First I must admit I am not sure what you mean, but I will try and answer to the best of my ability anyway .
And I do also realize that something else may make sense to someone else, but that doesnt make them irrational or anything... well, at least not any more irrational then me (everyone is irrational to some degree) .
I dont think atheism came before theism, I think they came to existence at the same time.
Atheism to me is no philosophy or anything, it is just the absence of disbelief in deities. It can be part of philosophies, though. My own fairly incomplete and utterly irrational philosophy can for example hardly be described as "objective", it is more a matter of what makes sense to me. Atheim is a part of it, but it is no more then a part, so my philosophy cannot be summed up with "atheist". That is basically also why I dont like it when people tell me atheism is a philosophy, because it feels like they are reducing my philosophy to a part of my philosophy.Yea I understand what you mean.
I was just never content with atheism, though I must admit it is one of my stronger defenses. Atheism is in itself (to me at least) a position of presumption, where only the "objective" philsophies are involved.
But thats just like asking what came first...the chicken or the egg? The atheist or the Christian? The human soul or the human mind?
And I do also realize that something else may make sense to someone else, but that doesnt make them irrational or anything... well, at least not any more irrational then me (everyone is irrational to some degree) .
I dont think atheism came before theism, I think they came to existence at the same time.
I have my own issues with Objectivism. Just mentioned it because it was the only philosophy I could think of at the time that embraces atheism.I kind of see objectivism as a poor limit as to what is subjectively apprehended.
And the man without a sword can beat one with a sword if he knows how, especially if the one who uses the sword have no idea of how to use it .A sword is only useful in the hands of a person swinging it, if they have any idea of what they are doing in the first place. Otherwise a person who knows what they are doing could perform better against a blade being weilded against them, the objective sword is subject to its manipulator and their intent. The man without a sword is just trying to defend himself in the way he knows best