What came first?

[Lysimachus]

Religion or Humans? Being the Atheist I am, i'm firmly convinced that religion is simply a human invention and that things won't come true because you "believe" they will. Will the theists of the forum care to explain how religion does exist?

[motiv-8]

If you're an atheist or secular anthropologist, humans came first. If you're religious then your answer would typically be that religion came first as it was God who revealed the traditions, beliefs, and values to mankind. Or perhaps that the spirituality which guides a person is innate and pre-existing and the human soul taps into it.

[MaximiIian]

IIf you're religious then your answer would typically be that religion came first as it was God who revealed the traditions, beliefs, and values to mankind.

Even then, humans would have to exist first in order to form a religion from those teachings. No humans, no religion. Regardless of whether you think a specific religion's teachings or principles are divinely-inspired/-revealed or not, they would not have been organised into a tangible system without sapient mortal beings, i.e. us, to do it.

[Lysimachus]

Even then, humans would have to exist first in order to form a religion from those teachings. No humans, no religion. Regardless of whether you think a specific religion's teachings or principles are divinely-inspired/-revealed or not, they would not have been organised into a tangible system without sapient mortal beings, i.e. us, to do it.

So basically, religion doesn't exist then. You can't sugar coat it, nothing will come true just because you're told to "believe" in it.

[MaximiIian]

So basically, religion doesn't exist then.

No, religions certainly exist. I do not even know how you can come to the conclusion that they don't.

nothing will come true just because you're told to "believe" in it.

For one, not one told me to believe in anything. I came to polytheism on my own accord.
Second, why do you have "believe" in quotations? That makes no sense.
And third- of course simply believing something is true doesn't make it true. But neither does not believing something make it not true. Religious opinions are just that- opinions, and there's no reason to get worked up over them.

[SigniferOne]

If you're an atheist or secular anthropologist, humans came first.

I don't know, I think Christians might agree entirely. The Bible doesn't talk about anything different, and for instance Adam does not worship God in the way that the later Hebrews do. There is in fact a clear moment, a point, from which Hebrews and the worship of God appear in full form, and that moment comes with Abraham. It's why we call Judaism-Christianity-Islam the "Abrahamic" religions, rather than something like "one God" religions, or "Yahweh" religions. Besides the latter being inappropriate, the point more pertinent here is that he authored the idea for the first time. No other religion in the history of the world (as far as we can tell) talked of the infinite omnipotent one God.

[Helm]

No other religion in the history of the world (as far as we can tell) talked of the infinite omnipotent one God.

There were/are monotheistic religions that predated the Abrahamic religions or else developed independently from them.

[Moorish guy]

the chicken would have had to come first seeing as how the new genes would have to passed down from the species that came before it.

[Elfdude]

the chicken would have had to come first seeing as how the new genes would have to passed down from the species that came before it.

Considering genetics the proverbial chicken would not be a chicken. It would start as the proverbial prechicken who would produce the next generation which would produce the next generation etc with mutations reaching closer and closer to what a real chicken has. Eventually an egg would be produced with all of the mutations in place to be considered a 'true' chicken. Thus the egg comes first.

Quite obviously humanity comes first. Though if you consider illogical beliefs such as OH GOD THE VACUUM IS GOING TO GET ME from your pets maybe religion isn't the sole property of humans

[tholi]

Considering genetics the proverbial chicken would not be a chicken. It would start as the proverbial prechicken who would produce the next generation which would produce the next generation etc with mutations reaching closer and closer to what a real chicken has. Eventually an egg would be produced with all of the mutations in place to be considered a 'true' chicken. Thus the egg comes first.

Quite obviously humanity comes first. Though if you consider illogical beliefs such as OH GOD THE VACUUM IS GOING TO GET ME from your pets maybe religion isn't the sole property of humans

Got a question for you. What exactly is a real chicken?

Also, one thing you've all got to keep in mind is language itself and the differing definitions we carry. I'm sure you're all quite aware of this, but many arguments are being made in which people are simply using incompatible definitions, wittingly or not. (I can understand not wanting to debate semantics, however, so please carry on!)

[Elfdude]

Got a question for you. What exactly is a real chicken?

Also, one thing you've all got to keep in mind is language itself and the differing definitions we carry. I'm sure you're all quite aware of this, but many arguments are being made in which people are simply using incompatible definitions, wittingly or not. (I can understand not wanting to debate semantics, however, so please carry on!)

You're debating literary semantics not scientific semantics. What I said, in science, would obviously refer to a chicken who is close enough genetically to produce viable offspring with the common chicken. I can't be blamed if you don't understand the scientific jargon that they teach everyone in middle school.

[TheXand]

Humans came first, then as desire for a greater knowledge of the world around them, created ways of trying to explain the phenomena around them, what better way than even bigger and more powerful humanoids with greater capacity to affect the environment around them. Also, I imagine the innate desire of most human beings to believe in a higher calling and a greater purpose to life would have played a big role in fuelling the rise of religion.

[Fiyenyaa]

I don't imagine that the first humans had any kind of organised belief systems - but then I don't imagine that they had an especially rational wordview either.
It's likely that religion developed alongside culture, I would think.

[Copperknickers II]

I'd say religion, because we know that not just homo sapiens had religious beliefs, but at least homo neanderthalis, possibly even earlier.

[Lupu]

No humans=No religion.
You can't have religion if there are no people to believe in it. You can have God, but not religion.

[Poach]

Humans came first, whether or not you're a theist.

If you're an atheist, humans came first because religion is a human invention.

If you're a theist, humans came first because God had to create believers-to-be before he could begin the belief.

[Arch-hereticK]

Pre-human primates had their own religions, so religions came before humans, but not primates.

[Lysimachus]

No, religions certainly exist. I do not even know how you can come to the conclusion that they don't.

Even then, humans would have to exist first in order to form a religion from those teachings. No humans, no religion.

No, if that's how you feel then religious can't possibly exist. It's basically being forced to believe in things for the hell of it, a little bit of myth/legend slapped upon it to make it seem mysterious and then being branded as a "religion".

Second, why do you have "believe" in quotations? That makes no sense.

Because religion is just a complete joke. Since when does believing something mean it will come true? I could start believing that you're going to die within the next ten years, and I could believe really hard in it but it won't come true (unless a freak accident happens). That's why I don't buy in to religion. Yes, we don't know our origins but simply choosing to believe whatever you like doesn't make it any more true whether a religion has five supporters or five billion supporters.

And third- of course simply believing something is true doesn't make it true. But neither does not believing something make it not true. Religious opinions are just that- opinions, and there's no reason to get worked up over them.

What? The point here is that theists think that believing something means it'll come true. I stated above that nothing will come true just by thinking it's going to happen so what is there else to say? Religion is simply a bunch of deluded con-men deceiving people in to buying in to what they're saying, and half of the people responsible for the creation of religion were probably hallucinating half of the things that feature in their holy inscriptions. Yes, harsh but I just can't get my head around it. I can't get my head around the fact that theists are convinced that believing in something makes is true. Judging by your first post on this thread I would have thought you would have been agnostic, but when you acknowledge that humans created religion (therefore that simply means that religion can't possibly exist) it just doesn't seem to make sense that you're polytheistic. If things are real, us humans have to make them. We can't just believe in them, because our it is impossible for thoughts to transform in to matter.

[MaximiIian]

No, if that's how you feel then religion can't possibly exist.

I think you have a really skewed idea of what the word "exist" means.

The point here is that theists think that believing something means it'll come true.

No, that's your perspective on it. That's not what is going through a theist's mind.

but when you acknowledge that humans created religion (therefore that simply means that religion can't possibly exist)

That doesn't make any sense. If humans created religions, then religions most certainly do exist. Because, as you yourself said, people created religion.

it just doesn't seem to make sense that you're polytheistic.

Because I acknowledge that humans created religion? You're not making sense here. Just because humans created religion does not mean that they created the objects of religious devotion.

[Helm]

I'm guessing there were extraterrestrial religions around before human religions.