The only physical evidence of a physical god would be an object like an idol. Could that be River's intent?
Who come first the theist or the atheist
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
The only physical evidence of a physical god would be an object like an idol. Could that be River's intent?
If EVERYTHING is atheist by default then why would a term for "atheism" be needed before "theism" arose? It's quite simple for anyone with a brain. The world existed for millions of years with all of its inhabitants being atheist (without god) until religion socially evolved. It was only after religion became widespread that the scholars felt it required to define default existence (atheism) in counterbalance. The chronology of the arisal of the words is irrelevant to the reliance on either belief system.
What comes first:
1,Man
2,Man believing in god
Man as a word/concept to describe what is contained within individuality is far older than religion, as religion requires higher brain function to be comprehended. What concept had to come first? A concept and term to describe individuals, or a concept to describe religion?
I would assert that a term to describe "man" (man without faith) came before a term to describe religion/god. Or do we assume that the first concept/term for "man" was inclusive of the idea that that man was "an entity that believes in god" by default???
What comes first:
1,Man
2,Man believing in god
Man as a word/concept to describe what is contained within individuality is far older than religion, as religion requires higher brain function to be comprehended. What concept had to come first? A concept and term to describe individuals, or a concept to describe religion?
I would assert that a term to describe "man" (man without faith) came before a term to describe religion/god. Or do we assume that the first concept/term for "man" was inclusive of the idea that that man was "an entity that believes in god" by default???
Last edited:
I don't necessarily see river as an idol worshipper. I do see river as one just flowing along within a religious framework, instead of building a boat to traverse the nutty rapids safely and logically.
The theists in the room were trying to play a word game within a word game. Get the reader to admit that the prefix a- is added after the root already exists. (I defeated this by showing in Plato's Apology that even the game fails, the word "atheist" in its earliest use, was against the guy who denied sun and moon worship). The scam is fairly innocuous, so the reader tends to miss it and make an implicit admission that spirituality came first.
So the game goes like that, you plant this idea in the mind of the reader, and they forget it was a fallacy, they implicitly agree to it, then they go about arguing for or against religion, and all the while the theists are quietly gloating that they pulled one over on the atheists.
Classic BS. The OP was not so disingenuous. It was posed honestly enough. Post #2 is where the deception, the word game, comes into play. Had it not been for that, I would have dropped my ideas at the doorstep and moved on.
But there is something insidious about pro-religious deception. It's almost pathological - the wolf in sheep's clothing. So I took an interest and followed the dialogue, throwing in my 2¢ worth wherever the fallacy cropped up and grated at me.
Your comments bring this back to the notion of when did religion take root in our developmental history. As you say, it's a matter of common sense. I agree with you.
I have at times found some challenging theists here, but inevitably, as my understanding of the debate between atheism, agnosticism and theism has evolved I have managed to eke out a fairly impenetrable way of presenting my view that has put the theists on a permanent back foot. They can be rather complex with their fudging BS and mind/word games but it makes little difference to the outcome of any debate. Relying on a fallacy/assumption as a backbone for one's beliefs will never cut the mustard within logical debate.
The OP did however say, and I quote: "In the animal kingdom or later human, they knew their leader."
The context, we assume, is that the leader/owner is god. To say that an animal knows its leader/god is BS.
Alternatively, to mixup two different meanings, like hierachy within animals, and the idea of god, and try and use this to score a point that will NEVER be scored, is again BS too. In effect the OP is nonsensical. I preferred post 2 because it at least made an intelligible assertion.
The context, we assume, is that the leader/owner is god. To say that an animal knows its leader/god is BS.
Alternatively, to mixup two different meanings, like hierachy within animals, and the idea of god, and try and use this to score a point that will NEVER be scored, is again BS too. In effect the OP is nonsensical. I preferred post 2 because it at least made an intelligible assertion.
Right.
Ironically I meet more atheist scientists with a sense of honesty than the folks who are commanded by their God not to lie.
Stricter Agnosticism falls within the realms of Atheism, so I suppose you could say I am both an agnostic, and an atheist (in a broader sense). BUT I have also read it is possible to be an "Agnostic Theist"; that puts the cat among the definition-pigeons.
Scientists will always be more honest as they seek truths, instead of trying to peddle personal truths as empirical truths.
Of course, the deluded don't recognise that they are lying to everyone and themselves. They simply try to spread their BS assumptions to the malleable through age old direct and indirect suggestion.
I would say though, assuming god DOESN'T exist is equally troublesome, despite the fact such scientists/people seek to justify the belief god is impossible using logical scientific means with a reasonable approach, any conclusion that god is impossible is inherently flawed as it is impossible to drive the corollary entirely home.
That never seems to phase me, because I can't get past the notion of God as an invention. The OP (really post #2) wants to assert that humankind descended from some idealized notion of god. That's the subtext. It has a more radical element in it than the reasoned approach you describe for reaching your own conclusions.
Still I'm wondering if one them might step up to the plate, and engage in a frank and reasoned discussion.
And IF god does exist, it is simply an evolutionarily destined coincidence
Reason is an essential string in a sane person's bow.
They only ascend so far . . .
And IF god does exist, it is simply an evolutionarily destined coincidence
Should we sane people worry that the fact religion was inevitable due to the physiological and social evolution of humans, almsot like the way the universe is weighted perfectly for life, and the way life is weighted perfectly to evolve into sentience (debatable), that somehow this means god is more likely to exist?
No.
I think we simply release energy as quickly as we can. That seems to be our bag and reason for being, like the universe is weighted towards conversion of matter into raw energy.
Religion is simply part (maybe defunct part?) of the complexification and globalisation of social and technological evolution.
If there is a god, when he said "let there be light" he really meant "let us release energy".
Does humankind's accelerated releasing of energy, on a relatively miniscule scale, in turn accelerate the universe's expansion. Is it indeed life topping up the dark energy reservoirs universe-wide?
Sorry, I am waxing overly cosmic now . . .
Last edited:
But all of the scientific truths, like religion is social evolution, still doesn't disprove god. Nothing ever will disprove god (theories can keep moving beyond the realms of science ad infinitum). We might one day prove god DOES exist, if we find him floating in a cloud.
Either way I suppose there will always be doubt.
Either way I suppose there will always be doubt.
Atheism cannot be the default. The default can only be ignorance. As soon
as awareness, and the ability to understand through awareness is operational, the process of elimination begins. At this point the field is charged with natural notions of God. The ''atheism'' comes after that, but previous to that belief in God IS the playing field.
jan.
A cloud of confusion no doubt, maybe in a car wreck with a small brain contusion. Or the morphine pack at hospital. With all the things that could go wrong with a brain, it makes you wonder what the ancients who dreamed up these ideas might have been influenced by. Anything from a virus to a contamination of the water supply to psychoactive flora and (god forbid) fauna. Supposedly the Olmecs were using the hallucinogenic Bufo Toads:
Apparently the Mayans developed this into something quite elaborate that involved dragging a thorned branch through their tongues while under the influence of Bufo Toad elixir.
Which is why it seems so absurd for someone to hang their Eternal Soul on legend and hearsay, and especially ritual, that may have been the brainchild of the village scribe, who fell maybe into the meadpot and didn't come out until he felt inspired to write.
Besides, some of the stories are just so ludicrous, so obviously coded for really backward people who didn't have a clue, or who weren't expected to question the accuracy, or the text is so allegorical that maybe no one was expected to take it literally.
The word "theism" is just polite speech anyway, to gloss over this huge rift that continues to expand between deniers and provers of science. Oddly "atheist" comes out as an epithet, like it's supposed to conjure the Spanish Inquisition all over again, with their version of waterboarding, the rack, and all of the trappings of religious sado-masochism.
This was supposed to be directed to comparative religions, but post #2 pretty much hijacked this thread. Funny how it looks like almost a paste from another thread:
Post #2:
I call hijack. :spank:
Who's to say the agent charging that field isn't just phobic, euphoric or delusional excitation?
And what was the person, if not atheist, before they got charged with theism?
Bravo!
So you reckon animals are eliminating down to the notion of god also? "God" is a natural notion, however the individual came before the belief.
Therefore the individual without belief came before the individual with belief.
Jan. It's called evolution, and its unquestionable. Dumb animal came before enlightened hominid. Dumb hominid came before enlightened human. Dumb human came before enlightened Homo sapiens sapiens. Or any other line in the sand. Draw it where you will, but it is there. An unquestionable line I suggest. Existence before higher cognition.
Technically, true weak atheism can only be in the form of implicit atheism - ie. a kind of atheism where the person is not even aware of being an atheist.
In which case, it's not clear how it is legitimate to call them "atheist".
Surely an identification ought to be something that the person themselves is aware of and agrees with. The moment a previously implicit atheist would do that, they would move into explicit atheism.
Rather, equivocation from the side of defenders of antitheism is the default.