Ok bad analogy. To me it is a distinction without a difference to define everyone as atheist before there was a concept of theism. Before there were tables everyone was without tables, but no one went around wondering where all the tables were, or for that matter denying the possibility of tables. It would be totally accurate for me, from my perspective, to define all such persons as “tableless.” Not one of them would define him or herself that way because the concept would be meaningless to them. Similarly, if you insist, it is accurate, I suppose to, define all sentient beings alive before the concept of theism as atheists. In my opinion it is a meaningless definition. There are thousands upon thousands of concepts, objects, etc. that prehistoric humans were without. To define them in one of those terms really says nothing about them at all. At best it is descriptive, but not in a meaningful way.
Ah.
So, then mr bus guy, you have your answer. Are you still here, or has he wondered away from here to greener pasters?
bonus bad spelling from Scott: teh, warld, ocupado. 
No, it’s not very meaningful, and for that reason I normally wouldn’t bring it up. But it’s relevant to the OP’s question.
I hope you will not think I am baiting you when I ask how something can be both meaningless and relevant. It is a serious question.
I don’t think the fact (from my perspective) everybody was an atheist until somebody came up with god is important as, say, an argument against religion. In that context, it’s irrelevant and doesn’t prove or mean anything.
However, the question in this thread is “which came first - the deity, or the atheist?” So that issue, normally a totally unimportant one in my opinion, is exactly what we’re discussing.
I disagree, based on the etymological components of the word…but that could just be an argument of semantics.
I concur.
In answer to the OP, I agree with those that suggest that it depends on whether or not God exists. Perhaps it would have been just as well to ask, “Do you believe God exists?”
The atheist came first.
"I love my independent skeptical judgment, but oh, God, oh, God, OH GOD!"
Had to be done, pray continue.
Just a note to those who are reading this anew, this debate started in General Questions, and then was moved to Great debates by a moderator. As I read the situation, the original post knew that atheist existed, but didn’t have much of a idea of what they believed, as opposed to a friend of his, who believed that atheists practiced outright denial of a god they knew to exist, and thought that they were an incredibly rare bread, as oppossed to what I believe is the case, that they exist in larger numbers then, say, jews. (cite:Tom Flynn, “Nonreligious Now America’s Second Largest Lifestance Group,” Secular Humanist Bulletin, Spring 2000.)
Now however, it seems that I am having fun argueing over the etymology of a word (from a- “without” + theos “a god”) vs. what it has been definned to mean by propagandists(archaic: ungodliness, wickedness; a denial of the existence of a deity.
Someone else repeating my point:
Now then, back to the frey!
::Scott does a belly flop. Alas, it is into an empty pool. He removes himself from the bottom of the pool, one handed with a spatula, much like how Wile E. Coyote would in the Old Looney Toons Cartoons.::
Scott: Oh, darn. No more frey. Did I err? I guess I’ll get some cheese dip. Come on Rufferto.
Note for those who don’t get it: I am compairing myself to the humor comic-book barbarian Groo, as I am someone who likes verbal duels. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groo_the_Wanderer
If the egg came first then where did the egg come from?
hehehehahahaha!
Did you even read the thread? Dinosaur.
No, really. A dinosaur. Look at the fourth post in the thread.
Well, I was being facetious, but actually you are 100% wrong as chicken eggs were not laid by dinosaurs, and is a ridiculous comment, as much evolution took place in between. Which illustrates the point of my question, you clearly don’t know where the egg came from.
IMNSHO…
Probably the deity. As soon as someone dreamed up the first deity, there was probably someone else calling “Bullshit” on him. The two seem to go hand in hand.
No. You asked about eggs, not chicken eggs. Your words were “If the egg came first then where did the egg come from?” 12 words. No chickens.
That you are having fun seems to be clearly evident. That you have any clue as to what is actually occurring in this thread is not. Take a look around. The notion of “ungodliness” or “wickedness” is not being proposed by anyone in this thread. On the other hand, the “denial of the existence of a deity” would be a pretty clear (and quite neutral) definition of atheism that is neither pejorative nor archaic.
In fact, it would seem to me that your assertion that an inanimate object (or a creature of insufficient mental capacity to actually conceive of either a god or a lack of a god) could be atheistic (implying a belief or world view regarding the presence or abscence of the divine) would require substantially more evidence or logic than you have thus far presented.
I guess that so many people have been defining denial as not being a negative conatative word and I don’t see how that is possible, but I’m happy since as far as I could see I have answered the original question.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5871676&postcount=1
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5876704&postcount=45
My message was directed towards those that were able read the quote included in my message and were following the thread.
Actually we were specifically talking about chicken eggs in the thread, and it was clearly referenced by the quote which was included with my orginal message, which you apparently didn’t read in full. You also do not appear to be following that thread, as you should have been able to follow the conversation even if that quote had not been included. Part of which includes the following quotes included in my orginal message:
and the question to which I directly responded:
I have underlined it to make it easier for you.
Meh. That message was a along the same lines as my post,
#4.
It surprises me not at all that you would be unable to see that simple words expressing an action or a state of belief do not have to carry a negative connotation. I could easily be classfied as a denier of biblical literalism, the practicality of Marxist-style government, a flat earth, or the quality of Robert Jordan’s fiction and I would not take offense (or consider it a negative trait) to be “accused” of any of those positions.
.
I am happy that you are happy. Of course, the OP is probably happy that most of the serious respondents actually addressed the OP rather than indulging in superficial banter that did not quite rise even to the level of actual sophistry.
(You also confused post #45 for post #42, making your boast even more hollow.)
I don’t see how my arguement are:
- Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
- A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
Nor how the wrong press of a key, in cutting and pasting the wrong link, could take away credibility. Any lurkers here who actually agree with my points, or anyone else? Yllaria, Padeye, Cervaise can be found in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158832 , but that seems like putting all of the fish into one barrel, so that they can be shot at.