"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "?

[ChristineM]

That's not the same

Ok

 

[Valjean]

No, Atheism is a claim to the nature of reality and the universe but is not generally a prescribed belief (in the sense that the only universal claim is that any or all God's and concepts of God are false).

A claim to the nature of reality? I wasn't aware that atheism, per se, was a claim

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting -- Link?
Clarify "signs of civilization," Please?

Haven't anthropologists noted religious practices in every culture, including primitive, hunter-gatherers?


As I understand it, civilization is a type of social organization, characterised by permanent location, a social hierarchy including occupational specialisation, full-time religious specialists, monumental architecture and writing.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

History of the ancient Levant - Wikipedia
Permanent villages and agriculture are good indicator's.

Depending on your understanding of religion, do we include ancestor worship for example or is a deity needed, the definition thinks so

 

[paarsurrey]

No, Atheism is a claim to the nature of reality and the universe but is not generally a prescribed belief (in the sense that the only universal claim is that any or all God's and concepts of God are false). It still is a belief (whether an atheist would admit it or not) that assumes in itself a self-validation in the assessment of the nature of the universe in a self-perceived "rational" lens, often favoring materialism. (on the extreme but not uncommon side of the spectrum, is those who treat Science religiously, as an unquestionable infallible authority)


If one simply doesn't believe in a God but makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of "God", then they would be an agnostic.

All reality-tunnels are flawed though, regardless of whether there is a belief in God involved or not.

"Atheism is a claim to the nature of reality and the universe"

Does one mean that every one belonging to Atheism makes this claim automatically or by default, please?

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

"Atheism is a claim to the nature of reality and the universe"

Does one mean that every one belonging to Atheism makes this claim automatically or by default, please?

Regards

I'm pretty sure that's what he means. But it doesn't mean that it's the truth.

In fact, at least in my case he's just plain wrong.

 

[Valjean]

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

History of the ancient Levant - Wikipedia
Permanent villages and agriculture are good indicator's.

Depending on your understanding of religion, do we include ancestor worship for example or is a deity needed, the definition thinks so

 

[paarsurrey]

In others words history makes the claim, if you don't like it the history changed but don't insult me because it doesn't agree with your dream

Sorry, there is no intention to insult one.
History is related to the historic period, not to the per-historic one, please.
Right, please?
Regards

 

[Valjean]

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

History of the ancient Levant - Wikipedia
Permanent villages and agriculture are good indicator's.

Depending on your understanding of religion, do we include ancestor worship for example or is a deity needed, the definition thinks so

But I see nothing about a civilization, here. How were the Natufians a civilization?

"Atheism is a claim to the nature of reality and the universe"

Does one mean that every one belonging to Atheism makes this claim automatically or by default, please?

Pay no attention, Paarsurrey. Atheism isn't a philosophy or world-view, it doesn't 'claim' anything.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, there is no intention to insult one.
History is related to the historic period, not to the per-historic one, please.
Right, please?
Regards

A valid point. However one can only be (reasonably) sure of history

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "

Does one agree with the above or not,please?

Regards

Courtesy post #55 from A Vestigial Mote

Atheism doesnt claim anything, does it?

 

[ChristineM]

But I see nothing about a civilization, here. How were the Natufians a civilization?

Pay no attention, Paarsurrey. Atheism isn't a philosophy or world-view, it doesn't 'claim' anything.

The first permanent settlements, agriculture

But I see nothing about a civilization, here. How were the Natufians a civilization?

.

I thought in the Columbia link

Another wiki link
Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia
The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC

 

[paarsurrey]

A valid point. However one can only be (reasonably) sure of history

A valid point. However one can only be (reasonably) sure of history

History does not claim that it has the capacity to deal and can decide rightly on such issues which we believe relate to the pre-historic period.
Thanks and regards

 

[Darkstorn]

History does not claim that it has the capacity to deal and can decide rightly on such issues which we believe relate to the pre-historic period.
Thanks and regards

History makes no claims either. Historians do.

I think you have a serious problem of anthropomorphising things.

 

[Valjean]

The first permanent settlements, agriculture


I thought in the Columbia link

Another wiki link
Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia
The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC

But without writing, monumental architecture, full time religious specialists, &c it's not, technically, a 'civilization'.

 

[ChristineM]

But without writing, monumental architecture, full time religious specialists, &c it's not, technically, a 'civilization'.

Can't agree there, early civilisation cannot meet all those requirements, none the less, a people were civilised enough to band together for the common good, develop fixed settlements and agriculture, which must have needed organization and communication

 

[Darkstorn]

But without writing, monumental architecture, full time religious specialists, &c it's not, technically, a 'civilization'.

If you want to be very, very technical, there are many working definitions for the word. Most of them subjective. Case in point:

the definition of civilization

Under some definitions we haven't actually had a civilization yet.

 

[Valjean]

Can't agree there, early civilisation cannot meet all those requirements, none the less, a people were civilised enough to band together for the common good, develop fixed settlements and agriculture, which must have needed organization and communication

Understood, but when you say "civilised enough to band together for the common good," I get confused. You're not using the term in the anthropological sense. Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, chiefdoms, tribes -- all these organizational types band together in common interest.

 

[Darkstorn]

Understood, but when you say "civilised enough to band together for the common good," I get confused. You're not using the term in the anthropological sense. Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, chiefdoms -- all these organizational types band together in common interest.

So, what about insectoid hive minds? By certain definition one could argue that they are the most advanced form of society.

 

[ChristineM]

Understood, but when you say "civilised enough to band together for the common good," I get confused. You're not using the term in the anthropological sense. Hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, chiefdoms -- all these organizational types band together in common interest.

Don't forget the fixed settlements

 

[ChristineM]

So, what about insectoid hive minds? By certain definition one could argue that they are the most advanced form of society.

Close to where i live is a Neanderthal site that shows signs oc civilization in a permanent habitation and ritual burial

 

[blü 2]

"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "

An atheist (purely as such) would affirm the correctness of the statement, 'I do not believe in the existence of any god or gods'.

That's to say, the atheist would claim the statement is right.

(A so-called 'strong atheist' would claim that the following statement is also right: 'I believe that neither God nor gods exist'.)