| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 04:08 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Okay, this came up in the Hitchens is an idiot thread, but as I figured that would only really attract annoyed people to post in it, it might be best served here. I also think it might help us all arrive at an understanding of what atheism is.
So, do you think atheism existed before theism? Let us assume that the first conscious humans did not believe in God (as otherwise the question has a pretty obvious answer). Were those people atheists?
Personally, I would argue that they were atheists, in the same way that you were all a-quigglybogists before I just invented quigglybog (a small fish on Venus who comes to Earth every six and a half years to feed on the dreams of Japanese dogs). They lacked belief in God, but there was no word for them. There were no strong atheists. |
| Loading... | |
| troyjs |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 04:21 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
God's mind precedes the existence of all other minds.
God is a theist.
Therefore, the fact that God is a theist, precedes the existence of other minds.
Therefore, theism wins and atheism loses.
Therefore, theists are better than theists.
Therefore, theists are just sooo much better than atheists at playing Call of Duty.
I rest my case
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 04:37 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
| Can I reverse the order of logic in that and then disprove theism by pwning you on any CoD game since MW4? |
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:00 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Okay, this came up in the Hitchens is an idiot thread, but as I figured that would only really attract annoyed people to post in it, it might be best served here. I also think it might help us all arrive at an understanding of what atheism is.
So, do you think atheism existed before theism? Let us assume that the first conscious humans did not believe in God (as otherwise the question has a pretty obvious answer). Were those people atheists?
Personally, I would argue that they were atheists, in the same way that you were all a-quigglybogists before I just invented quigglybog (a small fish on Venus who comes to Earth every six and a half years to feed on the dreams of Japanese dogs). They lacked belief in God, but there was no word for them. There were no strong atheists.
How on earth would you know that the first humans were atheists? |
| Loading... | |
| Noraaron |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:08 AM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
| Dosnt this come under "are you born an atheists?"
John locke philosophise that we are born with a "blank slate" "Tabula Rasa" mind, no knowledge. (born equal US constitution sense)
And if that is the case, one can only logically say Atheism came after, even if god is a created by man.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:35 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Noraaron, that depends on how you define, or understand the term 'atheist'. If we understand an atheist to be someone who lacks a belief in God, then presumably a baby is one. I went with first humans, as they are conscious, and also because we can ask the further question 'Does the term atheism make sense in a world without theism?'
Rostos, I never suggested we could. |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:44 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Can I reverse the order of logic in that and then disprove theism by pwning you on any CoD game since MW4?
Watch it Crash, Troy happens to be a very infamous hacker. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:49 AM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it  |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 07:26 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Noraaron, that depends on how you define, or understand the term 'atheist'. If we understand an atheist to be someone who lacks a belief in God, then presumably a baby is one. I went with first humans, as they are conscious, and also because we can ask the further question 'Does the term atheism make sense in a world without theism?'
This is a lot like the chicken and egg dilemma and I'm not sure that it can be definitively solved.
If we study early humanity, it seems the concept of a higher power of some sort existed very early on. Which is no surprise, given the seeming unpredictability of the earth and sky when it comes to accommodating human life and survival. So soon as human had sophisticated enough a brain to think things through, he had to come up with some means by which to control his fate, so to speak. If you can control the weather or the hunt by placating the mysterious Power that is behind it, you're a big step ahead.
Conclusions like this are drawn from paintings and drawings on cave walls made by early humans. It is thought that these images were made by important leaders of pre-literate society as records of events of major import. |
| Loading... | |
| Maxeo |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 08:07 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Okay, this came up in the Hitchens is an idiot thread, but as I figured that would only really attract annoyed people to post in it, it might be best served here. I also think it might help us all arrive at an understanding of what atheism is.
So, do you think atheism existed before theism? Let us assume that the first conscious humans did not believe in God (as otherwise the question has a pretty obvious answer). Were those people atheists?
Personally, I would argue that they were atheists, in the same way that you were all a-quigglybogists before I just invented quigglybog (a small fish on Venus who comes to Earth every six and a half years to feed on the dreams of Japanese dogs). They lacked belief in God, but there was no word for them. There were no strong atheists.
How is this not a loaded question? If the first concious humans did not believe in God they obviously weren't theists. You've set up the question to really only consider the one option: Atheism or a false dilemma.
|
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 08:32 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Noraaron, that depends on how you define, or understand the term 'atheist'. If we understand an atheist to be someone who lacks a belief in God, then presumably a baby is one. I went with first humans, as they are conscious, and also because we can ask the further question 'Does the term atheism make sense in a world without theism?'
I think you have highlighted the problem with defining atheism in the manner that you have defined it. It becomes a meaningless term directly on par with a-quigglybogist. So obviously I would say that the term atheism is meaningless in a world without theism.
If we define the term atheist to be one who does not believe that God exists or affirms that no God exists then we do not run into these issues. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 03:57 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by bdsimon
I think you have highlighted the problem with defining atheism in the manner that you have defined it. It becomes a meaningless term directly on par with a-quigglybogist. So obviously I would say that the term atheism is meaningless in a world without theism.
If we define the term atheist to be one who does not believe that God exists or affirms that no God exists then we do not run into these issues.
But this isn't a problem. Many atheists, including explicitly Dawkins would define atheism as being on par with an a-quigglybogist. The only reason we talk about atheism, rather than a-quigglyboggism, is because there aren't any quigglybogists.
This is actually a fundamental difference of understanding between members of this forum, and it's exactly what I'm trying to highlight. I thought an outside-of-the-box thought experiment might help us all come to a consensus. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 03:58 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Maxeo
How is this not a loaded question? If the first concious humans did not believe in God they obviously weren't theists. You've set up the question to really only consider the one option: Atheism or a false dilemma.
Not at all. Of course if they believe in God they are theists. That isn't the point. The point is what they are if they don't believe in God. If you would call them atheists, then you seem to be tacitly accepting that atheism is not a rejection of the existence of God (how could it be if no one had heard of him?), it is simply lack of belief in God. |
| Loading... | |
| Maxeo |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 05:47 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by Maxeo
How is this not a loaded question? If the first concious humans did not believe in God they obviously weren't theists. You've set up the question to really only consider the one option: Atheism or a false dilemma.
Not at all. Of course if they believe in God they are theists. That isn't the point. The point is what they are if they don't believe in God. If you would call them atheists, then you seem to be tacitly accepting that atheism is not a rejection of the existence of God (how could it be if no one had heard of him?), it is simply lack of belief in God.
Hence the very obvious false dilemma. Atheism or theism? Well, obviously not theism so it's got to be atheism or non-theism. The whole thing is just framed improperly. You don't even want to know if they're theists so why even ask it that way? What you really mean is atheist or non-theist?
1). Why would you, a priori, exclude theism, polytheism, or henotheism, from a viable option?
2). How in the world would you know if they were atheist or non-theist given your a priori ruling? |
| Loading... | |
| bdsimon |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 08:45 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by bdsimon
I think you have highlighted the problem with defining atheism in the manner that you have defined it. It becomes a meaningless term directly on par with a-quigglybogist. So obviously I would say that the term atheism is meaningless in a world without theism.
If we define the term atheist to be one who does not believe that God exists or affirms that no God exists then we do not run into these issues.
But this isn't a problem. Many atheists, including explicitly Dawkins would define atheism as being on par with an a-quigglybogist. The only reason we talk about atheism, rather than a-quigglyboggism, is because there aren't any quigglybogists.
This is actually a fundamental difference of understanding between members of this forum, and it's exactly what I'm trying to highlight. I thought an outside-of-the-box thought experiment might help us all come to a consensus. But it is a problem. Boy, that was easy. |
| Loading... | |
