Origin of Athiesm

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.

Let me rephrase my self "Your Honor I couldn't have groped the girl on that platform in Nagoya because I was in Sapporo"
 
Just because I've never seen a zebra doesn't mean it doesn't exist
There is physical evidence that shows that zebras exist. There is no physical evidence that shows that any sort of god(s) exist.

QED
 
Let me rephrase my self "Your Honor I couldn't have groped the girl on that platform in Nagoya because I was in Sapporo"
How does that change anything? :confused:
 
It was here first.

First the egg, then the chickens.
 
What makes you think that?

Man sentenced to prison for groping insists on his innocence

TOKYO —
The lower court handed down the ruling of guilty to Hideaki Ishii, in his 50s, for groping a 19-year-old woman in 2005 during his commute on the JR Yokohama line. After a second trial in 2007 that upheld the initial court decision, the Supreme Court rejected Ishii’s final appeal last year in December. After three and a half years’ legal battle to prove his innocence, the former sales executive of a leading corporation will be incarcerated later this month for a term of 1 year and 6 months.

Ishii’s nightmare began in the train on Jan 21 in 2005, when a young woman shouted that he was a groper. He was immediately apprehended on suspicion of violating the nuisance prevention ordinance. Two months later, he was indicted for indecent assault, and the lower court later found him guilty.

According to Ishii, “Many people advised me after my arrest that I should admit to the charge and apologize. Then I’d be required to pay 50,000 yen as penalty and the case will be over. But I refused because it was something I didn’t do. I spent more than 10 million yen in legal fees to prove my innocence and I now face a prison sentence, even though I have no criminal record. The verdict stated that the sentence was appropriate in view of what they claimed was the absence of any sign of remorse. How am I to feel remorse over an act I didn’t commit?”

In the interrogation room, Ishii says that he was tempted to give in. “Police investigators have no qualms about lying just to get a confession. They rejected my request to have a lawyer as ‘impossible,’ blatantly threatened that I would be detained for 20 days if I continued denying the charge and said they would handcuff me. I had already been arrested, so none of it makes sense. But I believed them at the time.”

What prevented Ishii from succumbing to the emotional pressure was his daughter. “I wouldn’t make her into a criminal’s child, not when I am innocent.”

Shortly after the first trial, the prosecution changed the charge from violation of the nuisance prevention ordinance to public assault. Ishii’s lawyer suspected it was due to “loss of face,” since the court ordered his release from detention much earlier than prosecutors had hoped for.

Ishii was certain that his innocence would be proven at court. Around the time the crime allegedly happened, he was standing behind the female victim, but preoccupied with a text message he was sending to a friend. The cell phone records prove this fact, yet the victim insisted she was being groped during that time. A male witness also stated he saw Ishii from the time he was supposedly waiting at the platform for the train, and claimed that the act did happen. However, the said platform is not a station Ishii uses, either to get on or transfer for his commute. If the testimony were true, Ishii would have had to get off the train once. Based on the hour he left home for work, it was impossible for Ishii to be on that platform at the hour as testified.

Yet the court determined that the testimony was credible. Even though Ishii has no prior conviction, what he got was an unsuspended prison sentence. The imprisonment was postponed to wait for Ishii’s recovery from surgery for intestinal cancer, diagnosed after the Supreme Court ruling.

“All I can do is hope for a retrial,” Ishii said. He continues to plea for anyone who may have seen him at the time of the alleged crime to come forward and prove his innocence.
:sad:
 
So while theists need to prove there is a god atheists need to prove there isn't.

If we're using atheist to mean the assertive belief in God not exisiting, then yes, I most certainly agree. You must back up what you assert.

Now if we use atheist in the textbook sense, then agnostic atheists need not prove anything; they merely have an absence of belief but not a belief in absence.

(Incoming dictionary war)
 
So while theists need to prove there is a god atheists need to prove there isn't.
So, until you prove I'm not a trained chimpanzee randomly bashing at the keyboard while still producing these thought provoking posts by mere chance, I'm a chimpanzee?

Peanuts!
 
To understand the origin of atheism you must start with origin of religion.

I believe humans started ''believing'' as soon as they started thinking. These believes grew as their intelligence and culture got more complex. This started with looking for answers to simple issues such as death, life and natural phenomena. Finally forming religions that had an important social, cultural and scientific role.

At this point, atheism almost certainly did not exist. Humans were not rational enough to state such believes as untrue. At best they came with their own believes to overthrow and/or replace the older believes.

As civilization progressed the power of religion became more institutionalized. Monotheism largely helped in making this possible. At this point religion and it's institutions still filled it's social, cultural and scientific role. Although it obviously also had alot of direct and indirect influence in other areas such as government and justice.

Through science scepticism again these doctrines appeared. Galileo Galilei, one of the earliest known examples, used rationality to discover that certain church doctrine was incorrect (regarding the solar system in his case). The church institutions used their power to counter this, as they feared such scepsis. Overtime other scientists followed the same pattern. Eventually scientific knowledge grew in power and this gave way to the enlightenment and rennaisance era. This also started the decrease of power religious institutions would now face.

These scientists turned away from common theism as was standard untill then and used another explanation, deism. This made it possible for them to keep researching without facing contradiction. This deism can be considered the origin of atheism, although the original origin is religion itself.

From here on out religion started losing first it's scientific function and later on also it's cultural function. Atheism became an option for people now that religion had lost parts of it's function. If we look at the world today we see that religion has entirely lost it's scientific role. It's cultural role has also diminished and it's social role is still partly in place but decreasing. The power of the religious institutes has wained.

In many Western nations agnosticism, combined with a lack of care about religion, has replaced theism as the standard. Atheism has become much more acceptable. Obviously freedom of religion played a major role here.

My prediction is that religion will lose more of it's function overtime. Eventually dissapearing as an integrated part of society to a form of cultism. I'm not sure wheter atheism or simply a lack of caring about religious issues will become the norm. I'm not sure if there is a difference between those.


Wow, huge wall of text. Obiously it's all my opinion, anybody who can add or correct me go ahead. Although I hope we can leave the 'does god exist' discussions outof it.
 
As interesting as the Japanese case is, it would be better discussed in a separate thread than here.....
 
Atheism began around 13.75 billion years ago (as best as we know). Religion, on the other hand, is a flash in the pan concocted by organisms. It'll pass.
 
Modern atheism is, historically, derived from when 17th century scientific thought first posited that man's intellect had conquered the known world and stood poised to conquer the rest.
 
At this point, atheism almost certainly did not exist. Humans were not rational enough to state such believes as untrue. At best they came with their own believes to overthrow and/or replace the older believes.

Atheism certainly did exist. Belief in a God or Gods was not the default state.

Coming up with a "God" to explain things was the start of Theism. Any time before that, and anyone who disagreed with that idea, was an atheist.

Then you factor in, children are not born with beliefs. No one comes out of the womb believing in a god. They don't understand the concept of toes yet, and certainly haven't developed the capacity to wonder who they are, where they are, or why they are.

Lack of belief is the default state. Then people start to propose ideas.

Then, people start to push those ideas onto others.

Eventually, a person or a society gets to the point where they can suggest reasons why an idea is not true. This is called the age of reasoning.

Reasoning is why atheism is able to survive in a world full of beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom