Dear Mr. AtHope, The 20th Century is an Indictment of Secularism and a Failed Atheist Century

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I received this long email message:

———————————————————————————————————-

Dear Mr. AtHope,

I hope you will forgive me writing to you but I have recently looked through your website and it was frustrating. There was much I could identify with and yet so much that was to my mind simply wrong. I would love to discuss with you, but I’m afraid that I am still in school. 

Give that the whole subject about which you are so vehement is the whole question of supernaturalism and whether there is a God or not, do you not think it is kind of loading the dice to discuss this only with those who already share your presuppositions? 

And there is the problem of what you allude to being ‘the Higher Consciousness’. You argue that those who share your views have been raised to a greater level of consciousness. Coining the term of modern atheism as being ‘loud and proud’. That they have had their consciousness raised, whilst also seeking to raise the consciousness of those of us who have been left behind. This reminds me of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. The Emperor is told by a couple of ‘tailors’ that they have produced a set of new clothes for him which can only be seen by the enlightened and wise (those who have had their consciousness raised). 

Of course not wanting to appear stupid he and all his courtiers state that they can see the wonderful and stunning new clothes. It is only when the emperor is wandering naked through the streets and a boy cries out, ‘The Emperor has no clothes’, that the people realise the truth. I think your notion that atheists are those who have had their consciousness raised, and that they are de facto more intelligent, rational and honest than other human beings, is a myth on a par with the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Of course, I realise that many people who follow your website and social media will already be converts – they already share your faith and will be looking for reassurance or confirmation. You are preaching to the choir. 

Reading through your website, I expected to be challenged. The website is well written and entertaining. But at an intellectual and logical level, it really missed the mark. Most of the arguments are of a sixth-form schoolboy variety and shot through with a passionate anti-religious vehemence. What is disturbing is that your fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously by some and will be used to reinforce their already prejudged anti-religion and anti-Christian stance. Your ‘arguments’ repeated across your website, opinion pages, and social media pages. You will forgive me saying this but it seems remarkably similar to the kind of things that ‘intellectuals’ were putting out in 1930s Germany about the Jews and Judaism. Just as they claimed the Jews were responsible for all the ills in Weimar Germany, so according to your website, religious people are responsible for the majority of ills in today’s society. 

Along with many of your followers, you want to ‘imagine’ a world with no religion and no God. A world that you claim would have no suicide bombers (despite the fact that the most suicide attacks have been by the secular Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers), no crusades, no 9/11, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, etc. 

Growing up I loved Imagine by John Lennon. Then I grew up and realised that it took a great of imagination to take seriously a song which spoke of imagining a world ‘with no possessions too’, written by a man who lived in a mansion and had an abundance of possessions, whilst there were millions dying from lack of resources. It seems to me that your vision/imagination is almost as unrealistic as Lennon’s. 

I’ve been brought up in a religious home and knew from a very young age that not only was it possible to leave but that for many people it would be considered normal. I fought my own battles so that I could be free to think for myself. But it was not only, nor even primarily, against the religious teachings of my parents and other (and I did fight against them), but also the patronising expectations of teachers, media and others who just assumed that the only reason anyone would be religious was because of parental influence, brainwashing and a weak mind. You know the real relief came when I realised I could be a Christian and think for myself and seek to make a difference in the world; and that I did not have to buy into all the quirks and cultural nuances of religious groups, nor the fundamentalism of the secularists who just knew that they were right.

I cannot think of a single career option in Australia where being an atheist would place you at a disadvantage (unless you are thinking of becoming a member of the clergy – although current form suggests that even there you could get away with it!). However, there are many people for whom admitting they are ‘religious’ is a severe block to their career and life. Those who seek to be Christian politicians, singers, businessmen, teachers, and social workers often face significant prejudice and irrational fear. It is sometimes advantageous to deny one’s faith or even to leave it. Being a Christian is more often than not a stumbling block to one’s chosen career path, rather than being an atheist. 

Of course, there are those who belong to cults that exercise a form of mind control tantamount to brain-washing, but surely even you would not argue that every religious person is in that category? You seem to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist. Of course, you offer no empirical evidence for this. 

What would you do if your daughter turned out to be a Bible-believing Christian? Would you disown her? Would you allow her that choice? Or have you done your best to inoculate her against the virus of religion? I remember one young man, highly intelligent, who came to a Christianity Explored group. When he was asked his religious position he said, ‘I’m an atheist, but I’m beginning to have my doubts’. A backslidden atheist! Maybe there are a lot more of them than you think. You ought to be careful about the raising of consciousness – maybe people will become tired of your modernist certainties and instead find refuge in the clear fresh air of Jesus Christ! 

The atheist revival is now being challenged from all sides. Having had a century of elitist domination and control many in the Western World are beginning to wake up to the fact that the secular emperor has no clothes. The 20th century can truly be called the Failed Atheist Century. Can I recommend that you read an excellent book on this subject, written by Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred? He shares your evolutionary secularist presuppositions, but his account of the 20th century is a stunning indictment of the failure of secularism and ‘science’ to bring peace on earth. 

What I do appreciate is that, unlike the irrational and the lazy who want to deny its existence, you admit that there is such a thing as truth. You may laugh at the idea that the truth is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. But I remain an optimist. I believe not only in truth but also in the power of God and his Holy Spirit to bring the enlightenment to even the darkest mind. So there is still hope for us both. – Email Christian 

———————————————————————————————————-

My response, Are you open to a recorded video chat as that is all I would be interested in and I will post it unedited in a blog and on YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn? 

Dear Mr. AtHope,

I very much appreciate the unique offer you’ve given me to have a clean debate in a comforting setting! My sadness stems that I’m unable to have the freedom of time with the constricting nature of my last year of school. I’m sorry to decline your offer. When I finish my school certificate I will be travelling to many countries, of which I will be at America and it would be a blessing to be in your presence to discuss what I’ve come to believe and alike for yourself. I can see your foundation in atheism and I grieve for you as there is so much joy found in Jesus Christ, He has saved me from dark times and He takes all worries upon Himself. I do not seek to change your belief but only seek to show you the loving God I believe in – which is enough to compel many. Thank you for the generous offer, I hope to hear from you in the future. – Email Christian  

My response, I find your response to be both odd and wonder how can feel you are truly being intellectually honest with your excuse. You must have spent half an hour writing your first post to me and claimed to have read enough about me from my blog and other media showing that you have time or make time. Then you also claimed to honestly want to talk to me but how would you do this claiming you don’t have time? I see it as a logical fallacy to avoid real challenge and intellectual responsibility for the empty rhetoric and slander you wrote to me. I wonder how you can claim to be an honest debater having not once addressed a specific quote I stated and demonstrated how it was in error. No, rather you were fond of logical fallacies and rhetoric as your champion. It was a shameful display of sophistry devoid of honest thinking or intentions. 

My response, You profess, “I have recently looked through your website” is so did you miss the main page of my website? As your questions would see so. 

Like this, almost the first thing wrote: 

“Am I alone? Condemning bad behavior is a requirement if one wants Change and religion needs to be called out as it is like organized lying with a tax exemption. This scourge is left to freely defraud humanity with impunity. I see religion and find t guilty of crimes against humanity. I am an Axiological (value theory) Atheist, thus I feel compelled to try to care for everyone as much as I can because other people matter and my humanity has a high value to me. But I wonder am I alone as I see and hear lots of people who seem not to feel the same. I wish others self-mastery, thus do not feel a need to try and change people who may think differently, rather I wish to create a caring space if I can, so they can see things differently if they wish. I care more about human flourishing then just my disbelief, am I alone?”

If you had honestly read the main page of my website then your questions about me forcing a daughter to believe or not believe where dishonest.  If you had honestly read the main page of my website then I question if you were truly honest in saying you really read my website and surly doubt you honestly read my main page for sure. 

My response, You also stated about me, “your notion that atheists are ‘the Higher Consciousness’ which is a phrase that is indeed your attempt at a strawman fallacy, as I do not use that term at all anywhere on my website and if you think I have, post your proof or acknowledge your error. A straw man is a form of argument and fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. And if you had as an “honest thinker” truly read far enough down on my websites “main page” you would have read these two clear statements:

“It saddens me when proponents of atheism also seem to be proponents of anti-intellectualism either in rejecting philosophy or science. I am against all pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist. Therefore, I am happy to correct the errors in thinking many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics may have, mainly because of the overconfidence in skepticism and the lack of a respect for the supremacy reason needed for logic which is needed to standardize validity. Religion should be seen as ancient mythology to be marveled and laughed at, rather than promoted as truth when it is only feeble pseudo-truth.”

And this:

“Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authentically truthful rationalists that put facts over faith. I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back. May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.”

My response, You also try many forms of intellectual dishonesty tactics in a debate/argument, such as this Ad hominem “at an intellectual and logical level, most of the arguments are of a sixth-form schoolboy variety” yet you post none not refute none demonstrating that you are just expressing a fallacy rather than showing what and how you think you can show any idea I express as holding errors. I challenge you to work on your intellectual honesty first before posting such trash comments to others. 

“Ad hominem fallacious argumentative strategies avoid genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem 

My response, You also wrote this nonsense “A world that you claim would have no suicide bombers (despite the fact that the most suicide attacks have been by the secular Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers)” Well, well, I think you need help with facts as much as your intellectual honesty. 

First, it is an established fact that most suicide attacks have religious motivations.  Anthropologist Scott Atran states that since 2004 the overwhelming majority of bombers have been motivated by the ideology of Islamist martyrdom. Suicide attacks constituted only 4% of all terrorist attacks around the world over one period (between 1981 and 2006) but caused 32% of all terrorism-related deaths (14,599). Ninety percent of those suicide attacks occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Overall, as of mid-2015 about three-quarters of all suicide attacks occurred in just three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. 

Second, Although most Tigers were Hindus and the LTTE was an avowedly “secular” (not belonging to a religion; which does not mean not motivated by one) organization did suicide attacks for the other main reason beyond religion that suicide attacks are committed in general “nationalism”, not “secularism” (the “indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations) as you wrongfully try to imply and as such you miss the clear Tamil nationalism which was the primary basis of its ideology. Fanaticism (nationalist or religious, or both), results from brain-washing, negative experiences regarding “the enemy”, the lack of a perspective in life. To what extent attackers are motivated by religious enthusiasm, by resistance to perceived outsider oppression or some combination of the two is disputed. A source found that at least in one country (Lebanon from 1983–1999) it was Islamists who influenced secular nationalists—their use of suicide attack spreading to the secular groups. Five Lebanese groups “espousing a non-religious nationalist ideology” followed the lead of Islamist groups in attacking by suicide, “impressed by the effectiveness of Hezbollah’s attacks in precipitating the withdrawal of the ‘foreigners’ from Lebanon”. According to Atran and former CIA case officer Marc Sageman, support for suicide actions is triggered by moral outrage at perceived attacks against Islam and sacred values, but this is converted to action as a result of small-world factors (such as being part of a football club with other jihadis). Millions express sympathy with global jihad (according to a 2006 Gallup study involving more than 50,000 interviews in dozens of countries, 7 percent or at least 90 million of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims consider the 9/11 attacks “completely justified”). According to a report compiled by  Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, as of 2005, 224 of 300 suicide terror attacks from 1980 to 2003 involved Islamist groups or took place in Muslim-majority lands. Another tabulation found more than a fourfold increase in suicide bombings in the two years following Papes study and that the overwhelming majority of these bombers were motivated by the ideology of Islamist martyrdom. Other researchers contend that Pape’s analysis is flawed, particularly his contention that democracies are the main targets of such attacks. Atran argues that suicide bombing has moved on from the days of Pape’s study,[ref] that non-Islamic groups have carried out very few bombings since 2003, while bombing by Muslim or Islamist groups associated with a “global ideology” of “martyrdom” has skyrocketed. Other researchers (such as Yotam Feldner) argue that perceived religious rewards in the hereafter are instrumental in encouraging Muslims to commit suicide attacks, or ask why prominent secular anti-occupation terrorist groups—such as the Provisional IRA, ETA or anti-colonialist insurgents in Vietnam, Algeria, etc.—have not used suicide, why he does not mention that the very first suicide attack in Lebanon (in 1981) targeted the embassy of Iraq, a country which was not occupying Lebanon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack

Here is more on what Secularism MEANS:

As a philosophy, secularism seeks to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion. Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Zeno of Citium and Marcus Aurelius; from Enlightenment thinkers such as Erasmus, John Locke, Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and from more recent freethinkers and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and Christopher Hitchens. It shifts the focus from religion to other ‘temporal’ and ‘this-worldly’ things with emphasis on nature, reason, science, and development.

In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). Defined briefly, secularism means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. One form of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another form of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices. There exist distinct traditions of secularism in the West (e.g., French and Anglo-American) and beyond (e.g., in India). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

My response, You wrote this:

“I cannot think of a single career option in Australia where being an atheist would place you at a disadvantage (unless you are thinking of becoming a member of the clergy – although current form suggests that even there you could get away with it!). However, there are many people for whom admitting they are ‘religious’ is a severe block to their career and life. Those who seek to be Christian politicians, singers, businessmen, teachers, and social workers often face significant prejudice and irrational fear. It is sometimes advantageous to deny one’s faith or even to leave it. Being a Christian is more often than not a stumbling block to one’s chosen career path, rather than being an atheist.”

First, I am an American not Australian and in America, there is still open discrimination against atheists.  

Why Are Americans Still Uncomfortable with Atheism? | The New Yorker

Oct 22, 2018 – Atheists, long discriminated against by civil authorities and derided by their fellow-citizens. American antipathy for atheism is as old as America. Although many colonists came to this country seeking to practice their own faith freely, they brought with them a notion of religious liberty that extended only to other religions—often only to other denominations of Christianity. From John Locke they inherited the idea that atheists cannot be good citizens and should not be brought into the social contract; in “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” Locke had written, “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/why-are-americans-still-uncomfortable-with-atheism

Legal Times, April 17, 2006, VOL. XXIX, NO.16 states: 

“Atheists may be the most unpopular minority, but law offers few answers. Recent decades have seen a major increase in public acceptance of minorities such as African-Americans, Jews, and homosexuals. But one minority lags behind all others—those who do not believe in God. Half of Americans have a negative view of atheists. Similar percentages categorically refuse to vote for atheists for public office and believe that it is impossible for them to be moral people. Courts in some states routinely discriminate against them in child-custody battles. Yet this prejudice against atheists is unjustified, and sometimes it causes real harm. IS THE PREJUDICE JUSTIFIED? A common defense of hostility toward atheists is the claim that atheists lack moral values. A 2004 poll indicates that 51 percent of Americans believe that “[i]t is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.” It is indeed sometimes appropriate to show hostility toward people because of their reprehensible beliefs. But we generally reject such categorical hostility toward entire religious groups such as Jews, Catholics, or Muslims. The same principle should apply to atheists. Indeed, atheism, unlike some religions, is actually compatible with a very wide range of views on moral and political issues. Atheism is not a comprehensive world view, but merely a denial of the existence of God. It is simply not true that atheism implies a rejection of moral values. There are numerous ethical theories, including Kantianism, Confucianism, and utilitarianism, that do not require belief in God. Studies show that atheists have lower crime rates and lower rates of social pathologies such as teen pregnancy than theists do and that atheists are on average less likely to hold racist views. Nor is there any evidence that majority-atheist nations such as Japan and the Czech Republic suffer from unusually serious social problems as a result. These data do not prove that atheists are somehow morally superior to theists, but they do refute the claim that atheists are uniquely immoral.” https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/faculty/Somin_LegalTimes_Prejudice.pdf 

“Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of and discrimination against people identified as atheists. Discrimination against atheists may also comprise negative attitudes, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, or intolerance towards atheists and atheism. Because atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered atheists in a different time or place. 13 Muslim countries officially punish atheism or apostasy by death, while “the overwhelming majority” of the 192 United Nation member countries “at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offenses dubbed blasphemy”. In some Muslim-majority countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment. Discrimination against atheists in the United States occurs in legal, personal, social, and professional contexts. Many American atheists compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, LGBT communities, and women. “Americans still feel it’s acceptable to discriminate against atheists in ways considered beyond the pale for other groups,” asserted Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association. The degree of discrimination, persecution, and social stigma atheists face in the United States, compared to other persecuted groups in the United States has been the subject of study and a matter of debate. In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century. Despite polling showing that nonbelievers make up an increasingly large part of the population, there is only one public atheist in all of the state legislatures across the nation. Few politicians have been willing to acknowledge their lack of belief in supreme beings since such revelations have been considered “political suicide”. George H. W. Bush‘s son, George W. Bush, responded to a question about the role of faith in his presidency during a 3 November 2004 press conference, “I will be your president regardless of your faith. And I don’t expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great – the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the – the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they’re just as patriotic as your neighbor.” A 2014 study by the University of Minnesota found that 42% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that did “not at all agree with my vision of American society”, and that 44% would not want their child to marry an atheist. The negative attitudes towards atheists were higher than negative attitudes towards African-Americans and homosexuals but lower than the negative attitudes towards Muslims. Sometimes such discrimination is called atheophobia, atheistophobia, anti-atheist discrimination.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

Arkansas Discrimination against atheists: Article 19, Section 1
“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”[ref]

Maryland Discrimination against atheists: Article 37
“That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[ref]

Mississippi Discrimination against atheists: Article 14, Section 265
“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”[ref]

North Carolina Discrimination against atheists: Article 6, Section 8
“The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”[ref]

South Carolina Discrimination against atheists: Article 17, Section 4
“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”[ref]

Tennessee Discrimination against atheists: Article 9, Section 2
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”[ref]

Texas Discrimination against atheists: Article 1, Section 4
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”[ref]

An eighth state constitution affords special protection to theists.

Pennsylvania Discrimination against atheists:  Article 1, Section 4
“No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”[ref]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

My response, Moreover in your mental taxing, long-winded, rhetoric expelling arrangement, of poor argument nonsense, you stated “A backslidden atheist!” As if that has any meaning to anything meaningful as there is no “god” evidence and if there was then you would start with it not meander along supported by logical fallacies and thinking errors like all religious believers. Any atheist that goes back to theism is not a sound thinker they are returning to the state of a blind believer devoid of the use of sound thinking nor holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. 

What truly is the thing labeled a god?

If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? 

Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

Do you not get you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you cannot validate its value.  

Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure

I am an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist, and Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

“In this narrow sense, ‘value theory’ is roughly synonymous with ‘axiology’. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing.

Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification. 

To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

1. No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
2. No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
3. No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.

My response, Furthermore, your empty rhetoric on atheism and the non-religious is flat out in error as much as it is illogically bigoted. You stated:

“The atheist revival is now being challenged from all sides. Having had a century of elitist domination and control many in the Western World are beginning to wake up to the fact that the secular emperor has no clothes. The 20th century can truly be called the Failed Atheist Century. Can I recommend that you read an excellent book on this subject, written by Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred? He shares your evolutionary secularist presuppositions, but his account of the 20th century is a stunning indictment of the failure of secularism and ‘science’ to bring peace on earth.”

First, If you don’t already know, arguments offered on how much things are liked or not do not have bearing on the fervent of their claims being true and to state otherwise is a logical fallacy called ad populum. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people“) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Second, If the 20th century is anything, rather than an expression of a challenge to atheists it is a challenge to the religious. “In recent years much has been written about the rise of the “nones”—people who check the box for “none” on surveys of religious affiliation. A 2013 Harris Poll of 2,250 American adults, for example, found that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion altogether. A 2015 Pew Research Center poll reported that 34 to 36 percent of millennials (those born after 1980) are nones and corroborated the 23 percent figure, adding that this was a dramatic increase from 2007, when only 16 percent of Americans said they were affiliated with no religion. In raw numbers, this translates to an increase from 36.6 million to 55.8 million nones. Though lagging far behind the 71 percent of Americans who identified as Christian in the Pew poll, they are still a significant voting block, far larger than Jews (4.7 million), Muslims (2.2 million) and Buddhists (1.7 million) combined (8.6 million) and comparable to politically powerful Christian sects such as Evangelical (25.4 percent) and Catholic (20.8 percent). This shift away from the dominance of any one religion is good for a secular society whose government is structured to discourage catch basins of power from building up and spilling over into people’s private lives. But it is important to note that these nones are not necessarily atheists. Many have moved from mainstream religions into New Age spiritual movements, as evidenced in a 2017 Pew poll that found an increase from 19 percent in 2012 to 27 percent in 2017 of those who reported being “spiritual but not religious.” Among this cohort, only 37 percent described their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-number-of-americans-with-no-religious-affiliation-is-rising/

Third, Your statement that Niall Ferguson’s The War of the World somehow proves that 20th century is a stunning indictment of the failure of secularism, is either mistaken error or outright intentional intellectual dishonesty. In Tristram Hunt discussing on The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred by Niall Ferguson she states: According to Ferguson, the 20th-century bloodbath was down to the dreadful concatenation of ethnic conflict, economic volatility, and empires in decline. Despite genetic advances that revealed man’s essential biological similarities, the 1900s saw wave upon wave of ethnic strife thanks (pace Richard Dawkins) to a race “meme” entering public discourse. Across the world, the idea of biologically distinct races took hold of the 20th century mindset to deadly effect. Tensions along increasingly conscious ethnic faultlines (in regions such as the eastern edges of Germany) frequently spilt over into conflict during periods of economic volatility. For extremities of wealth and poverty proved far more incendiary than the steady, immiserating effects of economic depression. When ethnicity and financial turbulence then occurred in the context of retreating or expanding empires – British, German, or Soviet – the capacity for bloodshed proved even greater. And, as a final thought, the 20th century witnessed not the triumph of the west, but its inexorable descent. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jun/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview14

Therefore, as so many times now you are wrong, it was ethnic conflict, economic volatility, and empires, not secularism as you wrongfully profess and it was a denial of clear science not a failure on the part of science. 

My response, Lastly you state that I may laugh at the idea that the truth is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. I feel you are deluded which is profoundly sad nothing to laugh at. I will tell you my thoughts on the bible claims of Jesus if true then the legend of Jesus, is a horrific story of a psychopath god that will not forgive without a blood sacrifice. New flash, Jesus is supposed to be god and thus guilty for any ethical violations, the god of the bible supposedly did. 

I am better than your bible god myth because even at my worst I don’t kill as he is claimed to have done. Don’t forget the mass murdering psychopath god responsible for the flood which would have murdered all life on earth arguably worse than any madman in history. And this evil flood murder god myth is then the same sick monster who required a blood sacrifice to forgive? Then threaten harm people not once but forever? That is the sickest immoral being ever. So, yes I live my life in peace and love your god has nothing on me. 

So, then Jesus is god right than just a continuation of the EVIL, Unjust, & Unkind bible god MYTH that came before his new myths where added… And why is a blood sacrifice even needed to forgive, it sounds monstrous, not at all in line with a so-called god of love? 

So, is the god of the bible, an Evil bible gOD? 

Yes, even just using the bible we can see the bible god is a real moral monster. Don’t take my word for it here is an unholy trinity of verses exposing the hidden monster god myth the bible hides and champions as the same time. 

*Isaiah 45:7 The bible god said, I create darkness, I create evil: I do all these things. = Evil bible god. 

*Job 2:3 The bible god said to satan, you incited me against Job to ruin Job without any reason. = Evil bible god. 

*Exodus: 32:14: The bible god repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. = Evil bible god. All this is evidence of the evil god, even repenting of evil himself. This helps show just how bad the bible myth of god actually would be. 

Thank gOD he is not real. Of course, the bible claims its god does not repent. 

Numbers 23:19 = More lies as always, the bible itself contradicts this. Ps. here is one more verse to push the point, the bible god repented that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart, Genesis 6:6.

The myth of Jesus is proposed to aid in removing the claimed guilt of sin if accepted/followed/worshiped. Sin may I remind you is the term that means whatever a god myth wants and not about true morality concerns. But if we think clearly on the claim of Original sin we should logically think Why do we blame Adam and Eve for sinning?

Why would a just loving god do it either? It’s not their fault. It is this proposed “bad parent” and seemingly unthoughtful father or even an intentional twisted deviant horror. And, who can justly blame a being that lacks the moral understanding of good and evil? Thus, remember that before eating the damning fruit, they were not guilty by means of this hindrance of lacking “the moral understanding of good and evil.” Because in this myth, it is only after eating were Adam and Eve are said to be provided this good and evil knowledge. So, I ask you, why do we feel it right to condemn and blame Adam and Eve for sinning?

Moreover, this needed insight of “good and evil” would be lacking in them prior to eating in order to rightly navigate such moral dilemmas, to begin with. Thus, as they lacked the full moral knowledge to start with, if the myth is taken seriously, a just judge would see the defendants Adam and Eve can be found incompetent to stand trial due to their inability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions at the time of the proposed offense. So again, we must keep forefront the conception of lacking such understanding to even call them guilty. Because without the understanding of this action as evil it must be the god claimed in this myth that we may propose as the true evil one.

Yes, I blame him where it belongs it is, he that made them with a moral blindness, to begin with, they had no chance they did not understand good and evil until eating the fruit. Which brings me to another point of gods fault why if you were a loving father put such a dangerous and deadly thing like the tree of good and evil where ones of moral ignorance could get to it in the first place? A good father is a protector, not one who puts his children in harm’s way then blames them. Which also brings up another strike against this unethical god who not only left the moral innocent Adam and Eve to possible harm themselves which is more proof that it is this negligent father god who is truly the one to blame for any harm his moral innocent children Adam and Eve incurred.

Please explain why anyone would follow Jesus’ teachings?

If Jesus was god, he would have sought worship for himself would he not? Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for god in the heavens, therefore, he was not god. Verses in the bible say Jesus is not god The bible says that Jesus denied he is god. Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except god alone.’ (Luke 18:19) And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17) So Jesus is not good? Therefore, if Jesus did not know “good” then why trust his teachings?

Matthew 15:21-28 (jesus was not ethical but was bigoted if real)

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

My Commentary Matthew 15:21-28

Jesus all good? Some try to say this is a bad example. Read the next few passages. She pleads more and he then heals the girl. Wrong, this is a great example he does not heal the child out of love or because its ethical and demonstrates a lack of willingness because of different race of the child and does not do it when asked even gives a hate speech response its only after the woman’s continued begging after the hate response that he agrees to heal the child again not because children in need should be cared for or because he loves all children of the world nor because it’s the moral thing to do instead it’s because she had faith he could heal someone. A truly moral person would have simply healed the child the first time and not threw a racial slur at her. I do find it amusing that after she begs him, he conceded and referenced her faith for it? As opposed to her use of reason as she did. Jesus the so-called god or love for everyone was very disrespectful in his statement for no other reason than to be at the least thoughtless to the suffering of a child no evidence of love there. It was looking down on her as if she is a lowly sub-human and the child never mattered not even as a factor when he is said to finally become persuaded to heal the child. So, if we are gracious Jesus was heartless to the suffering of some but if we take it for what it looks like he was a hateful bigot that in no way cared about all the people of the world not even the children. 

Here are some more great examples of how Jesus is not all good, nor all loving neither does he care about everyone on earth other than the jews.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” – JesusMatthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” – JesusYes, you heard that right jesus only came for the Israelites stated in his own words as stated undeniably already. Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” – Jesus

You may believe you know Jesus. The lie called the bible is full of contradictions thousands of them so what you think you know depends on which lie you choose to remember. You do not know, you believe because of faith and think that feeling is knowing, but you are mistaken. You need to learn how to form justified beliefs, and faith is not it.

If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself would he not? Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God. Verses in the Bible say Jesus is not God The Bible says that Jesus denied he is God.

Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)

And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17)

Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus.

‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)

‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)

Jesus cannot be God, if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus. Jesus never instructed his disciples to worship him.

‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2)

‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)

‘The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ (John 4:23)

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than god?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)

His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Jesus’ last words?

MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

Jesus’ first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying….”

LUK 6:17,20: “And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people…came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said…”

Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

MAT 28:3-5 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Jesus descended from which son of David?

Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

Nathan(Luke3:31)

Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?

Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)

No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.

No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.

Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)

No (Luke 9:9)

Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)

No (John 1:32,33)

Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

Yes (John 1:32, 33)

No (Matthew 11:2)

I could go on there is much more but some will say I am using man’s wisdom not god’s mysterious ways. So, is the bible in favour of wisdom? Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

I hear all the time but did you read the bible? 

Read the Bible, you mean the book of dogmatic propaganda. Yes, sadly I have. I read two versions of the bible King James and NIV. I have read history, anthropology, and archeology of world religions and understood right thinking because of philosophy. I know a lot, I don’t claim to know everything but certainly enough to firmly know religion and gods are myths. I could list countless scriptures to contradict the Bible’s credibility (it has none) as I have listed some but true believers will believe as they wish (blind faith). The male god is an invented idea no more than 5,000 years the female goddess at least 12,000 but the first worship was and the world’s oldest ritual was of a large stone python 70,000 years ago. https://www.apollon.uio.no/english/articles/2006/python-english.html

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 

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 underworld. Ki 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 religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction 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) in Korean shamanism, jangseung 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 Seonangdang. In 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 (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, 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 mythology, Tiki 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 Ur; Ancient 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 Athens, Sparta, Thebes, 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 Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (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 Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; 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:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“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

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

What we don’t understand we can come to fear. That which we fear we often learn to hate. Things we hate we usually seek to destroy. It is thus upon us to try and understand the unknown or unfamiliar not letting fear drive us into the unreasonable arms of hate and harm. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.” I reject this worlds unkindness. I fight for what is true, helpful, good and right. All themes needed for universal betterment and human flourishing. I fight for people not against them as kindness is invaluable. I just never stop seeing others as equal dignity beings. We rise by helping each other.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com