Who come first the theist or the atheist

[Diode-Man]

Theism came first.

First it was dumb apes that weren't self aware at all, then they ate psychedelic mushrooms and thought they saw "God." Eventually some got smart enough to realize that science leads us to the Godless truth.

 

[Enmos]

I only meant to point out that brain size is not the sole measure of mental capacity, or elephants and whales would be posting here. I've always thought that was kind of silly, to equate brain power with size.

Ah, it seems we misunderstood each other then. I agree of course. However, it does seem that brain size/body size ratio is important.
What I was suggesting is that wisdom may not have to have as strong a correlation with intelligence as Fraggle seemed to suggest.

 

[Yazata]

I know its a popular bumper sticker and all but, you have no evidence that everyone is born an Atheist.

I think that the conclusion follows from common sense, provided that we define 'atheist' as lack of belief in god(s). That definition isn't without difficulties in my opinion. But having expressed that reservation, it does seem pretty clear that babies are born without religious belief, make of that what we will.

In fact, we have evidence that beelive in God may be hardwired into the Brain.

We do? I'm very skeptical about that.

I think that human beings probably do have innate tendencies to think in ways that have selective value in conducting our daily lives. But those cognitive tendencies may also predispose human beings to generate theistic-style religious ideas as well, probably as sort of an accidental byproduct.

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.

Why don't you think so? Setting aside the question of whether lack of belief in god(s) is atheism, I think that a pretty good argument can be made that if we could go back far enough in time, we would reach some point where either humans or their pre-human ancestors didn't possess any recognizable belief in god(s). If we project far enough back, we will eventually reach a point where language abilities were rudimentary at best and the ability to think in abstractions was severely limited. Perhaps recognizable religiosity first made its appearance sometime back in the days of Homo erectus.

 

[ZAV]

Yazata-

Yaz-

One thing I have noted previously should be considered. Atheism is not really a lack of Religious beliefs. This is because Religion is not really belief in gods. ( and if used like you did it does still need a capital.)

I know this sort of talk generally framed in terms of Atheism VS Religion but that’s just daft. Religion is really quiet distinct from Theism, and while many Religions do hold to a Theistic position, not all do.

That said, I question the common sense approach. Not that it really matters. Even if we were all born Atheists that doesn’t prove God doesn’t objectively exist, does it? I mean, who was born with an American Identity? Or who was born with a French one? Who was born with extensive knowledge of Germ Theory? Who was born with an understanding of the Laws pf Physics? Even if we were all Born Atheists the argument seems rather pointless as it doesn’t really mean anything.

However, I really don’t think we are born Atheists. The reason is because of Science. We now know that belief in some higher power that overarches the whole of existence is endemic. It wasn’t created by some individual and spread to all Humanity, it seems to be an inherent part of how we think. While some would say I am leaping form “Transcendent power” to “God”, I really am not. God is just the name we give said “Something” we instinctively know is there. Its also not called God in all languages.

While we may not be born with language, and thus do not call this God, and while we may not have a complex understanding of the Theological questions involved, if we are born with an instinctual knowledge of a supreme being of some sort, then we aren’t really Atheists at all.


While I would accept a reasoned argument that perhaps this instinctual belief has some origin apart from the Material and objective existence of God, I am not inclined to believe that such an impulse does not exist simply because its preferred by some to believe God is just a concept made up by someone and taught to Children. Again, the Bumper Sticker slogan may sound nice but tis not supported by recent Research.


Again, though, Relgiion and Beleif in God renot Synonyms. Saying "I am an Atheist" is not saying "I have no Religion".

If there is an innate beleif in God, regardless of God's material existance, then we are nto really born Atheists.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I think the lack of opposable thumbs might be a major hiderance to their ability to post.

But their Stephen Hawking would have solved that.

 

[scifes]

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).

wrong.
not only will there be no "need" for the term, there would be no "existence to it.

athiest as a classification, group, tag, word, cannot exist without theism being defined.

without theists, there are no atheists. atheism is a contrast of theism.
it's very clear and simple.

False.

True.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Ah, it seems we misunderstood each other then. I agree of course. However, it does seem that brain size/body size ratio is important.
What I was suggesting is that wisdom may not have to have as strong a correlation with intelligence as Fraggle seemed to suggest.

Interesting point. Young Albert Einstein, as a blank slate, had vast intelligence, as yet barely exploited, while an elephant he encounters at the zoo has acquired the wisdom to perform nominal limb lifts and poses in order to feast on the treats she will receive. I would agree with you, noting that the blue tit was remarkably intelligent in the example you cited, perhaps even more than the elephant in solving that particular type of problem, so brain size in this regard seems almost uncorrelated with the result.

 

[ZAV]

I am still waiting for my Hebrew Verb point to be covered...

 

[ZAV]

Aqueous ID-

Interesting point. Young Albert Einstein, as a blank slate, had vast intelligence, as yet barely exploited, while an elephant he encounters at the zoo has acquired the wisdom to perform nominal limb lifts and poses in order to feast on the treats she will receive. I would agree with you, noting that the blue tit was remarkably intelligent in the example you cited, perhaps even more than the elephant in solving that particular type of problem, so brain size in this regard seems almost uncorrelated with the result.

1: Will you ever address the problem with saying Elohim means “The gods” in the Creation account? Because its still an absurdity to say that.

2: Rousseau was wrong. We are not born blank Slates. Humanity has instinctual impulses and awareness of some things even from Birth. Tabula Rosa was proven false already.

3: Can you really admit to this though? Or do you need these things to be True?

 

[Aqueous Id]

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?

Engaging in polemics with me concerning the semantics of a dead language is a losing strategy. I am well aware of the apologist explanations for the grammatical anomalies. Your study of Hebrew is admirable, but your confidence in its mastery is misplaced. If you want to convince me, or anyone else, that the E text authors were not monotheists, you have a steep hill to climb.

Other than making bald claims, can you give an authoritative proof that Judaism arose out of a strictly monotheistic cult?

As far as your allegation that I hate the Bible, I suppose that means I wrankled your religious feathers at one point or another. I would answer that I hate what the Bible has done to the world, or, to be more precise, how it has been used to tamper with the mysteries of the human mind, in a most unnatural way, to invade the vulnerabilities of the young and impressionable and seize it like a madman in a tower full of hostages.

Other than that I'm perfectly at peace with it, in fact I like to look at the calligraphy and art in the illuminated manuscripts.

As far as your allegation that I hate Christianity, no, I have an aversion to certain features of Christianity, and it manifests as fear, not hatred.

As far as your claim that I am using myth to prop up said alleged hatred, you are again wrong. If you look closer at what I posted you will see that I am bringing evidence of mythological origins of theism. So I am doing the opposite of what you claim.

Thus far, I have shown that each of the posts in this thread, attempting to demonstrate a divine presence giving rise to religion, are false, disproved by the most minimal of evidence, so those posts fall. Even your superlative command of a dead language can not resurrect them.

 

[wynn]

@wynn --



Perhaps, but I find that I can't help but despise the willingly ignorant. And the more I have to repeat things the more bitchy I tend to get, though I've been keeping it fairly well in check on Sciforums so that people here haven't really had to deal with it.

If you lot want to remain ignorant then fine, go right on ahead and do so. Just please don't make me repeat myself over and over again because you're too busy ignoring the facts in order to preserve your flawed worldview. Do that and I'll have much less of a reason to bitch at people.


Not quite, actually.

Playing god is a heavy, thankless task, indeed.

 

[wynn]

People seem to have trouble accepting the truth that imagination is responsible for every single (except maybe one) attribution of things to God. That is why I propose that nothing we know of, except possibly some type of cosmic beginning, is from God.

Indeed, I suggest forget 99.9999% of what has been written about God.

And then what?
Rely on imagination?

 

[Aqueous Id]

You have no evidence that there was a Time in which belief in a god or gods did not exist and was invented. None.

Bull. Not only did I prove that, but I now prove there was a time in which your belief--as to what was or was not posted--is invented:

I have demonstrated that animism, superstition and animal worship precede theism. I have demonstrated that the first atheist was the man who denied the worship of sun and moon. I gave you Enuma Elish, the legend of Tiamat, The Epic of Gilgamesh, the hymns to the Egyptian gods, and I gave you the petroglyph at Gabillou. I also gave you early 20th century study of indigenous Americans, in Franz Boas' The Mind of Primitive Man, which utterly trounces your naive worldview by itself.

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.

Wrong. It's a deep seated fear of nature, a recognition of its propensity for violence and severe disturbance of the primitive mind. it has nothing whatsoever to do with a grand intelligence. It is precisely a reaction to grand chaos.

Given your inability to confess that your earlier linguistical argument was false, though,

I didn't know you were a priest. Congratulations.

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.

Pot calling the kettle black. I gave you Tiamat, the mother of your divine intelligence. No interpretation is required. Just observation, recognition, a dash of inference, and ouila! learning occurs. Say hi to Mom, she's about to get chopped up into the pieces that created the universe, you, me, the whole nine yards.... Hi Mom! :wave:

 

[Aqueous Id]

Playing god is a heavy, thankless task, indeed.

Sounds like wistful recollection.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Wrong.
Do try to learn something.
This error has been pointed out numerous times.

I remain firm in my stand: the lack of a concept of God does not equal atheism. Atheism demands both a knowledge of the concept of God and purposeful denial of the existence of God.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

(ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism
You can't deny the existence of God without first knowing that a philosophy of the existence of God first exists. Goldfish aren't "atheists" for example.

 

[universaldistress]

It's hard to be wise with a small brain.

Thanks for that Fraggle Rocker. I thought you would be able to clear up that one better than I could. Interesting avenue to explore . . . still no joy for the theists here though . . .

 

[elte]

why?
I mean weren't you talking about earlier that the only grounds for you accepting god is if you get personal revelation?

I was just trying to convey the notion that based on the failure of other people saying things about divine matters to other people, direct personal revelation is the only possible way, yet it is essential that anyone believing that they receive such communication to say little or nothing about it. It is important to keep it personal and private, and to examine it with the default perspective that it is probably just imagined anyway.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I remain firm in my stand: the lack of a concept of God does not equal atheism. Atheism demands both a knowledge of the concept of God and purposeful denial of the existence of God.

According to you...

Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Note the "OR denial of".

Or try this:
http://www.lackofbelief.com/

 

[elte]

And then what?
Rely on imagination?

Nah, focus on learning verifiable things in our universe and forget about speculating on theology. It's been futile arguing about such things as angel pin dancing these past centuries, and there isn't any real reason to think it won't continue that way.

 

[wynn]

Nah, focus on learning verifiable things in our universe and forget about speculating on theology. It's been futile arguing about such things as angel pin dancing these past centuries, and there isn't any real reason to think it won't continue that way.

Speculation is often a waste of time, indeed.

But what things in our Universe are verifiable?