and?
Who come first the theist or the atheist
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
Er-
You know, ther biggest problem with sayign this is the presumption that all Evidence disprocves all Religion. One thing I have grown accustomed to is the assumption by Modern Atheists that all Relfgiion was simply fsbricated explamnatiom, and ithas no value, and has been disproven. But this is harldy the case. A declaeration fo supremacy is not really gpign to cut it.
You know, ther biggest problem with sayign this is the presumption that all Evidence disprocves all Religion. One thing I have grown accustomed to is the assumption by Modern Atheists that all Relfgiion was simply fsbricated explamnatiom, and ithas no value, and has been disproven. But this is harldy the case. A declaeration fo supremacy is not really gpign to cut it.
Arioch-
I know its a popular bumper sticker and all but, you have no evidence that everyone is born an Atheist. In fact, we have evidence that beelive in God may be hardwired into the Brain. I know you woudl prefer to think that Early Humanity was comprised soleley of Atheists and then someone came up with the idea of god and it stuck, but that's not a historically valid argument.
I know its a popular bumper sticker and all but, you have no evidence that everyone is born an Atheist. In fact, we have evidence that beelive in God may be hardwired into the Brain. I know you woudl prefer to think that Early Humanity was comprised soleley of Atheists and then someone came up with the idea of god and it stuck, but that's not a historically valid argument.
elte
Valued Senior Member
It's no use trying to get divine messages through people.
Aqueos ID-
I am going to ignore most of what you wrote and go back to your claim that the Elohimists were Polytheists. Did you not read my actual statements on why this was wrong? If you did, then can you explain why we should better translate the Creation account as “The gods’ when the verb used is singular and not plural?
Again, Elohim is only a Grammatical Plural. It is not always used to refer to a plurality, though, and the grammar rules in Hebrew sate that the Verb determines if its singular or plural. The verb was bara, not baro. How can the Elohimists have meant “the gods’ when they clearly use the singular verb?
I realise that you don’t know Hebrew and further realise you need this myth to prop up your unwarranted hatred of the Bible and Christianity, but its pretty clear that Genesis Chapter 1 was not written by Polytheists because Elohim is used as a singular in the entire text, as e can tell by the accompanying verbs.
Canyou at leats look this up in a proper Hebrew grammar textbook?
I am going to ignore most of what you wrote and go back to your claim that the Elohimists were Polytheists. Did you not read my actual statements on why this was wrong? If you did, then can you explain why we should better translate the Creation account as “The gods’ when the verb used is singular and not plural?
Again, Elohim is only a Grammatical Plural. It is not always used to refer to a plurality, though, and the grammar rules in Hebrew sate that the Verb determines if its singular or plural. The verb was bara, not baro. How can the Elohimists have meant “the gods’ when they clearly use the singular verb?
I realise that you don’t know Hebrew and further realise you need this myth to prop up your unwarranted hatred of the Bible and Christianity, but its pretty clear that Genesis Chapter 1 was not written by Polytheists because Elohim is used as a singular in the entire text, as e can tell by the accompanying verbs.
Canyou at leats look this up in a proper Hebrew grammar textbook?
elte
Valued Senior Member
"beelive in God may be hardwired into the Brain"
A natural explanation for that is that as the early people invented explanations for things like what wind is, that gave them a selective advantage as a coping mechanism, and being able to handle this type of thinking was passed down through the genes.
A natural explanation for that is that as the early people invented explanations for things like what wind is, that gave them a selective advantage as a coping mechanism, and being able to handle this type of thinking was passed down through the genes.
No, what you have is evidence of trauma by natural causes, forcing humans into fear-driven superstition, as a coping mechanism, when there was nothing else to help them recover their sense of peace and order with their surroundings.
You only use God in that sentence only because you have been culturally conditioned to do so. If you were as animist, you would have as easily attributed this to a tree or the fog. (aaqucnaona suggested pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters).
It is ludicrous, in the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "God" comes with firmware.
I think the lack of opposable thumbs might be a major hiderance to their ability to post.
why?
I mean weren't you talking about earlier that the only grounds for you accepting god is if you get personal revelation?
So you're saying the theist is a domestic animal?
'a-'a, wellwisher got it right this time, if there's no concept of god "at all" then there's no concept of theism at all and so nobody can be atheist by default because there's no theist to be a-"theist" to.
"atheist" DOES define itself as non-something, if the something didn't exist then the a-something wouldn't exist either.
Yes, I would put my self into that category.
I understand , this will give you the answer that Atheist come first. But every animal wild or domesticated have a parent , and every parent will be a leader to his pop.
Huh? Atheists have parents too.
That would be incorrect.
There'd be no need for the term "atheist" if theism didn't exist. But, by default, we'd ALL be atheist. (As per your own argument we'd all be without god).
False.
I agree with you . I like atheists , with you guys the discussion is more open and my faith in God have become stronger.
Aquues, you seem to highlight a problem I see often...
Peopel won't even admit the possibility they are wrong.
1: You still have not addressed the problem with your claim that the Early Hebrews (whom you mistakenly referred to as Jews, though Jew is from Judah and was only one Tribe of the 12) were Polytheistic based on the use of Elohim in the Creation account.
It is clear from the Text that Elohim is singular, since a Singular Verb was used, yet you still insist they were Polytheists and that these Elohimists wrote the text as Polytheists.
This is base don nothing more than Elohim itself beign a grammatical Plural, even though the verb determines its acutual meaning in Hebrew.
Why did you ignore that?
2: You have no evidence that there was a Time in which belief in a god or gods did not exist and was invented. None.
Why believe your explanation is proven by a mountain fo evidence then?
3: As to my use of the word God, that’s because I speak English. But, while conceding that the word “God” wouldn’t’ be used in another Time or Language, I’d contend that animism and indeed any form of “Something out there” is all really the same ultimate thing. Its belief in some grand intelligence behind the working of the world.
Whether called God or Spirit or Quooloth or Weedong its irrelevant.
I mean, sure I call God God based on cultural inference, btu I call Computers Computers for the same reason. I call rocks Rocks for the same reason. That doesn’t mean belief in Rocks was base don superstition, its just a word designed to describe an outside Reality.
Given your inability to confess that your earlier linguistical argument was false, though, I’d bet that any argument that says belief in God was not mere invention and is base don root Psychology will be ignored because you don’t want that to be True. You will ignore Reality if it conflicts with your prejudices.
Peopel won't even admit the possibility they are wrong.
1: You still have not addressed the problem with your claim that the Early Hebrews (whom you mistakenly referred to as Jews, though Jew is from Judah and was only one Tribe of the 12) were Polytheistic based on the use of Elohim in the Creation account.
It is clear from the Text that Elohim is singular, since a Singular Verb was used, yet you still insist they were Polytheists and that these Elohimists wrote the text as Polytheists.
This is base don nothing more than Elohim itself beign a grammatical Plural, even though the verb determines its acutual meaning in Hebrew.
Why did you ignore that?
2: You have no evidence that there was a Time in which belief in a god or gods did not exist and was invented. None.
Why believe your explanation is proven by a mountain fo evidence then?
3: As to my use of the word God, that’s because I speak English. But, while conceding that the word “God” wouldn’t’ be used in another Time or Language, I’d contend that animism and indeed any form of “Something out there” is all really the same ultimate thing. Its belief in some grand intelligence behind the working of the world.
Whether called God or Spirit or Quooloth or Weedong its irrelevant.
I mean, sure I call God God based on cultural inference, btu I call Computers Computers for the same reason. I call rocks Rocks for the same reason. That doesn’t mean belief in Rocks was base don superstition, its just a word designed to describe an outside Reality.
Given your inability to confess that your earlier linguistical argument was false, though, I’d bet that any argument that says belief in God was not mere invention and is base don root Psychology will be ignored because you don’t want that to be True. You will ignore Reality if it conflicts with your prejudices.
God was either invented or revealed. Either way, everyone before that time period were atheists [a person without god].
So atheists do come first. We dont require a prior knoweldge of feng shui to not be a believer in it. You can be ignorant of it or you may not know enough about it. So atheists existed far before theists came along.
So atheists do come first. We dont require a prior knoweldge of feng shui to not be a believer in it. You can be ignorant of it or you may not know enough about it. So atheists existed far before theists came along.
The belief in god/s is due to the supernature inclination hardwired into our brains. We tend to make every agent of change a intentional thing that decides and thinks about the changes it creates. The ultimate agent as such is what we call god.
The deities which constituted our belief in god has changed a lot in the past:
Animism and Ancestor gods > Polytheistic gods living on earth, anthromorphised parts of earth > Polytheistic sky gods > Monotheistic sky gods > Monotheistic god as an essence, as a force throughtout the universe > A vague phiolosphical first mover > Agnositicism and Atheism.
The deities which constituted our belief in god has changed a lot in the past:
Animism and Ancestor gods > Polytheistic gods living on earth, anthromorphised parts of earth > Polytheistic sky gods > Monotheistic sky gods > Monotheistic god as an essence, as a force throughtout the universe > A vague phiolosphical first mover > Agnositicism and Atheism.
Why do you think your requirement of a superpowered, supernatural leader/owner/parent ensures the existence of such a being? Is my need for the pink unicorn enough for me to say it exists?
AAQ-
That's God, with a capital G.
By the way, you have no real evidence to support this do you? I mean, you make the declaration of it often but the only thing backing it thusfar is you saying its True.
I doubt you even know what the Supernatural is, and you still have not shown anything to suggest that your claims are provably True at all.
God has a capital G when used like this…
Oh and your definitions are still wrong.
You do know that the idea you present is just a regurgitation of the idea of Linear progressivism, which has been discredited since the middle of the 20th Century, right? I mean, the idea that Religion goes in fixed stages till final Enlightenment Via science was big and all in the late 19th and early 20th Century, but tis not how actual Historians or Philosophers understand the way things develop now, nor do Scientists in any discipline that asks this question.
Ever hear of the term “Falsie Dichotomy”? It’s when you are presented only two choices and told they are the only options when , in fact, more than two options exist. I know you want to believe we are all born Atheists and that Theism was created at some point, but there is no rational reason to believe this and evidence against it. It seems from Psychological Studies that the Human Species is predisposed to belie in God. This can’t be because Humans are predisposed to the Supernatural as an explanation, because the idea of the Supernatural didn’t even exist till around the end of the 17th Century. Yes I know, people believed in gods, demons, angels, and souls before then, but those things were never understood as Supernatural until in the late Middle Ages God was seen as such, and only God. Angels, Souls, all Natural and all subject to Natural Law. Really the idea that Angels possess Supernatural abilities or that Souls are themselves Supernatural is an utterly modern concept.
Your claim is just rubbish.
You know, kind of like how you claim the Elohimist camp wrote the Creation account in Genesis as Polytheists because they use Elohim. By the way will you ever address the verb problem? If they were Polytheists why did they describe “the gods” with the singular verb “Bara” as opposed to the plural verb “Baro”?
Why do you keep dodging the question?
That's God, with a capital G.
By the way, you have no real evidence to support this do you? I mean, you make the declaration of it often but the only thing backing it thusfar is you saying its True.
I doubt you even know what the Supernatural is, and you still have not shown anything to suggest that your claims are provably True at all.
God has a capital G when used like this…
Oh and your definitions are still wrong.
You do know that the idea you present is just a regurgitation of the idea of Linear progressivism, which has been discredited since the middle of the 20th Century, right? I mean, the idea that Religion goes in fixed stages till final Enlightenment Via science was big and all in the late 19th and early 20th Century, but tis not how actual Historians or Philosophers understand the way things develop now, nor do Scientists in any discipline that asks this question.
Ever hear of the term “Falsie Dichotomy”? It’s when you are presented only two choices and told they are the only options when , in fact, more than two options exist. I know you want to believe we are all born Atheists and that Theism was created at some point, but there is no rational reason to believe this and evidence against it. It seems from Psychological Studies that the Human Species is predisposed to belie in God. This can’t be because Humans are predisposed to the Supernatural as an explanation, because the idea of the Supernatural didn’t even exist till around the end of the 17th Century. Yes I know, people believed in gods, demons, angels, and souls before then, but those things were never understood as Supernatural until in the late Middle Ages God was seen as such, and only God. Angels, Souls, all Natural and all subject to Natural Law. Really the idea that Angels possess Supernatural abilities or that Souls are themselves Supernatural is an utterly modern concept.
Your claim is just rubbish.
You know, kind of like how you claim the Elohimist camp wrote the Creation account in Genesis as Polytheists because they use Elohim. By the way will you ever address the verb problem? If they were Polytheists why did they describe “the gods” with the singular verb “Bara” as opposed to the plural verb “Baro”?
Why do you keep dodging the question?
Last edited: