Atheism Exists Because Theism Raised The Question First.

IntroductionIt’s of some disappointment that I must reckon with the words of another man’s work. You’re young, I understand, so my forgiveness is forthcoming. But let me encourage you to become more comfortable with the skill of your own words and not the intellectually lazy use of another person’s words.It all tends towards my favor, of course, for even this rhetorical sample that you have presented is naught but folly. But before we begin the verbal rapine of what has been presented here as serious argument, let me be gracious to our readers by laying out some basic definitions and an argument of my own.To be fair to the atheist and theist respectively, we’ll present two definitions that entail different epistemological standards.The definition favorable to many atheists is this:(A1) The absence of a belief in god(s).The definition favorable to many theists is this:(A2) The belief that there are or is no god(s).We’ll have to analyze both (A1) and (A2) separately as the careful reader may already observe, as these two definitions entail different epistemological assumptions.The easy road to VictoryI’ve entitled this the “easy road to victory” because the definition of (A1) so demonstrably refutes the resolution that victory seems too easy, cheap even. Theism is the belief in God and atheism is simply given a single letter prefix “a.” As it happens, this prefix comes from the Greek “a” or “an” which means, “without.” Thus, quite simply, an atheist is someone without belief in God. This is a favorable definition for many atheists[1] because it, for them, puts the burden of proof where it belongs. Since atheism is not a claim at all (which is precisely what a belief ultimately is: a positive claim about reality) it has nothing at all to prove. Thus the atheist sits in the comfortable position of having only to refute positive claims for the existence of god(s) whilst making little to no effort to make any arguments for atheism per se.Any atheist who has ever made the claim that everyone is born an atheist is tacitly affirming (A1) as the most sensible definition of atheism. For how could a newborn infant who has little to no capability of forming even simple beliefs be born an atheist if atheism is being defined in a way that requires the conscience and complex denial of abstract and supernatural entities? I think it strains credulity to think that possible, and I think you do too.So (A1) clearly does not require theism nor could it have possibly originated from any prior questions raised by theists. In fact, (A1) entails, necessarily, that atheism came first. Unless of course humankind was created as fully formed conscience beings and did not evolve over millions of years (a debate for another time, of course).The Alternative RouteThere are always multiple routes to victory and (A2) is still a way to get there, though less observably obvious. Here we must remember the proposition in question. Namely, “atheism exists because theism raised the question first.” Under the definition (A2), atheism is, in fact, making a claim about something. It is saying that God does not exist. Of course, HOW could atheism make this claim if the belief that such an entity existed was not already present?But that seems rather silly, doesn’t it? For no amount of people need to believe something first before it can be denied. The verity of this claim and be tested presently, in the comfort of your own home. Imagine any preposterous thing you like, something your brain has never considered before. The one condition is that this one thing must be something that you will not believe in before or immediately after you’ve thought it. For instance, I thought about a purple ninja in my underwear silently and invisibly boxing my nether-boys like speed bags. So far as I can tell, there is not a single person in the world who believes that there is an invisible purple ninja in my underwear (or theirs for that matter). Thus, even though I have raised the question of such a ninja, absolutely no positive belief in its favor was necessary for it to be denied.Therefore, it is a huge and indefensible non sequitur to believe that the belief in God MUST come chronologically prior to the belief that there is no God. Since no belief in favor of purple ninjas in my underwear came chronologically prior to the belief that there are no such ninjas, the resolution has been discovered void of any logical coherence.Responding to RhetoricSo what then do we do with the argument that you’ve presented? By comparison to what I’ve presented, it seems rather weak (or at least I think so), doesn’t it? This sort of ying-yangish view of belief requiring its corollary opposite is rather strange and ultimately without any merit. For if beliefs required a set of opposite beliefs to obtain, then it is literally impossible for either atheism or theism to exist chronologically prior the other. Thus, the resolution is refuted because the logic presented in your own argument requires that neither atheism nor theism existed chronologically prior to the other. One way to resolve this is to say that a belief does not require the existence of some corollary opposite belief and thus deny the entire argument all together.Or, you could resolve this issue by adopting (A1), which denies that atheism is a belief at all. The problem, of course, is that this means that atheism necessarily came chronologically prior to theism and thus the resolution as been shown false.ConclusionIn sum, I think it is obvious that the resolution as been negated beyond any reasonable doubt. Given the two most judicious definitions of atheism presented by opposing camps, it has been demonstrated that there is no reason at all to infer that theism existed chronologically prior to atheism. Moreover, the weak and wanting rhetorical argument presented in favor of the resolution was found to be self-defeating and only saved by admitting to a definition that necessitates the negation of the resolution.Thank you for the debate and I faithfully anticipate your response.Source:http://atheism.about.com...