What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Tiberius]

Wikipedia: "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Dictionary.com: "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

American Heritage: "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

I could go on, but I think I've made my point with the above. (bolding mine). Wikipedia describes atheism as denial, as believing there is no God, and then goes on to say that "most inclusively" it refers to the absence of belief (not believing). Dictionary.com describes it as a disbelief. The American Heritage goes one further and makes sure to include the separator "or" to make sure that people like yourself don't try to confuse disbelief and denial, because they are quite evidently completely different things.

and of course you refuse to believe in god! do you not indicate an unwillingness to believe in god?

Since when is an unwillingness to believe equal to a refusal to believe? Unwillingness is another word for reluctance, and you can be reluctant yet still go through with something, whereas you can't be said to refuse to do something and do it.

Regardless, I'm not unwilling to believe. I'm perfectly willing. All I require is some evidence.

[Paul the Human]

Refuse: v. re·fused, re·fus·ing, re·fus·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow: She was refused admittance. He refused treatment.
b. To indicate unwillingness (to do something): refused to leave.
2. To decline to jump (an obstacle). Used of a horse.
v.intr.
To decline to do, accept, give, or allow something..

Lack: 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a halt.
2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
v.tr.
To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
v.intr.
1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but proof was lacking.
2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends.

I do not refuse belief. I lack it. There is a difference.

[Edwardo Piet]

before you mentioned it, i neither believed nor didn't believe in it.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Disbelief is merely the absence of belief. Belief and disbelief is a true dichotomy.

EvF

[Tiberius]

owning cars? who's talking about owning? believing is what we are talking about. of course your analogy makes things seems ridiculous. and you accuse me of moving off topic to distract! comparing belief in god to owning cars = wtf?

The analogy makes perfect sense. That you are not getting it isn't my fault.

You argument follows that if the concept does not exist, there can be no position on it. You use this argument to say that before the God concept existed, people neither believed nor disbelieved.

All I am doing is using the same argument with different things; substituting the concept of God for a car, and belief for ownership. Ownership is a position on something, just as belief is, so you cannot argue that belief is somehow an exception to the analogy.

Did people 1000 years ago own cars or not?

[Cecco]

wiki: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

rejection. by your logic an ant is an atheist. but an ant doesn't reject deities. you cannot reject something you are not aware of.

and no disbelief is not merely the absence of belief, it is the refusal or reluctance to bellieve.

[Tiberius]

I already posted the Wikipedia description; the one stating "most inclusively". If you are going to pick a definition of atheism that doesn't cover all atheists, then you aren't making a point on atheism itself, but rather a specific brand of atheism.

Disbelief (as in non-belief) is the absence of belief. Disbelief can be a refusal of belief, yes, but like most words, it has multiple meanings. As I've used the word "non-belief" here repeatedly, maybe I should have clarified that I am using "disbelief" as a synonym.

If you want, I'll change my argument to suit your use of disbelief. I don't disbelieve, I don't believe. If disbelieving involves rejecting belief, then I'm certainly not a disbeliever, but I am a non-believer, since I don't have any belief in God.

[Edwardo Piet]

But of course it's still perfectly correct for you to say disbelief equates to non-belief since the "dis" prefix means absence of in this case.

EvF

[leo-rcc]

What came first? The theist. He is the one that has to say "I believe there is this being that created everything and everyone." so another person can say that he or she is talking bullocks.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rocks are atheists since they lack belief in God. They merely don't label themselves as such since they can't

[Godhead]

Theism is more natural than atheism, I think theism definitely came first. I think that if you took x number of newborn babies and raised them away from all societies, and didn't mention anything to do with god, most of them would be theists.