Posts: 274
Threads: 5
Joined: April 17, 2010
Reputation:
12
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2010 at 1:21 pm by SleepingDemon.)
(August 1, 2010 at 10:24 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: SleepingDemon Wrote:Given the very primitive reasoning involved in creating gods, I would say that it isn't so much that the first humans didn't believe in gods, it was that they simply did not have the cognitive abilities to wonder whether or not gods existed.
So are you saying they did believe in God? No they didn't. So yes the first humans didn't believe in God.
No, i'm saying there was no concept of god. It isn't the same. Atheism is by definition disbelief in gods, it doesn't matter which gods, if someone says they exist, an atheist says they do not. However if no one says there is a god, then how can you not believe in it? It's like not believing in a car that runs on butterflies. The idea itself doesn't exist, so therefore before I said it, you hadn't thought about it. This doesn't mean that you didn't believe in a car that runs on butterflies, the entire notion of such a thing wasn't around so you weren't subject to either believing or not believing in it.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 8:30 am
(August 1, 2010 at 11:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And that is evidently a stupid answer, given the information presented.
Well I wouldn't call belief in God "intelligent".
SleepingDemon Wrote:No, i'm saying there was no concept of god. It isn't the same. Atheism is by definition disbelief in gods,
But you said before that atheism wasn't disbelief in gods. Which was why I criticized you.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 8:48 am
(August 4, 2010 at 8:30 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well I wouldn't call belief in God "intelligent". But you can't support that with a logical answer.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:19 am
Well belief in God is not based on evidence.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Yes it is. Non empirical evidence.
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm
(August 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes it is. Non empirical evidence.
Then it's not evidence. You can't conclude anything relevant to fact if there empirical evidence to support it.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm
If it's not evidence then why is it called non empirical evidence?? You're not meant to be able to conclude anything independently. That's the point.
Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:15 pm
(August 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If it's not evidence then why is it called non empirical evidence?? You're not meant to be able to conclude anything independently. That's the point.
From wikianswers:
What is empirical evidence? - Wikianswers Wrote:From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
AND - From a Psychology dictionary : Derived from naturalistic observation of from experimental procedures.
Empirical evidence is evidence from observations. From my understanding it can be through naturalistic observation (the in depth observation of a phenomenon in its natural setting) or Experimental (maniplulating an independent variable to observe its effects on a dependant variable). Experimental evidence is much more reliable as naturalistic observations are vulnerable to researcher bias.
Ergo, non-empirical evidence means is it not any of those things from above, which means it doesn't actually proove anything.
All evidence that can be tested, observed, and verified is empirical evidence. Therefore, non-epirical evidence is akin to saying that I have a non-chocolate non-shake that prooves that I have something edible in my hand.
Posts: 14933
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
142
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Empirical evidence doesn't prove anything either.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: What came first, the atheist or the theist?
August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm by fr0d0.)
You backed up what I said TheDarkestOfAngels. Yes it (non empirical evidence) doesn't prove anything. It is still non empirical evidence and clearly a form of evidence.
|
