But that’s not the definition of atheist, which is actually just someone who doesn’t think any gods exist, not someone who denies a particular god. By that definition, Christians are atheists because they deny the existence of Shiva.
If we’re talking about humans as we understand them today, not something less evolved, somebody had to come to the conclusion that there are gods. Before that, nobody believed in them because the concept didn’t exist. So I don’t understand how you can argue that belief in a religion or a deity came before the lack of the same belief.
I think you mean other, earlier specied of Homo, not earlier members of our species. We can reasonably conclude that Neanderthals had some sort of religious or afterlife belief since they buried their dead, or at least they sometimes did this. That would imply that our common ancestor with Neanderthals (some 600k years ago) also had some religious or proto-religious beliefs.
I have to think that the believers came frist. After all, you can’t deny a belief that doesn’t exist. If our earlier ancestors did not believe in gods (or some sort of supernatural force), it was probably because they didn’t have the capacity to do so. Would you call a chimpanzee an atheist because he doesn’t believe in a God? No, you’d just say that his brain couldn’t grasp the subject.
Now you got! You are beginning to understand. To find out more about your newfound lack of belief, go to: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Just incase the others heard don’t see what you are beginning to understand, I will add, I just believe in one less god then you currently do. Don’t be afraid to convert, however. If you do, I’ll get a free souvenir “Ellen” toaster
If anyone is still confused, see the following link.
Because you need the concept to refute it, or even to not believe in it. Prior to the development of the phlogiston theory you wouldn’t call a person with a different belief in what makes things burn an “aphlogistonist.” While debate was going on, one might have used that term for people who didn’t buy the theory (though I doubt anyone did). After the debate is over, everyone becomes an “aphlogistonist” and the term passes from meaning and use.
The same is true of things which I believe to be true. I wouldn’t use “agravitist” to describe people prior to Newton or “ageneticist” prior to Mendel. I might be tempted to use (or coin) such a term for someone who came forward now and denied Newtonian gravity or the function of genes in heredity.
Because you need the concept to refute it, or even to not believe in it. Prior to the development of the phlogiston theory you wouldn’t call a person with a different belief in what makes things burn an “aphlogistonist.” While debate was going on, one might have used that term for people who didn’t buy the theory (though I doubt anyone did). After the debate is over, everyone becomes an “aphlogistonist” and the term passes from meaning and use.
The same is true of things which I believe to be true. I wouldn’t use “agravitist” to describe people prior to Newton or “ageneticist” prior to Mendel. I might be tempted to use (or coin) such a term for someone who came forward now and denied Newtonian gravity or the function of genes in heredity.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” —Lucius Annaeus Seneca (aka Seneca the Younger), in Ancient Rome.
Yes. Yes, I would. I would also call rocks and babies atheists. Also, Batman(as both a non-existant person, and as a literary hero per his statements in JLA #66).
To read more see: The Happy Heretic column for July 2004
Excert:
"All Babies Are Atheists
The title alone will infuriate a great many people. However, there is no getting around the simple truth of it: all babies are atheists. How could it be otherwise? In fact, all children are atheists until they reach an age where they can truly understand religious doctrine, which will mean well into their teens. Children can mimic their parents in prayer, for example, by closing their eyes and clasping their hands together, and repeating some words that they don’t understand. (Aside from the fact that I was cute as a button as a toddler, the main reason I included in my book [In God We Trust: But Which One?] a photo of me in the “prayer mode” at age 2 years and 9 months, was to demonstrate the silliness of toddlers praying.) Of course even toddler-praying can’t happen until a child reaches the age of speech.
Beyond praying though, there is so much more to consider when parents proclaim that their little ones are Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim and so on. To say that someone is “Christian” is to say that the someone understands: (1) the story of the life of Jesus as told in the Bible; (2) the concepts of heaven and hell; (3) the concept of “faith” in an invisible entity; (4) sin; (5) forgiveness; (6) the Triune God and (7) communion. With all this complicated theology in mind, picture a 5-month-old infant contentedly filling her diaper, and try to convince anyone that she understands all of the above. If she does not, she is not a Christian. I don’t care how much water you sprinkle on her head, or how many magical words you recite over her as she howls in a church, she doesn’t have the foggiest idea about any of it. Which means she cannot be a Christian."
Are you serious? That makes the word “atheist” almost meaningless. It’s supposed to mean someone who DOESN’T believe in God, not someone (or something) who CANNOT believe.
Scott_plaid, I find your presumption extremely grating. I’ve been an atheist for almost ten years. I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about these things. Don’t presume your ideas are too original or complicated for me. They’re not.
Calling a chimp an atheist would be silly. (And calling a rock an atheist would be absurd.) The word is only intended to apply to humans as far as I know. I’ve seen no evidence that other animals are capable of believing in anything, and we know that rocks are not.
You don’t need to DENY a belief to be without (a- = without) that belief. A belief that hasn’t been formed yet is by definition a belief that we are without. The without-ness comes first -
There are any number of beliefs that I am without just because I have never heard of them.
Then you got the wrong kind of grating, and I think you got the wrong tone for Great Debates, if not the SDMB as a whole.
I don’t disagree. Babies don’t believe in god, they’re not born capable of it and don’t know what it is until you tell them. Yllaria made your point better than you did, in my opinion.
Well, I could do this all night, but it looks like I have the wrong tone for this forum (although it originally started in another forum, about something slightly different, that of a person who didn’t believe there were atheists), so would anyone else like to post to my points?
If not, I will keep on posting to the point that to be called are without god, and so are rocks. Or maybe not, and I will sign-off soon, but either way will continue later.
Hmm… I well, then I will post a question on that thread stating that that I believe in the points raised in that article. That is, unless some else has already raised the point, for I will read the thread first. How ever, while I have you hear, I would like to ask you, and anyone else to who would like to read the Happy heretic Article above and respond with something besides, “It’s silly”. This is a take home quiz, as I am about to log off.
In all seriousness, I do agree that Christians are atheists if they in fact deny the existence of Shiva.
Well I think manhattan says it better below, but to sum up, it makes no sense to me to define anyone in terms of concepts that have not been conceived. Sort of like defining a cat as “a thing without gills.”
I don’t understand this comparison at all. Cats don’t have gills. It’s too vague to give you an idea of what a cat is, but what it does tell you is totally accurate.
Well, I read the article and the only observation that I feel accurately describes it is “It’s silly.”
This is not to argue that babies have any religious beliefs in any way, (and, certainly not to argue, as Muslims assert, that babies are born Muslim (before they are corrupted by the corrupt or unbelieving culture into which they were born).) However, as some strong argument against theism or deism or as some brilliant observation regarding the “atheism” of babies, the article is nothing more than tepid sarcasm wrapped up in a tattered blanket of cuteness. Actually, it is silly.