Was atheism invented?

[firedragon]

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.

So theists having different ideas about God negates it? Does that mean Atheism is a default position and theism is an invented indoctrination as a whole?

Do you really think that is a very good argument?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Regards

They didn't in God, they believed in Gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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).

But that doesn't tell you that it is what happened in the beginning or if some else also happened.

 

[blü 2]

So theists having different ideas about God negates it?

Not simply that ─ nowhere have I found the concept of a god who has objective existence ie is real, is found in the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

And the only alternative manner in which a god can exist is as a concept or thing imagined by an individual.

Does that mean Atheism is a default position and theism is an invented indoctrination as a whole?

I think that's a bit abstract. In the real world one's belief regarding God or gods is strongly influenced by one's early experience of family beliefs and cultural beliefs. One is not, however, incapable of examining such beliefs and amending them as may seem appropriate.

Do you really think that is a very good argument?

One does one's best ...

 

[paarsurrey]

10 facts about atheists

I don't find it exactly in it. Kindly highlight for me it if I have missed it please. Right?

Regards

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I think its a wonderful thing to believe, but it's more practical to bring the head out of the clouds from time to time to look at the realities.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

I do not know if any God or Goddess exists, I have seen no evidence for it. Also since I do not believe in existence of God, I do not require excuse from any one.
Why are you trying to speak for people who do not believe in existence of God or Gods? They will speak when necessary as I have done.
Mikkel the Dane also does not know if God exists.

You force me to make a choice of believe what you claim or believe what God said about you. We all use our innate detective skills when we're faced with two opposing claims, God said you know He exists and you say God lied.
I have considered all the possible motives for your claim and I have done the same with God's claim and I have reached the conclusion that God is telling the truth and you are denying it. If you want to see irrefutable evidence for His existence, just go and look at your mirror and ask yourself if all those cells you're looking at randomly exploded into existence and arranged themselves without a cause to form what you see in the mirror.

Roman 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Roman 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

We have two warning verses above, one leaves everyone without excuse and the other attracts Gods wrath. If you read more about these you'd see that God punishes those who deny the plain truth by removing the only hope to avoid being cast into hell to be tormented in fire forever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, the subsequent article you gave a link to below, doesn't state that. It is state that they believe in a higher power, but that doesn't have to be a deity and thus linked to divinity.
Here is one version of higher power:
"Higher Power is a term used in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and other twelve-step programs. The same groups use the phrase "a power greater than ourselves" synonymously. The term sometimes refers to a supreme being or deity, or other conceptions of God.
...
In current twelve-step program usage, a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, and Buddha. It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring.
..."
Higher Power

Your bias is apparently that there is a God, thus higher power must mean God. But you apparently haven't checked that?!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think its a wonderful thing to believe, but it's more practical to bring the head out of the clouds from time to time to look at the realities.

The realities is a belief if you look closer.

 

[paarsurrey]

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>

But Aryans did not live in India always.
One's post shows that the Aryans succumbed to non-believing philosophies later in the period, their belief in G-d was earlier than that. Right?

Regards
_____________
"The notion of God or Ishvara was also there"
"Those religions that believed that God was the central actor in this world were termed as astika"
Initiation of religions in India

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not simply that ─ nowhere have I found the concept of a god who has objective existence ie is real, is found in the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

And the only alternative manner in which a god can exist is as a concept or thing imagined by an individual.
I think that's a bit abstract. In the real world one's belief regarding God or gods is strongly influenced by one's early experience of family beliefs and cultural beliefs. One is not, however, incapable of examining such beliefs and amending them as may seem appropriate.
One does one's best ...

You don't know what is found in the world external to the self. You just believe it is natural, because your axioms are in effect the same as other beliefs.

Here is your trick:
I believe that objective reality is real as natural( the effect of your individually subjectively accepted axioms).
Therefore as a fact independent of my axioms objective reality is natural and there is no gods. That is a fact independent of my axioms, yet that I say objective reality is natural is axiomatic and not a fact.

That is it. You can't understand how you haven't show that objective reality is real, because your axioms are real to you, therefore it doesn't matter that they are axioms in your mind and nowhere else, because you know independent of your axioms, that objective reality is real.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism was the universal norm until the invention of gods.
Then the concept of & word for "atheism" became useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism was the universal norm until the invention of gods.
Then the concept of & word for "atheism" became useful.

Evidence!
Or is it just your taste and opinion?

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

And it was just a view of a single person while others believed in G-d, please. Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

They didn't in God, they believed in Gods.

And one's source that they did not believe in G-d, please. Right?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And it was just a view of a single person while others believed in G-d, please. Right?

Regards

There is no evidence that other people believe in a monotheistic/single God as that time. You are taking for granted that all religions believe in G-d. That is not the case.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And one's source that they did not believe in G-d, please. Right?

Regards

Can't understand what you are saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence!
Or is it just your taste and opinion?

The argument of obviousness, once again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The argument of obviousness, once again.

So a belief. Check.

 

[blü 2]

You don't know what is found in the world external to the self. You just believe it is natural, because your axioms are in effect the same as other beliefs.

Dear oh dear. Here you are using my axioms to put yourself in a position to repeat what you always say ─ and I always say this in reply.

Here is your trick:
I believe that objective reality is real as natural( the effect of your individually subjectively accepted axioms).
Therefore as a fact independent of my axioms objective reality is natural and there is no gods. That is a fact independent of my axioms, yet that I say objective reality is natural is axiomatic and not a fact.

Do the angles of a triangle on a plane add up to 180º? Yup. that's the result of axioms ─ albeit not axioms about reality.

That is it. You can't understand how you haven't show that objective reality is real, because your axioms are real to you

They are equally real to you. And I know very well and have explained to you from just about our first conversation that they're axioms, assumptions, whose justification, like any good axiom, is that they work.

And at this point I usually point out to you again that you use them because you also know they work ─ and that if you didn't use them you wouldn't bother thinking I had objective existence. Rather you'd take it ─ or is it the case that you already take it? ─ that I exist only as something created in your solipsistic imagination.

IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT YOU SAY, YOU WOULDN'T BOTHER POSTING.