Was atheism invented?

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not, Atheism is just another religion that chooses to disguise itself as not being a religion

No, atheism in the modern sense is itself not a religion. But from that doesn't follow if individual atheists are religious as such. That in part depends on how you understand religion as human behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Excerpt from the above poster: " I would say it was realized that there is no God and it is only a human imagination."

One's above expression suggests that the Aryans had a concept of G-d prior to their "realization" of denying G-d, please,
When they (the Aryans) denied G-d, what principled reason/argument did they give, please? Kindly quote from them in this connection, please. Right?

Regards

No, as far as we can tell Aryans had no concept of an Abrahamic God.

 

[Earthtank]

No, atheism in the modern sense is itself not a religion. But from that doesn't follow if individual atheists are religious as such. That in part depends on how you understand religion as human behavior.

Instead od typing up my full reply i will just paste the articles below however, you get the idea. Yeah I am sure there are other articles that will disagree.

Is Atheism a Religion?


Brown: Atheism and theism are both beliefs

Ultimately, they are way MORE similar than Atheists and possibly theists would like to acknowledge or admit to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Instead od typing up my full reply i will just paste the articles below however, you get the idea. Yeah I am sure there are other articles that will disagree.

Is Atheism a Religion?


Brown: Atheism and theism are both beliefs

Ultimately, they are way MORE similar than Atheists and possibly theists would like to acknowledge or admit to.

From the first link.
"
Although it isn’t an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, atheism is a religious worldview. With assurance rooted in faith (rather than in proven fact), the theist says “I believe in god(s)/God,” while the atheist with equal confidence says “I don’t believe in god(s)/God.”

Atheism is a religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven. "

I don't claim that I know something about metaphysics in any positive sense. I just don't believe in gods, hence I am an atheist.
So it is a straw man in effect. A belief is the same as knowledge. But it is not!!!

 

[questfortruth]

I don't claim that I know something about metaphysics in any positive sense. I just don't believe in gods, hence I am an atheist.

It is illogical, for example I don't believe in freedom, but I do not deny the existence of freedom.

I don't believe that there are ghosts, but I do not say, that there are no ghosts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is illogical, for example I don't believe in freedom, but I do not deny the existence of freedom.

Well, that is within the everyday world and not metaphysics. I deny the existence of freedom, though I believe in it as an useful illusion.

 

[questfortruth]

Well, that is within the everyday world and not metaphysics. I deny the existence of freedom, though I believe in it as an useful illusion.

Can you make sense of this:

I don't believe that smoking is good for skin, but I do not say, that smoking is good or bad for skin.

Perhaps this helps:

I blindly believe, that smoking is bad for skin, but I do not know for sure.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not, Atheism is just another religion that chooses to disguise itself as not being a religion

Ya'll really making the use of english grammar complicated for just the root word theism alone.

 

[Colt]

If God was invented by priests, then godlessness was invented by atheists? How is it better then?

An atheist Bob might reply: "By analogy, smokers have invented smoking; and who then has invented non-smoking? Non-smokers, maybe?"

Me in reply: "Non-smoking as well as a sober lifestyle was invented by the Ministry of Health."

Bob: "Atheism is based on the achievements of science and its evidence, and religion is based only on legends and blind faith."

Me: "Atheism is unscientific because the Supposed Death of God is not scientifically proven. Faith in Wikipedia is defined (with peer-reviewed references) as loyalty, faithfulness to Omniscience. After all, God knows everything.

Atheism is a “meme” introduced to our fallen planet by Lucifer who himself lost faith in the unseen Father. He tried to become our God himself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is illogical, for example I don't believe in freedom, but I do not deny the existence of freedom.

I don't believe that there are ghosts, but I do not say, that there are no ghosts.

You're agnostic about life?

For example, if you don't believe you can fly, but you don't say it is impossible that you cannot, does that mean you have a one percent chance that you could fly some day even though physics says otherwise?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure if the prize he won was specifically for physics.

It sounded like a 1.5 million dollar prize for being humble, humility.

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief.

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.

Scientific American spoke with Gleiser about the award, how he plans to advance his message of consilience, the need for humility in science, why humans are special, and the fundamental source of his curiosity as a physicist.​

Sounds like he's in good company, with Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

"The irrationality of nonbelief.

Peaceful Sabbath.

"The irrationality of nonbelief"
That phrase could mean different things.
Not believing in gods doesn't require being rational.
As I've said, I was born not believing in them.
But if he thinks it's irrational to not believe in
things that lack evidence, then he's wrong.
Does he believe in everything unevidenced?

 

[Kfox]

"By analogy, smokers have invented smoking; and who then has invented non-smoking? Non-smokers, maybe?"

Me in reply: "Non-smoking as well as a sober lifestyle was invented by the Ministry of Health."

No; Non-smoking as well as a sober lifestyle is the default position; it doesn't require an invention to do nothing

Bob: "Atheism is based on the achievements of science and its evidence, and religion is based only on legends and blind faith.".

No; atheism has nothing to do with science, atheism is the default position; it doesn't require an invention to believe nothing

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If God was invented by priests, then godlessness was invented by atheists? How is it better then?

An atheist Bob might reply: "By analogy, smokers have invented smoking; and who then has invented non-smoking? Non-smokers, maybe?"

Me in reply: "Non-smoking as well as a sober lifestyle was invented by the Ministry of Health."

Bob: "Atheism is based on the achievements of science and its evidence, and religion is based only on legends and blind faith."

Me: "Atheism is unscientific because the Supposed Death of God is not scientifically proven. Faith in Wikipedia is defined (with peer-reviewed references) as loyalty, faithfulness to Omniscience. After all, God knows everything.

In Classical Rome, atheism was used as a charge against those denying the sanctioned religions of the state.

Those folk were mostly what we would consider theists.

'Modern' atheism was a much later refinement of this.
You appear to have just made up the OP based on what you want to be true.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Does he believe in everything unevidenced?

No.

He claims to be agnostic.

"The irrationality of nonbelief"
That phrase could mean different things.
Not believing in gods doesn't require being rational.
As I've said, I was born not believing in them.
But if he thinks it's irrational to not believe in
things that lack evidence, then he's wrong.

You can say that you were born an Atheist.

You can say that you don't believe in anything for whatever reason you want.

What the physicist guy is saying is that this violates the scientific method.

The term itself, "Atheist", is a statement which jumps to the conclusion, a potential erroneous conclusion, that there is no God.

"What is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says​

As you say you were born not believing in gods.

"Not believing in gods doesn't require being rational.
As I've said, I was born not believing in them.​

But this flies in the face of even the simple Wiki note on Atheism.

Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Technically, the term 'Positive atheism' describes a belief that the statement "There is a god/God" is a false proposition.[5][6][7] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and any statements to the contrary are false ones.[1][2][8][9] This is not to be confused with a (or Agnostic) 'Negative atheist' which declares that there is no evidence or knowledge about gods or god and thus has no belief in reference to a God or gods.[10] Its an important distinction because a child is not an 'atheist' simply because he has no view on God or gods.

The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic.

History of atheism​

Which, being unrelated to the prize winning physicist, remains on the same page with his logic.

"The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic.​

I noticed something else that I steered clear of delving into today.

Many Atheists, even prominent ones, but not all, will eventually shift gears and begin to criticize God for various reasons.

Like if there were a God, they've got a bone to pick with Him. "If there is a God, why does He let little kids get hurt? If there is a God, why do I have to do what He says? Then they'll shift gears again and launch an attack on the followers of God or Christians. "If Christians weren't such jerks, maybe I would have believed in God. "I don't want anything to do with their God.

Again, the infant would have no evidence for any view on this topic either.

But I begin to recognize an identifiable undercurrent that separates the Atheist from the Agnostic.

 

[Valjean]

Instead od typing up my full reply i will just paste the articles below however, you get the idea. Yeah I am sure there are other articles that will disagree.

Is Atheism a Religion?

From the article:
No. Atheism is not a worldview, any more than not believing in unicorns is a worldview.
No. Atheism is not rooted in faith. In fact, it's definitively a lack of faith.
"Each has gathered from human experience evidence that supports their worldview." No -- not a worldview.
"...neither theists nor atheists have proven whether life has meaning." What does "meaning" have to do with anything? Atheism isn't a teliological claim.
[Science] ...simply isn’t geared to make definitive metaphysical pronouncements. 1. Atheism is the deferral of metaphysical pronouncements. It's not a metaphysical position.
What does science have to do with it? Atheism is based on logic, ie: mathematics, not scientific research.
"In their attempt to reach the truth, they have swapped their own version of scientific dogma for religious dogma." No. Atheism has no dogma. Please tell us what dogma you think atheism is promoting.
"Our culture today has largely exchanged older, pre-modern theistic assumptions about the world for modern atheistic assumptions." What assumptions about the world does atheism make? Does lack of belief in Unicorns make assumptions about the world?
"Both theism and atheism, therefore, operate out of a primary and foundational belief or faith that results in a particular worldview." No! Not a worldview! You have some fundamental understandings of what atheism is, Earthtank.
"Both attempt to offer a comprehensive account of reality." No! They don't. Atheism is not an account of reality.

Brown: Atheism and theism are both beliefs

"Theists believe yes. Atheists believe no. Neither side, no matter how much they may pretend otherwise, has an answer based in objective facts." Atheism doesn't claim to provide any "answer."
"The only defining characteristic is that they think neither belief system has an objective superiority." Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism doesn't believe anything.

Earthtank, your post doesn't address atheism. What you believe atheism is is false. Your criticisms address a falsehood.

How many times must we explain what atheism is? Why do you find it so hard to grasp -- or do you consciously misrepresent it to dismiss a criticism of your own worldview?
This is a desperate strawman.

 

[Revoltingest]

He claims to be agnostic.

I am one too, ie, a weak atheist.

You can say that you were born an Atheist.

I regularly do.

You can say that you don't believe in anything for whatever reason you want.

I do.

What the physicist guy is saying is that this violates the scientific method.

He's wrong.

The term itself, "Atheist", is a statement which jumps to the conclusion, a potential erroneous conclusion, that there is no God.

He's using an erroneously narrow definition.
Atheists don't believe in gods.
Only a portion of us say there is no God.
That cannot be proven.

"What is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says​

As you say you were born not believing in gods.

"Not believing in gods doesn't require being rational.
As I've said, I was born not believing in them.​

But this flies in the face of even the simple Wiki note on Atheism.

Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Technically, the term 'Positive atheism' describes a belief that the statement "There is a god/God" is a false proposition.[5][6][7] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and any statements to the contrary are false ones.[1][2][8][9] This is not to be confused with a (or Agnostic) 'Negative atheist' which declares that there is no evidence or knowledge about gods or god and thus has no belief in reference to a God or gods.[10] Its an important distinction because a child is not an 'atheist' simply because he has no view on God or gods.

The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic.

History of atheism​

Which, being unrelated to the prize winning physicist, remains on the same page with his logic.

"The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic.​

I noticed something else that I steered clear of delving into today.

Many Atheists, even prominent ones, but not all, will eventually shift gears and begin to criticize God for various reasons.

Like if there were a God, they've got a bone to pick with Him. "If there is a God, why does He let little kids get hurt? If there is a God, why do I have to do what He says? Then they'll shift gears again and launch an attack on the followers of God or Christians. "If Christians weren't such jerks, maybe I would have believed in God. "I don't want anything to do with their God.

Again, the infant would have no evidence for any view on this topic either.

But I begin to recognize an identifiable undercurrent that separates the Atheist from the Agnostic.

Now we know his mistake....a problem of definition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now we know his mistake....a problem of definition.

Exactly right! Let's take a closer look at what he actually says:

"What is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”

But read that carefully: at no point does it say that atheists make any statement of fact! It says that we make a statement of belief! And statements of belief can never have anything to do with science.

I don't know any atheists doing experiments to disprove the existence of God, do you? I don't know any scientists doing experiments to prove His existence, either. Do you?

Therefore, our physicist hero has nothing to say about atheism at all, any more than he has something to say about theism.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Now we know his mistake....a problem of definition.

That's something.

At least he was able to sneak in there with Mother Teresa, Des Tutu and the Dalai Lama and win that 1.5 Mil prize.

The John Templeton Foundation never caught it.

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's something.

At least he was able to sneak in there with Mother Teresa, Des Tutu and the Dalai Lama and win that 1.5 Mil prize.

The John Templeton Foundation never caught it.

Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer.

I've never won any prizes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've never won any prizes.

There was a young girl from Devizes
Who had titz of two different sizes
One was really quite small
Almost nothing at all
But the other was large, and won prizes.