A World without Religion

The difference has nothing to do with the number of God concepts available for consideration. The "ancient" atheist was not a self-proclaimed atheist; people were called atheists by their society if the person rejected the God or gods worshipped by the society in question; this does not mean that people who were called atheists were non-theists, only that their theism was not the same theism as practiced by the rest of that society.

It's a matter of the meaning of the word changing.

The difference has nothing to do with the number of God concepts available for consideration. The "ancient" atheist was not a self-proclaimed atheist; people were called atheists by their society if the person rejected the God or gods worshipped by the society in question; this does not mean that people who were called atheists were non-theists, only that their theism was not the same theism as practiced by the rest of that society.

It's a matter of the meaning of the word changing.



There is some history in the Bible, but to say that the Bible is more history than anything else seems false.

The Gospels are clearly not history, but stories invented around the character Jesus. The epistles contain historical information, but were not histories: instead they were exhortations targeted toward specific audiences. The Old Testament has more history than the New Testament, but the history contained within is oral tradition, mythologized accounts of the past. Some parts of the Old Testament are purely mythological accounts, like Genesis.

The Bible is more didactic mythology than anything else.

Yes, spiritualism is also religion, but I doubt children are born believing they can commune with the dead.



Yes; until modern times an atheist was someone who did not worship the community's deities, rather than someone who rejected belief in God.



As who knows it? Animism is one of the earliest forms of religion, and is still widely practiced around the globe. Prior to conversion to Islam, the religion of the Arabs was animistic. A sword made of bronze is still a sword even though swords are not typically made of bronze today.



This often is the case, however, it is not necessarily the case. Take, for example, the Baha'i faith.

Theists have tended to want to answer questions regarding the origin of life or moral laws by claiming that there is a vaguely anthropomorphic all-powerful force or forces who has/have acted as architechts of the universe and dictators of what is good or bad.

Atheists are those who refute the need for this explanation.

Whilst both groups have, over time, come up with ever more sophisticated or seductive arguements and illustrations - I don't feel that there is a real paradigm shift between an athiest of yore and one of today.

Why do you believe that ancient atheists could not have been non-theists?

The move from naturalism to animism represents a change in intelligence which is also shown in advanced technology

One must have some established practice and belief for one to be tied back as religion means, to the practice and belief of ones people...

A religion needs a priesthood, and a priesthood is like an aristocracy in that it requires the support of a large population and an advanced technology.

They could have been. My point is about the way the word is and has been used: in modern times the word atheist underwent a change in meaning; the meaning changed from 'someone who rejects the god(s) of his society' to 'someone who rejects theism'.

Sounds suspect to me - what is it about children that makes you think they are born spiritualists?

I doubt children are born with much awareness of anything at all - but that they pick up stories and ideas at an early age.

I reckon if a child were raised with early influences being purely rationalist then the child itself may well not have any particular spiritualist bent.

However, it would be monstrously cruel, I think, to deny a child stories which revolve around fairytales, or fantasy, or Santa Claus, or ghosts. I believed in such things to varying degrees as a child - because adults deceived me about them. But I'm grateful for it because I think I would have imaginatively impoverished without them.

I don't think it made me a spiritualist though - it was just that at that age I was naturally credulous and enjoyed such tales and benefitted from the simple metaphores they illustrate - why this particular label of 'spiritualist' for children?

What is the difference between 'someone who rejects the god(s) of his society' and 'someone who rejects theism? Theism, for the individual in ancient times, would be the gods of the given society, no? What more could theism contain besides the religious/mythology notions one is aware?

They could have been. My point is about the way the word is and has been used: in modern times the word atheist underwent a change in meaning; the meaning changed from 'someone who rejects the god(s) of his society' to 'someone who rejects theism'.



The shift from animism to polytheism/theism has nothing to do with intelligence but conditions of life.



Religion does not mean to be tied back.



Religion does not need a priesthood, organized religion needs a priesthood (or, at least, every organized religion that has existed thus far). Organized religion, however, does not need a large population: small hunter gatherer groups and early agrarian villages had organized religion.

Such a person would have been called an atheist even though they believed in some sort of god.

And today Artistotle would be deemed a theist?

I would call him a theist because he invented his own god concept: the prime mover. Others interpret him differently. It's not that big of a deal, really, I was just looking for an example to clarify my point.

Religion can be individual, though: religion need not be organized. Religion is what man practices to fulfill his spiritual needs: spirituality and religion are the same. The distinction is not between religion and spirituality but between organized religion and spirituality.

Religion is like a bottle. When we are young and have no teeth, we need to use a bottle to feed. As we get older, our dependence on the bottle goes away and the bottle is eventually tossed out.

The same is true with many human ideas and concepts. We need them as a jump point but we must eventually grow out of them. Religion is one of these things. Along with religion, segregation of all sorts, power mongering and collecting things. All these things need to vanish as we take the next step in human evolution.

Choice is heresy, or so I have been told

spirituality and religion are the same

Where is the child that does not believe in ghosts or magic??? They do not understand cause and effect, and actually are missing the sense of conservation... The do not understand that they will not flush down the toilet, of fit down the dreain... Again, they grow up with the magic of love, where others anticipate their needs, come before they are called, and reasure them... Their fear is unfounded, and their understanding is unfounded... And what do we do but mystify them... The wires are hidden, but we flip the switch and the lights come on.. Is it any wonder that grown people do not understand electrical circuits??? Its all magic... When people do not understand they are forced to believe but what they believe will be individual..

Religion is like a bottle. When we are young and have no teeth, we need to use a bottle to feed. As we get older, our dependence on the bottle goes away and the bottle is eventually tossed out.

The same is true with many human ideas and concepts. We need them as a jump point but we must eventually grow out of them. Religion is one of these things. Along with religion, segregation of all sorts, power mongering and collecting things. All these things need to vanish as we take the next step in human evolution.

"When I was a child I thought as a child but now that I am a man, it is time to do away with childish things."