Though scientists are likely to hold philosophic scientific realism & anti-realism conclusions they may hold such opinions without understanding they actually hold such a stance. This mainly is because many scientists rarely become philosophical about what their equations mean for reality.
The following two theses will help us in the formulation of realism and anti-realism:
The observable thesis: We can have knowledge of the observable aspects of the world.
The unobservable thesis: We can have knowledge of the unobservable
aspects of the world.
Here is the scientific Realism & scientific anti-realism theories more defined:
Scientific Realism
“Scientific Realism: We can have knowledge of the observable aspects of the world. Likewise we can have knowledge of the unobservable
aspects of the world. Or we have very good reason to believe that the unobservable entities postulated by well-confirmed theories exist. Scientific Realism: Science aims to produce, and has succeeded in producing, true/approximately true claims about both the observable and the unobservable aspects of the world.”
Scientific Anti-Realism
1. “Scientific Anti-Realism “Constructive empiricism”: We have no good reason to suppose that such entities exist. The evidence which supports scientific theories supports only the claim that such theories are “empirically adequate” – that what they say about observable entities is true. We have no reason to suppose that what they say about unobservable entities is true.”
2. “Scientific Anti-Realism “Instrumentalism”: This is a thesis about the meaning of “theoretical” terms (i.e. terms which appear to refer to unobservable entities). Instrumentalists claim that such terms don’t really refer to any such entities. A theory employing theoretical terms is really only “about” the observable world: what makes the theory true is the observable facts being the way the theory says they are. Theoretical terms are introduced into a theory only to make it simpler or more elegant. Their presence does not indicate any ontological commitment to unobservable entities “referred” to by the terms, since the terms don’t, despite initial appearances, refer to such entities.”
“For example, suppose that Quantum Mechanics makes a claim about the quantum state of a particular photon. None of the realist, constructive empiricist or instrumentalist need deny that Quantum Mechanics is a hugely successful theory for predicting and explaining the outcomes of all sorts of experiments. None of them think there’s anything wrong with Quantum Mechanics. Rather, they disagree over:
(a) what the theory is really telling us about the world when it says that, say, the photon is in state S,
(b) whether we have any good reason to believe this, and
(c) what the purpose of a theory like Quantum Mechanics is.”
“Scientific realism and scientific anti-realism constructive empiricism agree on (a): the theory is telling us exactly what it appears to be telling us, namely, that the photon really is in quantum state S. But they disagree on (b): the scientific realist thinks we have every reason to believe what the theory says about the quantum state, whereas the constructive empiricist thinks we have no reason to believe it. Does it follow that the constructive empiricist takes rather a dim view of Quantum Mechanics? After all, if the aim of science is truth (and this is what the scientific realist thinks), and we have no reason whatever to suppose that what current science tells us about the unobservable is true, it follows that we have no reason to suppose that Quantum Mechanics is doing what a scientific theory ought to be doing, namely, telling us the truth about the universe. But the constructive empiricist does not take such a dim view of Quantum Mechanics because she does not believe that the aim of science is truth. Rather, she thinks the aim of science is empirical adequacy: what we want and need from scientific theories is not the whole truth, but merely the truth about observable phenomena. It doesn’t matter very much what a theory says about the unobservable, so long as it gets its predictions right. So we shouldn’t really be concerned that we’ve got no reason to believe what Quantum Mechanics says about the photon’s quantum state – so long as the observable consequences of this claim are borne out.”
“Scientific anti-realism Instrumentalism, on the other hand, disagrees with both scientific realism and scientific anti-realism constructive empiricism over (a). According to instrumentalism, what Quantum Mechanics is really saying when it says that the photon is in quantum state S is merely that, if I were to make such-and-such a measurement, I would get so-and-so observable results. The terms “photon” and “quantum state” are not intended to refer to real features of the world; rather they have a purely instrumental role. “The photon is in state S” is just a more convenient and more elegant way of saying “doing this experiment would get you these results”. Both forms of scientific anti-realism (instrumentalism and constructive empiricism)thus agree, against the realist, that the primary aim of science is to get to the truth about the observable world – that is, empirical adequacy.”
Two arguments for scientific realism
1. The “no-miracles” (or “Ultimate”) argument
“Many realists regard this argument as the strongest motivation for scientific realism: It would be a miracle, a coincidence on a near cosmic scale, if a theory made as many correct empirical predictions as, say, the general theory of relativity or the photon theory of light without what that theory says about the fundamental structure of the universe being correct or “essentially” or “basically” correct. But we shouldn’t accept miracles, not at any rate if there is a non-miraculous alternative. If what these theories say is going on “behind” the phenomena is indeed true or “approximately true” then it is no wonder that they get the phenomena right. So it is plausible to conclude that presently accepted theories are indeed “essentially” correct. Put simply: It would be a miracle if the universe behaved by and large – as it does – as if there were quarks and fields and photons, if in fact there were no such things. But we shouldn’t believe in miracles. The best explanation of why scientific theories are so successful – of why the universe behaves as if there were quarks and fields and photons – is that there really are such entities. Hence we ought to believe that realism is true.”
2. Argument from causal explanation
“Often we explain why a particular phenomenon occurred by saying what caused it; and often the entities which play a part in the causal explanation of a phenomenon are unobservable ones. But it seems that in such cases the explanation only counts as a genuine explanation if the alleged cause really exists. When I explain the change in rate in fall of a light droplet in an electric field, by asserting that there are positrons or electrons on the ball, I am inferring from effect to cause, and the explanation has no sense at all without the direct implication that there are electrons or positrons on the ball.”
Three Scientific Realism Approximations of (observables and unobservables)
First Approximation
“As a first approximation, we can represent scientific realism as the conjunction of the observable thesis and the unobservable thesis. More precisely, scientific realism states that we can have, and actually do have some, knowledge of the observable and unobservable aspects of the world. But what exactly do we mean by observable and unobservable? The current consensus amongst realists argues that there is a continuum from the observable to the unobservable so that no sharp distinction between them can be drawn also argues that what is unobservable is contingent upon factors such as the physiology of the human eye, and that for this reason we cannot demarcate the observable from the unobservable. Though the exact meaning of this notion is contested, most agree that since observation statements are formulated in theory-specific contexts, they are to a certain degree imbued with theoretical prejudices. We shall shortly see that the theory-ladenness of observation is a double-edged sword, employed by both realists and anti-realists in their attempts to defeat one another.”
Second Approximation
“Another requirement of scientific realism, already pointed out under scientific claims/sentences/statements have truth-values, is that scientific claims have truth-values. Our rough understanding of the concept of knowledge holds that to know something is to have a justified true belief about it. In the current context, one need not get into the details of how best, if at all, to characterize the concept. All that need concern us here is the fact that having a true belief about something is a necessary condition for knowing it. To have knowledge of some aspect of the world involves the true belief that the world is in a certain state. Thus, we can express the scientific realist view that we have knowledge of (the observable and unobservable aspects of) the world by saying that scientific claims about the world are true. As a second approximation then we can represent scientific realism as the position which holds that the scientific claims about the observable and unobservable aspects of the world are true.”
Third Approximation
“Most, if not all, scientific realists accept that the claims made by our current theories are not typically true but rather approximately true. In part, the realization stems from the simple recognition that even our best theories are invariably, though to different degrees, off the mark when it comes to the production of predictions. The recent interest in this field was the terms ‘truthlikeness’ and ‘verisimilitude’ to express the idea that one theory could stand closer to the truth than another. In such theories are taken to be sets of sentences closed under deduction. There are a number of different accounts of the notions of truthlikeness, verisimilitude and approximate truth have appeared. The most prevalent of these takes similarity or likeness as measuring distances from the truth. One of the most serious problems with this approach is that comparative judgments of truthlikeness are not translation-invariant. While in one language a theory A may be more truth like than a theory B, this relation can be reversed in another language. Various solutions to this problem have been proposed but none seems to command a consensus. Many realists have abandoned the task of trying to give formal treatments to these notions and have instead focused on more informal accounts. Whether any such informal account delivers the goods is a contentious issue. At any rate, it is sufficient for the current purposes to note, as a third approximation, that scientific realism can be represented as the position that the scientific claims about the observable and unobservable aspects of the world are at least approximately true.”

Science is a Trustable Methodology whereas Faith is not Trustable at all!

One should be inspired by science and appalled by faith which then would lead one to the conclusion of atheism or not believing things on faith and only forming beliefs from the known facts of science. 

If your ideas can’t withstand an educated mind, then likely your ideas are intellectually blind. Faith is not a substance with which to judge the truth or falsehood of a reality claim, faith is not evidence of reality things, it’s a mental attitude. So, bringing up trust, faith (trust to you) when one is asserting a reality thing without evidence is to offer a lie. So, faith or trust can be at 100% and yet 100% wrong. Think there are millions of people of different faiths all believing with the same absurdity of assurance that they and only they are right due to faith. But then you see the trust/faith dilemma you can’t determine who is wrong or right by a proclamation of faith because faith is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence it is not a valid test of testing reality or making valid claims about it.  

If you are a faitheist, don’t forget that faith lacks epistemic humility and doesn’t see its self as potentially wrong nor can it welcome correction or thoughtful reevaluation as it is commonly a form of trusting what is set to be believed or accepting what is thought needed to believe on a hope it is true. Faith is a thinkers folly as a method of trying to know or confirm what can be known is not a rational nor a sound justification to believe anything as well as faith wrongly inspires undue confidence in what is a proposed belief and thus it is irrational and unwarranted as well as commonly inspires lacking any openness that it could be wrong, like that in the healthy persuasion of fallibilism and neither does it welcome a reasoned ethics of belief nor sound epistemic humility. 

“Reasonable fallibilism welcomes a reasoned ethics of belief as well as sound epistemic humility in beliefs and is the philosophical doctrine that absolute certainty about knowledge rather impossible, or at least that all claims to knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken or upon reevaluation need to be amended or removed. Unlike the general thinking of philosophic skepticism like that true knowledge is by definition uncertain, reasonable fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our ability to reach knowledge, but that knowledge can be revised by further observation, and a need to hold epistemic humility understanding that any of the things we take as knowledge at present might later possibly turn out to be false and thus require amending or changing completely.” ref 

“Epistemic itself roughly means is about a relating to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it.” ref 

“In the philosophy of science, epistemic humility is a virtue that emerges from the recognition of the fragility of epistemic confidence (fallibilism) and refers to a posture of scientific observation (Evidentialism) rooted in the recognition that (a) knowledge of the world is always interpreted, structured, and filtered by the observer, and that, as such, (b) scientific pronouncements must be built on the recognition of observation’s inability to grasp the world in itself.” ref 

Evidentialism’s epistemic justification contents a dependent upon evidence holding that one is only justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports the proposed belief implying as well that all faith-based beliefs are unjustified. ref 

Some people say that science is not about truth, which may make one wonder, is there scientific truth? Yes, there are truths in science or truths found or figured out by science, and sometimes it is more established then others! Is there evidence that is not true, or fact not held as also true? Both saying the term evidence and fact is to announce a truth claim. ref 

Likewise, to profess knowing something is to offer a truth claim. Some people say science does not have absolute truth which I would call something different, “epistemically certain truth”, “epistemically certain facts”, or “epistemically certain knowledge” about observables and not always so for nonobservables that rely on scientific inferences. It is the second that must stay open for doubt to some amount or another commonly not the first kind and the one being referred to what it is said science is not about truth rather in this instance science is a relationship of educated inference guesses of investigated things or that science is a rational methodological set of inferences with the evidence about things they are investigating. 

Many science supporters talk about science providing us with “accurate” and “reliable” evidence, facts, explanations and thus knowledge. Even though science is often characterized as such, science, generally, is not thought of or describe as a search for truth even though it is “accurate” that most scientists strive to build knowledge about the natural world that is “reliable” evidence, facts, explanations corresponds to the way the world really works (correspondence theory of truth). Science does try to build true knowledge of how the world works, but it is not philosophy and thus they tend to avoid what people call “the truth” as truth is a value judgment and what makes this judgment seem valid hold different meanings in the various way’s truth can be established. ref 

Truth is a main subject of contention even in philosophy and the problems with it are many, starting with what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. Whether there are problems of truth and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the overarching thinking on a common theory of truth. Basically, the common truth approach science ascribes to in trying to know the truths about the natural world is idea of the correspondence theory which roughly is that what is believed or say to be true should correspond to the way things actually are thus to the facts available. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy. ref 

Faith in gods is evidence devoid uneducated guessing while scientific inference if evidence supported educated guessing. “An inference is an idea or conclusion that’s drawn from evidence and reasoning. An inference is an educated guess. We learn about some things by experiencing them first-hand, but we gain other knowledge by inference thus the process of inferring things based on what is already known.” ref 

There in importance in grasping the epistemic significance of valid inference. ” what The traditional picture of logic takes it for granted that valid arguments have a fundamental epistemic significance but lack an account of this significance. Thus, there arises a area of some confusion to explain how and why we can nevertheless use them sometimes to acquire knowledge. how It is suggested that we should distinguish between arguments and acts of inferences and that we have to reconsider the latter notion to arrive at the desired explanation. More precisely, the notions (belief) should be developed so that the following relationship holds: one gets in possession of a ground for a conclusion by inferring it from premisses (related to the know) for which one already has grounds (to know in a correspondence theory of truth way), provided that the inference in question is valid. why Explications of the concepts of the ground and deductively valid inference so that this relationship holds as a conceptual truth. Logical validity of inference is seen as a special case of deductive validity but does not add anything as far as epistemic significance is concerned—it resides already in the deductively valid inferences.” ref 

Deductive validity describes arguments that are both factual and logical. Any argument that doesn’t have facts that are actually true or that are not logically sound will not pass the test as a good argument. It is important to be able to determine whether or not an argument is valid because invalid arguments are bad and should not be accepted. ref 

When assessing the quality of an argument, ponder how well its premises support its conclusion and whether the argument is either deductively valid or inductively strong. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said also to be sound. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments does not lie in the words used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer. It comes from the relationship the arguer takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, then the argument is deductive. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premises provides only good reasons to believe the conclusion is probably true, then the argument is inductive. 

Although inductive strength is a matter of degree, deductive validity and deductive soundness are not. In this sense, deductive reasoning is much more cut and dried than inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, inductive strength is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of whether the premise ought to promote a higher degree of belief in the conclusion. It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and define “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. However, there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form. As noted, the distinction between deductive and inductive has to do with the strength of the justification that the arguer intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. ref 

If one’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises (something assumed supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference) actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid. 

In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid but begins with premises that are actually true. It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. ref 

Inductive takes specific patterns, trends, examples, trials, or repeated observations for reasoning to make broad generalizing then extrapolate to form a conjecture kind of conclusion drawn from data such as a mathematical theory or generalization. Or conclusions derived from the bottom up. From the specific instance to a generalizing. Relates to the thinking style of empiricism. It can be said that inductively reasoned conclusions tend to relate to probabilities. Thus, it holds a probability of being true or it can be inferred as true. Inductive research tends to begin with observation to collect, understand, or perceive a pattern to generate a hypothesis then from there to a theory. Inductive reasoning may not always produce a true conclusion, but it can provide a hypothesis to investigate and then use deductively valid reasoning to apply the hypothesis to then answer the proposed questions.

Deductive set of data, axioms/postulations statements that are true without needing proof, logic, theorems/fact statements that must be proven to be true, or facts reasoning and deducing other facts from those facts. As well as to form a set of logical arguments that lead to a conclusion. Or conclusions derived from the top down. From a generalizing to the specific instance. So, it roughly states with a general statement, theory, or hypothesis. It relates to the thinking style of rationalism. It can be said that deductively reasoned conclusions tend to relate to certainties. It works its way down to a specific conclusion based on the evidence. Deductive research tends to begin with a theory to generate a hypothesis that must be correct which then guides the logical collection or observation leading to analysis and confirmation. Then there also is abductive reasoning commonly takes incomplete sets of observations to come to the likeliest available explanation used for making and testing a hypothesis from whatever information is available. These explanations are an over-generalization of these useful ideas but still helpful to understand them. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Thus, there is a need to grasp just how scientists make reasonable inferences. “Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. The ability to gather and evaluate evidence is central to scientific inquiry, especially when scientists investigate things that are not directly observable. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean. Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.” ref 

“For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference. Similarly, by measuring the amount of time it takes for sound to travel to the ocean floor, scientists are able to make inferences about how deep the ocean is and what the ocean floor is like. Over time, scientists gather more evidence and become more and more sure of the inferences they have made. Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One-way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking to emerge.” ref 

Most people that think science is not at all about truth seem likely to be missing a reasonable understanding of the word truth in relation to science which is roughly that a proposed thing, claim or idea accurately maps with some fact or demonstratable part of reality and how this conception of truth has a relationship with the epistemic knowledge of science. “A study was to develop and validate an online contextualized test for assessing students’ understanding of epistemic knowledge of science. In addition, how students’ understanding of epistemic knowledge of science interacts with learner factors, including time spent on science learning, interest, self-efficacy, and gender, was also explored. The results of this study show that; (1) by factor analysis, the six factors of epistemic knowledge of science could be grouped into two dimensions which reflect the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in science, respectively; (2) there was a gender difference in the participants’ understanding of the epistemic knowledge of science; and (3) students’ interest in science learning and the time spent on science learning were positively correlated to their understanding of the epistemic knowledge of science which has an epistemic value.” ref  

“Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes. But this uncontroversial point raises a number of important questions. For example: it’s natural to wonder whether there really are all these different kinds of things (true beliefs, knowledge, and so on) which have a distinct value from an epistemic point of view, or whether the value of some of them is reducible to, or depends on, the value of others.” ref 

“It’s also natural to think that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief, but it has proven to be no easy task explaining where the extra value of knowledge comes from. Similarly, it’s natural to think that understanding is more valuable than any other epistemic state which falls short of understanding, such as true belief or knowledge. But there is disagreement about what makes understanding the highest epistemic value, or what makes it distinctly valuable, or even whether it is distinctly valuable. Indeed, it’s no easy task saying just what makes something an epistemic value in the first place. Do epistemic values just exist on their own, independent of other kinds of value? Or are cognitive goods valuable because we care about having them for their own sakes? Or are they are valuable because they help us to achieve other things which we care about for their own sakes? Furthermore, if we accept that there are things which are epistemically valuable, then we might be tempted to accept what is sometimes called the instrumental (or consequentialist, or teleological) conception of epistemic rationality or justification, which is the view that a belief is epistemically rational just in case it appropriately promotes the achievement of an epistemic goal. If this idea is correct, then we need to know which epistemic values to include in the formulation of the epistemic goal, where the “epistemic goal” is an epistemically valuable goal in light of which we evaluate beliefs as epistemically rational or irrational.” ref 

“Being an epistemically virtuous person is often equated with being a critical thinker and focuses on the human agent and the kind of practices that make it possible to arrive at the best accessible approximation of the truth. The epistemic virtues, as identified by virtue epistemologists, reflect their contention that belief is an ethical process, and thus susceptible to the intellectual virtue or vice of one’s own life and personal experiences. Epistemic virtues include the following: attentiveness, conscientiousness, creativity, curiosity, deep thinking, discernment, honesty, humility, intellectual honesty, objectivity, open-mindedness, the principle of charity, studiousness, understanding, wisdom. These can be contrasted to the epistemic vices such as: closed-mindedness, dogmatism, epistemic blindness, gullibility, intellectual dishonesty, self-deception, shallow thinking, the superficiality of thought, superstition, willful naïveté, wishful thinking.” ref  

Marquis Amon – Faith is a paradox. It literally says something is true if I believe it to be true. The problem and paradox are this thinking can only work in subjective confines. Incidentally, reality is objective. How do I know that, the tested scientific method. The fact that I do not know what your response will be to me if any, having no control over what you may type or who else will reply is but one example of objective reality. If my faith was real, I could say you will reply about dancing monkeys, and then you would reply with it. lol Epistemic humility is indeed a virtue, something we have shown each other many times. I think it would be best described by you as “good belief etiquette which is good belief acquisition based on evidence and logic, good belief maintenance which is being open to new evidence and ideas. And lastly, good belief relinquishment which is being willing to amend your beliefs based on new evidence. You asked the question is science the search for truth? To me, the answer is yes and no. In execution, you have a hypothesis and you experiment to see if that hypothesis is true. You rinse and repeat this process as necessary. Sometimes you answer one question that leads to another. In this sense, to me, it is clearly. However, science is also a tool that we use to interact with reality. Instead of searching for truth, we use what we know and apply it in reality, and refine it. It has a distinctly corporeal purpose in a sense. We are using what we know to achieve various objectives. You also talk about inductive and deductive reasoning. I think it is related to the coherence of truth theory with inductive reasoning being subjective based while deductive reasoning being evidence-based. To clarify the weight of inductive reasoning should be based on the preponderance of evidence and not faith. A conjecture is fine under the circumstances of insufficient/inconclusive evidence that is based on sound reasoning. Does atheism follow the scientific method? Yes. What many don’t understand it is that it is a conclusion based on all available evidence and claims. The determination is that they are false. No one really believes the world is flat, well they shouldn’t… So why believe in this god nothing? – Marquis Amon

Correctability is a virtue and one of the shining examples of why science is intellectually honest and trustable in its confirmations about facts found in reality unlike the non-facts that faith beliefs find their home in and which are devoid of the intellectual honest correctability insures. 

“On paper. Unfortunately, academia has strayed some if the evidence disagrees with certain subjects like origins of civilizations. I’ve been seeing a lot in the way of burying evidence that support a much older timeline, like ancient Egypt for example, or the travels of the Maori people of New Zealand. But at least they try.” – Responder

My response, I don’t know where you got that perception or thinking it sounds like a conspiracy theory. I am friends on LinkedIn with thousands of academic archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians and they are open to sharing facts of prehistory all the time from academic articles or sources. I also use such prehistory facts from academic supported sources to make my blogs on the evolution of religion and the cultures that went with it. Walters, Richard; Buckley, Hallie; Jacomb, Chris; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (7 October 2017). 

“Mass Migration and the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand”. Journal of World Prehistory. 30: 351–376. “Several decades later there is still no convincing direct evidence of humans on the New Zealand landscape any earlier than 1300 AD, although some archaeologists believe that earlier horizons are yet to be found in New Zealand, or are represented in known sites at the low-probability ends of some radiocarbon calibration curves. Claims of indirect evidence of earlier settlement in the form of anthropogenic influences on landscapes remain ephemeral (e.g., Beavan and Sparks 1998; Higham et al. 2004; Holdaway 1996; Wilmshurst and Higham 2004). It is now apparent that sites containing both moa bone as food remains and artifacts of tropical East Polynesian form date no earlier than the first decades of the 14th century and decline by the beginning of the 15th. Unfortunately, this period represents a particularly wiggly portion of the radiocarbon calibration curve, creating regions of ambiguity (Hogg et al. 2013; McFadgen et al. 1994) that make it difficult to resolve sites into a tight chronological sequence.”

“Damien AtHope, unfortunately, many in academic circles in Egypt are devoted to their faith above all and will not pose any idea that suggests any civilization older than 8000 years… Conspiracy in the way that it is actually concerted effort to hide evidence to the contrary accepted academic ideology… Perfectly bored drilled holes in red granite… Foundation stones of the pyramids weighing thousands of tons… The sphinx pointed towards the horizon would make more sense if it were built in the age of Leo which predates ancient Egypt by thousands of years… Museum directors who will stop any research that disagrees with their “school” of thought. All for tenure… Or academic funding for research.” – Responder

My response, Saying you think the sphinx is thousands of years older does not make that belief proof that it is older.

Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago:

12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt:

Ancient Egypt: Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, and Predynastic from 12,000 to 5,000 years ago:

“I’ll give these a read. Thanks for sharing. I watched a presentation last night on the rivalry between two Napoleonic French academics who were the first to decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs… One was Young of the famous Young double-slit experiment… Apparently, he knew about everything one could possibly know in the early 1800’s… Very interesting man… The name of his rival escapes me at the moment..” – Responder

My response, Here is my blog with a video of me talking with Legesse Allyn is the author of “The Ethiopian Culture of Ancient Egypt.” Legesse Allyn: Writer/Researcher in Ancient Languages and Ancient Scripts:

“What I really find interesting are the megalithic quarries all over the world and places like Gobekli Tepe which is said to predate stone henge… megalithic Quarry China. Polygonal masonry work that obviously has similar tool marks thousands of mile apart done by truly ancient civilizations who should have had no contact with each other and even more impressively quarrying these megalithic multiton stones and fitting them with such a degree of precision it wouldn’t be possible with today’s technology. Time and boredom be damned, I don’t care if we lived a millennia now we could not move these stones.” – Responder

My response, I have several blogs on Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago:

Göbekli Tepe 12,000 years old T-shaped Pillars are not Alone (not Ancient Aliens):

There is also info on 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism:

Ancient Megaliths: Kurgan, Ziggurat, Pyramid, Menhir, Trilithon, Dolman, Kromlech, and Kromlech of Trilithons:

“Damien AtHope, sweet… I really hope the war doesn’t continue through Syria and into Turkey, which I assume it will. The empire that is modern America won’t stop for the respect of understanding the true origins of today’s “modern” civilization. I really believe humanity has experienced many cycles development and regression.” – Responder

My response, Here is understanding Religion Evolution simplified by me is something like this:

Superstition begins around 1 million years ago, to Pre-Animism 300,000 years ago, & then Animism Religion 100,000 years ago.

“Pseudo-superstition like that similar in many animals is before 1 million years ago”

1. Primal superstition around 1 million years ago

2. Proto superstition around 600,000 years ago

3. Progressed superstition (pre-animism) 300,000 years ago

4. “Primal religion” Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)

5. “Proto religion” Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)

6. “Proto religion” Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)

7. “Progressed religion” Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)

8. Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)

9. CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (sometime after 4,000 years ago)

10. Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)

My response, I have several videos on that as well. An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution:

“Have you seen the “birdman” motif present at Gobekli Tepe as well as in Easter Island? What are your thoughts on Graham Hancock?” – Responder

My response, Graham Hancock is a pseudo-historian using both facts mixed with fallacies and conspiracy theories.

“Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specializes in pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations, Earth changes, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past. His works propose a connection with a ‘mother culture’ from which he believes other ancient civilizations sprang. An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer-reviewed nor published in academic journals.”

My response,Proto Religion: Superstition around 1 million years ago, to Pre-Animism & then Animism Religion:

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago):

Animism as in that seen in Africa: 100,000 years ago:

“Totemism” as first seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago:

Shamanism (as seen in Siberia: 30,000 years ago):

Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago):

“Damien AtHope, how do you define conspiracy theory… If it’s by the cia coined term I believe you’re correct but I presume for different reasons… The man was actually on the ground in turkey at Gobekli Tepe… To me that says a lot.” – Responder

My response, “A conspiracy theory is “an intellectual construct”, a “template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events”. Positing that “some small and hidden group” has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history.”

“Damien AtHope, these days The definition is not only accurate, but true. I can bring foia released cia and/or state documents and folks will still cry conspiracy theory… Counterintelligence in the US got a late start compared to a country like China, but had progressed exponentially through the efforts of people like Sydney Gottlieb of MKULTRA fame.” – Responder

My response, “Pseudohistory covers a variety of theories that do not agree with the view of history that is commonly accepted by mainstream historians, which are often not properly researched, peer-reviewed, or supported by the usual historiographical methods. Pseudohistory presents many of the same challenges to mainstream academic history as pseudoscience does to science, but with certain significant differences. The most important difference is that history is an academic discipline, rather than a scientific one. This means that mainstream history is very dependent on a set of shared ethical academic standards and methods, and on peer review. However, supporters of pseudohistorical theories often specifically deny the validity of these mainstream standards and methods, and denounce the peer review process as prejudiced towards the academic establishment, attempting instead to gain popular appeal. This lack of common ground can often make it difficult for mainstream historians to refute the pseudohistorical claims.”

Science and the word “TRUTH”

Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth.

Real Truth Seekers?

Religion is not about truth, it’s about indoctrinated faith. Do you really believe that even if clear documents demonstrate that Jesus had said he was not god, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly as it’s not about truth. Just like if clear documents proved Mohammed had said he was not really a profit of Allah but just made it up, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly. So again I say it’s all about indoctrinated faith, not truth.

Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

Disproof by Logical Contradiction
In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”. – Wikipedia

There’s no truth?

When do we start lying? Studies show that at around 2 years of age 30% will lie. At 3 years of age, 50% will lie. And by 7-8 years of age 100% will lie. – (Through the Wormhole TV show)
“And still the world runs on the shoulder of truth… least we are all pretending very well everyday like cowards and liars…..there’s no truth!” – Challenger
My response, You should rethink what you said about truth. You don’t seem to get if there was no truth, that includes your statement that there is no truth. Because if it were then there would be some truth exposing your statement’s internal contradiction. And, to me, “Truth” is a value (axiological) judgment of something we believe is justified and presumed accurate. The following are how I think like I do. Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact, I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true.
What we call truth is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type of supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves, if validly justified, it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth. Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand, because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? Yes and No.
Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to the methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth. I am not just an Atheist (disbelieving claims of gods), an Antitheist (seeing theism as harmful), and an Antireligionist (seeing religion as untrue and/or harmful). I am also a Rationalist, valuing and requiring reason and evidence to support beliefs or propositions, as well as I am against all pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and Pseudomorality. Moreover, theists like to claim I cannot see the truth of theism because I don’t have faith. This just sounds like a fideist, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is a strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence.
Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore, if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. Ref 
In a post-truth world, Rise, and become a Truth-Crusader supporting Truth in a world of lies.
Truth mixed with lies is still lies. Some truth is married to untruth, thus it is hidden in lies. But some may think the truth is just to hard to take for some people so they seem to welcome lies, even if it is laid before our eyes. It is this truth we fear that often becomes the fear that may motivate us to only wish to take that which requires no change, no need to reason and understand or emotionally adept. We too often seem to like easy truth or comfortable lies that become like a mental trap. So then, we often end up marrying our desired truth with some untruth to not see that which is real but unpleasant so to us it stays a lie. Become a protector of truths not a supporter of lies. Rise and support truth in a world of lies. Rise, my friend, come to the defense of truth. This charge is required of all honest thinkers. I repeat, rise and let your voice be heard, as this is not a time of slumber. No, this is a time of fighting for truth and a time where the truth is in much need as we are literally in a post-truth nation. Rise, become a truth-crusader and support truth in a world of lies.

Likelihood of Truth, the power behind any thought or belief being true or having a high likelihood of being true, is often limited to the weakest link in its reason and evidence. Therefore, to me, truth is what can be trusted after surviving critical inquiry. The most trust-inspiring rationale in trusting science is not limited to the facts it proves but instead is due to the fact that science desires to change or update beliefs to new facts. Science rejects old ideas found wanting no matter any emotional attachment they might have for new ideas shown to hold a higher epistemic accuracy with valid and reliable reason and evidence. The scientific method assumes a priori about the nature of reality (methodological naturalism), one is not agnostic about this, the scientific method is using philosophical rationalism as the nature-of-reality proof or truth by using a priori assumptions. The scientific method uses a priori for the nature of reality or rationalistic naturalism. Some do realize all the utilized or assumed philosophy in the scientific method, which, to me, entail things like Scientific Realism, Metaphysical Naturalism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Methodological Skepticism, Justificationism, Correspondence Theory of Truth, Falsificationism, Falabalism, Reliabilism, Probabilism, Probability Theory, etc. Science it methodological inquiry looking for a level of epistemic certainty for beliefs not just pushed by the whims of psychological certainty that often lacks epistemic properties of valid belief. Facts and proof like “truth” statements about Science imply a level of epistemic certainty and all three words to non-scientists or religious believers can mean different things to different people, which favors only psychological certainty with little relation to imply a real level of epistemic certainty on most things claimed as religionist favor faith (generally Fideism “faithism” or to me faith drunk thinking) not real facts to support beliefs. Therefore, let me explain that in a general way proof and facts are truths, just as assertions of knowledge, as well as certainty, are epistemic properties of belief. Moreover, science and as you must know does not have one universal standard in science but for methodological processes and a value for the scientific method in the relation to the philosophy of science especially against my side the scientific realists (the majority of scientists whether they know it or not) against the instrumentalists or anti-realist science thinkers who seem to be promoting what is not generally the norm of science. As stated before, to me, “Truth” is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. One could ask, what makes some believed truth actually “True”? Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from as credible a sore as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”. Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.

Truth or Lies, what do you choose and how do you know the difference?

Faith is not reasoned, be a rationalist willing to look and be a truth seeker.

If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing. However, if I truly seek truth, I may find more than I could imagine. If you only look for nothing, you will find nothing. However, to look earnestly, you will always find a new truth waiting to be found. Be willing to look and be a truth seeker. When you believe you can have little or no facts and need only faith, you demonstrate no real love of truth. I implore you to be a rationalist and accepting nothing but facts upon facts connected to reality. Faith is a proclamation of belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Faith is not a reasoned virtue; it is the vice of emotionalism. If it requires faith to see a thing as real, then you are admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. Can you not see that in the acquisition of knowledge faith, as a method is not worth believing in? Critical thinking requires you to work on your thinking continually, to make your thinking the object of thought, to make your behavior the object of your thinking, and to make your beliefs the object of your thinking. For example, take your religious thinking: All over the world, there are many belief systems and each is certain of its truth on the evidence-devoid-property of faith. As such, on average if you are raised where buddhism is most common, then you become a buddhist. If you are raised where hinduism is most common, then you become a hindu. Christian, you become a christian. Etc. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, you have 500 choices. Honestly, how many study religions before they pick one rather than it being picked for them?

Addressing a Theistic Philosopher with Fallacious Thinking

“Most scientists would object to the word “truth”, btw.” – Challenger 

My response, And I would explain why it is of truth. Like evolution. Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory. A fact is a piece of evidence evaluated as truth.

“There is no truth at the end of any scientific method – rather, a better understanding of how things work. Some of us might use the word “truth” to imply certainty but a great many people, the ones you argue with, use it in a universal way that doesn’t reflect the reality that we understand through science. I guess what I’m saying is that it’s difficult to argue with believers once you start using the word “truth” because it means different things to different people.” – Challenger 

My response, Well, facts and proof like “truth” to imply a level of certainty and all three can mean different things to different people, so. Therefore, proof and facts are truths and you are now making truth statements about truth and science and as you must know there is not one universal standard in science in the relation to the philosophy of science especially against my side the scientific realists (the majority of scientists whether they know it or not, just like you making truth statements seeming to say you don’t know truth) against the instrumentalists or anti-realist science thinkers as you seem to be promoting as the norm of science when it is no.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.


Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)  with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworldKi and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religionEgyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of naturemotherhoodfertilitycreationdestruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) iKorean shamanismjangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the SeonangdangIn Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (KawiSundaneseJavanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythologyTiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and UrAncient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as AthensSpartaThebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as FlorenceSienaFerraraMilan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen ItzaTikalCopán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coastRagusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art


“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyus/Dyus phtr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Plethwih) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*



Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref


Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Knowledge to Ponder: 


  • Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
  • The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
  • Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the “Kurgan phenomenon” of below-ground “mound” stone/wood burial structures and “Dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures.
  • Around 6,500–5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
  • “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.

“Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the HindusChinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient GreeceRome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.” ref 

Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref

Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref

Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled “He who Saw the Deep” (Sha naqba īmuru) or “Surpassing All Other Kings” (Shūtur eli sharrī) were written. ref


  • 3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
  • 3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.


  • around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew”
  • around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed

Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths

  • Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianity’s bible.
  • Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
  • Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
  • Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
  • The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
  • The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
  • The poetic and proposed “Wisdom books” dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
  • The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
  • Henotheism:
  • Exodus 20:23 “You shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.”
  • Polytheism:
  • Judges 10:6 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.”
  • 1 Corinthians 8:5 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”
  • Monotheism:
  • Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

  • Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
  • Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
  • Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
  • Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
  • Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
  • Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
  • Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): by “History with Cy

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston:  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.”

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars.

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or QuotesMy YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email:

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This