What do people think "atheist" means?

[Ouroboros]

Only if you assume that Gods dont exist and that these claimed events didnt take place.

Sure.

The alternative is that the first theists got the information and ideas from an actual God(s), in a revelation. And then they wouldn't be implied theists, but quite explicit in their beliefs from get-go.

Now, even so, it is possible that some people, in some regions on our planet didn't have a revelation from God but grew the idea (implicitly) over time before the concepts were formalized.

 

[leibowde84]

The idea must've come first, unless they got the idea from someone else who got it from someone else who got it from someone else, who initially got it from themselves as an idea, inside their head. The alternative is that it came originally from an external source, i.e. God in a revelation. Either the first theists were implicit theists, internal, or the first theists had a revelation from God, external information.

I am speaking to the later, as all religions I am aware of begin with an individual recieving a revalation from God or gods. That is why I think that theism is at least claimed to come from an external deity.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure.

The alternative is that the first theists got the information and ideas from an actual God(s), in a revelation. And then they wouldn't be implied theists, but quite explicit in their beliefs from get-go.

Now, even so, it is possible that some people, in some regions on our planet didn't have a revelation from God but grew the idea (implicitly) over time before the concepts were formalized.

Oh, factually speaking, I think that the second option is likely. But, that would mean that the initial "theist" would have simply been the one who created the idea of a "deity" and spread it around to others based purely on speculation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't an individuals understanding all that is necessary? Previously you admonished people for accepting the plurality of the god concept. Now you appear to be insisting on a precise definition?

I think that an individual's understanding of what "god" means is what matters, but this means that people who have no understanding of "god" can't possibly be theists.

You're arguing that people who have no personal understanding of "god" can still be theists somehow (your "implicit theists"). In this case, you can't use the individual's understanding of "god" because he doesn't have one... so what do you use instead?

 

[Ouroboros]

I am speaking to the later, as all religions I am aware of begin with an individual recieving a revalation from God or gods. That is why I think that theism is at least claimed to come from an external deity.

What about polytheism or the belief in the Greek, Roman, Viking gods? Did they all begin with a revelation from those gods?

 

[leibowde84]

What about polytheism or the belief in the Greek, Roman, Viking gods? Did they all begin with a revelation from those gods?

Their "claimed interactions" with these deities were most likely natural events that they, at the time, could not explain. So, that would fit into the same category as well. Basically, they did claim interaction with these deities.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, factually speaking, I think that the second option is likely. But, that would mean that the initial "theist" would have simply been the one who created the idea of a "deity" and spread it around to others based purely on speculation.

Or, like you suggested earlier, it was to explain phenomenon. We do know from psychology that our brains are wired to think of invisible agency for events in our world, like a predator's actions and decisions can keep us safe, or imagining that the weather is controlled by someone we can't see. The first ideas of these agents behind the veil came before even written language was invented, from what I can understand. Perhaps even before they had words to describe these things. Thinking about it, the formalizing of "theism" didn't exist in ancient times. People were of different beliefs, but no one argued that everyone belong to the same category of "theism". It was with the rise of philosophy that these things started to be hammered out. So the concepts of what "theism" was and is, is something that has been developed from thoughts and ideas.

 

[Ouroboros]

Their "claimed interactions" with these deities were most likely natural events that they, at the time, could not explain. So, that would fit into the same category as well. Basically, they did claim interaction with these deities.

Did these deities exist though? Or was it only in their own minds that these deities existed? For it to be actually external information, someone/something must've given them the information.

 

[leibowde84]

Or, like you suggested earlier, it was to explain phenomenon. We do know from psychology that our brains are wired to think of invisible agency for events in our world, like a predator's actions and decisions can keep us safe, or imagining that the weather is controlled by someone we can't see. The first ideas of these agents behind the veil came before even written language was invented, from what I can understand. Perhaps even before they had words to describe these things. Thinking about it, the formalizing of "theism" didn't exist in ancient times. People were of different beliefs, but no one argued that everyone belong to the same category of "theism". It was with the rise of philosophy that these things started to be hammered out. So the concepts of what "theism" was and is, is something that has been developed from thoughts and ideas.

I agree with this completely.

 

[leibowde84]

Did these deities exist though? Or was it only in their own minds that these deities existed? For it to be actually external information, someone/something must've given them the information.

Not sure. I think our human brains are wired to assume answers we can't actually support. It's a form of comfort and increases our happiness, at least in the general sense.

 

[Willamena]

A point of terminology: "implicit atheist" doesn't mean "an atheist who hasn't told anyone he's an atheist"; it means "an atheist who hasn't come to a conclusion about the existence of gods". A person can be an "explicit atheist" without ever telling anyone he's an atheist.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. That's explicit. Not having come to any conclusion about your atheism is just indecision.

 

[Cephus]

Agree. The first "theist" in the world (who then later convinced all the other "implicit atheists" to believe) must've come to this theism without explicit information or influence. He/she must've been implicit theist to start with.

The first religious practices we know of go back to pre-human days, where they were barely sentient. Rational thought was not even on the radar at the time. Original religious thought came from fear of the real world and a lack of understanding of what was happening. It wasn't some full-blown theology that came out of nowhere.

You're getting to the core of the problem. Is atheism a rejection of the word "God" itself and any use of that word in any context (i.e. pantheism is rejected because it uses "God" to describe the universe), or is it a rejection of the concepts of God(s) (supernatural beings who meddle with things in this world), or perhaps it's both?

Atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists as unsupported. So long as theists have no objective evidence to present, their claims will continue to be rejected.

 

[leibowde84]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. That's explicit. Not having come to any conclusion about your atheism is just indecision.

How can you say that someone who is undecided would not be accurately said to not believe in God? They do not believe in both the existence and nonexistence of God, right?

 

[Willamena]

How can you say that someone who is undecided would not be accurately said to not believe in God?

If there is a decision to be made, then there is a decision not made.

They do not believe in both the existence and nonexistence of God, right?

Holy entendre...

No, they just don't believe in God.

 

[leibowde84]

If there is a decision to be made, then there is a decision not made.


Holy entendre...

No, they just don't believe in God.

This is contradictory to your last post. You claimed that they were "undecided" and could not be said to "not believe in God".

 

[Willamena]

To believe in God is to believe in the existent God--existence is a given.

To not believe in God is to not believe in the same proposition, the existent God. Non-existence doesn't exist.

 

[Willamena]

This is contradictory to your last post. You claimed that they were "undecided" and could not be said to "not believe in God".

I meant that the atheist does not believe in God.

The undecided person is just that, undecided.

 

[leibowde84]

I said that atheists don't believe in God. People who are undecided about their atheism are just undecided.

Nope. You said that a person who is "undecided" "doesn't believe in God". I asked you a question about an undecided person who does not hold a belief either way, and you said that they "don't believe in God".

 

[Willamena]

Nope. You said that a person who is "undecided" "doesn't believe in God". I asked you a question about an undecided person who does not hold a belief either way, and you said that they "don't believe in God".

Nevertheless.

 

[leibowde84]

I meant that the atheist does not believe in God.

The undecided person is just that, undecided.

So, undecided people do believe in God. Either one holds a belief in God or they don't. Being undecided is still not holding a belief in God.