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.
Sorry, since one belief does not necissarily preceed the other, you can not tell.
The fact is that the evidence doesn’t exist. A responsible person knowing that would agree that it is impossible to know, and since one idea does not belief does not necissarily preceed the other, you can not tell.
Josh said…
And I still don’t care how far back the evidence goes
Well that is apparent. Scientific fact for you, and literacy only goes as far as it agrees with your position.
Once again, any child can invent imaginary scenarios, particularly those that can never be measured, and present them as scientific arguments.
They are not.
I can say anyone may have thought anything, but it is the vain babbling of a child if I do. The fact is, we’re talking about A-THEISM, NOT the random thought patterns that you would like to invent for someone imaginary person of whom is nameless, and unidentifiable.
A-THEISM is a Doctrine. A BELIEF SYSTEM.
What some imaginary character you wish to invent to present as scientific debate, may have thought, is irrelevant to the topic.
A-THEISM first appeared as a belief system, around 2500 years ago.
Regardless of whatever fairy tales you wish to invent here to sell your crumbling position.
So, I can still propose a plausib;e scenario by which even more people disbelieved god first. The number is irrelevant. I dunno, make it a thousand people. You still can’t prove otherwise.
No, the reasoning of a child assumes that they know what happened when there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence. The reasoning of an adult accurately says, “I don’t know. There isn’t enough evidence.”
Inventing imaginary scenario’s of what may have went on inside of some guys mind, and purporting them as scientific reason, or logic, to define a “Belief System”, is the reasoning of a child.
If only one guy thought it, then it wasn’t an “ISM”
Hence, it wasn’t ATHEISM.
And if that same guy dismissed it while simultaneously inventing it, I’m not even sure it qualifies as a “thought”.
Confusion would be a more applicable word.
Or perhaps an early sign of Dementia.
While it’s true you must consider something before it is dismissed, it doesn’t imply that you believed it, only that you considered its possibility. And, by the way, you are wrong. Many people throughout history have thought up things themselves only to dismiss them. It isn’t implausible at all. And, since it isn’t usually of value to record your absence of belief in something until you encouter an opposing viewpoint I’m not surprised in the least that older texts portray theism before they mention atheism. And I still don’t care how far back the evidence goes, to prove your conclusion based on your false premise you would have to be able to show that the first person considering gods existance chose to be a believer. You can’t. Can you?
Josh
1, August 27, 2008 at 12:20 am
Ok, so here I go.
Chiken and Egg argument (only posting this for the benifit of CroMM’s logic.) –
Atheism as a belief could have existed before theism. The first man to ever consider whether or not a god may exist could just as easily concluded that there isn’t a god, thereby being the first atheist and pre-theist by virtue of no one having considered it before. You have no proof otherwise an cannot unless you have a time machine I don’t know about
Lol, Josh, I applaud your ability to contort logic beyond the bounds of sanity.
A. In order for someone to contemplate the notion of a god or gods, he or someone would first have to consider the viability of the existence of one as fact. Otherwise, there would be nothing for him to believe.
A-THEISM is the opposite of THEISM, which is a “belief in THEO, which is god. A-THEISM therefore, a disbelief in a god, could not exist if no one first held a belief in a god. It would equate to belief in nothing, or disbelief in nothing.
Your strained logic scenario, where a primitive man in his own mind suddenly creates the concept of a god, and in the same instance, concludes it’s not a plausible concept, does not equate to A-THEISM, which is a doctrine, that professes that there is no god.
Your scenario defines someone inventing something then dismissing it in the same breath, never having believed it in the first place, which is of course absurdity.
If the thing was never professed, then not believing in it would not constitute anything.
It first must be professed, for one to deny it.
B. There is ample evidence of the existence of early religion long before any records of atheism emerged. ATHEISM as we know it, first emerged as a school of thought around the 5th century CE. Diagoras, considered the “first A-THEIST”, was famous for his opposition to the worship of deities. There were ample recorded religions prior to 5 CE. Heck, Judaism dates back 1500 years prior to Diagoras and the onset of Atheism in the Middle East. To say we don’t have evidence of religious belief prior to A-THEISM is an uneducated statement at best.
Furthermore, Anthropology shows us that Religious beliefs such as Animism, dates back to Prehistoric times, with religious artificats and symbolence being discovered as far back as the end of the fourth phase of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which is prior to the emergence of Homo Sapiens as a species, about 70,000 years ago.
And if thats not far back enough for you, we even have discovered evidence of rudementary religious belief in China dating back to the old stone age, about half a million years ago.
😐
Sorry …..doooood….but your “logic” strained and elongated as it may be, is an “anti-logic”.
I’ll call it A-LOGIC.
It was a nice try, but the fact is, A-THEISM, as introduced to the world as a belief system a mere 2500 years ago, and religious belief predates that by a long, long, long long time.
What else you got?
Ok, so here I go.
Chiken and Egg argument (only posting this for the benifit of CroMM’s logic.) –
Atheism as a belief could have existed before theism. The first man to ever consider whether or not a god may exist could just as easily concluded that there isn’t a god, thereby being the first atheist and pre-theist by virtue of no one having considered it before. You have no proof otherwise an cannot unless you have a time machine I don’t know about. It is logical fallacy to say that just because one is a disbelief that the subsequent belief necissarily happened first. There is no other way to view it period. You simply do not know which came first. I’m sorry if you can’t understand the complexity of such an obvious statement. It is still fact. [This by the way was not an argument I started, it was something you first posted as fact that I pointed out was unknown. It is all beside the point anyway.]
Atheism is an untenable belief argument (the actual point of this problem)
Atheism, as you have suggested in previous posts, is not
“predispos[ed] to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality.” Actually, atheism is very much grounded in rigorous testing of the environment we all inhabit and on the subsequent results. Science to date has no (as in zero, zilch, nada) evidence that god has been necissary in the creation or continuance of the known universe. A surprising fact in light of His supposed prominence in its creation. You might find it interesting to look up figures on the number of prominent science figures who are theists. I suppose that the people we trust to help us understand the world around us are all really out to disprove the existance of Him.
As to the untenable charge? That depends on your point of view. I mean, you could say that it is untenable to disbelieve in leprichans and dragons. I mean, just because there is absolutely no evidence for there existance is not proof that they do not exist. Perhaps this is why most professed atheists more accurately describe themselves as agnostics with very strong leanings towards atheism. But, if you accept as I do that a complete lack of evidence for something, combined with its complete absence from known reality, and lack of necessity for the thing in question amounts to non-existance, then we are on the same page.
Additionally, as science reaches new heights in the heavens and approaches understanding of the smallest particles in the universe the answer may indeed be known. If we truly encounter the simplest particles possible and understand there interactions then there may be no more room for God. The last of his hiding places could be uncovered and all reality may be explained without His involvement. This would be the death of Him.
See Litz, the problem I have with A-THEISM is the same problem I have with THEISM.
Get enough people together in a room, let them think they’ve got some answers to questions that no one has yet answered, and next thing you know they’re clowning around in government.
Next thing you know, we end up with things like The Suppression of Heresy, The Inquisitions, The Crusades, and the less obvious but nonetheless destructive results of the mingling of church and state.
Thats why I think, “BELIEF SYSTEMS” are a bad thing.
And A-THEISM, like THEISM, is a belief system.
And one rapidly gaining footholds throughout the new “progressive movement”. A fact evident by the number of bloggers in progressive blogs professing A-THEISM without understanding what the word really means.
And if A-THEISM replaces THEISM as the new Belief System that influences our government, it is not at all improbable that THEISTS may become the subject of discrimination and or persecution, much like A-THEISTS have been.
We have all the “Belief Systems” we need.
What we need now, is a few calm heads, who don’t need belief systems to correlate their understanding of the universe, and who are capable of simply saying, “gee, I don’t know“.
litzell
1, August 26, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I did not pull my definition out of my ass. I struggled with the term. I talked to others. I read and studied
Well then perhaps your problem lies with your reading comprehension skills. You might try Hooked on Phonic’s, I hear it does wonders.
In the meantime, I’d suggest re-reading the dictionary and even the A-THEIST websites, so that you can understand that A-THEISM is the opposite of THEISM, hence A-THEISM is a disbelief in a god or gods.
If you believe in a god, or even suspect one may exist, AND if you MUST have some defining word or group to correlate your beliefs to, then you would be defined at that point, as an agnostic.
Or, you could skip the organized “BELIEF SYSTEMS”, and just admit you don’t know.
Like I do.
And many like me.
I did not pull my definition out of my ass. I struggled with the term. I talked to others. I read and studied (including the Anthology Patty referenced). I didn’t stop with the one-line definition in Websters. My use of the atheist label is not capricious, childish, illiterate or unconsidered. My process began in 1975 when I gave up my childhood religion and it was just last year that I decided I could take on the label only because I satisfied myself that I could be atheist without professing omniscience. I do not believe in a god or gods, I call myself an atheist, and I’m hardly unique.
litzell
1, August 26, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Words are not infinitely malleable.”
Neither are they intractable. If people who believe as I do continue to call ourselves atheists for another 200 years, will it then be time to allow the broader definition
Boy, the tag teams are out in force tonight.
Ok Litz. If people who believe “AS YOU DO”, continue to call yourselves A-THEISTS for 200 years, I am sure the dictionary will evolve the defintion of the word.
In the meantime, those of us who speak the English Language, will defer to the references provided us and not your own personal “my atheism” defintions.
Children invent their own meanings for words, as do the illiterate.
Adults, literate adults, do not.
Hence, by your defintion, I could say that “my atheism” is scratching my butt with a fig twig on Tuesday while eating Salmon caught in the teeth of a wild grizzly bear.
Hey, that’s “my atheism”. Who are you to refute it?
I could say that. If I were a child, or illiterate.
But since I speak English, I use the dictionary, like most literate adults when someone challenges the generally accepted meaning of a word.
And the dictionary, says you’re wrong.
As does logic.
In fact, lets take a look at the Dictionary defintions Patty posted trying to assert her A-THEIST doctrine.
Patty produced this definition from Websters.
A defintion I might add, that I already produced last night. All she had to do was scroll up.
But here lets look at it again. She posts the whole thing, so lets look.
From WEBSTERS courtesy of Patty C.
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
So we see, that Atheism, as I have said, is a DOCTRINE.
A DOCTRINE is defined as a set of principles or BELIEFS.
So Patty herself, has provided us here this evening, with a defintion that identifies A-THEISM as a DOCTRINE or BELIEF.
As I said, and in contratiction to her assertations that somehow it is not a belief.
But Patty doesn’t stop there. Oh no. Patty gives us more. Much more.
She provides us with a defintion of 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
Thus we see, Patty providing the defintion of Disbelief, as an ACTIVE ACTION, “rejecting” belief.
Thus adding credence to my earlier statements that some sought to refute, that A-THEISM exists to denounce THEISM.
Which it does.
So we see, that not only is DISBELIEF the same as BELIEF in the opposite, we also see that the DISBELIEF of A-THEISM, is an active REJECTION of THEISM.
Thanks Patty.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“Words are not infinitely malleable.”
Neither are they intractable. If people who believe as I do continue to call ourselves atheists for another 200 years, will it then be time to allow the broader definition? The word has already been argued for centuries. Loosen up a little. I don’t want to reprint my stationary.
And, when you write something like this:
“Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system, much like many of the religions it is designed to dismiss. After all, forming a belief system to dismiss and refute others personal beliefs is clearly intended to stir up antagonism, so we shouldn’t be surprised by these atheists and their “gay Jesus”. Nor should we be offended.”
understand that you are insulting a much broader audience than your favored definition would allow. But I suspect you knew that.
Patty said..
Your refusal to believe (ie DISbelief) does not determine whether I am correct
Nor did I imply that it did.
You are incorrect, however that statement, as anyone with a brain would be able to deduce, was stated to demonstrate that a “DISBELIEF” as opposed to a belief in the opposite, is the same thing.
Like the typical A-THEIST, you draw from time worn A-THEIST doctrines, to try and empower the word “DISBELIEF” with some special powers that it does not posses.
The word DISBELIEF means the same thing as a BELIEF in the opposite.
Hence;
I DISBELIEVE you are literate.
Or…
I BELIEVE you are not literate.
😐
They mean the same things, but only to the literate.
“But the fact is, whether I say, I believe Patty is not correct, or, if I sai, I DIS-believe Patty is correct, I have said the same thing.”
Wrong again, ‘apeman’ – an anglophile you are not!
Your refusal to believe (ie DISbelief) does not determine whether I am correct. Which, in this case, I most certainly am! I provided you the the word origin.
“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.”
You can believe whatever you want. It has no effect.
I disbelieve Patty knows what she’s talking about.
😐
I believe Patty doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
See?
Same thing.
To the literate.
Most A-THEISTS you will find, like Patty, will or Litz, will try to introduce their own meanings into the word Belief.
It’s what children and the illiterate do, when confronted with a fact that does not sit well with them.
But the fact is, whether I say, I believe Patty is not correct, or, if I sai, I DIS-believe Patty is correct, I have said the same thing.
Patty’s problem is consistent with the other A-THEISTS in here.
They don’t know what the word means.
As I have accurately predicted twice now, Patty has come in to post a lengthy diatribe of random comments, thoughts, defintions and rhetoric, none of which disproves anything I said.
Patty, like most A-THEISTS, attempts to endow the word “DIS-BELIEF” with some special powers, that make it different than a belief in the opposite.
I DIBELEIVE Patty is correct.
I BELIEVE Patty is not correct.
😐
Same thing.
To the literate.