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.
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.
