Introducing the Hunter process.

Tonto, the concept that the earth is 6,000 only dates back to the beginning of Protestantism, and is arrived at by adding up how long people lived in the bible. Given that it's 500+ years old and allowing error bars an update to 7,000 years is not far fetched.

Even more importantly then that quote is the fact that Genesis is apparently poetry in the original Hebrew, take whatever is said in it with a VERY large grain of salt.

Your confusing Longhorne with a rational Christian, I believe it's mentioned somewhere that Longhorne likely belonged to a section of the populace that believed that the Gabba where God's punishment for developing technology. To Longhorne, being chosen to command Operation Ark at the last minute over the top candidate must have been a sign from heaven that he was God's chosen to create a new technology free utopia. The name likely didn't help

Donnachaidh, I got my quote from an Ars Technica article covering the debate, I don't need to go watch it

Tonto Silerheels wrote:Highjohn wrote:
I know of nowhere where an explicit date is mentioned.

James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, has it at about 6:00 p.m. Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 B.C. I guess that would be Lima time. Archbishop Ussher's chronology became the most popular one as it was added as a gloss in King James' bible.

~Tonto

I meant in scripture. As in "God created earth 5352 years ago from the first day of ______". I didn't mean that the date was just pulled out of thin air. I was aware of Ussher.

Actually you did ask me about that. Right here

SWM wrote:Have you any evidence for this belief? Because all of the evidence that I have seen is that atheism is a fairly recent concept in human history........

Which you kindly quoted in your post.

Unless of course you want to define 'non-recent' as being more than two millennium ago?

About cave men. What you are arguing is that humans or pre humans, transitioned strait from non-sentient or retarded creatures incapable of having the concept of a god. To creatures which could and did have the concept of god. You are saying that there was no period in between when humans or proto-humans hadn't thought of the god concept.

Also, about my arrogance as you previously posted. If you are referring to my supposed comments about what other believe please reread them. With two exceptions(atheists angry at god in response to RFC, and The trinity, which you notice I backed off from quickly once someone contested it because it is a thorny doctrinal issue with lots of disagreement among believers) I stated actions and conclusions and comparisons drawn from them. Not beliefs.

Actually that isn't quite accurate, I stated or assumed in my posts that certain groups(Catholics in particular) believed in angels and saints. I don't think anyone is contesting that though.

Drak, really you want me to call Christians atheists?
We'll if you insist, I suppose I can.

Highjohn wrote:Actually you did ask me about that. Right here

SWM wrote:Have you any evidence for this belief? Because all of the evidence that I have seen is that atheism is a fairly recent concept in human history........

Which you kindly quoted in your post.

Unless of course you want to define 'non-recent' as being more than two millennium ago?

Yes, I do define "non-recent" IN HUMAN HISTORY as being more than two millennium ago.

About cave men. What you are arguing is that humans or pre humans, transitioned strait from non-sentient or retarded creatures incapable of having the concept of a god. To creatures which could and did have the concept of god. You are saying that there was no period in between when humans or proto-humans hadn't thought of the god concept.

Essentially, yes, that is exactly what I am arguing. It appears to me that the concept of supernatural powers developed in parallel with the growing reasoning power of early humans. Eventually it developed into the early religions. The concept of atheism was only possible once analytical reasoning was capable of Philosophy. As philosophy became more sophisticated, atheism became more formalized, as did religion.

I was wondering whether you had any evidence to contrary.

Highjohn wrote:Also, about my arrogance as you previously posted. If you are referring to my supposed comments about what other believe please reread them. With two exceptions(atheists angry at god in response to RFC, and The trinity, which you notice I backed off from quickly once someone contested it because it is a thorny doctrinal issue with lots of disagreement among believers) I stated actions and conclusions and comparisons drawn from them. Not beliefs.

My statement about arrogance had nothing to do with any of that. It had to do with referring me to "Atheism for DUMMIES". I find the premise for their entire series insulting, and being directed to something aimed at dummies felt insulting. I apologize for my response if you truly find "Atheism for Dummies" a useful work and did not intend it as an insult.

[edit]Rereading this, I realize the sentences above might be misread. I am not implying that those who read and find the "... for Dummies" series useful are dummies. Quite the opposite, actually--I think the readers are not dummies, and I find the publisher's title demeaning. On the other hand, I have also seen people recommend others to the "... for Dummies" books as an insult. If you sincerely suggested "Atheism for Dummies" as a useful reference, I apologize for misconstruing your recommendation.[/edit]

My point Sir was that the term "atheist" was used differently in the past than it is used now.

So a person called an atheist in the past may not meet a reasonable person's definition of "atheist" today.

Highjohn wrote:Drak, really you want me to call Christians atheists?
We'll if you insist, I suppose I can.

SWM wrote:My statement about arrogance had nothing to do with any of that. It had to do with referring me to "Atheism for DUMMIES". I find the premise for their entire series insulting, and being directed to something aimed at dummies felt insulting. I apologize for my response if you truly find "Atheism for Dummies" a useful work and did not intend it as an insult.

What! I'm sure the Iranians have found this one helpful:
http://sedition.com/a/1022

... and I'm sure the North Koreans have sold out of this one:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070223185618/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/5/57/Censorship_for_Dummies.png/500px-Censorship_for_Dummies.png

SWM

Yes, the Atheism For Dummies was a sincere.

Recent History: Well fine, you have weird definition of recent. I personally don't consider the fall of Rome recent.

With regards to evidence of non-theism. I don't have any. I have simply found no evidence indicating that humans have always believed in gods. So I have no reason to presume all humans have been theists.

Further I would like to point out that there wouldn't be evidence of this. First because you can't have someone saying, "I don't believe in gods" until someone has the concept of gods. So you can't find any evidence explicit atheism until there is theism. Also, how would you find evidence of atheism before writing? A crossed circle over a picture of a god in a cave? A lack of temples? Neither works as the first one is absurd and the second is an absence of evidence when there is not an expectation of evidence. There wouldn't be evidence until you have recorded arguments against 'unbelievers' or against believers. Which puts us into a period you would consider 'recent'.

Also with regards to RFC's example, I don't think the firs sentient ape who saw fire thought, "A miracle from the gods". I think he/she put their hand out to touch it an then thought "Oww!!". But like RFC I have no evidence of this and it is pure speculation.


Ah one last thing. Explicit atheism is possible as soon as there is theism. Before everyone is an atheist, but then under that definition so are rocks. You don't philosophy to say "I don't believe that".

Drak
Atheism, is a-theism. The prefix 'a' meaning 'not' and theist meaning 'a believer in god(s)'.

This is in fact the case for ancient Christians. They did not believe in 'the gods'. The fact that the romans had a poor understanding of Christian theology doesn't mean hey were using the word differently.

P.S. If you really want me to I can still call you an atheist. Just ask.