The Ancient Greek Atheists ("Are there gods above? No, there are not?") 

Christ said to his followers: Ye are gods. So that concept did not start with an Australian philosopher. Consciousness today is the ‘hard problem’ for philosophy. The definition of God has been: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. In so far as we share in God consciousness or Cosmic consciousness we too are gods. Being gods is not being God; we share in Cosmic consciousness; we are not Cosmic consciousness. As humans we are fine as we are; our brains are fine as they are, we can expand consciously to Christ or Cosmic Consciousness without any interference with our brains. Saints have done it and have had direct communion with God. No to trans humanism or any of that nonsense; we don’t need it.

@@ALavin-en1kr Darryl Reanney was not talking about the supernatural - he was arguing that natural human evolution would continue until we reached the stage of being what ancient peoples regarded as gods .Why would human evolution stop when it has reached so far?" After all if a person who lived about 150 years ago were to come back he would think that things like the internet, space flight, modern medicine etcetera were evidence that we had become gods.

@@kaloarepo288 I did not say that human evolution would stop. We can expect that it will continue at the elemental; mental, and conscious level.

We are approaching a quantum age and there are still people who believe in one dimension only rather than three. It is a material age and it is hard for some people as they just don’t get it.

They weren't trying to erase magic. Divination was a huge thing in Yahwism. Later prophets also raised the dead and healed the sick. Finally, there was an attempt to monopolize it when these magical prophets started coming along saying that there was no need to follow Jewish law because something else would save you. So the Judean elite wrote Deuteronomy to centralize all religious power in Jerusalem, and in doing so, made magic more boring.

@@DrVictorVasconcelos The Greeks weren't trying to erase magic? Certainly not the mystics Greeks. And maybe not even, some of the Greek Mathematicians - but some. For instance Democritus - Eudoxus was a known Atheist(by Cicero's account) - would not be surprised if Archimedes was Atheist. Euclid probably. But, there were mystics Mathematicians like Pythagoras/Plato, to name a few. As for the Hebrews - they were trying to wipe out Magic(along with female deities like Asherah - the female goddess wife of Elohim - the literal translation of God is Elohim - a canaanite god, who had a goddess wife Asherah. All through the Torah is a constant effort to burn down the Asherah and make one god)

Sir James Frazer wrote "The Golden Bough" in the late 1800s. People have tried to argue it is not true. I prove it both Biblical quotes of magic in the Old Testament, and Greek Mythology in my "Gospel of Truth - Mathematics as the Holistic Viewpoint."

Some of them did, others didnt

Haha, but they had it other way around. They believed gods were made of atoms, like our own bodies. Strangely, it took a long time for humanity to envision gods as more abstract than matter. Even Saint Augustine in the fourth century still believed in the early years of his career that the Christian God was made of matter like ourselves.

@@Stephans_History_of_the_World - I don't know: there were other religions than Indoeuropean/Semitic/Sumerian/Egyptian polytheisms (they seem pretty much the same to me). What about Zoroastrianism? What about Hinduism? What about the issue of Yin-Yang and how it parallels in more "human" forms in the West and India? The Christian "god" was made of matter like ourselves: that's a tenet of Christianity, he could not have been crucified otherwise (although he wasn't and was actually killed by artillery shot but regardless). However that ambiguity is older than Christianity and it's actually very Greek: from Dionysos to Hercules, going through the partial victory of Demeter, defeating Death (ressurrecting or getting someone else ressurrected) was the mark of a true god. This was also part of the Egyptian beliefs, at least in the case of Isis. Anyway, my point was that "atoms", fundamental particles, partake of the same attributes of what we traditionally call the human soul: consciousness. Else the electron would not know it's close to another electron and has to try to react to that by running away, etc. Consciousness is just building on such "fundamental consciousness" of the subatomic world (via light, electricty and chemistry in essence, all them directly made by electrons in their dance or also by other fundamental particles if you want to get quantum-nuanced). The only thing that may work in different ways is space-time but we don't know enough yet. In any case, call them gods, call them fairies, call them atoms or call them particles... what's in a name? They are what make us not just like bricks make a building but much more dynamically and underlay our own more complex consciousness or intelligence that allows us to philosophize and sciencize, and even believe in seven impossible things before breakfast like the mad hatter. Pantheism = Atheism? Yeah, but not exactly: less negative, more affirmative and it leaves all the dogmatics speechless, when not angry because I'm occupying their precious god spot by going to the root of the issue.

​@@LuisAldamizDetailed lecture on the earlier text of Zoroaster is coming up. Just read three authoritative texts on it.

​@@LuisAldamizInteresting!

@@Stephans_History_of_the_World - Interested. I'm subscribed so I'll probably watch it. Cheers.

The Charvaka in India were contemporary atheists.

Yeah, but if you read what the Charvakas were saying about it, compared to what the Greeks were saying at the same time... the Charvakas barely scratch the surface. One famous bit of writing from the Charvakas only has a student debating his teacher about whether there is awareness after death. The Greeks are all out saying there are no gods in the heaven, and that if cows and horses could write and draw they were each write and draw about cow gods and horse gods, etc.

Nope, no, and bullshit. A deist will pray. A deist will pray with people who have other views. A diest will look to the sky and beg for help. An atheist will be looking at his surroundings trying to save himself, or an atheist might sacrifice himself for others because the atheist is more collective thinking or loves his family that much that he would risk his life for them. An atheist in the foxhole is busy shooting back. A Deist is looking around scared senseless and hoping that some higher power will save him. An atheist isn't going to waste his time with that. He will be fighting the whole damned time. If I had a choice between a Theist, a Deist, and an Atheist being in a foxhole with me, I would choose the most rational of the three...that atheist because he knows the only way out is to fight his way out. The other people are too busy hesitating and stopping to do some magical thinking. A Deist might look at all religions and think they are praying to different manifestations of his own Deity. THAT is the difference. A Deist recongnizes that believing with no reason to believe is all fine and good. An atheist finds this uncomfortable and immediately might distrust all such claims or the people who make them. Deists might get along with all religious people. Atheists might be thinking or saying, "WTAF. Why?" There are always ulterior motives. A Deist is a religious person's ally or is going to bhe the religious person's mark to prosyletize to, and can be converted. Atheists are a much much more difficult person to convince. You have to show them something supernatural ever happened. This is why pundits tend to be Deists, and Scientists are often atheists. So no, you're wrong. What can be said about both though is that neither Deists nor Atheists ascribe to people's fairytales.

Every single one, without exception. He knows all of them personally, and they told him so.

Essentially, no, you are wrong. And here is why. It depends on how ancient you want to go. From what we understand, the first people to develop a religion were in the stone age. They didn't have magical superbeings on the walls of their structures. They had magical animals. Everybody liked animals even then. Those bigger, faster, stronger animals. Old men (or women) sitting around a campfire and entertaining younger people with fantistical story of the redeeming white buffalo, or the heroes... Much like watching a superhero movie today. And then people learned from each other and got more advanced and the fight for survival wasn't as harsh. It was THEN that people began to imagine that their old heroes were even greater than before. Good old tall tales like Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. It's all the same theme. And 20 thousand years ago? A meteor stream? Apparently you don't know much about Greek history but might have watched Ancient Aliens a bit too much. That is another gibberish fairytale.

Essentially, you have no evidence for your claims.

@@Summalogicae Well, I gave one good example for OceanusHelios, but it is now gone. Y'all are suppose to bring something to the table, ya know. OH believes it is just made up and you don't like what is presented, that isn't an augment, where's the beef? I compiled a 144,000 word compendium of evidence such as the Mesoamericans sacrificing people to the Feathered Serpent, from the Pleiades, to not take the Sun away, once again, for long periods of time and the Japanese Sun Goddess who's warrior brother, from the Pleiades, kills her horse that pulls her chariot across the sky and she hide in a mountain. Compare the Blinding Bright White Light of the ablating 2013 Superbolide footage, from below, followed by Two counter-rotating smoking vortices to the Two Chinese New Year Dragons that chase a Bright White Pearl, accompanied with Fireworks.

​@@Summalogicaeyou dont either, acting like you know how stone age people lived

​​@@Summalogicaedont tell me youre one those guys when they find a 20000 year carving of a woman and you say ' they worshiped a goddess' You dont know that, it could be a toy, it could be a image of a wife, it could be anything

The Greeks that talked about atheism, obviously.

Impious = ασεβής atheist = άθεος , the word atheist is formed from greek parts: a [negating] + theos . Now what exactly do you mean? That in the original texts, Διαγορας was not mentioned as "άθεος ʽ by the other ancient Greeks/Hellenes? And he was only mentioned as "ασεβής" ?

I think this guy just proved you wrong. What are you gonna do about it?

Oh yeah? Then where are all the great philosophical works by Africans that predate Greek philosophy? Yeah, that's what I thought. The REALITY is that the Greeks influenced the Africans, not the other way around.

Deism is defacto atheism too. A Deist sees God as nothing more than laws of nature, with no personal connection to human beings. They deny revelation, divine intervention etc. So -- in practice (that is what de facto means) -- they have almost complete overlap with atheists.

@@Stephans_History_of_the_World Nope. Deism is more on the Theist side of the spectrum, it believes in a God, but is agnostic on religion, (the prime mover/ necessary being contacting creation or having any interest in it) Agnosticism and Atheism on the other hand purport the lack of a god, hence on the "is there a god?" question atheism is diametrically opposite of Deism. even the first guy you mentioned doesn't belong here, his position was monotheistic ( i.e. a theist, or at the most agnostic deist) ----- What you mischaracterized as a Deist is actually called a Pantheist or Panentheist, depending on whether you think the universe is made up of God, or a part of God (they're slightly different) and he doesn't claim to hold neither Pantheistic beliefs nor Panentheistic beliefs... i.e. he neither believes that the Universe = God, nor does he believe that God is omnipresent withing the universe and that the universe is made up of God's essence/substance. He is a pure Deist, and monotheist (by default) who simply affirms that "A god exists... but that God doesn't affect the universe". noway can that be classified to be the same as: "I don't know... hence cannot affirm anything" - Agnosticism or "There is no God... " followed by some explanation for how the world came to be, most often using the deity of "chance/Randomness" - Atheism The spectrum is: Atheism - Agnosticism - Deism - Theism Theism on its own also has a spectrum, based on the a) amounts of things you're willing to worship and title as "god" and b) How many deities you genuinely believe to be the Prime Mover [eg. Shinto has many Kami, but most of them are just spirits or people who are revered and worshipped and given the title of God] if you're Pagan, stating that your Gods are just famous people or inventors of a thing and hence mere mortals, doesn't necesarily make you an atheist or apostate either, since many pagan faiths like even in hinduism who do Puja, recognise that the use of the title of "God" differs between the Pagan faiths and the Abrahamic/Monotheistic faiths. in Pagan faiths, Polytheism and Henotheism is often fine and accepted and not all the gods are even considered the prime mover, let alone any of them (eg. Jainism where the Gods are mere creatures like us, this would gel with the idea of the gods being made of Atoms) I would only classify one or two people whom you mentioned, who viciously ridiculed the Pagan Greek Religion as potential atheists, but that too isn't fully certain, because they might've just been attacking the religion around them (been an apostate) rather than being a full blown atheist. A "God" in pagan faiths is anything that you worship or revere, so it can even be your own parents, or Eminem - the Rap God, or a family heirloom or your ancestors...\ it is different from What people understand to be the supreme deity in the west due to Christian upbringing. so even after abandoning Christianity, it is hard to abandon the lay christian understanding ( of the father or a unitary concept ) of "God" calling it the "Sky Daddy" is the closest as many average atheists get to abandoning the abrahamic concept even if they've apostated and no longer believe...

@@PuffleGlurp Obligatory mention that Atheism and Agnosticism are on different spectral axes altogether. They're measured based on different criteria -- it's in their name. Gnostic relates to *knowing* while theism relates to believing. So really you get a sort of punnet square of Gnostic Theist, Gnostic A-Theist, A-gnostic A-Theist, A-gnostic Theist [dashes are my emphasis]. These combine into statements like "I believe and know there's a god" or "I do not believe there is a god but don't know it if it's accurate" or "I do not believe in a god and I know it is accurate" (which surely can be broke down into finer gradations of belief and knowledge -- tho some people think belief is binary). Honestly, I don't find its inclusion all that helpful as a descriptor since, truly, we all don't "know for sure" anything, even if we experience wild sensations that convince us of it. I imagine others agree that its inclusion isn't helpful, which is why I suppose it's morphed so ubiquitously into that linear definition as you show it.

​@@Kowzorz enhh... I guess sorta' in a way You're right about Agnosticism in general meaning ignorance, but it is also a theistic position, or else you'd have to kick atheism out as well. Atheism is a hard belief that there is no God at all Agnosticism (apart from the generic meaning) is also a position of being on the fence, but generally manifests in action no different than atheism. _____ Then come the God believers ____ Deism & Theism (With the GOD in question being akin to the "father" in Christianity, or Allah in Islam... basically the thing argued for in the contingency argument) I'd 1st put all 4 of these on the X axis. now the Y axis: I'd rank religions on how intertwined they think GOD is with the universe. the typical Abrahamic concept of God being seperate form creation to GOD making the universe out of himself, to the Universe being the entirety of GOD you can also classify religions based on if they believe in re-incarnation ( they ALL believe in 'Karma') Religions can be atheist also, strangely enough, or agnostic. Buddhism & Jainism are agnostic, they do not have any mention of the Supreme Being, even though they have the concept of celestial creatures with superpowers( like Galactus from Marvel), and personified concepts (like Darkseid and the New Gods from DC comics) and even lesser creatures (Superhero level beings) that all exist WITHIN the cycle of re-incarnation Hinduism is Deistic and Agnostic or even Atheistic, depending on your particular cult/sect/school. They are also Henotheistic or Polytheistic. eg. ISKON (Hare krishnas) are Deistic, they also believe in Celestial beings like Vishnu, Brahma etc. but believe that Krishna is the Supreme Being (GOD) and all the other creatures (whom they also call god/ like kami ) are Panentheistically a part of krishna. since they think the Universe is simply krishna experiencing himself in various forms... i.e. we are all a part of Krishna/the Universe. including the mechanistic brahma who has to create new universes in a deterministic fashion. There are sects who are full on Atheists, and believe that there is NO God(s), and all the "gods" are mere fables for morality's sake or important people that are to be revered. There are also those who think that the universe is all that there is, and that the universe itself is GOD. Pantheists, everything IS GOD. Most however, like your typical Roman pleb are Polytheistic, worshipping the Trimurti ( A Trinity of Gods who they believe is the GOD) or are Henotheists, worshipping Ganesha who is either merely a concept, or an actual creature who isn't GOD but instead a kami (god / comic superhero or even a celestial being , functionary in "Heaven" if we use the Chinese concept ) who like a govt. official can help you out if you pray to him. - hindus believe in reincarnation. All religions with Reincarnation also have dimensions called Hell and Heaven, where you get rewarded or cleansed of bad karma through Torture. Those without re-incarnation tend to have permanent locations or the Void. in the Deistic Chinese Faith, "Heaven" is synonymous with GOD, and there are functionaries, like the Jade Emperor, who is a celestial being like Indra or Zeus, in charge of running the Cosmos. Hell and Heaven are there, but if you're really bad, you get obliterated in the Void Shinto is also effectively Agnostic, or Deistic if you believe in "the Kami at the center of the Universe", like all polytheistic/Pagan faiths, Shinto worships a myriad of beings who are not necessarily GOD, but things that can help you if you pray to them, requesting intercession. The Main Shinto gods are like DC Superheroes, but other local gods are like low tier Marvel heroes, as is the same for all Pagan faiths. If you are good you re-incarnate, if you are bad, you get obliterated in the Void. All reincarnation faiths have the end goal of Moksha, which is not exactly heaven/ but simply a place where there is no more re-incarnation. Sikhism is Panentheistic, they believe GOD created the universe within himself/out of himself and hence the universe is a Part of God. They Have a temporary Hell and Heaven too like most other re-incarnation faiths. Judaism is Monotheistic and believes there is a seperation between GOD and the Universe. they are agnostic on Hell and heaven, but believe in a Purgatory like the Greeks and Romans Catholics, they beleive in Purgatory as a temporary hell and also Hell and Heaven as permanant destinations Protestants don't have Purgatory Muslims have hell and heaven, but hell can be temporary. Greeks and Romans had Purgatory and Heaven, where all dead people go to Purgatory ( the land of the dead) but very good people get rewarded with Paradise. ------------------------------ In the end of my rant... I think we can probably plot religions/beliefs based on three axis 1) How strongly you believe in GOD 2) How much interaction/control you think GOD has on the universe 3) How entangled GOD is with the universe. All religions fall on different coordinated on this 3D x,y,z axis. Naturalist Materialist Atheists like the "New Atheists" Fall -1 on x and have the same co-ordinates as Buddhism and Jainism, both of whom are Atheistic in regards to GOD, even though they may believe in gods/kami. so I guess we can also add a 4th axis of Belief in the Supernatural. since New Atheist afterlife is simply the Void, and there are no superpowered beings, even if you worship the Supreme leader, in Atheistic faith/nationalism like DPRK's Juchi? or revere the ideals of communism in the CCP or give kami status to Lenon, Stalin, Mao or Marx. Religion is ever present, even if you call yourself an atheist, you follow a faith and are plotted on the 4D religion graph.

@@Stephans_History_of_the_World NO it is not. Absurd. Deists pray and that is the difference, unless they don't. Deists will still point at the sky and claim there is a god, but also believe the idea that nobody can really know anything about this god. It's not a formalized religion but it is a form of belief and a view of the divine as an abstract entity. Atheism is a bit stricter. Atheists are at the position of "I don't believe your claim" and I am not going to accept "Because Bob says so." Deists would be more inclined to say that miracles are possible. And we are getting into the no-true scotsman fallacy because it is the same line of argument of calling people not a Christian because...example example example, and hence lying and claiming to being a Christian although really they are an Atheist. Questioning the testimony on their beliefs. To make a long response shorter, if you asked a Deist during the early days of the Age of Enlightenment (which we are still in, by the way) the most likely response of the Deist would be, "Yes, I believe in God....I just don't believe you know or I know the first thing about God." And you cant discount what somebody believes so easily as you are not privy to what goes on in their head. You do not have a magic window in order to do that. Your argument is a defacto "No true Scotsman" argument. I am an atheist myself. I used to be much more of a Deist, and further questioning has led me more resolute in my atheism. That's how I would know that I am no longer a Deist. Overlap? Sure. From your point of view. But we are getting into semantics and getting into the weeds. IN other words: that is YOUR opinion and can't be substantiated between one atheist or deist and another. Let me make it clear: A Deist holds the view: "I'm still waiting...." And an atheist holds the view: "Yeah and you will be waiting until the day you die and you still won't have your evidence." All because Bob had a claim about a SkyBlob. 'Nuff said.

Wrong. There is no evidence is Hindu atheism that predates Greek atheism. The only works in India that might be older than ancient Greek literature is the Vedas, but those are definitely theist works, not atheist.

Lol, show me all the great African works of philosophy from that era then... I'll wait. You ever think maybe the Greeks taught the Africans, instead of the other way around? No, if course you would never allow such a thought in your head.

What utter rubbish.