Who come first the theist or the atheist

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by arauca, Dec 24, 2011.

  1. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    It's a learned concept, like most things. Don't you remember times before you were indoctrinated? :shrug:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    The very first statement is wrong. Atheism is the absence of theism - like aastrology is not believing the horoscope. Animals and new born babies are atheists.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I myself am not a theist, and was not "indoctrinated" in a theistic way.
    But I am not an atheist either.


    You said:

    This is a bold claim, impossible to prove empirically.


    Another bold claim, impossible to prove empirically.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Humpty Dumpty!
     
  8. keith1 Guest

    --While reviewing all organizational records available, no instance of "spontaneous organization" can be found, when many conclusive instances would be required to establish a precedence to organization.
    --Organization always returns to disorganization (entropy), weakening further organization's claim to precedence.
    --Disorganization lacks a label, thereby only a "theist" could establish the term "anti" to itself. This in no way concludes that a "terminology" precedes a "concept". Because disorganization lacks a label, it's likely it precedes that which has a label as fixed in an initiation time, such as organization.
    These above points really help establish theism as the newby.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    For whom?
     
  10. keith1 Guest

    For the open-minded, rational, logic-oriented, modestly intelligent.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Who defines them as such, and by what standards?
     
  12. keith1 Guest

    The weight of the points as logically valid.
    --no spontaneous organization record
    --entropy
    --unlabeled pre-theist concepts are weighted likely to outdate theist-oriented terminology.


    Another exampled of weighted logic.

    keith1: There is a big hole up ahead in the road we are on. Logic and common sense says there is danger there as well.
    wynn: For whom?:scratchin::huh::wtf:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2011
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So these:

    define you as "open-minded, rational, logic-oriented, modestly intelligent"?
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    From Wikipedia

    The term was not even coined until the 18th century, therefore it had to have come last.
     
  15. keith1 Guest

    Tie terminology precedence and concept precedence to the OP statement.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Whether you're a student of Jung or not, any motifs that recur consistently throughout history, among communities who have been separated from each other for too long to attribute it to cultural continuity, must be instinctive. And instincts are programmed by DNA.
    I beg your pardon. I am a third-generation atheist who never encountered theism. I was not introduced to the mythology of gods and religion until I was seven. I suppose the little boy who told me a fairytale about a creature named "God" who lives above the clouds and knows everything that happens on earth, and to whom I responded with appreciative laughter because it obviously had to be a clever joke he was making up, would have said that my worldview was built around denial of his, but I had mine long before I ever heard of his.
    Just because atheism doesn't have a concise definition doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Did quarks not exist until physicists postulated them in order to explain the workings of the universe in more accurate detail?

    People like my family, who lived in a world without theism, never get into discussions about whether or not there are supernatural creatures who can turn us into pillars of salt or who can condemn us to trillions of years of torture in a subterranean inferno because we never heard of them.

    Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, not a rejection of that belief. This is a huge and important difference.
    But that describes archetypes very well. They are just skeletal structures. Every culture fleshes them out with bits of the unique experiences they have had along the way. No two communities who did not evolve together fairly recently have exactly the same religious mythology.
    Your hypothesis does not explain my atheism. I was not walking around with an image of a supernatural creature in my head, accompanied by a conviction that it was only imaginary. I had no such images in my head, and I had no reason to think that other people had them and that they were imaginary.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The original theists became aware of something that they interpreted as Gods. This was an addendum to their knowledge base. Even if this was a product of a dream, as a possible source of data, the awareness of this data, create a data perception called theism. The denial of this perception or atheism came second. Until something is defined, how can you know to deny it?

    A good analogy in modern times are UFO's. People come to the conclusion of UFO's based on witness accounts, visions or inferences. Not believing only appears after the forward claim has been made. They start it, others deny it after they hear how it is being defined.

    Having never thought about UFO's does not make you anti-UFO, anymore that you are anti something that will appear 1000 years from now that you have no idea of now. If you are unaware of a relationship, its opposite it does not inherently exist in you. You first have to define it before you can deny it.

    People have been anti-Bush and now some are anti-Obama. This anti did not exist until each of these men were defined. To prove this, what will be the anti- of the next president and what is this anti called? I defined next president for you so you can't use that.

    It is similar to the two year old child who learns the word "no". If you ask him, do you want noodles for lunch, he says no. He waits for a positive definition via a question so he can define himself in terms of the anti-no. If you stay quiet, he has little to say about what you will say next.

    If atheism was not allowed to use any religious words, such as god, faith, religion, heaven, hell, devil, etc. , there would be nothing to deny. As religion adds words and terms and relationships, the amount of anti gets to go up. If atheism even got boring it will need to dig for new things to deny. Theism is more creative adding new things to culture.
     
  18. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,287
    My experience goes along with the notion of "without god" being what atheism is. I remember a lot from my early years and something as big as god doesn't figure in until I was several years old, after I was instructed in it. So, my recollection is that I began atheistic in belief.
     
  19. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Before a god was invented, there were people that did not believe in that god. We would call them atheists, even if they wouldn't themselves, not having known about the god. It's true they couldn't deny that god's existence, since they didn't know about him, but that's only one usage of the term atheist. If you use the lack of belief meaning, then you'd have to call someone not exposed to the god in question an atheist. They certainly aren't a believer.
     
  20. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    You are ignoring the part of leader which can be labeled as god
     
  21. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
  22. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,947
    Ah right.
    So every one believes in UFOs until someone makes a claim that they exist, and then the deniers arise.
    So, according to you, until everyone reads the rest of this sentence they were under the impression that cabbages formed the conspiracy responsible for the death of JFK, the disaster of Challenger and the number 12 bus not arriving on time when I wanted to go into town last Saturday? Only now that I have proposed this can people not believe it.
    What a maroon...

    But you don't have to define it to not believe. This where you consistently go wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011

Share This Page