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.
Cro-Bartles:
“Your most recent comment that was proven wrong, …,”
********
There’s the Bartlebee we knew, declaring victory in contests he initiates. I thought you were a person of your word and when you left in such a huff I thought you meant what you said. Alas we now know that in addition to incredible peevishness, your principled pronouncements last about 30 days.
LJM:
“If you’re going to throw around phrases like, “mushy thinking” and “freshman philosophy student,” you should be certain that your arguments don’t contain lots of the former so you don’t come off sounding like the latter.”
***********
Well I’m in good company since it was Aristotle who first criticized thinkers like you who believe that words can mean an infinite number of things. For you there are no bounds to the definition because some people calling themselves Christians might or do believe it. If you can’t see the flawed thinking in this argument of yours I am afraid there is very little anyone can do to help you since you have rendered communication impossible.
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.]
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=83&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
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.]
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/defining.htm
There are many rancorous debates over the definition of atheism, with quite a few theists insisting that atheism should be defined in a very narrow sense: the denial of the existence of any gods. When theists simply assume that this is what atheism is, there can be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding in their discussions and debates with atheists.
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human beliefs operate.
A factor which many atheists will encounter is the fact that so many common dictionaries simply fail to provide a full and adequate definition of atheism. Prejudices and assumptions about atheists are quickly confirmed when someone picks up a small dictionary and reads that atheism is “wickedness” and “denial of God,” something often encountered.
Fortunately, larger and more comprehensive dictionaries provide more accurate explanations of what atheism is. The use of poor dictionaries can be addressed by pointing people to the fact that all of these superior sources indicate something different. If someone is interested in an honest conversation, then they will acknowledge that sources like the Oxford English Dictionary, among many others, are more informative and authoritative than their pocket paperback.
Unfortunately, not every person entering such discussions does so with intellectual honesty. Thus, another reason often seen for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principal burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and reasonable.
There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don’t focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god — and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.
Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they “deny the existence of God,” we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term “God” hasn’t been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term “god.” Until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by “god,” we’ll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by “god” will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.
*****
(OED)definitions etc to follow…
Sooooo … ehem (clearing throat). How do you think the Jets are going to do with Favre in the saddle?
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
(2008)Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Chris·tian
Pronunciation[kris-chuhn]
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
mespo727272:
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing.
Well, it would be silly of you to conclude that since nowhere have I implied that the word “Christian” “means everything.” It has a very simple meaning, which, as I’ve been pointing out all along, allows it to be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.
If you’re going to throw around phrases like, “mushy thinking” and “freshman philosophy student,” you should be certain that your arguments don’t contain lots of the former so you don’t come off sounding like the latter. 😉
mespo727272
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:14 am
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing
Christianity refers to a “follower of Christ”.
As LJM so accurately pointed out, this can be anyone who considers themselves a follower of Christ.
There are no specific ordinances, tokens or covenants that are a pre-requisite other than professing to follow and or believe in Christ, to be deemed Christian.
Whether or not they are “good Christians”, is another story. Just like their are no specific pre-requisites necessary to call ones self atheist other than denying the existence of any sort of deity.
THEISTS = Belief there is a God or gods.
A-THEISTS = Belief there is no God or gods.
Everything else is up to the individual. But to call themselves one or the other, they must subscribe to the primary basic tenet.
The tenet Gyges said didn’t exist under Atheism. Which it does.
And in both cases, it’s a basic tenet, that neither belief system can prove.
Thus, both are ultimately untenable belief systems, relying on the believers ability to believe without evidence.
mespo727272
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:04 am
Cro-Bartles:
I am impressed with your singlemindedness in worshiping before the great altar of the dictionary. You will probably note that the word “courage” is defined there as:
“1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”
And as I stated earlier, we see the atheist, reduced to vain attempts at mere personal insults and mockery, without bothering to include any actual facts or data that refute what was said.
I will merely respond to your juvinile personal attack by drawing attention back to your most recent statement that was refuted.
Your most recent comment that was proven wrong, was as follows;
mespo727272
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic
As we have seen, atheism is not “more properly defined as skepticism”.
We also see that to the atheist, the rules apply in debates only when they support his untenable positions. As here, where he mocks the English dictionary as an authoritarian reference for the English language.
Clearly to the Atheist, scientific reasoning only goes as far as it supports his belief system, as does it go with the Theist.
When the facts do not support your position, reference materials considered authoritarian become sources of mockery, much like the neocons do with science and global warming, or creationism.
I however have produced not one but FIVE dictionrary references, and you have merely produced your “opinion”, which goes against the laws of grammer; (THEISM = Belief in God, A-THEISM = the oppoisite of THEISM, hence A-THEISM by defintion means a belief in no god), and yet here I am, still having to explain to you simple grammar. It just goes to confirm my initial position, that A-THEISM is not much different than THEISM, in that they both ascribe with dogmatic zealotry to their own doctrines even in the face of proven fact.
LJM:
“You’re assuming here that “Christianity” is a single belief system, instead of dozens (if not scores) of different ones. There are Christians who are gay and Christians who hate homosexuals. There are Christians who believe all good people go to heaven and there are Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven. There are Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who believe true Christians must reject evolution. I could go on and on.”
*********
Assuming this to be true I must conclude that being called a “Christian” means absolutely nothing for as every freshman philosophy student knows that if a term means everything it truly means nothing.
Cro-Bartles:
I am impressed with your singlemindedness in worshiping before the great altar of the dictionary. You will probably note that the word “courage” is defined there as:
“1. the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”
Many of us feel Hemingway said it better when he defined the term as “grace under pressure,” so you see there are many sources of definitional authority. You might even like this one for “atheism”:
^ Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: “Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none.”
atheism (ā’thē-ĭz’əm)
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition
Patty said..
BTW, in all of your definitions ‘God’ is capitalized
So you think I am Websters Dictionary?
Or perhaps you think my body encompasses Princeton University’s “WordNet”?
Otherwise, they’re not “my defintions”.
They’re the dictionaries.
If you’re attempting to argue with the dictionary, I will enjoy seeing that.
Patty said..
Also a reminder – JT personally requested you limit your machine-gun style posting routine, refrain from personal attacks, and to watch your language…
The name is CroMM, and I have launched no personal attacks, merely engaged in open debate with others wishing to debate, and I have used absoltuely NO foul language whatsoever.
You however are now launching a personal attack on me, so I suggest if that’s “JTs request” that you yourself heed his request and cease launching personal attacks on me.
mespo727272:
How can one be a member of a belief system and not adhere to all or most of its tenets.
You’re assuming here that “Christianity” is a single belief system, instead of dozens (if not scores) of different ones. There are Christians who are gay and Christians who hate homosexuals. There are Christians who believe all good people go to heaven and there are Christians who believe that only Christians go to heaven. There are Christians who believe in evolution and Christians who believe true Christians must reject evolution. I could go on and on.
It’s like saying I am an agnostic but I believe in deity that sent his Son on a suicide mission to Earth and founded a religion but I am still an agnostic.
Not really. It’s more like saying what I said above.
Words are not infinitely malleable. They must mean something and this mushy brand of thinking gives credence to those who are Christian in name only, not wanting to burden themselves with teachings with which they, nor any other rational person, would agree.
It’s not about thinking, mushy or not. It’s about objective observations. There are sincere Christians who have differing personal and spiritual interpretations of what it means to be a Christian, who follow different sets of guidelines and rules. That’s a simple fact. The same is true for most, if not all, religions and belief systems.
mespo wrote:
“I think this entire “atheism means…” thread is irrelevant.”
****
Thank you, Counselor ( aka ‘buttbuddy’ )
Guess which way I am predicting this load, is headed?
– As in ‘zakimar’…
Bartlebee:
Here’s what I believe – you vowed not to post here anymore.
BTW, in all of your definitions ‘God’ is capitalized.
Also a reminder – JT personally requested you limit your machine-gun style posting routine, refrain from personal attacks, and to watch your language…
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
—
Atheism
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
—
atheism [ˈeiθiizəm] noun
the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
—
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.