The good people of Elyria, Ohio are in an uproar with the appearance of a school poster featuring a “Gay Jesus.” The poster was the work of a student atheist group at Lorain County Community College and the students are now facing allegations of violating school prohibitions of insulting a religious faith.
I can actually claim the distinction of visiting Elyria repeatedly as lead counsel in the espionage case of Petty Office Danny King, who returned to Elyria after we won the case. Nice town. Nice people. But it appears that this poster has caused something of an uproar over freedom of speech versus respect for the religion of others.
The poster was made as part of Club Awareness Week, along with many other displays advertising student-run extracurricular organizations. If they weren’t before, people are certainly aware of the atheist club now. Activists for Atheism at LCCC have been swamped with complaints and notified that the poster violates a rather sweeping school policy: “Harassing any person(s) verbally, in writing, by graphic illustration, or physically, including any abuse, defamatory comments, signs or signals intended to mock or ridicule race, religion, age, sex, color, disability, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin” is not allowed.
That is a remarkably broad prohibition, particularly in an academic setting where students are supposed to engage in free and passionate debates.
The poster is referencing a passage of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark — found inscribed in a letter by Greek historian Clement of Alexandria. One section suggests that after Jesus resurrected a man from the dead, he had an intimate relationship with him.
The controversial passages falls between verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
It is viewed as entirely false and outrageous by many Christians. In the meantime, the school will have to decide whether such debates are part of the academic experience or should be banned as offensive to religious sensibilities. I tend to favor free speech and leave the merits to such debates to the students and faculty to hash out.
For the full story, click here.
Basic atheism is NOT a belief. It is the LACK OF belief…
*****
Unlike you, I know exactly what I am saying, and just like Michael,
I don’t need your blessing – Thank God 😉
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
This is the definition from Oxford:
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition
Here is how the OED defines “atheism”:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).
Here is the OED’s definition of “agnostic”:
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
It is interesting to compare this to Huxley’s definition.
Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged
Here is Webster’s definition of atheism:
atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity–compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct
disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true
disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
Atheist books
One might argue that the term “Jewish” should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term “atheist” should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.
It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god–both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word “atheism,” however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of “atheist” in English is “someone who asserts there is no such being as God,” I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix “a” to be read in the same way in “atheist” as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as “amoral,” “atypical,” and “asymmetrical.” In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels “positive atheist” for the former and “negative atheist” for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]
If you look up “atheism” in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek “a” means “without” or “not” and “theos” means “god.” From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of “atheism,” including Baron d’Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses “atheist” to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term “god” has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word “atheism,” we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of “a-” and “-theism.” Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix “a-” can mean “not” (or “no”) or “without.” If it means “not,” then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means “without,” then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-2008. All rights reserved.
« disclaimer »
How is it someone always comes in to cover for you guys?
Ok Litz, allow me to illuminate.
If you believe that there may be a god, then you are not by defintion, and A-THEIST.
That children like to play word games, like a little girl calling herself a Princess, unless someone has endowed her with royalty and it’s trappings, she’s still just a little girl calling herself princess.
A-THEISM is the belief that there is no god.
You may say the same thing, by saying it is a “DISBELIEF that there is a god”.
They mean the same things.
I didn’t create the defintion. Talk to Diagoras and those who came after him.
I am merely providing you with proper English, and proper defintions of A-THEISM.
Children decide their own meanings for words.
The rest of us use the dictionary and recorded authoritative documents to decide the meanings of words.
It’s like mespo727272 said so clearly yesterday;
Words are not infinitely malleable.
And that includes the word A-THEIST.
You may want to call yourself one. Heck call yourself anything you want. But that doesn’t make me, or the English language, or the facts, wrong.
A-THEISM is the belief that there is no god.
It came AFTER THEISM, and is an untenable belief system that like THEISM, cannot prove it’s founding tenet.
😐
Like I said earlier.
The real problem here, is so many people calling themselves A-THEIST, who don’t know what the word means.
I would have liked to have joined in this conversation, but it’s been too much to follow and still keep the dog fed on schedule.
It is difficult to call yourself an atheist when so many others want to tell you what you believe. Dictionaries use the theologian’s definition, “denies a God exists.” Perhaps theologians have greater influence on the dictionary than the many atheists who over the centuries have said and written clearly that they have no belief in a god but do not deny the existence of a god.
There are some who fit the theologian definition, but for many of us the admission that we are simply unable to know the unknown or unknowable is a salient point. If you remove it from the definition, then you are only counting a subset of atheists. If you say that someone who denies there is a god has made a leap of faith, I can’t argue with you, but that has nothing to do with my atheism. I only reject absurd gods and if I find one that isn’t, I’ll cease to be an atheist.
Micheal Spindell said…
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
THEN Micheal Spindell said…
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
First you presented this strawman, claiming I said something that I never said.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when I pointed out to you that was a straw argument I never made, you lied, denying you ever said it.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See?
Caught in a lie.
And now insulting me, rather than owning up to it.
Michael Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“See Michael?
Sadly, you lack the capacity to insult me because I see you as you are
Well since I have not insulted you, nor anyone, but merely attacked illogical and incorrect positions, we see you still haven’t learned your lesson about inventing strawmen.
You insult me, with nothing but tripe, no facts to refute any position of mine, then accuse me of doing the insulting.
Another lie, from a guy not able to admit when he’s wrong.
Michael Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.”
No they’re the last refuge of the ignorant egotist trying to prove his intelligence via absurd debate
No Michael, they are the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.
When someone persists in manipulating words beyond their meanings to try and prove their point, the Dictionary is where literate folks turn to expose illiteracy.
As for my proving my “intelligence” I am trying to do no such thing. I am merely proving a point.
A fact.
Babies and children don’t like facts being proven, so like you, they resort to name calling when their “opinions” crumble in the face of reality.
Babies and children also lie, when cornered on facts, as you did. A lie which you’ve yet to own up to.
So allow me to once more draw back your attention to your original strawman, and then the LIE you told, trying to deny launching a strawman.
First you presented this strawman, claiming I said something that I never said.
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
Then, when I pointed out to you that was a straw argument I never made, you lied, denying you ever said it.
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See? Your words are there. You can climb on your high horse all you want, but your strawman and your lie, will follow you until you act like an adult, and admit to being caught.
“See Michael?
You can make all the post-lying explanations you want, but your words prove you out.”
Sadly, you lack the capacity to insult me because I see you as you are. It isn’t pretty. How is it that you argue with and insult everyone. Is this a website of fools, or is it that you’re the fool? I choose the latter position sadly, you’re a bright man with who I agree on some issues, but you are awash in vitriol.
You said…
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So since we don’t know if the belief in a god has been around as long as all of humanity, we remain unsure as to which came first, atheism or theism
When the fact is, it is only YOU, and perhaps Josh, who remain “unsure” as to which came first.
The rest of us are quite aware that THEISM by definition, predates A-THEISM.
You cannot “disbelieve” in something you’ve never heard of.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm
CroMM,
I am learning something. I’m learning that you’re so convinced of your own moral and intellectual superiority that you refuse to listen to anyone who’s opinion is different then yours.
No Gyges, your “opinion” isn’t just different than mine.
It’s different than the facts.
Than the DICTIONARY’s.
Than reality.
Like most atheists and their apologists, you find yourself confounded by your own words, and thus turn to personal insults against your opponent, and vague generalities, since your position has crumbled away.
Fact. You tried to state “ATHEISM” may have come BEFORE “THEISM”.
That is impossible, your “opinion” aside.
Now that you see the fallacy of that statement, you digress to insulting me, and summarily exhalting yourself to a lofty position of some preassumed superiority.
I am not attacking you. I am attacking the ignorant positions you are trying to sell here in an vain attempt to refute my position.
When you say something smart, I’ll applaud it.
But when you say stupid things, like ATHEISM may have come BEFORE THEISM, then you are saying childrens babble, and should not take offense when someone corrects that ridiculous silliness.
“Michael Spindell said..
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.”
No they’re the last refuge of the ignorant egotist trying to prove his intelligence via absurd debate. I’ll give you this crommy, you certainly are energized. Too bad you have all this energy in the service of nothing. Before you state it, yes I have no interest in engaging in further debate with you. I’m already confident in my own self worth and I don’t need to pretend to myself that I’m worthy by exhausting people with useless argumentation. By the way, has anyone ever told you that you argue like a Bush Republican? A plethora of never ending bluster, a constant shifting of subject and much sturm unt drang over the inconsequential.
CroMM,
I am learning something. I’m learning that you’re so convinced of your own moral and intellectual superiority that you refuse to listen to anyone who’s opinion is different then yours. And I do mean listen and not just consider. You think that you know what the only possible counter against your opinion is, and so don’t bother to read the content of the actual posts.
I gave you a second chance because you seemed to be actually engaged in a discussion and not just reading off your script. I’m learning how wrong that was. I’m learning that I feel sorry for you, because while the rest of us are free to engage in a discussion in which all parties walk away having learned something, you’re stuck replaying your “great debates” from the past (you’ve said repeatedly that this is how ALL your debates go with atheists).
I’m learning that my old policy of not reading your posts is better then my “new” policy of treating you like a reasonable person. So thank you for teaching me.
If however you wish to persist in your argument, that “IGNORANCE” of something, equates to “DISBELIEF”, then I am sure theres more than one A-THEIST here who will take offense at having their “DISBELIEF” in a god defined by you as merely “IGNORANCE”.
😐
Just FYI.
This little diddy was supposed to make it easy for you to understand.
Try thinking for a minute, and rereading this.
It’s fun.
ATHEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
Gyges said
Josh and I are simply saying that we don’t know if the earliest humans believed in gods or not
No, what you both SAID was there was no evidence that A-THEISM came after THEISM, which it must have.
And you used ridiculous logic like this, to try and sell that ignorant statement.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
CroMM,
For most of history people didn’t believe in bacteria. Therefore disbelief in bacteria came before belief
See, people did not “disbelieve in bacteria” for most of history.
People were IGNORANT as to the existence of bacteria.
For people to have not “believed” in bacteria, they’d have to first KNOW what it was or at least be aware of its existence.
They were not.
Thus, you have confused IGNORANCE of something, with DISBELIEF in something.
In order to “DISBELIEVE” in a god, you’d first have to know what a god is.
Therefore, BELIEF in a god, came BEFORE DISBELIEF in one.
IGNORANCE of the existence of a god, may have existed prior to both, however A-THEISM did not rear it’s head, until THEISM first arrrived.
You cannot have A-THEISM, without THEISM.
😐
It’s amazing to me you need this explained.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm
CroMM,
Your Entomology argument holds no water. Did the Arctic exist before the Antarctica?
You’re kidding right?
You’re comparing Antarctica and the Artic with THEISM and A-THEISM?
😐
You Bass players must smoke a lot of dope or something ay?
Ok, one more time.
THEISM = A belief that there is a god or gods.
A-THEISM = A belief that there is NO god or gods.
😐
If no one beleived or suggested THEISM, then there could be no A-THESIM.
How can you “not believe in something” that has never been suggested?
ATHEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”
😐
You learning yet?
CroMM,
Your Entomology argument holds no water. Did the Arctic exist before the Antarctica? By your logic it must have. I assume you’d point out correctly that the people who coined those terms knew about the Arctic before they knew about Antarctica so the language is biased as a result of their “reality.” That’s exactly my point, since the people that formed the Greek language (which is were we get the word) were theistic, so is the language. But the Greek language doesn’t reflect what was going on BEFORE or after its formation, only what was going on during. Nor does it say that all Greeks felt that way, just enough of the people to affect the language. So the most we can say is from your entomological argument is that the Greeks as a culture believed in gods while the language was being formed.
Josh and I are simply saying that we don’t know if the earliest humans believed in gods or not.
It seems as if you boys want to just ‘argue’ any point with me, rather than address my main point.
I will be happy to debate the untenable foundations of A-THEISM with you however, per your request Josh, this evening, but we need to find another thread. This ones bogged down with comments.
Perhaps the NEPAL Supreme Court thread? It’s pretty much dead, and theres room for comments.
Say “7’ish”?
If however simple logic is lost on you Gyges, then I suggest you research Diagoris, (First Atheist) and the foundations of A-THEISM, which didn’t come into play until the 5th Century CE, long after the establishment of religions.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So since we don’t know if the belief in a god has been around as long as all of humanity, we remain unsure as to which came first, atheism or theism
Really?
😐
Really? I have to explain this again?
Okay class.. pay attention now.
THEISM = A BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD.
A-THEISM = A BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
😐
In order to have a DISBELIEF in something, someone FIRST must have had believed that thing existed.
Otherwise, who’d know what you were talking about?
A-THEIST “there is no god”
NON A-THEIST “what’s a god?”