(July 30, 2010 at 2:17 pm)Spencer Wrote: No people didn't own cars before they existed because they didn't have the knowledge to gather the materials and manipulate them in such a way to make an automobile. I apologize if I have kept you waiting long for a response. But at some point people believed that they could exist and began to develop and gain knowledge for how to pursue this invention. Sounds familiar.

No, people didn't own cars before they existed for the very simple reason that it was impossible to own them. It has nothing to do with knowledge, nothing to do with believing. If something doesn't exist, you cannot own it.

If a certain position (i.e. "God exists") doesn't exist, you cannot believe in it.

Ergo, just as the people who lived before cars were invented didn't own cars, the people who lived before the idea of God was invented didn't have beliefs in God.

What do we call people who don't have beliefs in God? Atheists.

Q.E.D.

I honestly thought there was a better trap for the bait you laid for me.

I do apologize but that logic just doesn't work for me.

Lets pretend for a moment that religion never existed, no one ever "believed" in a god or gods, never mentioned it or brought it up, didn't use them to explain the unknown none of that, everyone had complete understand of evolution and exactly how the earth and universe operated and had perfectly logical explanations for everything.

Would atheism exist?

Yes. Theism would not. The word 'atheist' would never have been created, since theism would never have existed, but... having no belief in god(s) is atheism. Just because the word would not exist, doesn't mean people would not be atheists.

(July 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm)Spencer Wrote: Would atheism exist?

Technically yes. Because no one would have any religious faith or belief of god or religion.
Thus, everyone on the planet in this hypotheical earth would be atheists.

A utopia for certain, though I'm sure people would just find another excuse to fight one another and the otters as well, since our science is better than their science.

This is the mistake others have made in this thread. The topic of the thread is not whether the concept of theism or atheism came first, it is whether theists or atheists came first.

Now I'd agree that the concept of theism came along well before the concept of atheism, because concepts do involve active thought; you need to understand a concept. Therefore the positive belief in something (i.e. theism) would come before the concept of not believing in it (atheism).

However, these concepts, applied retrospectively, show that the first people were atheists, for they had no beliefs concerning Gods. They didn't call themselves atheists, they didn't know they were atheists, they had no ideas about what Gods were, but they still fulfill the requirements for being an atheist: they didn't have a belief in God.

If you want another example of retrospective labeling, when humans first evolved as a separate species, they didn't know they were humans, because the term was coined much much later. They didn't know they were, they didn't call themselves humans, and they certainly didn't know what on Earth "humans" were. However, by the definition of the word, they were humans.

So if you can deny that atheists cannot be atheists if they don't know about atheism, then you can easily argue (using the same logic) that humans cannot be humans if they don't understand what "humans" are. Quite ridiculous in my view.

I agree the first people did not have a belief in gods, but to use your words they hadn't been exposed to the concepts of theism yet. Or we could use my words and say they had no knowledge of the idea of a or of multiple gods.

This argument is circular!

I agree to disagree. Again.

I don't see anything circular about it. Before the concept of god(s), no one believed in god(s). That makes sense. Those people were atheists. They didn't have that word yet, but they were, indeed, 'without belief in gods', which is what atheist means.

(July 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm)Spencer Wrote: Lets pretend for a moment that religion never existed, no one ever "believed" in a god or gods, never mentioned it or brought it up, didn't use them to explain the unknown none of that, everyone had complete understand of evolution and exactly how the earth and universe operated and had perfectly logical explanations for everything.

Would atheism exist?

Yes, but only weak/negative/soft/implicit/passive/agnostic atheism. That's the lack of belief type which does not actively state there is no god, but only has a lack of belief. There would definitely need to be a concept of god though, before anyone could be a strong/positive/hard/explicit/active/gnostic atheist.

Weak = lack of belief only, without it mattering whether or not the concept exists yet.
Strong = active disbelief, and the god concept needs to exist first in order to reject it.

Both are considered atheism.

(July 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I don't see anything circular about it. Before the concept of god(s), no one believed in god(s). That makes sense. Those people were atheists. They didn't have that word yet, but they were, indeed, 'without belief in gods', which is what atheist means.

Its circular because I say one thing, you say another. Round and round we go.

---

(July 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:

(July 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm)Spencer Wrote: Lets pretend for a moment that religion never existed, no one ever "believed" in a god or gods, never mentioned it or brought it up, didn't use them to explain the unknown none of that, everyone had complete understand of evolution and exactly how the earth and universe operated and had perfectly logical explanations for everything.

Would atheism exist?

Yes, but only weak/negative/soft/implicit/passive/agnostic atheism. That's the lack of belief type which does not actively state there is no god, but only has a lack of belief. There would definitely need to be a concept of god though, before anyone could be a strong/positive/hard/explicit/active/gnostic atheist.

Weak = lack of belief only, without it mattering whether or not the concept exists yet.
Strong = active disbelief, and the god concept needs to exist first in order to reject it.

Both are considered atheism.

I disagree. With no belief in a higher power there would be no need for theism, rendering atheism obsolete. Would the terms even exist in our language today if my example above were true?

Theism created Atheism.

(July 30, 2010 at 5:16 pm)Spencer Wrote: I disagree. With no belief in a higher power there would be no need for theism, rendering atheism obsolete. Would the terms even exist in our language today if my example above were true?

Theism created Atheism.

The prefix 'a' in front of 'theism' only means 'without'. It does not have to include thoughts of rejection about the concept, so there is no need for the concept to exist. This form of atheism is the type referred to when people say that babies start out as atheist. They have never heard of, or understood about what gods might be, so they are by default without a belief in it.

Some atheists, like myself, are the 'strong' type, since I actively state that gods do not exist. While I am to start with, without a belief in gods (which is all that's in the definition of atheism), I have personally added an active belief statement of 'I know there are definitely no gods' on top of that lack of belief. The strong form is the only type you are currently considering to be atheism, when in fact the other way around is true, the 'weak' form is the only thing that is required and defined under the definition.

Also, the actual word for atheism would not exist without theism there first.