Athiesm is a Faith?

[Mister Agenda]

Interesting point , so I wonder what came first the Theist or the Athiest.

Logically, the implicit atheist came first. There's no such thing as an implicit theist, so the first theist was explicitly so. The first explicit atheist was whoever first didn't believe the theistic claims of a theist. I'd call that a wash, since the first thiest came after implicit athieism but before the first explicit atheist.

---

Well that depends on what Eternity is; we may even Experience eternity already in this life , we just call it NOW. Eternity could be Just a NOW moment as without time there is no past or future.

I'm willing to work with you, if your version of God doesn't extend infinitely into the past, that's fine with me. It doesn't make me think any less of him.

[Mark 13:13]

[quote = Mister Agenda]I contend that if you cant prove the position you take even if you express such a position as a negative then you are still accepting some part on faith regardless of who has the burden of proof.[/quote]

Burden of proof to a Theist gives a wonderful refuge for the Athiest on the same level that to the Athiest the Transendental GOD is a wonderful refuge for the Theist. Does that mean that we can conclude all conversation at the start between Athiest and Theist by stating that at the very start?

[Annik]

No, you twit. When you bring your deity into the conversation it is up to you to PROVE such a deity exists. You carry burden of proof. It does not matter if you want it or no, it's your burden. It has nothing to do with atheist or theists and everything to do with positive claims. You are making your claim that a god (we can pretend it's an apple or something, if you like, as it being a god is not why you have the burden) exists. This is not something that can be assumed. You must first offer evidence. The burden is on you because you're the one with the claim.

[Mister Agenda]

If you only knew what it makes you sound like when you assume we hold our positions because they are convenient to our arguments instead of because we have a consensus that we should follow the rules of logic wherever they take us, you'd stop the craven insinuations.

I still hesitate to conclude that you can't be reached on this matter, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

If you don't have evidence or an argument that you think justifies your belief in God, what sort of conversation on the matter do you think is possible?

[Mark 13:13]

Interesting point , so I wonder what came first the Theist or the Athiest.

Logically, the implicit atheist came first. There's no such thing as an implicit theist, so the first theist was explicitly so. The first explicit atheist was whoever first didn't believe the theistic claims of a theist. I'd call that a wash, since the first thiest came after implicit athieism but before the first explicit atheist.

---

Well that depends on what Eternity is; we may even Experience eternity already in this life , we just call it NOW. Eternity could be Just a NOW moment as without time there is no past or future.

I'm willing to work with you, if your version of God doesn't extend infinitely into the past, that's fine with me. It doesn't make me think any less of him.

So the first Theist was an Athiest at the start and just invented GOD. Where did he/she get the idea from?

Trouble is that an Eternal NOW outside the Cosmos can probably see what we experience as time passing with its past present and future, as part of that Eternal NOW.

though you could take comfort in , "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" (Isaiah 43:25

---

Interesting point , so I wonder what came first the Theist or the Athiest.

The disbelief in gods existed before the belief in gods. There just wasn't a name for it.

Why do you write 'atheist' with an upper case 'A'?

Well tbh its probably a subconscious thing which shows that I don't disrespect your views so when I use T heist in a sentence with A thiest I'm giving both positions equal respect even if I don't hold to one. never really thought of it before.

---

No, you twit. When you bring your deity into the conversation it is up to you to PROVE such a deity exists. You carry burden of proof. It does not matter if you want it or no, it's your burden. It has nothing to do with atheist or theists and everything to do with positive claims. You are making your claim that a god (we can pretend it's an apple or something, if you like, as it being a god is not why you have the burden) exists. This is not something that can be assumed. You must first offer evidence. The burden is on you because you're the one with the claim.

I disagree. Surely I can have a conversation without having to prove anything, and if i'm not trying to prove anything then whats the burden. If you don't want the conversation, you can leave it, if I don't want to prove something then I don't have to prove it so long as I don't ask you to prove it all seems fine in my mind.

[paulpablo]

Interesting point , so I wonder what came first the Theist or the Athiest.

This is just my assumption but i assume early mankind was born with no knowledge of god, things which couldnt be understood in life were assumed to be gods hence the invention of polytheism, different gods for different things which werent understood. Then from this idea evolved the idea of a single god, but bringing with it many of the rituals which the old religions had.
Also i assume this is true since all three main monotheistic religions mention punishment for those worshiping more than one god, hence the worship of many gods was something the creators of monotheistic religions were aware of.
Examples of christian traditions and ideas taken from pagan ones are baptism, easter, haloween, halos, christmas and worship on sunday.
Ive also heard allah used to be a moon god with sisters.
But basically no im pretty much certain no baby is born with a belief in god but because were born in a world we dont understand superstitions begin.

[Minimalist]

I disagree.

Really? So then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the equivalent of your godboy, huh? After all, if your silly god does not require proof than neither do any of the others.[/quote]

[Mark 13:13]

Interesting point , so I wonder what came first the Theist or the Athiest.

This is just my assumption but i assume early mankind was born with no knowledge of god, things which couldnt be understood in life were assumed to be gods hence the invention of polytheism, different gods for different things which werent understood. Then from this idea evolved the idea of a single god, but bringing with it many of the rituals which the old religions had.

without a concept of gods how could they assume something was a gods.

[Mister Agenda]

So the first Theist was an Athiest at the start and just invented GOD. Where did he/she get the idea from?

The first theist likely had little conception of the sort of God you're referring to. He or she would (most likely, given what of the history of religion can be discerned) have been an animist, believing that rocks and trees and the wind and so forth had personalities. There's an excellent book by Pascal Boyer that goes into some detail on what would likely have been in play in the head of the first theist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained

[Mark 13:13]

I disagree.

Really? So then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the equivalent of your godboy, huh? After all, if your silly god does not require proof than neither do any of the others.

[/quote]

I ate the flying spaghetti monster so I know it doesn't exist. Sorry about that I didn't realise it was so popular.