Origin of Athiesm

[Millman]

I know you could put 'Origin of' whatever to anything. So why not start with this? Where did it come from? Consider this a psychology-type discussion. I'm trying to figure out why people come up with stuff in the first place.

My answer is that our imagination allows us to judge and manipulate reality as we see fit. There could be consequences and/or benefits from violating our universes rules.

I know I answered my own question but I'd like more insight. It might solve the case behind issues in other threads here.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Easy. Just as individuals are solidly convinced there is a God, a few individiuals, likewise, were solidly convinced there isn't one. Or at least, that's how I see it. Then you have the partial leaning towards faith or lack thereof.

The rise in atheism is a bit of a self-reinforcing process, I believe. As people became less and less focused on God, they became more tolerant of radical religious beliefs. So, more atheists were public. People find strength in numbers, so it became a snowball effect; more and more atheists declared their lack of belief whereas before they were afraid they'd be outcasts.

 

[madviking]

Before the first deity was concocted, the entire world was atheist. Those were the days...

 

[Maniacal]

Before people came up with religion, everyone was atheist. There are also atheistic religions, like most forms of Bhuddism. Atheism didn't originate from anywhere.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure what this thread is about, but the origins of modern atheism are simply the development of science and philosophy to the point where a religious explanation for the origin of the universe was unnecessary, if not actually counter-productive; a natural switch, you might say, for those of a sceptical persuasion. Deism functioned as a halfway house for much of the Enlightenment, providing a philosophical framework to reject a personal and interventionist deity, while still retaining the "First Cause" argument that had not yet found a sufficient enough body of learning to overturn it.

Before the first deity was concocted, the entire world was atheist.

Before people came up with religion, everyone was atheist.

Actually, the general view among anthropologists is that the earliest human belief systems were animistic in nature, and probably derive from some fundamental element/s of human psychology (the non-innate conceptual distinction between animate and inanimate objects on the one hand, and the human tendency to infer agency or design from natural phenomena on the other, are, I understand, the leading candidates). "Gods", as we understood them, were a later development, and in most cultures retained far more of their original animistic qualities than in Abrahamic religion.

 

[Maniacal]

Actually, the general view among anthropologists is that the earliest human belief systems were animistic in nature, and probably derive from some fundamental element/s of human psychology (the non-innate conceptual distinction between animate and inanimate objects on the one hand, and the human tendency to infer agency or design from natural phenomena on the other, are, I understand, the leading candidates). "Gods", as we understood them, were a later development, and in most cultures retained far more of their original animistic qualities than in Abrahamic religion.

Point taken. However, as you mention, they didn't really have gods yet. Although we will never be able to find out exactly what they really believed.

 

[Millman]

We could base what they knew on the brain size and politics of the time. All you knew was 'sharp' 'hunger' and/or 'fire.'

The more our brains evolved the more complex the ideas became. Then there's the relevance of the idea. It's nice to know we've come to a point we're rejecting ideas that are too obvious.

Consider how easy it is to get people to believe in big bad deities and to dismiss complex interactions like gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, computers. It's easy to label something and believe in it. It's harder to know the steps required in completing the task.

Off the top of their heads how many people could do the multiplication chart up to 20. Only one other normal person I asked knows what seven cubed is. I didn't ask a teacher at any time obviously.

 

[sophie]

We could base what they knew on the brain size and politics of the time. All you knew was 'sharp' 'hunger' and/or 'fire.'

Lol, that is 100% wrong.

 

[Millman]

Way to not contribute to the discussion. Could you provide your own examples instead?

And it's not the quantity of examples it's the quality. I'm not looking for a QED report and/or a cruel angels thesis on atheism(pun and inside joke intended).

 

[SG-17]

The brain to body mass ratio of humans has remained basically unchanged for the last 100,000 years.

 

[FredLC]

AFAIK, the idea of atheism as we conceive today come from pre-Socratic philosophy in ancient Greece, particularly the students from Tales of Mileto, who introduced the idea that explanations to the world are contained within the elements of the world, and not in external influences (such as the supernatural).

Great school of thought, that originated ideas such as the atomism and the first proposition that humans evolved (an ancient idea, not to be confused with Darwin's TOE, that explained the process through which it happened).

Regards .

 

[Traitorfish]

Point taken. However, as you mention, they didn't really have gods yet.

Granted, but they weren't "atheists", in the modern sense, either; they didn't experience a lack of gods, but, rather, a countless abundance of them.

To be honest, the whole discussion of "atheism" and "theism" is a very Eurocentric one, taking certain essentially Abrahamic conceptions of what a deity is properly understood to be as universal norms, and defining all other belief system in terms of the (percieved) presence or absence of such a deity. Where does Shinto fit into this system? Taoism? Indigenous American religions? Even Hinduism fits only very poorly into such a dichotomy, despite it's usual classification as a monotheistic faith by presumptuous Westerners.

Although we will never be able to find out exactly what they really believed.

Well, not as such, but certain broad inferences can be made from various sources, specifically by recording and comparing the remaining traditions of Stone Age peoples, either from surviving simple societies, or from people relatively recently descended from them who have retained old ways. (Less reliable, but sill important, are documents of earlier contacts with simple societies, and some information can even be gleaned through examining the spiritual beliefs of nominally polytheistic or monotheistic peoples, particularly those who retained a large part of their pre-Christian folklore into the modern era, such as the Scandinavians or Russians.)

 

[Maniacal]

We could base what they knew on the brain size and politics of the time. All you knew was 'sharp' 'hunger' and/or 'fire.'

The more our brains evolved the more complex the ideas became. Then there's the relevance of the idea. It's nice to know we've come to a point we're rejecting ideas that are too obvious.

You've never really read anything about early humans, anthropology, etc have you? Because I highly recommend it.

Consider how easy it is to get people to believe in big bad deities and to dismiss complex interactions like gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, computers. It's easy to label something and believe in it. It's harder to know the steps required in completing the task.

I wouldn't know, I had a decent education.

 

[Millman]

The brain to body mass ratio of humans has remained basically unchanged for the last 100,000 years.

How long we've been around is physics not psychology. When did our brains begin to change? When did atheism really exist?

More to the point I know of no caveman who might have uttered thermostat.

THE point is the requirement of math and the alphabet to read, write, understand to begin with. The verdict is those are some of things enabling us to judge and manipulate reality. It also allows you to have a hunch over warm and cold facts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that the origins of atheism lie in the formal use of logic and reason and post date the origins of religion. Some folks tie the origins of religion to empathy and are looking for empathy in the great apes as the source of our religious thinking.

http://primatology.net/2007/01/31/on-god-gorillas-and-the-evolution-of-religion/

 

[warpus]

Origin of Athiesm

First you've got to realize that atheism is simply a lack of a belief. That it's a lack of belief in God doesn't really matter.

You lack belief in an infinite amount of things. You lack a belief that 2+2=5, for example. Where did that lack of belief originate?

Nowhere. It's a lack of something, it can't originate somewhere. The question doesn't make sense.

 

[civ_king]

I think what people need to realize is that you can prove that something didn't happen, and this does happen in court: "Your honor, my client could not have murdered that girl in Louisiana in 1995 because he was in Hong Kong."

So while theists need to prove there is a god atheists need to prove there isn't.

 

[Leifmk]

So while theists need to prove there is a god atheists need to prove there isn't.

No, that's not how it works at all.

 

[civ_king]

No, that's not how it works at all.

Just because I've never seen a zebra doesn't mean it doesn't exist

 

[Perfection]

I think what people need to realize is that you can prove that something didn't happen, and this does happen in court: "Your honor, my client could not have murdered that girl in Louisiana in 1995 because he was in Hong Kong."

How do we prove that he was in Hong Kong? How do we prove that being in Hong Kong precludes murdering the girl?

Also, in criminal cases it's the prosecutor that has to demonstrate the guilt of the defendant whereas the defendant does not need to demonstrate his innocence.