Atheism and Theism are equally absurd.

Just because there are two possible outcomes does not mean that they both deserve equal consideration. I could claim to be God himself. You have no real way of proving or disproving it. But if you gave it any serious consideration I would suggest that you get yourself admitted. That's how cults start. Just because two possible answers exist does not make both credible. And once again, the positive claim is the one that needs to be proved. If I claimed that I was God, it would be on me to prove it. It would not be on you to prove that I am not God, it is on me to prove it. Similarly, the God hypothesis demands evidence for any serious consideration.

What about the saying...

If there was no god, there would be no Athiests?

What about the saying... If there was no god, there would be no Athiests?

If there was no belief in God, there would be no atheists.

Thank you.

If there was no belief in God, there would be no atheists.

If there were no belief in god, everyone would be atheist by definition.

a·the·ist –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I still say that to deny or disbelieve [verbs] implies action by an individual, which means it is not passive and thus not innate (as babies are not athiests). To deny it, the concept of God has to exist, which it wouldn't if there was no belief. Basically, 150,000 years ago there were no atheists.

If there were no belief in god, everyone would be atheist by definition.

Well, I agree, however the concept of atheist would not exist either. For instance, we are all a-alchemists. However, I do not believe that there exists a word that means people that do not believe in alchemy. So from that perspective nobody is a (whatever word may mean "one who does not believe in alchemy"). From our definition, yes, everyone would have been an atheist. However, from the perspective of a world with no concept of God, the term atheist would simply not exist.

I still say that to deny or disbelieve [verbs] implies action by an individual, which means it is not passive and thus not innate (as babies are not athiests). To deny it, the concept of God has to exist, which it wouldn't if there was no belief. Basically, 150,000 years ago there were no atheists.

To deny something you must actively reject the idea. Disbelief, however, is simply a lack of a belief. "A baby disbelieves" requires no more thought from the baby than "A baby exists," both sentences using action verbs.

I think most atheists would say that atheism is better defined as the lack of belief in a God or Gods. I would also like to point out that contrary to popular belief, atheism does not imply certainty of the nonexistence of God, but simply a lack of belief in God. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking atheism requires some faith. If it were the 100% absolute rejection of the idea of God, I would agree (although I would say it only requires as much faith as the assumption that you will never see the statue of liberty as it exists today wave at you...technically possible). But that is not what atheism is.

Finally, Grav I agree that there were no atheists 150,000 years ago, but not for the reasons you do. By our definition (assuming that there were no primitive animist religions at the time), yes, everyone at the time was an atheist. However, since the concept of atheism did not exist 150,000 years ago, nobody would have been called an atheist.

This is just entirely a discussion of semantics, however. It is inherently circuitious and cannot come a pointed conclusion.

Clarifying semantics is important if we ever hope to dissociate ourselves with the stigmas society has given us. In fact, to have a discussion about anything we should be clear about semantics. This is an entirely frivolous discussion if I and KA have different definitions of atheist.

This is just entirely a discussion of semantics, however. It is inherently circuitious and cannot come a pointed conclusion.

Oh, I agree with that. It just appears that the problem is currently not based around the views of an idea, but the views of what the definition of said idea is. So there is disagreement on two levels.

My ideas on this have been the same since 2007 and won't change now because I want social brownie points over discussing nothing.

You were actually right, K_A. They are equally absurd.