Which was first: Atheism or Religion?

[Whateverist]

Which came first?

The lightning bolt or Zeus?

I was always more of an egg man myself, though a decent case can be made for the chicken.

[Knowledge of God]

I noticed the move of the thread to here; debates.

well yea.

[GrandizerII]

And I had some respect for you pokie

It is true though. Several members have noted the same thing about you. It's not just one or two.

[fr0d0]

And I had some respect for you pokie

It is true though. Several members have noted the same thing about you. It's not just one or two.

That's true. Several members have said it.

What I actually say is that there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural. THEN the mantra goes "we'll accept any evidence"... which I then point out it's the bible and individual experience.

That's not rampants point though

Rampant repeats the old cliche: "how do you tell your God from my idiotic proposition". He doesn't want to hear the answer to that. He just wants everyone to think he's clever in asking such an original question.

If you want to join him in being a fucktard, be my guest.

[Brian37]

If atheism was first, then religion was created by atheists.

Can't really put it like this, our evolution had prior forms of sapiens and we also did not evolve to "fact find" as our primary goal. Our species evolved to seek patterns, our flaw is that we tend to gap fill more than fact find.

There were many skeptics even prior to human written language, if there had not been questioners, our species never would have evolved, but it is not a "chicken vs egg" deal here. Our species evolution has always depended on multiple factors.

The only thing you can say is that religion is a result of our flawed perceptions, but that is not the result of one individual doing that.

[Angrboda]

"Before somebody believed in a god, nobody believed in a god."

Yeah, so?

(BTW, atheism is the antithesis of theism, not of religion; there are atheistic religions.)

[Anomalocaris]

If atheism was first, then religion was created by atheists.

Who is the bigger fool? The fool who lied, or the fool who believed him?

[IAmTheeWallrus]

Atheism is the non-acceptance or the rejection of theistic claims. How could an atheist reject theistic claims if they haven't been invented yet?

IMO, and I'm no expert, nor have I studied this in depth (and I don't know how you could), I think it comes down to seeing agency where there is none (Michael Shermer's hypotheses about agenticity and patternicity). Animals see an unexpected movement nearby and bolt, assuming that some agency was responsible for that movement. I think in our human ancestors there was a period of time when this agency-detector began to spin out of control to the point where the Australopithecine or Homo ancestor didn't just read agency where there was one, they began attributing specific personalities to that agency (lightening gods and storm gods are angry, harvest gods are giving, sea gods are tempestuous) and developed the foundations of polytheistic mythic figures.

Just my opinion, though.

You misinterpreting the term "rejection of theistic claims".
Most atheists believe that the default state is disbelief.
That is to say that people are born atheists and are told by others at some point that their is a God. In that context it is the "rejection of theistic claims"
But without those claims we would not have any position on the question.
I personally don't believe that I would have any position on whether or not there was an invisible being that hears my thoughts and created everything. I just would not ever even suggest it were it not for crazy religions.
I do believe in Schermer's ideas about agenticity but I think that it alone is not enough in modern man to create full fledged deism from the ground up.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I actually say is that there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural. THEN the mantra goes "we'll accept any evidence"... which I then point out it's the bible and individual experience.

B-mine

Which would be empirical evidence. Claims made that can be tested - tons of them. How do you justify - using empirical evidence - as a justification for belief in the supernatural........ when you have just -clearly stated- "there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural"?



You're going to have to put down the book, ignore your senses and forget your experiences - if you wish to remain consistent with your own claims. (holding fast to your claim about empirical evidence)

-or-

Admit empirical evidence as a means to justify belief in the supernatural - and then accept what may follow from that empirical evidence (hold fast to your book and experiences)

[The Valkyrie]

Before people invented deities they were, technically, atheists. However, they didn't have a term for it and gods had t be invented before the term atheist was coined.