What does that even mean? Don't inventions "appeared spontaneously as a natural output product of the brain"? Pretty much by definition...
Both are similar, but there is a difference. If I was trying to invent a new mouse trap, I will first make a conscious effort. I will read about what already is and then try to come up with a new idea or synthesize a new solution. In invention, the unconscious mind will assist the ego and help do the synthesis. This may appear as a hunch or a flash of insight, that appears to help remove the repression. The ego also wishes the repression to end; find the solution.
In terms of the gods and unconscious mind, the gods appear; unconscious, because the ego thinks it knows better, which is why the ego is reinforcing memory. This may be due to acceptable social behavior being defined by the egos of others, that is repressive or regressive. In this case, the unconscious is thinking more along the lines of a neural energy balance, instead of how to invent a better path to collective repression. Religious systems will often appear contrary to what the ego of the atheist wishes or thinks. This bothers the ego of the atheists, who wishes free will and choice, even if unnatural and repressive.
In terms of atheism versus religion, and unconscious synthesis, religion tends to separate the content of the ego and the unconscious mind as two separate things, with the unique unconscious output connected to the gods; God or Devil. Although the term god, will not describe all the output, religion nevertheless separates the process into two; two centers of consciousness. There is the inner man and the outer man.
Atheism is not as objective to unconscious content and tends to assume there is only the ego center. I am not talking of the sub-class of atheism call psychologists who are more objective. Two centers of consciousness is not taught to the average card carrying atheist. What is taught is, it is taboo if you hear voices or see visions; content separate from the ego. If you admit this, you will be called crazy.
If a religious person hears a voice or has a dream they think is the spirit, they celebrate this distinction; secondary. This will make them appear crazy to the atheists, who will automatically assume pathology and not synthesis. If anyone in these forums claims to have seen the spirit, there is an atheist circling of the wagon before firing arrows. The religious are not so quick to place all such claims in the garbage barrel. Most have made such distinctions and will ask for more information. This is the objectivity that I spoke of.
Atheism is not called a religion by definition. However, words do not mean more than actions, unless one is indoctrinated in PC, where hypocrisy reigns if you carry the correct membership card. In atheism, the ego; celebrity, takes the place of gods. The merger of the conscious and unconscious makes the ego assume it is the source of its own inspiration, worshipping the important among them as gods; Darwin. In America, it was blaspheme to those on the left, to challenge president Obama, since he to the atheists he was a god due to charism and celebrity. The religious will see him as a man, but someone being inspired.
When I started to explore the unconscious, I was an atheist who had the, there is only one POV. It was a shock and profound realization that there was a secondary POV in the unconscious mind. I had to know for sure, which is why I began to do research on myself. Now, it is so self evident. I can still remember the early days of being a scientific member of the atheist religion, that does not exist by definition. But I also remember content, that was so intense, I can see how religion can attribute this to the beyond. It is still ambiguous.