What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Edwardo Piet]

You can believe without knowledge but you can't 'know' without also believing.

[Spencer]

Then clearly we are using knowledge in two different syntaxes here.

[Paul the Human]

@EvF: In that case, what would you call a lack of belief that is based upon a lack of any knowledge of the claim having been made? And, what would you call a lack of belief based upon knowledge of and the dismissal of the truth of a claim that has been made?

[Tiberius]

Spencer:

Did people own cars before they were made?

I await your answer to this simple question.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then clearly we are using knowledge in two different syntaxes here.

I'll give you an example. A theist believes there is a God but that doesn't mean he 'knows' it because it obviously may not be true that God exists. However if he does 'know' it then that just means he believes in it + it is also true that God exists. He can't 'know' it if he doesn't also believe it.

@EvF: In that case, what would you call a lack of belief that is based upon a lack of any knowledge of the claim having been made? And, what would you call a lack of belief based upon knowledge of and the dismissal of the truth of a claim that has been made?

Lack of belief=disbelief. Disbelief has nothing to do with belief other than the fact it is what you call the state of not having belief.

Positively believing there is not a God and lacking belief in God is different.

[Paul the Human]

That's not what I'm saying, EvF. I'm saying that, in order to disbelieve in god(s), you must be aware of the claim that god(s) exist. If you are unaware of any such claim... you simply lack belief, because there is no concept in which to believe or disbelieve.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's not what I'm saying, EvF. I'm saying that, in order to disbelieve in god(s), you must be aware of the claim that god(s) exist.

How? In order to not collect stamps do you have to be aware that stamps exist?

If you are unaware of any such claim... you simply lack belief, because there is no concept in which to believe or disbelieve.

As I said. Disbelief=lack belief. Disbelieving can be done with or without knowledge. Because you can lack a belief in something whether you are aware of something or not.

[Tiberius]

@Paul, that all depends on which dictionary you use to define "disbelief". Disbelief can mean an active "I don't believe that!" or a more passive "I have no belief" (i.e. a synonym for non-belief).

Regardless, since atheists come in all forms, from non-believers to positive disbelievers, the non-believing atheists (who "lack" belief) must have come first.

[Spencer]

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.

---

I do need to go mow my lawn now because its been a week and it is becoming rather apparent that God isn't going to do anything about it. TTFN

[Paul the Human]

*chuckles*

Alright. I think we're saying the same thing, just in different ways, sorta. I think it's safe to say that we all agree that no one believed in god(s) prior to someone making the claim that god(s) exist... so 'atheists' came first. As in... people that did not believe in gods came before those that did.

(EDIT: Adrian clarified for me, in a way. By 'disbelief', I meant the act of actively disbelieving a claim... as opposed to simply lacking belief due to a lack of awareness that a claim has been made.)