What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Welsh cake]

so then do we agree atleast that the idea of there being a god propped up in a human mind earlier in history than did the idea of there not being a god?

it is not the same as the chicken and the egg at all.

You don't seem to quite grasp what is atheism in its broadest sense at all, so permit me to give you an example:

Unicornism is the position where someone actively believes in unicorns, regardless of whether they materialise in the physical universe and interact with humans or not.

A-Unicornism is the position where one rejects the beliefs of unicorns as unproven to be real or has a lack of belief in unicorns.

You are subsequently born a-unicornist because that's the default position; you cannot start off believing or actively denying or being anti-unicornist regarding these mythical one-horned beasts of lore without knowing the concept of them first.

Not knowing the beliefs (having an absence of belief) or rejecting Unicorns is not the same as denying the concept for unicorns, yet the two positions are mutually inclusive since if you're not an Unicornist you'd fall into the category of a-unicornism. One who has no belief in Unicorns, regardless of them either knowing or not knowing the concept, is by default a-unicornist because unicornism deals with what we believe, not what we know about them.

If you've never even heard of the concept of unicorns before, you are an a-unicornist.
If you've heard of the concept and regard it as not true, you are an a-unicornist.
If you hear about the concept and refute it as false, you are also a-unicornist.

Do you understand how all of this relates to atheism and the responses to theistic claims concerning deities by now?

[Skeptisma]

I find this conundrum may be best expressed two-fold. Yes, by nature, since deities are man-made, we are born without them. However, in order to label oneself an atheist, or even theist for that matter, that must wait until after the deities are created.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, of course, they are two different issues though.

[Skeptisma]

So, then you can technically answer the question in two ways. Problem solved, yes?

[DiRNiS]

While I lack belief in any gods, I don't really feel comfortable labelling myself an "atheist" as it implies that theism is the default position. Nobody is born believing in a deity until they learn about the concept of one.

Since we have all learned or heard of the concept of a god and do not believe in one due to lack of evidence or whatever reason, we are labelled "atheists".

However, most people have heard the concept of unicorns or Santa Claus and while they do not believe such concepts are real, nobody is calling them "a-unicornists" or "a-santaclausists" are they? So why should it be different with a god?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

However, most people have heard the concept of unicorns or Santa Claus and while they do not believe such concepts are real, nobody is calling them "a-unicornists" or "a-santaclausists" are they? So why should it be different with a god?

Even if the term 'atheist' came second, it doesn't really mean anything.
If anything, the term 'theist' had to be invented for believers in god (or other religions) and we who are not participants in any religion had to be called something. So, we're called atheists. We were here first and we even needed something to be referred as once there was a second philisophical player on the field.

... well, in any case, I don't think it's a status thing. If anything I tend to think of atheist being synonymous with 'rational thinker.' (Also, a good thing to call yourself if you don't like atheism.)

Personally, though, I think of Atheism just like black people think of the "N" word. Theists use it as a derogatory term toward us, so I think that proclaiming myself as an atheist is an excellent way to say what I believe in with pride.

[DiRNiS]

So I think that proclaiming myself as an atheist is an excellent way to say what I believe in with pride.

Or rather what you don't believe in.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, as Sam Harris has said, it's pretty silly labelling yourself for something you don't believe in. I wouldn't use the atheist label if it weren't for the fact that if I don't label myself others are just going to label me anyway. If someone asks me if I believe in God and I say "No" and they say "Oh, so you're an atheist" then I would be lying if I didn't say "Yes" because by definition I am an atheist whether the label is silly or not. It's just as silly as if I called myself a non-astrologer but "non-astrologer" isn't a common label with a dictionary definition for anyone who doesn't believe in astrology.

[leo-rcc]

You are correct of course, atheism is one of those weird labels that is used the wrong way around. The default should be no label unless you do something or adhere to something that deviates from the norm. I don't call myself avegan, or an atruckdriver. However through the centuries and not without substantial pressure from the churches in Europe and the Middle-East, belief in a god became the norm, so that is why we get stuck with labeling ourselves with something we are not. Weird if you think about it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah it is weird.

So whilst Sam Harris compares it to "non-astrologer" I don't think it is 100% comparable. I'd still like to challenge him with what do I do if someone says "Oh, so you're an atheist" - I'd be lying if I said no.

And nobody's really going to say "Ah, so you're a non-astrologer then" - so that's where the two aren't the same. There lies the difference, it's not a technical one, it's a practical one.