Was atheism invented?

[Dave Watchman]

I've never won any prizes.

Aw shucks.

That's a bummer.



Stay faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life

"Be faithful until death and I will give you the crown of life"
​

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.

Does this mean the thread is over?

The time is gone, the song is over
Thought I'd something more to say.

 

[eldritchsleep]

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 the default position. You start at 0 then work up. Belief in 0 deities = atheism. Babies do not believe in gods. Even the religious recognize this which is why Catholics baptize their babies so they can go to heaven when they die and Protestants claim that children are "pure" and "innocent" and hence immune from such a burden. Babies lack the mental capacity to even comprehend the concept of a god. So no, people did not invent atheism as your strawman argument rightly points out by analogy of non-smokers vs smokers.

Non-smoking is not invented by anything. It is again the default position. You are not born a smoker, you are born a non-smoker. The Ministry of Health did not invent sober life styles and non-smoking. Humans invented smoking and become addicted to dugs they create. Also, even if this were true, it is a red herring and irrelevant to the conversation.

Atheism is NOT based on the achievements of science and its evidence. This is a strawman argument and pointless. Atheism is literally only the lack of belief in a god and says nothing of their stance on science, politics, or anything else. Now, evidence and science may lead one to atheism but it is not necessary. Simply being unconvinced or even being a member of a secular religion will make one an atheist as well. Or, just using general reasoning and the laws of thought and logic. There are numerous lifestyles formed from atheism including strict skepticism, schools of philosophy in both Buddhism and Taoism, naturalistic pantheism, new age pseudo-science, types of spiritualism, etc. None of those require science or evidence and can be equally based on superstitions, legends, and myths.

Claiming atheism is unscientific is correct as it is a stance on theism and not on science as pointed out. Again, good job defeating your own strawman argument (that was sarcasm). I don't care how Wikipedia and its sources define faith, I care how you and I define it so we can have a common conversation. I define faith as trust or hope in things without evidence or good reason. You only have faith in things that you are uncertain in or in other words, things I don't know to be true but hope are true or even that I believe to be true but don't know for sure. I have FAITH today will be good or that I will succeed in my goals. I don't have faith that my fork exists. I know it exists. I have faith my computer will turn on when I press "Power" but I don't have faith that my computer exists. I know it does. Faith is not a loyalty to anything other than your own unconvinced belief and literally has nothing to do with omniscience. And even if it does, it's simply circular reasoning. "I believe god exists because I have faith in god and I define faith as meaning belief in god. Therefore, god must exist since I have faith in god existing." That's essentially what you are saying.

 

[paarsurrey]

He did quote from it: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation

The world existed prior to 1000 BCE. Didn't it, please? So, it is a later concept, please. Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I didn't define any G-d. Did I, please?
And one's source that Aryans never believed in G-d, please. Right?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

If God was invented by priests, then godlessness was invented by atheists?

If God was invented by priests then God is only a concept, not a being with objective existence. I believe there's virtually no limit on the number of gods that can exist in this sense.

The problems only arise when it's claimed that God is a real entity, one with objective existence. So far in my experience, not even believers have a coherent concept of a god of this kind, such that if we found a real suspect, we could determine whether [it] was God (or a god) or not.

This means that all gods we know of to this point exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains, and I have no doubt they exist in that form in formidable numbers.

Of course I'm happy (as ever) to be corrected with a satisfactory description of a real god, such that we know what real entity we're looking for. A clear video or set of photos would be a good start.

One thing that might hold us back even then, though, is the absence of any useful definition of "godness", the real quality that our real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not all atheists. close to 20% of atheists at least in the U.S are actually theists because they believe in some kind of divinity.

And one's source, please. Right?
Regards

 

[firedragon]

And one's source, please. Right?
Regards

10 facts about atheists

 

[Aupmanyav]

Evidence of that actually happening.

We have hundreds of so-called God-men in our jails. Some, like Nithiyananda, a rapist, escape to other countries, probably Equador in this case (red-corner notice by Interpol).

 

[Aupmanyav]

"And we cannot possibly ever think that we could have a theory of everything, because we cannot ever think that we know everything that there is to know about the universe.

Yeah, we are nowhere near any TOE, but there could be one. Why dismiss that possibility? Sure, there is so much to know more about the universe, but speculation, falsehood is not going to get us there. We need to research. 'Goddidit' is no answer.

 

[Kfox]

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

Why are you against atheism?

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.​

As is religion.

What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in non belief.

Actually atheist is just a pejorative theists made up to describe those who don’t accept their religious beliefs.

“I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration.

Some may have evidence against; others don’t, but it would be absurd to assume you must give a level of credibility to every claim if you can’t, or don’t have time to disprove it. How many people actually went through the trouble of disproving the existence of Santa Clause?

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.”

No, science only requires evidence for declarations; they don’t require evidence against anything, they just dismiss or do not address that which has no evidence.

And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?)

Not quite; the agnostic makes a claim not only for himself, but about everybody! The agnostic says NOBODY has any evidence for or against God of any kind; IMO a very foolish position to hold.
​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
What was the source of knowledge of the authors (giving their names) of Rig Veda, please?
Did they themselves claim it, please?
If yes, then please quote from Rig Veda, kindly. Right?

Yes, Paarsurrey, I have given the link which you may follow to read the whole hymn if you so desire. The hymn is from before the time when RigVeda was codified, so it must be at least 3,000 year old. The person who wrote these lines is named as Parameshthi Prajapati in indexes. Since he did not seem to accept existence of any Allah or God, it was his view, not something that other people told him.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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,
When they (the Aryans) denied G-d, what principled reason/argument did they give? Kindly quote from them in this connection?

It is not that all Indo-Aryans denied the existence of Gods (they had many, they were polytheists - Rigvedic deities). But people like Parameshthi Prajapati disbelieved in Gods because there was no evidence of them at that time and there is no evidence of them even in our times. Just like what it is today, some Hindus believe in existence of Gods and Goddesses and do not.

You can read the objections to existence of God/Godss/Goddesses from Samkhya (one of the six Hindu philosophies) philosophers here: <i>Samkhya</i>

 

[eldritchsleep]

Not quite; the agnostic makes a claim not only for himself, but about everybody! The agnostic says NOBODY has any evidence for or against God of any kind; IMO a very foolish position to hold.
​

Agnosticism is typically a claim of knowledge rather than belief. Saying that agnostics make the claim about everybody is not true either and seems a bit of a strawman. I would maybe say that the agnostic would claim that they do not know of anyone that has evidence for or against god of any kind as it is a knowledge claim. "Nobody has any evidence for or against God" is a positive claim and declaration of knowledge. Agnostics are by definition "without knowledge" so this would misrepresent their position

Theism and Atheism are claims of belief. Either someone is convinced a deity exists or they are not. Not knowing whether a god exists or not is literally being unconvinced a god exists and therefore falls within atheism. "I am convinced god exists" is the theistic position while "I am not convinced god exists" is the atheistic position. The position of "I am convinced that god does not exist" is actually an anti-theistic position, not an atheistic position (although it would be a subcategory of atheism).

Gnostic and Agnostic are claims of knowledge. Saying "I know god exists" is an gnostic position while "I do not know if a god exists" is an agnostic position. These are epistemological positions. In my opinion, claiming knowledge on an unfalsifiable claim is the foolish position, not the agnostic one as it is the honest answer. EDIT: I would also like to make clear that "I know god does not exist" is also a gnostic position and claim. How true the statement is would have to be judged by the definition of "god" being used.

 

[Valjean]

Theism and Atheism are claims of belief. Either someone is convinced a deity exists or they are not. Not knowing whether a god exists or not is literally being unconvinced a god exists and therefore falls within atheism.

??? -- These statements contradict each other.

"I am convinced god exists" is the theistic position while "I am not convinced god exists" is the atheistic position. The position of "I am convinced that god does not exist" is actually an anti-theistic position, not an atheistic position (although it would be a subcategory of atheism).

But a subcategory of atheism is still atheism.

 

[Kfox]

Agnosticism is typically a claim of knowledge rather than belief. Saying that agnostics make the claim about everybody is not true either and seems a bit of a strawman. I would maybe say that the agnostic would claim that they do not know of anyone that has evidence for or against god of any kind as it is a knowledge claim. "Nobody has any evidence for or against God" is a positive claim and declaration of knowledge. Agnostics are by definition "without knowledge" so this would misrepresent their position

As you can see from the below definition, an agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. This a claim applied to all of mankind; he doesn’t only speak for himself.

Agnosticism

 

[night912]

Then such people are atheists without deep knowledge of atheism.

So have you read all theistsic religious text?

 

[night912]

As you can see from the below definition, an agnostic believes the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. This a claim applied to all of mankind; he doesn’t only speak for himself.

But that's not agnosticism.

 

[Kfox]

But that's not agnosticism.

I provided an outside source that says it is. Here are a few more outside sources that support my claim

agnostic - Google Search

Definition of agnostic | Dictionary.com

Do you have an outside source that supports your claim? Or do you expect me to assume that because you say so, therefore it is so?

 

[lukethethird]

But claiming to know utterly zilch about that stuff-Causer, how can you declare in your heart that there is no God?

How can this declaration, this conclusion, be made.

History of atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series 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.​

"Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and any statements to the contrary are false ones.

Can you see how this Wiki note confirms the statements made in the Physicist's interview?

That the Atheist is in violation of the scientific method.

Peaceful Sabbath.

I don't believe scientific discoveries until they have been peer reviewed, repeated and verified, and until such verification I suspend belief. Same goes for god claims, so I have no idea what that so called physicist is prattling on about.

 

[night912]

I provided an outside source that says it is. Here are a few more outside sources that support my claim

agnostic - Google Search

Definition of agnostic | Dictionary.com

Do you have an outside source that supports your claim? Or do you expect me to assume that because you say so, therefore it is so?

No, I'm not you so I don't assume that I'm like you. Those above are not outside sources of agnosticism. You dishonestly posted a link for the definition of "agnostic," not "agnosticism." So like I said, don't assume that I'm like you.

As you can see below, agnosticism deals with knowledge. See, just because you said so, doesn't make it so.

agnosticism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Definition of agnosticism | Dictionary.com