Theists ridicule atheists (warranted or not) all day and long about how arrogant atheists are for claiming to know God...

>Theists ridicule atheists (warranted or not) all day and long about how arrogant atheists are for claiming to know God doesn't exist with 100% certainty
>Yet they don't realize the irony of at the same time believing with 100% certainty God exists
Why does this double standard exist?

They made the claim first. Theists claimed, thousands of years ago, that divine power existed. They did this thousands of years before atheism became a thing.
Therefore, they need give evidence for their extraordinary claim first. Then atheists need to give evidence for their extraordinary claim.
See, neither side wants to go first and will say "DURRR U PRUV EET" because neither side genuinely has any direct evidence for or against the existence of divinity, due to the very nature of divinity.
So instead we get the same old back and forth between two groups of people who just generally rely on faith and belief instead of observation for their worldview. It doesn't help that the atheist/theist debate is often tied to partisan politics as well.

>person sees evidence

>mental illness!
Or
>must be my fairy tale

I don't mock atheists. I just kill them, torture them, send them to internment camps, and murder everyone they love for being atheist too.

I'm pretty sure this post breaks some kind of law

>theists argue that all morality is subjective because God wrote it right here in this book and anything outside that book is pure unrepentant sin (Romans 1:18, 3:10-12)

>theists fail to realize that other cultures have other books of divine law before and after both testaments which assert more or less the same thing, and bluntly assert it's a cosmological IMPOSSIBILITY for anyone following any other system to do ANY form of goodness or justice in the world

What did they mean by this?

t. Achmed

hello, red dit

you don't fit in

Get the fuck back to /pol/

>They made the claim first.
Do you have a single fact to back this up?

Atheists did not have to make a claim.
Atheism is the natural state. Raise a baby without exposing them to any form of religion and see if they develop indepedently a form of religion even closely approximating any of those we have now.
Religion is a meme. It's an idea that is compatible with human society and so spreads quickly once one person has come up with it, but it is not the natural state of being.

Great, then how did religion develop? Also, I’m sure you have a scientific study of such a child raised without religion so you can provide proof to your claim?

>Great, then how did religion develop?
Lunatics and drug addicted shamen hearing the voices of rocks.

They develop the same way any other ideas develop.
Storytelling was probably a major past time of prehistoric man, after basic language had developed but before writing. Stories were passed down from generation to generation and became significant tribal myths. The most evocative of these were probably tales that explained the origins of the tribes as it provided an answer to some of the most fundamental questions of existence those early men had (who are we, what is this place, what is our purpose here) and slowly they developed into early forms of religions.

Proof is in the historical accounts of missionaries encountering uncontacted tribes who had never heard of god much less the Christian god.

Also if you've been inside any church at all, you would have heard of "spreading the gospel". The fact that religion must be actively spread in order to perpetuate should clue you in that it is something that has to be taught, and not natural.

they will just say the pagans stole it from the Jews/Christians

>you can be addicted to mushrooms or DMT

>Evidence
>the available body of facts of information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

I saw thing doesn't fit that definition user.

Well seeing as the first Atheist was a Greek thinker of the 5th century BC and religion has existed since Mesopotamian civilizations and before ya, I do.

The idea of a deity has existed for all of human civilisation. Theists made the claim of god(s) first.

Why would anyone have ever claimed that there are no gods unless people were already claiming that there are gods?

The lack of an idea of a deity existed for much longer than there existed an idea of a deity, just like the idea for fire, the wheel, and everything else.

Proof? There's objective proof that religion came before the first (known) Atheist. Do you have proof for the opposite?

Got any proof for that?

Why would anyone have ever claimed there were gods unless there was lack of belief in a god or gods in the first place.

What you're essentially arguing is that an idea somehow preceded its own conception, which is impossible.

It's dialectics
Theism was the thesis
Atheism was created as it's opposite, antithesis
Atheism is by definition a reactionary idea. It was created in direct response to theism.

Atheism is just a description of someone who lacks religion, also your shitty etymological argument is in no way dialectics.

No, Agnosticism is that
Atheism is the outright proclamation that there is certainly no God

Theism is the outright proclomation that there is a god though.

>Atheism is the outright proclamation that there is certainly no God
Nearly to none hold to that (meaningless without a religious context) statement, so what's the point defining it like that?

>Theism is the outright proclomation that there is a god though.
Not just that. It is a complete compliance with one of religious doctrines.

See Religion is a collection of ideas and ideas are a product of human thought.
All thoughts have a finite beginning and take time to come up with, since they are a product of the human brain which is constrained by the physics and its own biology. If you disagree with this and claim that the idea of religion somehow precedes the formation of a brain capable of thought, then the onus is on you to prove it which you can't.

Modern humans are homo sapiens but we evolved to this stage from common ancestors of other species. Other species from which we can clearly see aren't capable of even a fraction of the complexity of thoughts we are capable of, despite having brains. Evolution alone tells us that the lack of a religion must have preceded religion if only for the fact that our brains used to be not even capable of being self aware.

Compliance with the religious doctrine that proclaims there is a god.

You're comparing a specific refined religious outlook and theology vs the basic incidence of religion, which is nonsensical to do.

>Atheism is just a description of someone who lacks religion
Excuse me, but that would be irreligion. You can be a religious atheist.

Agnosticism is actually an extreme scientism position that was invented in the 19th Century. And the guy that invented it said to religious people that as they were concerned he was an atheist.

So you're saying that a baby who grows up without religion would inevitably come up with one in an attempt to explain the world around it. Doesn't have to be a developed religion as animism is a thing.

That's not atheism tho. Those earlier hominids lived life without religion but they didn't sit down and say "fancying the concepts of god, I find it lacking. I don't believe in God."
They had NO CONCEPT of God. They were agnostics and ignorant to the idea of universal creation because they were so primitive. They also didn't entertain concepts of politics.
First, the hominids were agnostic and ignorant to the discussion. Then they were Theists. Then atheists popped up, who, understanding religion, came to an opposite conclusion.

You can't really prove that the first modern humans didn't believe in some kind of supernatural power to explain phenomena either.

Nevertheless the point stands. No one would know about X religion unless be told of it first, which completely destroys the "religion/theism came first!" argument.

>religious atheism
Nice oxymoron

Buddhists? Atheist cult members?

>Atheists ridicule theists (warranted or not) all day and long about how arrogant theists are for claiming to know God exists with 100% certainty
>Yet they don't realize the irony of at the same time believing with 100% certainty God doesn't exists
Why does this double standard exist?

What you just said was essentially
>theistic atheism
And how is Buddhism not a religion.

>Buddhists
Generally believe in all kinds of mumbo-jumbo about various deities
>Atheist cult members
memes

Theism =/= religion in terms of religon(n.) - a system of faith or ideas or practices

Buddhism has deities as part of its traditions.

Yeah, both types of people making claims with certainty about the creation of the universe are retarded.

You can, based on the fact that they evolved from a lesser (in terms of brain capability) animal. If you believe and take evolution to be true, then at any point in early man's development where they were able to conceptualize god there had to have existed a period prior to that where they did not or were not able to.

To point to a specific time period in our evolution a say "this! here is the starting point where we will treat the formation of religion as the first thing that ever happened!" is wrong.

But they don't have to to be a Buddhist

Still doesn't rule out buddhism

I never said Buddhism isn't a religion

Right, they weren't atheists tho. They were completely ignorant to the topic.
The first ever claim one way or the other was theism. This can be observed from ancient kingdoms and tribal peoples that predate the first espoused atheist (one who is not ignorant of the discussion) by thousands of years.
None of the cavemen people you're talking about ever declared the lack of godly existence. They didn't even know what a "God" was.

How exactly does that follow? We're arguing about whether or not humanity has a basic drive toward theism and your evidence against that is that it gives differing results?

>you can
No you can't, the first sentient human being might have revered the sun as some kind of spiritual god. He might've fashioned himself a fedora.
>where they were not able to
Doesn't count, I might as well claim my dog is an atheist because she can't conceptualise the idea if a deity.

2000 years of culture and progress>edgy contrarian pseudo-scientists

So edgy xdXdxD

If they didn't believe in "God" they were atheists.

Great, guess every animal on the planet barring humans are atheists.
Atheists LITERALLY make the claim that no God exists. You can't make that claim IF YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF GOD.

>Atheists LITERALLY make the claim that no God exists.
No they don't. They make the claim that they don't believe in God. I agree though that being an atheist necessitates cognizance of the topic.

Well, let's agree to disagree with the definition of atheism then because we'd just be going in circles otherwise.

No that's wrong as well. Even though the word atheism was invented in response to theism, you also have no proof that the " basic concept" of atheism was not concurrent with or precede the concept of theism, even if your semantics tries to refute it.

For example, let's say there was caveman A and caveman B both living at the same time in prehistory. You can't prove that there wasn't a scenario where caveman A was thinking "I am all there is on this earth" (in concordance with, and essentially atheism) while caveman B was thinking "I bet there exists a higher being that made me and everything here".

It's more anti-theism that makes the argument that there is definitely no God.

Who really cares, there's multiple definitions, you can choose whatever one you want.

See Saying they had no concept of theism is another assumption and artificial constraint you've made.

If we're talking early man, then atheism is essentially synonymous with non-belief.

You're right, I can't prove that, nor can you prove the opposite. I can prove that the earliest known civilizations were religious however. Everything before that, with no records, is conjecture.

Extant species of our early evolutionary ancestors says you're wrong.

If they are incapable of the prerequisite thoughts to come up with theism there has to be a period prior to theism where non belief was the norm. Also your proof is not proof, as the presence of religion in a civilization says nothing of the precedence of atheism/theism. China has internet. Does that mean they always had internet?

mfw

The whole idea we need to establish which idea came first in our consciousness isnt needed to solve this.

It doesnt matter if people have always been religious as a result of their quest to find meaning. Religious beliefs by definition involve the supernatural and cannot be proved outside of the mind of the believer to have any bearing on reality. Ergo there is no reason to think any religious belief is true; combine that with actual reality contradicting rleigious beliefs, there is indeed more reason, at least if one is concerned with truth, to actively think the opposite.

Well said.

Okay, Doctor Phil. At least we both have actual opinions instead of this generic drivel.

Yeah no sorry, I was raised as an atheist and I've seen constant shit-flinging from atheists towards theists (more specifically christians) from as long as I can recall.

Retarded argument
You can't say that lacking the intelligence for the concept of religion makes you an atheist.
Is a cat or a parrot atheists?
Is bacterium atheist?

what if we both see it at the same time

only in western secular "buddhism", per the pali canon its a required article of faith

>not a real scotsman

The Pali Canon is not the ultimate authority in Mahayana Buddhism, which is what the majority of Buddhists are. Really, Buddhism has no singular, agreed upon canon and the sources it draws from are stupidly vast compared to other religions. You don't even have to believe in the historical Buddha to be a Buddhist, you just have to regard the dharma more highly than other religions, and belief in devas or psychic powers is cool but not really relevant to praxis.

In Tibet, Buddhism syncretized with Bon, and in China it syncretized with Taoism. It makes perfect sense that westerners would add their own elements to it.

Atheists claim to attempt to have a purely rational empirical evidence based worldview, so when they do something completely contrary like claim God does not exist it looks hypocritical and retarded.

If you want to escape the false dichotomy then be intellectually honest and be an Agnostic.

If you want to ascend to a higher plane of existence convert to Orthodox Christianity.

In modern usage, many atheists hold "agnostic" to mean "not claiming to know the truth value regarding the existence of deities" and most atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist but rather that they don't believe in God. Agnosticism and atheism under these understandings wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

FYI there are a number of Mahayana outfits that keep large swaths of the Pali canon.

The Kangyur (Tibetan canon) is over a quarter Pali Canon.

It's all semantics, all smart atheists claim to be an "agnostic" or "weak" atheist, but it doesn't matter what they think agnostic to mean, it's its own position. It's the distinct position of
>it's unknowable, so I can make no claim nor have any belief.

To further my point, if you ask any atheist
>does God exist?
no matter what words they use to muddle their meaning, says something that basically amounts to
>no

>Agnostic athiest : one who does not know with certainty whether god exists or not.
>All of knowledge of nature is based upon inductive reasoning and we know nothing with certainty.
>Turning agnostic atheism into a rational statement in regards to belief in god leads one to state that there equiprobable odds of either god existing or not.
>How can one call themselves an atheist if they have a 50% belief in god?

You have no proof tribes didn't have local politics, of that they didn't have a primitive undeveloped religion, it's pointless and just as unprovable as the thing your bitching about

Wrong, friend. They'll say "I don't know."

>being agnostic about God, a proposed spaceless timeless metaphysical entity, means you must be agnostic about everything
>being agnostic means that you think it's a literal coin toss

>no point of debating about afterlife anymore
the whole point of god or at least it has been for a few thousand years including the muslim god
>no one ever bothers to even define god
literally no fun allowed these threads

God - a spaceless, timeless, metaphysical entity responsible for the universe's formation, having the attributes of volition, self-awareness, mindfulness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and perhaps omnipresence
deity - a supernatural entity worshiped by humans, usually having power/abilities far surpassing humans

Additional attributes for God - not having any contingency, not being able to change, being ultimately perfect, being ultimately moral, being ultimately simple

let me ask if a belief in such a perfect being is related in anyway to lets say jesus and do you think he was temporarily a vessel for such a being
or just a belief in a perfect being which is much more reasonable even though it is still unreasonable

Not necessarily related. Classical theism metaphysics attempts to describe and demonstrate the necessity of a God as defined. Christian theology attempts to connect that God to Jesus and the rest. I'm an atheist.

I think it's most likely that there is no god, or atleast one who doesn't interfere with us. But I hope it's real

YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT THE EASTER BUNNY ISN'T REAL

YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THE EASTER BUNNY IS REAL AND HE WILL REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU

>YOU CAN'T KNOW
read socrates pleb

>implying only someone history remembers could have been the first atheist
what in the thousand fucks kind of logic is this?

>Atheists ridicule theists (warranted or not) all day and long about how arrogant theists are for claiming to know God exists with 100% certainty
>Yet they don't realize the irony of at the same time believing with 100% certainty God doesn't exist

I am not certain that an entity that could be considered as a god doesn't exist but I'm pretty fucking certain it isn't the one from the bible or the quran, the concept of a god being all mighty, all knowing and good is pure bullshit, why if god is good did he create peoples unequal and selfish ? Why did he create a humanity that is constantly at war and likes violence ? He knew it would turn out that way because he is all knowing, if god is all knowing then he is a sadist because the whole world is of his creation and he purposefully set up every actor's in his universe to do what they do being (war, theft, murder and other nasty things that peoples call sins included) .