Was atheism invented?

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean to say "a higher power" is not a "divinity"?

Mate. Maybe you should understand the meaning theism. Theism comes from the word Theos in Greek. I am sure you know all of this, and if you do dont think this is some kind of schooling. yet, what must be said must be said.

Theos is "higher power". Ho Theos is "The Higher Power". If you want you could call it "divinity". Atheism by definition is either Anti or A (as in asexual) "theism" coming from the word Theos. By definition an Atheist does not believe in any kind of higher power. But see, trying to change the definition of Atheism just because you found an article offensive to you and your kind is I think beneath your intelligence level.

You said I was against the article cited in that post right? Well, the article says Americans' beliefs about the nature of God. Read it clearly and you will understand what is meant by it with relevance.

Again, Atheists by definition are not supposed to believe in a "higher power" of any kind. Zilch. But, some them who claim to be atheists do.

There is nothing wrong with that and there is no need to get so defensive. Its just a fact that Atheism is also an identity statement, and a few of them may not adhere to the same principles as the rest.

There is no need to get into the apologetics mode Mikkel the dane. Its honestly not a big deal.

The term theism has no single definition. Just as higher power or religion.
I am an atheist, yet I am a religious.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Because it is doesn't back up your statement. The validity of your point falls if you can't support it. Why so?

I'm curious.

The validity of any statement regarding a child being born with tendency toward theism or atheism can’t be supported, so any argument that one is born a theist or an atheist is an exercise in futility.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Its like saying "Father or Appa".
A lot of people have need unquenched.

More so in Western countries where children and parents may be separated because of divorce and remarriage. We had a young American as a Peace Core worker long ago. His parent separated and remarried. He used to weep that he would have no home when he goes back to US.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where there is teaching, that is a school. You do not need to have a building proclaiming that. Till late even the mythological princes of India learned under the shade of Banyan trees in their Gurukulas. These Gurukulas were in forests. Children went there around the age of 8 (after the sacred-thread ceremony) and returned only after completing their education around the age of 24.

"A gurukula or gurukulam is a type of education system in ancient India with shishya ('students' or 'disciples') living near or with the guru, in the same house. The guru-shishya tradition is a sacred one in Hinduism and appears in other religious groups in India, such as Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. The word gurukula is a combination of the Sanskrit words guru ('teacher' or 'master') and kula ('family' or 'home')."

An ancient gurukula, a modern gurukula, Shahjahan and the Udaipur king embracing each other, Australian aboriginals

For example, the Greeks met at Olympus. Other regions have various fairs, regional markets, where different tribes meet, learn from each other. There was friendship ties between tribes, peace pipes, exchange of head-gear in India (Pagdi-badal) etc. Prince Khurram (later Mughal Emperor Shahjahan, who built Taj Mahal) had a 'pagdi-badal' with the Udaipur king when he was seeking refuge from his father. After that, they are considered as brothers.

So that is so back through all time even when humans weren't humans.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are a string of forefathers and at some time in the past our forefathers weren't humans and didn't have social learning, .. so where do it idea of gods come form, because it can't have been learned from past forefathers as infinitely back in time, because a point back in time our forefathers weren't humans.

Now, who says that? Even animals have social learning, that if a predator is around, the tribe should be informed, etc. And that the males may fight, but the females should stick along helping each other.
There is no record of religious inclination before Neanderthals, except for this case among the Sub-human hominins 300,000 years ago - The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain - ScienceDirect.

The term theism has no single definition. Just as higher power or religion.
I am an atheist, yet I am a religious.

Same here, strong atheist and a staunch Hindu.

 

[firedragon]

The term theism has no single definition. Just as higher power or religion.
I am an atheist, yet I am a religious.

Religious or not, you should not bend the understanding of theism and atheism to suit an argument. Unless you didnt understand that in the first place.

Of course, if you are making the case that "atheists can very well believe in a higher power and still be atheists the way you want", that's fine with me.

Have a good day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religious or not, you should not bend the understanding of theism and atheism to suit an argument. Unless you didnt understand that in the first place.

Of course, if you are making the case that "atheists can very well believe in a higher power and still be atheists the way you want", that's fine with me.

Have a good day.

There is no one understanding of theism and atheism. There are in practice a range of understandings and any one of them are as subjective as all the rest. Including yours and mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I believe your opinion in the above cases is a belief.

Then we must disagree to agree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We are a string of forefathers and at some time in the past our forefathers weren't humans and didn't have social learning, so where do it idea of gods come form, because it can't have been learned from past forefathers as infinitely back in time, because a point back in time our forefathers weren't humans.

I'm not too familiar with that subject, but I would take "god" out (since that's a complex word in itself), and think more of it in context of god of the gaps: finding practices and ideas to explain the natural environment, their place, and the relationship with people they are around and associate with. Another thing is that way back when we were polytheist not theist. I think I learned in art history that the one-god (one-king, one president, one truth, etc) are all political to emphasis authority over people. Though this is entirely cultural, it still makes sense regardless.

The problem is trying to fit our idea of god to the idea of deities way back when. Even people on RF who believe in abrahamic traditions try to fit the concept of their god on eastern traditions and their gods. Even the word god itself is not even universal.

But I'm still confused how you guys don't understand if you're not in an environment to know of god, how would you inherently just believe in one?

I read awhile back in ASL class there was a hearing woman who was raised by Deaf parents in a Deaf/HH town (in Illinois or somewhere close). She thought everyone knew ASL and she never heard a spoken word. When she went to college out of state she was shocked and literally had to learn English to communicate with her hearing peers.

Now, we can say "but she knew English (or other spoken language) because she was born with that ability, but the fact is she didn't know because that's not how she was raised. Take right and left handedness. Most of us have the ability to write, but at one time teachers punished left-handers because to be right handers since the majority=normal. Even the white environment and one black person really tips people off.

So, my point is, it's literally environment, indoctrination, and god of the gaps. Another thing I noticed is as years go on, the more interpretative and abstract christianity seems to be. At first we were dependent on rituals, traditions, and oral stories and so forth now many christians are saying god can't be explained by rituals, mystical experiences, and the like. As if the mundane cancels out the spiritual when in the past (making an intelligent guess on my former practice) it just wasn't so.

I mean, people put their concepts of god today on the bible and their culture, language, and understanding of life and science are completely different than 2 or 3,000 years ago.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not too familiar with that subject, but I would take "god" out (since that's a complex word in itself), and think more of it in context of god of the gaps: finding practices and ideas to explain the natural environment, their place, and the relationship with people they are around and associate with. Another thing is that way back when we were polytheist not theist. I think I learned in art history that the one-god (one-king, one president, one truth, etc) are all political to emphasis authority over people. Though this is entirely cultural, it still makes sense regardless.

The problem is trying to fit our idea of god to the idea of deities way back when. Even people on RF who believe in abrahamic traditions try to fit the concept of their god on eastern traditions and their gods. Even the word god itself is not even universal.

But I'm still confused how you guys don't understand if you're not in an environment to know of god, how would you inherently just believe in one?

I read awhile back in ASL class there was a hearing woman who was raised by Deaf parents in a Deaf/HH town (in Illinois or somewhere close). She thought everyone knew ASL and she never heard a spoken word. When she went to college out of state she was shocked and literally had to learn English to communicate with her hearing peers.

Now, we can say "but she knew English (or other spoken language) because she was born with that ability, but the fact is she didn't know because that's not how she was raised. Take right and left handedness. Most of us have the ability to write, but at one time teachers punished left-handers because to be right handers since the majority=normal. Even the white environment and one black person really tips people off.

So, my point is, it's literally environment, indoctrination, and god of the gaps. Another thing I noticed is as years go on, the more interpretative and abstract christianity seems to be. At first we were dependent on rituals, traditions, and oral stories and so forth now many christians are saying god can't be explained by rituals, mystical experiences, and the like. As if the mundane cancels out the spiritual when in the past (making an intelligent guess on my former practice) it just wasn't so.

I mean, people put their concepts of god today on the bible and their culture, language, and understanding of life and science are completely different than 2 or 3,000 years ago.

I am an atheist. I want to know where the idea of gods come from in a naturalistic sense.
Your explanation doesn't cut it.

 

[firedragon]

There is no one understanding of theism and atheism. There are in practice a range of understandings and any one of them are as subjective as all the rest. Including yours and mine.

Thus, in which understanding is "Atheism" a belief in "a higher power"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thus, in which understanding is "Atheism" a belief in "a higher power"?

It is not. An atheist can believe in a higher power without being a theist, because theism doesn't have one universal, absolute, true, correct and what not definition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So even non-humans do that presumably? Does that includes first life in biological terms?

The first lives did not have any society. That came much later.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am an atheist. I want to know where the idea of gods come from in a naturalistic sense.
Your explanation doesn't cut it.

I didn't say gods where real. I just said that's how culture works. I'm not sure where you are from, but regardless one's theological stance, its just the nature of culture development. Being an atheist really has nothing to do with the progress of history and how beliefs in gods came to be.

You can study it in archeology, theology, geology, psychology and neurology even. Atheism is irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say gods where real. I just said that's how culture works. I'm not sure where you are from, but regardless one's theological stance, its just the nature of culture development. Being an atheist really has nothing to do with the progress of history and how beliefs in gods came to be.

You can study it in archeology, theology, geology, psychology and neurology even. Atheism is irrelevant.

Evidence for the bold.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Evidence for the bold.

Yes. Exactly. So, I'm not sure why you mentioned atheism. Talking about how the nature of god came about has been studied by theist and atheist alike.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Exactly. So, I'm not sure why you mentioned atheism. Talking about how the nature of god came about has been studied by theist and atheist alike.

That is not what I asked about.

 

[firedragon]

It is not. An atheist can believe in a higher power without being a theist, because theism doesn't have one universal, absolute, true, correct and what not definition.

That does not answer the question. That was just an irrelevant think you just said as a red herring. This is surprising.

What kind of "Atheist" believes in a "Higher power"?

Is there some other kind of atheism that believes in a "higher power"?

Thats the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That does not answer the question.

What kind of "Atheist" believes in a "Higher power"?

Is there some other kind of atheism that believes in a "higher power"?

Thats the question.

Atheism is a limited negative in the modern sense. I don't believe in deities. That says nothing about if I believe in something else.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is not what I asked about.

I looked back and couldn't find any questions.