I'm interested in the history of atheism. Why didn't

Hateful beings, I don't care about them and they only exists through religion

>>1134268
>posted by a nu male hipster faggot probably named Ryan whose never left his state or has the slightest conception of God as a metaphysical reality entails but thinks he can wax philosophic about "superstition" and le ebin religious oppression maymay because he played some weebshit jrpg where the church was the villain

>>1134268
Religion no longer offers a valid explanation for the origin and state of the world, the Earth and all the species on it, whilst science does. There is simply no evidence for the existence of any deities, much less those of organized religions, so there is no reason to believe in a god.

>>1134293
>empirical evidence for deities
>still not getting deities are just a symbolism for objectively observable natural and cosmic forces

The autism is real

>>1134269
>>1134272
>>1134290

What are you so angry about?

>>1134302
>my subjective conception of God is the right one because you're le autism LOL

Choose:

a) Evolution
b) Creationism

If Evolution, explain why do we have domestic dogs.

If your answer is evolution through domestication explain why blacks, having been slaves forever are not domesticated blacks.

>E-evolution is random except for when I have to explain why it isn't random or working like I said it would! Then it works in mysterious ways!
>The ways of evolution are not your ways!
>Repent!
>Have faith!
>You do not test the evolution!
>Trust evolution with all your heart, sould and spirit!
>Have faith in evolution and she will save you from your sins!
>Kneel and worship evolution!

Here, atheism explained.

File: 95624379_1067597_Stronk_Ilmarinen_izgotavlivaet_Sampo.jpg (70KB, 342x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 342x480px

>>1134302
And why would anyone buy into that in this day and age? Paganic religions were all about explaining the world around us, with different deities and beings responsible for different things, but with the advent and rise of Christianity, that changed massively in Europe. Excluding the parts and nations where Christianity had to bend and accept paganic influences, stories, spells, creatures (Finland being a great example of this), it all degenerated into God did it.

>>1134302
>it's just a metaphor guys, chill out!

Roleplayers need to leave

>>1134311
Maybe because dogs are smarter?

>>1134315

>E-evolution works in mysterious ways!

What does alleged intellect have to do with evolving?

>>1134311
>having been slaves forever
But they haven't. Neither were they eugenized properly as dogs and other domesticated animals were.

File: yfw God exists.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

Post yfw OP and Dawkins die and find out that God exists

>>1134311
>having been slaves forever are not domesticated blacks
Because that's not why dogs are domesticated.

It's because human behavior that tolerates dogs and dogs behavior that tolerates humans is mutually beneficial so selected for, since we are similar hunters so aid each other in getting food, protect each other... Etc while not hindering each other more than we benefit.

Why don't you just think about it for a second, that's not even a tough one.

>>1134327
Don't forget that it's more than just selected for, since humans would have simply killed any and all aggressive, non-compliant wolfdogs. It's both active selection of those traits and the active removal of unwanted traits.

>>1134311
>dogs domestication over tens of thousands of years
>blacks "domestication" over two centuries or less

And yes, the african-americans are a different people than pure africans.
They show the signs of our unintentional eugenics program. The strongest were purchased for slaves, of them the strongest survived the trip, of them the strongest lived enough to breed.
Today african-americans are taller, healthier, stronger than africans.

>>1134332
>The strongest were purchased for slaves,
Not exactly, considering the slaves were sold by other Africans. They were literally the inferior tribes that lost wars and got sold out.

>>1134293
More like, society accepts different standards of truth today and the common place understanding of god does not sit well with them.

>>1134334
Of the captured, the strongest were sold west. Of those, the strongest lived. Of those, the strongest breed.

And no, you don't need to be a sick weak old man to be captured by european funded warbands. The biggest, hardest, healthiest demigod of a man can easily be captured if he is a fisherman in a small village, and the warlord decides to harvest them for slaves.

>>1134311
This post shows why good evolution classes are so important.

>>1134335
Based on a purely empiricist view on the world, there is no logical reason to believe that god exists.

File: article-2159103-1396786A000005DC-548_634x498.jpg (70KB, 634x498px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 634x498px

>>1134332
>>dogs domestication over tens of thousands of years

Domestication actually takes very little time.

Pic related

>hundreds of thousands of years domesticating tigers, oh yes, show me your source.

>>1134268
>So what exactly was holding back science from winning over superstition for almost two millennia?
Are you saying that beeing an atheist automatically makes you a scientists? Or that there were no religious sceintists?
And how do you get the figure of two millenia? Where people not superstitious before that?

>>1134268
>So what exactly was holding back science from winning over superstition for almost two millennia?

Evidence

>>1134347
>training a single animal is the same as domesticating a species

You are being stupid, anon. Rethink your post.

>>1134353

Actually yes, that tiger is domestic, it lives at home, it doesn't murder his owner, it loves the owner, it is a domestic tiger.

>b-but evolution works in mysterious ways and you have to go to the shrine and pray so your genes get better!

>>1134355
Taming a single animal is about training it.
Domesticating a species is about changing its genetic makeup over time, by favoring some traits over others.
They are completely and utterly different.

When this tiger has cubs, you need to train them too.
If it were domesticated, they wouldn't need to be trained, since over many generations the humans would've allowed the more docile, friendly tigers to mate, and killed off the aggressive ones, thus over many, many years made it so tigers are less aggressive and more friendly.
Do you comprehend this gross oversimplification?

>>1134361
I am pretty sure that other guy is trolling.
your efforts are wasted, anon

>>1134364
I am not sure he is, I have real life friends who've brought up that argument before, in earnest, citing dancing bears and circus elephants.

>>1134361
>Domesticating a species is about changing its genetic makeup over time, by favoring some traits over others.

Ah yes, we humans knew about genetics tens of thousands of years ago, so we did it.

Actually I'm kind of fond on videogames made tens of thousands of years ago, they had better graphics and no dlc bullshit, and tons of content, unlike today.

And cars those days? Those were sportscars!

Btw genetics were discovered in the 19th century.

And since humans never knew about genetics, they just picked dogs for a whole other reason over tigers. And since it looks like tigers can be tamed as you say today, there were tameable back then, so... why aren't tigers domesticated?

Answer: Because God never made them like so.

>>1134355
But slaves didn't just sit there and take it, and thus weren't domesticated.

>>1134368
" we humans knew about genetics tens of thousands of years ago, so we did it."
holy shit you are autistic AND retarded
do you think early humans were incapable of noticing patterns related to domestication?

>>1134370

Uh-huh.

Do this:

-Go to a jungle.
-Seek the most fucking dangerous animal you can find on it
-Have it just sit there and take it so it is domesticated like you suggest it happened with other animals.

No animal does this, retard. Even domestic ones are aggressive towards strangers many times.

>>1134373

>w-we noticed patterns related to domestication

Such as?

>hello oooboog, I have noticed that after 3000 thousands years, the dogs that have a bigger dick make women happier
>good discovery ughugh!

>>1134368
>find fruit
>this tree gives bigger fruit than the other one
>plant the bigger fruit tree seeds
>dont plant the smaller fruit tree seeds
>over time through selective breeding get overall bigger fruit

Same for taste, defensive mechanics (like removing fuzz from fruit, or thorns, sting, etc), how ripe they get and such.
Just like a tall father and a tall mother are likely to have a tall child, by selecting positive traits and punishing negative traits you can customize the qualities of a population of a species under your control.

ITT: City vermin try to explain how animal behave to a man that lives actually among and with animals in the countryside.

Surely you will teach me a lot of these things I see every day.

>>1134381

I'm taller than both of my parents, I defy your logic.

>b-because the genes were there all along!

Exactly, just like a tall tree of big fruit will always have the genes for small tree with small fruit.

RETARD.

Because unlike you, I have planted seeds, grown animals and done shit like that for all of my life.

>>1134366
are you, by chance, american?

>>1134268
People who spoke up got killed it's in history books buddy

>>1134388
>i am statistically unlikely
This doesn't prove the statistic wrong. Outliers exist.
People who are born deformed didn't come from a long line of deformed parents.
You aren't arguing well.

>>1134391
No, creationists exist all around the worlds. They are just fewer here, and generally mocked instead of being explained why they are wrong.

>>1134393
heretics were killed mostly, because they were dangerous revolutionary elements.
atheists werent really persecuted, since they werent organized and didnt pose a threat to society

>>1134394

You aren't adressing any of my points, since I have actually answered by myself what you are allegedly "answering".

If by any chance you think you are smart, just look into the mirror, notice how you look stupid as fuck, this is no coincidence, you are not smart, and tricks like this one will not go unnoticed.

>>1134404
>Tell people that the basis of the greatest force in Christendom is objectively false
>Think you'll live to see the end of the month

>actually trying to argue with a rusemaster/uneducated retard

Why

File: 1462042924695.png (112KB, 619x562px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 619x562px

>>1134412
People get triggered by immense stupidity and they're too naive to realise it's probably bait.

>>1134406
Now you are just insulting me instead of arguing.
I will wait for another response from you, and if you continue down this road I'll just have to assume you are pretending to be retarded.

>>1134311
>you do not test evolution

Except that we use bacteria, which experience several million generations in a short enough span that we can actually study them, to test it all the time, you retard.

>>1134414
>Now you are just insulting me instead of arguing.

Actually yes, I am pointing out that you are "arguing" against a point I refuted myself to set it as an example and you pretend this is your doing, your actions do deserve an insult.

I will wait for another of your sad attempts at going away from being caught into lies, and if you continue down this road I'll just have to assume you are failing to pretend not to be retarded.

File: superman_returns_23.jpg (190KB, 2100x1233px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 2100x1233px

>>1134268
>I'm interested in the history of atheism.

I'm confused.
Theists make a claim.
Atheists make no claim.
A history of people not making a claim?
Where do you start?
How do you decide when no claim is made?

>>1134268
>Why didn't atheism gain momentum earlier than the 20th century?
Poverty.

>So what exactly was holding back science from winning over superstition for almost two millennia?
Illiteracy.

>>1134268
There were always a few who were skeptical of this stuff

Also, the asspain from the creationists in this thread is pretty funny

>>1134268
>So what exactly was holding back science from winning over superstition for almost two millennia?
Religion and yearning for supernatural agency is palatable to the human psyche, so many will prefer it over what is actually likely.

>>1134311
>domestication explain why blacks, having been slaves forever are not domesticated blacks.
Easy, because blacks suck at being domesticated.

File: 9780571279302.jpg (1MB, 1882x2835px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1882x2835px

>Why didn't atheism gain momentum earlier than the 20th century?

That's not entirely true, pic related

The amount of retardation and cognitive dissonance ITT is astonishing.

I think this is the never ending story athiest dude who made this tread he pretends to be both sides and trolls himself. I'm not sure of his motivations.

>>1134614

It kind be kind of fun pretending to be religious. You can say the stupidest shit and no one can tell if you're a troll or not.

>>1134311
>Simplistic creature domesticated for hundreds of thousands of years if not longer
>the other is a sapient being kept as slaves for maybe 400 years at most, rebelling the whole time
Also neither is related to evolution.
Humans were not in control of the mutations in dogs we just saw traits that already manifested and bred the dogs with the traits we liked a lot hoping that they would pass those traits to their offspring.
The whole processes was still random only with humans taking the role of natural selection in this example.

>>1134632
>pretending

>>1134411
people werent sociopath killers back then
if you are not an asshole about your believes and if there isnt a heretic movement going on currently, you are gonna be fine

>>1134268
The thing that led to the so called "enlightenment" was the Italian renaissance, before that, Europe didn't have either the political, nor the economic freedom for the widespread use and development of non-religious rational thought (note that "religious" and "rational" aren't self excluding terms). I'm not even talking about the Spanish inquisition or anything like that, as it was still present during the renaissance and scientific revolution, but the fact that these 2 historical events occurred made European thinkers realize that a religious explanation mainly for the principle of causality was no longer satisfactory.

>>1134684
This. The problem isn't with religion itself, as you don't need to actively practice the tenants of your religion to be considered religious, be those tenants as "loving" or "evil" as they may be, but when hardcore fundamentalists get to power. Now that is where true danger is.

>>1134268
evolution and cosmology mostly

>>1134388
>City vermin try to explain how animal behave to a man that lives actually among and with animals in the countryside.


yeah, you can shovel horses shit for a thousand years if you want to, too bad that wont make you a biology proffesor

>>1134268

the problem with a history of atheism is that its never the same atheism

in a sense a particular historical form of atheism is defined less by the explicit fact that it is a-theist, and more by what it is a specific reaction to or rejection of, which usualy depends on political context

so for example sartres atheism was way different from dawkinss atheism or newatheism generaly, examples of official state-atheism were all way different from nihilist/anarchist atheism, buddhist general atheistic slant is and was different from various other forms of local impersonalisms and negations of this and that aspect of the divine, etc...

for example, to say -in our philosophy there is no such thing or place as would fit a eternal 'god'- or -based on my life experience and what it leads me to conclude i do not believe in any god - and to say -based on scientific method and rattionalism there is no evidence for god - are three radicaly different things with different impications

in a certain sense you can find atheist or 'supra-theist' logic in the bible itself, in that a god that is invisible, allpresent, indivisible etc... is in some sense a direct negation and rejection of all specific forms of 'manmade' gods, kind of how in hindu logic 'all gods are transparent to the divine' as in they are second order, phenomena, not realy 'it'

what i mean by all this is that historicaly atheism alway depends on 'where its coming from' and/or what it is actualy a rejection of, in practical terms, like, institutionalised religious authority, or, claims to political legitimacy by divine mandate, or, some ideologicaly significant interpretation of some religious whatever, or just being forced by circumstances to live life as a human

in fact the thing itself can be both a negation and/or a foundational claim

File: 1366501972850.gif (820KB, 3558x3364px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 3558x3364px

>>1134268

Remember - it's completely unthinkable that a man could be a scientist and seek to look at, and delve into, the worlds mysteries from a scientific perspective and yet at the same time be a man of religion!

The two are totally incompatible!

>>1135044

>said no one, ever

>>1135044

so why is that toilet brain guy a commie? he could have been anything... i mean is it implied dawkins is a commie?

most notable commies actualy acknowledged the role of the church in forming the basis for intellectual development in the west and training the ''intellectual class'' etc... being marxists it would be hard for them not to notice this historical fact, it was more a romanticist thing relating to the notion of ''dark ages'' and general rattionalist critics of religion going out of their way to prove points

>>1135093
To be frank, although Marx recognizes the positive role religion can have in society, as an instrument of social cohesion, he nonetheless argues that it is an instrument of control of the bourgeoisie towards the proletariat, thus putting religion in a negative light, so in a way, that picture makes some sense.

>>1134302
you seem to forget that people whole heartedly subscribe to monotheistic faiths as being 100% tangible.

>>1135082
Richard Dawkins implied that quite some times.

>>1135082
Bill Maher never shuts up about it

>>1135016
Excellent post. Too bad no one will notice it between a flood of retarded memes, that creationist moron and "muh sky daddy" tier appeals to ridicule.

>>1134582
Too bad that book is shit and false, though.
>prove it;
Look in the /his/ archives. Everytime someone made a thread about it, it's been torn to shreds

>>1134345
Though you forget that the very nature of Empiricism demands God's existence as it's first and foremost premise.
>Critique of Pure Reason
>>1134293
Why is religions take on the creation of the world now inadequate? Perhaps you should read some George Berkley or David Hume.
>no evidence
Not if you keep your eyes closed.
There is no way for me to translate to you the fundamental truth of the world as I understand it for you are not me.
However I can urge you to pursue it yourself.
But allow me to tell you, the only way to walk the path of knowledge.
Is to begin and end with God.
You will figure out the rest.

A reason to believe.
Reason itself demands it.
>Critique of Pure Reason

>>1135296

but thats not the same thing, religon realy was a instrument of control, or rather it was such a part and parcel of the whole system it was identified with it, but that dont mean marxists didnt know about say, jesuite colleges or scolars or how the church educated most people who meant anything in terms of scientific development - this too was seen as a form of control tho, as in a attempt to monopolise knowledge and education, which it was in certain ways, just that it failed

>>1134268

>Why didn't the free thinkers of the middle ages or the dark ages already liberate themselves from religious oppression?

This was only in Europe.

In the Middle East, Religion was seen as a liberating force from pagan traditions, which actually were holding society back. Same reason Buddhism and Taoism spread in the east.

It actually was the same reason Christianity became popular in Europe, but then the Catholic church hijacked it and used it as a means of control. But even so, local churches provided a huge amount of charity to people. It was literally the only charity in Europe. It did force the nobility to come down to spend time with peasants in the church, and help the causes of the church, or they'd look really bad and lose legitimacy.

Atheism only became popular in Europe, because the Catholic Church hijacked Christianity and promoted dogma and superstition, so when science began to expose the flaws in European Christianity, European intellectuals were so high and might about European culture, they couldn't dare fathom looking into how other people did religion.

Atheism was openly discussed in the Muslim world. Many Muslim scholars debated with atheists, and their debates were recorded. and even kings and Caliphs openly expressed doubt in the divinity of Islam.

But Atheism actually makes less sense than theism. Atheism is actually a product of human arrogance, believing Humanity has the ability to claim the massive blind spots in our perception are "nothingness". An atheist can't accept that their fragile, limited brain is unable to know everything, so all the stuff they can't measure, they say is "nothing", because saying it's God means their logic is weak and feeble.

At least Theism explains why self repeating, self aware patterns in reality (aka life) stem from reality, which also must have self awareness (aka God). This is way more logical of a theory than "lol we came from nothing because I can't see where we came from."

>>1135624

>religon realy was a instrument of control

No it wasn't. Religion is a natural product of human nature. It has always existed for as long as humans did. and will always exist for as long as humans do. Better a rational monotheistic religion, than a backwards, mud worshipping pagan one.

>this too was seen as a form

to add to this, every social concept is a form of control. language. culture. family. work. need for food. Everything. this is an irrelevant claim as humans like order, and prefer a balanced amount of control.

Also, religion rarely monopolized knowledge and education. It actually spread it far better than any other system until national educational systems were able to put into place with the printing press.

>>1134269
As shitposty as it is for christfags to scream fedora anytime their mysticism is offended, I really fucking love that webm

>>1134311
Because there isn't a black population that has been enslaved for long enough for noticiable changes in behavior and phenotype, plus they weren't bred for specific traits like dogs

>>1134355
It's not domesticated, it's tamed. There is a difference

>>1135703

>No it wasn't.

yes it often was, in various ways, often in practice organised religion wasnt about much more than control and order, especialy in rural parts

>Also, religion rarely monopolized knowledge and education.
>It actually spread it far better than any other system until national educational systems

yes, thats cause the catholic church pretty much tried to monopolise it, most places of higher learning in europe were founded by the church, most libraries colected, most scolars educated, all by the church, before and after reformation, thats the whole reason why science, as whatever they understood it as then, was such a tricky subject and could get people burned, thats why people didnt start realy breaking out of it untill the whole enlightenment thing, but without that there wouldnt have been any enligtenment

>>1134268
>Why didn't atheism gain momentum earlier than the 20th century?
Marxism wasn't popular until the 20th century.