What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[Spencer]

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

Exactly my point.

[Scented Nectar]

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

Exactly my point.

But the word used to describe a thing, is NOT the same as the thing itself.

Atheism existed before the concepts of gods. The word for it, 'atheism' existed after the concepts of gods.

Two different things entirely.

[Spencer]

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

Exactly my point.

But the word used to describe a thing, is NOT the same as the thing itself.

Atheism existed before the concepts of gods. The word for it, 'atheism' existed after the concepts of gods.

Two different things entirely.

Yes atheism exists to us NOW as a result of theism we can refer to them as atheists I will agree with you there. No question.

Also this baby example keeps coming up. Is the question what are we as humans first? or am I reading the question wrong. Maybe the OP can weigh in on this.

[Scented Nectar]

Yes atheism exists to us NOW as a result of theism we can refer to them as atheists I will agree with you there. No question.

No, only thoughts about and words for atheism exist as a result of theism. The atheism itself existed by default before anyone thought up god-belief. Before anyone thought it up, everyone was without that god-belief and therefore atheist.

Also this baby example keeps coming up. Is the question what are we as humans first? or am I reading the question wrong. Maybe the OP can weigh in on this.

That is probably because it is quite common for atheists to get told by people (believers though usually) that it is impossible for anyone to be atheist before ever hearing about gods and that babies are born believers by default. I think that's why it gets used as an example so much on this type of topic. That's why I was so quick to use it, even though you are not one of those people who claim theism is the default. I think you are claiming that 'nothing' is the default? Atheism is a subset of nothing, in that it is the absence of one particular thing, theism.

[Tiberius]

Yes atheism exists to us NOW as a result of theism we can refer to them as atheists I will agree with you there. No question.

Also this baby example keeps coming up. Is the question what are we as humans first? or am I reading the question wrong. Maybe the OP can weigh in on this.

No, atheism (the thing) is not the result of theism. "belief in God" doesn't need to exist in order to "not have belief in God", just as cars don't have to exist in order to not have them either.

Atheism (the word) is a result of theism, but what atheism describes (i.e. the non-belief in God) is as old as the universe itself.

The baby example is simple. Do newborn babies believe in God? No, for the same reason they don't believe in Santa Clause; they don't have the capacity of understanding to believe yet. So if they don't have a belief in God, what are they? Oh yes...atheists! Passive ones, I'll grant you that, but atheists all the same.

[Spencer]

No, atheism (the thing) is not the result of theism. "belief in God" doesn't need to exist in order to "not have belief in God", just as cars don't have to exist in order to not have them either.

My point if you were to speak to a primitive man before the introduction and ideals of god(s) and asked him if he was an atheist, he would give you a blank stare not knowing what you were talking about.

Atheism (the word) is a result of theism, but what atheism describes (i.e. the non-belief in God) is as old as the universe itself.

Yes. I understand. But the actual non belief of God is only as old as the belief of God. If there is a planet out there that hasn't been discovered yet, its not that we don't believe its there, its that we don't know about it yet. Once we see the argument for said planet, we then chose to believe it or not.

The baby example is simple. Do newborn babies believe in God? No, for the same reason they don't believe in Santa Clause; they don't have the capacity of understanding to believe yet. So if they don't have a belief in God, what are they? Oh yes...atheists! Passive ones, I'll grant you that, but atheists all the same.

I don't need an explanation for what this scenario meant, i just don't see how it fits into the discussion. However Scented Nectar explained that very well.

[Tiberius]

My point if you were to speak to a primitive man before the introduction and ideals of god(s) and asked him if he was an atheist, he would give you a blank stare not knowing what you were talking about.

No, but then since when did being able to answer a specific question become the determining factor to someone being an atheist?

He might not have a clue what I'm talking about, but if he doesn't have any belief in God, he is an atheist by definition.

Yes. I understand. But the actual non belief of God is only as old as the belief of God. If there is a planet out there that hasn't been discovered yet, its not that we don't believe its there, its that we don't know about it yet. Once we see the argument for said planet, we then chose to believe it or not.

No, think about what you are saying for more than 2 seconds. "Non belief" is a state of "no belief" regarding a certain subject. If that subject doesn't exist in your mind yet, then you cannot have any beliefs regarding it, and so you are in a state of "no belief" regarding that subject. You don't know it of course, but that isn't the point here.

Again, there is a difference between "don't believe" and "no belief" in the way you put it. You are trying to make this about active disbelief, which is a strawman argument seeing as we have already told you this has nothing to do with it. We've covered active disbelief, and we agree with you on it. This has nothing to do with choosing belief, this has everything to do with default belief, and the default belief is that of "no belief". It isn't a chosen non-belief, but a passive non-belief (or passive disbelief).

I don't need an explanation for what this scenario meant, i just don't see how it fits into the discussion. However Scented Nectar explained that very well.

Of course it fits into the discussion. Like the babies, people who lived before the whole "God" idea came about were just as incapable of having thoughts regarding Gods. They share the same passive disbelief (or non-belief) as the babies, and they are all atheists.

[Scented Nectar]

Spencer, I'm not sure you are understanding this at all.

A-THEISM =
WITHOUT-THEISM =
NOT-THEISM

The prefix A, simply means without or not. It doesn't require the person to know that they are without the thing. It just means they are without it.

You are an afgthujhujfjist. You have never heard of fgthujhujfjism but that's because the belief in fgthujhujfjs won't be thought of for another 1000 years. Since you are without any belief in fgthujhujfjis, and you are not a believer in fgthujhujfjis, you are an afgthujhujfjist, even though no one has even thought it up yet.

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a-
Main Entry: 2a-
Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ā also (ˈ)a or (ˈ)ä\
Variant(s): or an- \(ˈ)an\
Function: prefix
Etymology: Latin & Greek; Latin, from Greek — more at un-
: not : without <asexual> —a- before consonants other than h and sometimes even before h, an- before vowels and usually before h <achromatic> <ahistorical> <anastigmatic> <anhydrous>

from http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?q=a
a- (often an- before a vowel) 1
…not; without…

[Tiberius]

I want to see him try and claim it's a circular argument again.

[downbeatplumb]

Fourteen fucking pages on this!!!!

I'll take another stab at this.

Before there was the concept of god people did not believe in god.

Only when the concept of god was invented did people start to believe it was true, they were the first theists.

Before that everyone was by default atheist, (without belief in god).

Do you get it now do you, do you get it.

(Deep breathe in count to ten)