What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Super Cynic]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods, or a god. Until the concept of god/gods was invented, everyone was an atheist (didn't believe in a "god"). However, this is somewhat of a grey area as there wasn't an exact moment in time where the concept was invented; people have believed in deities or higher beings for thousands of years.

---

Ace -

Not only can I not prove anything, but even if I could, I probably wouldn't. Yet I still know that god exists without any doubt whatsoever. So no, no evidence is forthcoming from me., not even if I had it. I'd keep it to myself.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you have proof, enlighten us all with your knowledge. If you don't, why do you "know"?

[Ace Otana]

Ace -

Not only can I not prove anything, but even if I could, I probably wouldn't. Yet I still know that god exists without any doubt whatsoever. So no, no evidence is forthcoming from me., not even if I had it. I'd keep it to myself.

If that is the case, why should anyone take your beliefs seriously? Your beliefs have no credibility. That happens to be one of the biggest reason why people deconvert or never convert in the first place. No evidence, no credibility.
You say you know god exists. I don't believe you. I'm quite sure most others don't either.

So since there is no evidence, your claims have been dismissed. Dismissed as nothing more than baseless assertions.

[Godhead]

Each person becomes aware of the concept of god in their own time. It's not about history or a specific moment in time, as anybody at any time can develop a conscious awareness of the concept of god. And when that moment arrives for a person, they will immediately have a gut reaction to it. They'll either say yes I think it exists, or they'll say no I don't, I think the universe is godless, I think that there must be another explanation for the universe. Then they may or may not seek information to back up what they have already decided is the case. Most of the time it's a case of believing is seeing. You think there's a god, or that there isn't one, and as a result, you always see evidence to support your view, or that points to the strong possibility (in your view) that you're right. This shows that belief or disbelief in god is based more on "where you are" (how you tend to view things, your premises) than anything else. Every single one of us is predisposed to seeing things in a certain way, and this translates as all of our beliefs and what we don't believe in, in other words, our belief system and what we include or exclude from it. That's why they call it a point of view, it's where you are, where you stand, specifically it's more about you, than the subject matter. God either exists or it doesn't, but what is certain is that we are all predisposed to believe one way or the other. And also it goes goes beyond god, since the foundations of whether you are likely to believe in it or not are already there in your psychological makeup and your predisposition. So when the concept of god comes along for the first time, one will already have a tendancy and a likelihood to believe one way or the other already built in.

[Ace Otana]

I already know about people jumping to the god belief through verious reasons. I think any kind of belief in something so incredibly improbable is irrational, but that's just me.
I won't make a lengthy reply as I tend to get straight to the point.

(how you tend to view things, your premises)

Well quick answer, I view things scientificly. Never will I jump to a god conclusion (due to it's extreme improbability and no credibility).

There are many atheists like me who understands the concept of god very well, since many were once theists. It's not lack of understanding that pulls people away from belief in god. It's mostly due to the total lack of credibility.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I'm no good at explaining how I know that god exists but I wondered if any gnostic atheists could explain how there's no god. The "burden of proof" excuse doesn't apply to gnostic atheists.

You're not good at explaining it, because there's no rational causation for you to believe in god. You simply do. If you've proven anything from the other thread "Can Atheists Convert Theists?" thread, you've proven that you're either unwilling or unable to rationalize your beliefs, thus you rationalize that by saying you're not good at explaining it. The reason you can't explain your beliefs properly is because your mind can't really make that leap in any rational or logical sense and whenever you try to sit down and think about it, you draw a blank.
The burden of proof is still on anyone claiming god to exists, because it's a postulation without due evidence or even reason.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a gnostic theist, which means that I know that god exists.

No. It means you believe you know.

I already know about people jumping to the god belief through verious reasons. I think any kind of belief in something so incredibly improbable is irrational, but that's just me.

Not just you

[Godhead]

Ace -

You think you view things scientifically but in actual fact you don't. You are predisposed to a certain point of view and belief system, and everything you find or think you find supports what you are predisposed to believe. Not only are you as subjective as the next man, but in fact you are more subjective for your lack of awareness of the fact that you are subjective. It's like the blind leading the blind : Your assumption that you know something leads you to believe that you know, and so on. I wouldn't quite call it arrogance as it is based more on blindness than anything else. The same applies to the majority in the scientific community (read : clique).

[Edwardo Piet]

Ace -

You think you view things scientifically but in actual fact you don't.

From your point of view, so what? You've already asserted on another thread that you think the scientific method is just about insecure scientists patting each other on the back.

But then you are interested in David Icke.

[Ace Otana]

You are predisposed to a certain point of view and belief system,

Science isn't a belief system.

and everything you find or think you find supports what you are predisposed to believe.

What supports my belief and what is that belief you think I have? I judge based on probability and credibility. Not hard to understand. Your beliefs have no credibility hence why I don't believe in it.

Your assumption that you know something leads you to believe that you know

My assumption that I know something? Please point it out.

I wouldn't quite call it arrogance as it is based more on blindness than anything else.

I think it's arrogant and blind for you to claim to 'know' god's existance.

The same applies to the majority in the scientific community

The scientific community have some of the brightest minds, I wouldn't be so quick to call them arrogant. Since when has belief in god accomplish anything good?

[Edwardo Piet]

Since when has belief in god accomplished anything?

Depends what the goal is. If the goal is to cause some horrific shit throughout history and still somewhat to this day - then it's accomplished a lot.