developed language abilities they used these new found skills to pass information on from generation to generation. At some point, they started wondering about the world around them and their existence. Where do we come from? Why do good people get sick and die? What happens to us when we die?

"Where do we come from" was addressed by every culture around the world. There are thousands of creation stories, none more or less compelling than those in the OT.

• If god (or gods) made everything, who/what made god/s? God (the gods) have always existed.
• Why do good people get sick and die? The ways of god (the gods) are indeed mysterious.
• What happens to us when we die? Good people join him in the clouds, bad people go into the fires of volcanoes.

God/s was used/were used to explain everything that "leaders" could not explain.

• What causes lightning? The gods are throwing mighty spears at each other.
• Why have the rains not come? God is angry with us.
• What can we do to appease god? Slaughter a lamb / sacrifice a virgin.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Thanks for asking.

This is an excellent statement which encapsulates the real question which should be put.

The "origin of atheism" is almost an illogical question, because atheism is the default condition for every human that comes into this world. Every baby is born knowing nothing about their world, nor anything about supernatural concepts. This is why the religions of the world consider it so vital to inculcate children at the earliest availability, in order to create good little Hindus, or Muslims, or Christians, etc. All the while ensuring themselves that their brand of God worship is the 'correct' one, while others are deceivers and pretenders, of course!

No, the relevant question should be as to the origin of theism, as Mr Ecco succinctly unravels, because without the introduction of god claims, there would not be those of us who reject those claims! There would be no atheists, just as there are no 'a-moon fairiests', or 'a-Saturnian dragonists'. Those last two terms don't exist, not because there are no people who don't believe in fairies on the moon or dragons on Saturn, but because there are no people who do!

For my own, and to summarise and add to Mr Ecco, theism has arisen from a combination of our evolution and our evolution!

We have evolved to be pattern-seekers, even when no pattern exists, because it has proven prudent for us to so behave on the savannahs of Africa. We have also evolved to have brains large enough to ponder our origins and our inevitable deaths. The rest has been, literally, child's play.

 

[Belk]

Sorry, but that explanation is only open to the open minded.

Got nothing huh?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Isn't our ability to reason pretty good evidence that there must be a reason that we humans can reason? Or is all this reasoning just to find out that there is no reason that we can reason?

I know it's a basic question, but still goes unanswered among the atheist/agnostic community. Could the reason you don't know why humans can reason be because you're atheist/agnostic? It would make sense at least.

You really should have stopped at the "I have personal reasons to believe that I can't prove to you but I hope you someday believe like I do" tactic...

 

[dazed]

We can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to assume that it's knowable and irrational to assume that it's unknowable.

I get a major headache with this Horvind argument. Flip this around and everything is possible.

There is no god because if a god exists, Eric, the God Killer Penguin, would have eaten him. Since you can't know for sure that a God Killer Penguin doesn't exist because you don't know everything about the universe, it's irrational for you to assume that this penguin doesn't exist.

 

[muichimotsu]

I disagree.

Atheists can be (and are) some of the most intelligent people on earth.

Intelligence is housed in the brain, not the heart; so atheism has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with spirituality.

Let me ask you this:

If atheism isn't a form of witchcraft, then why do they have their own Tarot card?

If you agree that the verse shouldn't use the term fool, why not utilize a different translation? Fool doesn't imply what you're talking about, there are better words that could be substituted.

The Fool in the tarot deck isn't referring to anything specifically like what the Psalms speak about with regards to atheists (or perhaps apatheists in that they don't care).

If you look even casually at general symbolism for The Fool, it's not meant to suggest that they are morally bankrupt like the Psalm suggests of atheists with the word nabal, but merely someone that is ignorant, which applies to all people in a sense. We all start as fools and progress towards self realization, which is part of what the tarot deck can symbolize.

The tarot are not strictly witchcraft, except in the sense of individuals using it for purposes of divination and the like. Some people use it for far more benign purposes, or at most use it as a guideline, but not an absolute guarantee of things, not unlike astrology.

 

[SteveB28]

Not what I said. I said we can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to believe(accept the true statement) that it's knowable.

You don't have to believe it's knowable, but it is rational to believe it's knowable, since it would be impossible to know that its unknowable.

If you want you can swap out the word "believe" with "assume".

We can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to assume that it's knowable and irrational to assume that it's unknowable.

If you intend a future as a philosopher or logician, I fear you are doomed to fail!

That was the greatest collection of twaddle I have read throughout this discussion and is little more than a straw-grasping exercise to justify unjustifiable claims. It is impossible to prove that just about anything is "unknowable", so, according to your confused thought process, it would be "rational to assume" that anything can be known!?

Take some advice: stick to making unsupported claims and recognise that they are unsupported.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the info. I found it on Kindle for a $1.

You can also get Larson's New Book of Cults, and it has a section on Urantia.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you agree that the verse shouldn't use the term fool, why not utilize a different translation?

Why would I agree to that!?

I'm a KJVO.

 

[gord44]

You can also get Larson's New Book of Cults, and it has a section on Urantia.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

For some reason that's funny.

 

[Davian]

Isn't our ability to reason pretty good evidence that there must be a reason that we humans can reason?

Not if we are using your posting history here as "evidence" for "our" ability to reason.

Or is all this reasoning just to find out that there is no reason that we can reason?

Why presume there should be?

I know it's a basic question, but still goes unanswered among the atheist/agnostic community. Could the reason you don't know why humans can reason be because you're atheist/agnostic?

Or, it is not a valid question.

It would make sense at least.

Invalid questions make sense to you?

 

[ScottA]

As an atheist, the origins for a persons disbelief in god(s) comes from the same place a persons belief in god(s) comes from. Within the individual.

Myself, I was raised in a baptist home and spent a few years in the baptist children's home as a teen. I fully believed in god at that time and immersed myself in studying the bible morning, noon and night. I studied mainly textual criticisms of the NT but spent a few months looking into why the newly founded christian canon would seek to rearrange the order that the books appeared originally in the Tanakh.

It was during this period that the seeds of doubt started. I was raised that the bible was the infallible word of god and when I started noticing things that couldn't be reconciled I tried every way possible to make them fit together but eventually I had to admit that there was a mistake. This revelation didnt sit well with the whole 'infallible word of god' belief I was taught so eventually cracks in my faith started to form. I wonder how I would have ended up had I been raised in a more apologetic faith that can handle a fallible bible but I dont spend a lot a lot of time thinking about it now. I do still enjoy textual criticism of the ancients texts which is why I spend a lot of time on religiously themed forums and groups so I guess that's a positive.

A lot of atheists will make the claim that we are all born atheist and only find a god after being indoctrinated by our societies. The way I define atheism is making a positive claim that god does not exist or that there is no evidence of such a being. Obviously newborns dont make claims about a lot except that they need a bottle so I disagree with this claim. Newborns certainly arent theists nor are they agnostic. "Unaffiliated" seems pretty accurate. lol. If you define atheism as the lack of a belief in god then newborns do fit that definition and I think that's where the confusion comes from.

In the end, there are those with very low evidence thresholds for things they are willing to believe in and there are those whos thresholds are higher. We see it not just in religion but almost every topic; conspiracy theories, claims of personal conquests, new scientific advances etc. That's why some of us are atheists and some are theists, polytheists, etc.

Thanks for the honest sharing of your experience. But what is missing, is the thing missing from so many, and that is a faith in the outcome of a work that is seemingly unfinished.

What is at work, is a plan that both saves the lost, and snares the rebel. It is a sting operation, requiring faith from the lost. If you are happy to be without God, then you will keep your distance. On the other hand, if you are lost and seeking, confused, feeling let down, not seeing the whole plan...faith it all it takes to attain every promise of the word of God.

As for the discrepancies in the word of God, and the less-than-consistent-cannon and path of doctrine...ssssh, it is only by the providence of God and spiritual discernment that one may navigate it. If you want to pick one sticking point and send me a personal message (or do put it here) I would be happy to reconcile ANYthing you have found out of place.

 

[Davian]

Sorry, but that explanation is only open to the open minded.

You can't get it either?

 

[ScottA]

Got nothing huh?

If you are not open to the best selling book of all time and the witness of hundreds of thousands who have the something that you are missing...then the "nothing" is on you.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why would I agree to that!?

I'm a KJVO.

Yet you seemingly admit the translation is wrong or stretch the meaning to something that is asinine...guess consistency isn't a virtue with you overall, just with certain things.

 

[quatona]

If you are not open to the best selling book of all time and the witness of hundreds of thousands who have the something that you are missing...then the "nothing" is on you.

Argumentum ad populum noted. Got anything else?

 

[jenny1972]

Using personal experience to confirm personal opinion?

Circular Reasoning Works Because Circular Reasoning Works

• Davian
• Jun 25, 2015

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

Not at all, lol.

and that is the reason why debating God with athiests is completely useless and athiests debating there is no God with believers is completely useless nothing either group can say will ever convince the other group , we have convincing proof that God exists and we are not able to show it to you unfortunately only God can convince you none of us can or ever has no matter what we say equally true with athiests you cannot convince me that the TV sitting in my living room is not there , really i dont think there is anything more futile for all involved than debates between believers and athiests

 

[Chriliman]

and that is the reason why debating God with athiests is completely useless and athiests debating there is no God with believers is completely useless nothing either group can say will ever convince the other group , we have convincing proof that God exists and we are not able to show it to you unfortunately only God can convince you none of us can or ever has no matter what we say equally true with athiests you cannot convince me that the TV sitting in my living room is not there , really i dont think there is anything more futile for all involved than debates between believers and athiests

It does seem futile, but I do believe God is working, even through these comments. There may be people reading the comments who are being influenced by what is being said. Someone who has come here interested in why there is such a divide between atheists and theists, may find something interesting that sparks their own personal quest for the truth.

Proverbs 16:9
"A man’s heart plans his way,
But the Lord directs his steps."

 

[Chriliman]

I get a major headache with this Horvind argument. Flip this around and everything is possible.

There is no god because if a god exists, Eric, the God Killer Penguin, would have eaten him. Since you can't know for sure that a God Killer Penguin doesn't exist because you don't know everything about the universe, it's irrational for you to assume that this penguin doesn't exist.

If you're claiming Eric the God Killer Penguin exists, please provide you're reasoning and I'll consider it objectively.

It is interesting that you think it reasonable to assume an eternal infinite God can be killed.