Originally posted by dave420
No, atheism, as its name suggests, is not having a belief in god. It's not theistic egotism, it's atheism. I have no idea where you got that
rubbish from.
The US Supreme Court says Atheism is a religion, and it fits the definition of a religion. In fact, Atheists are among the most religious people
around, rarely missing an opportunity to proselitize and promote. In contrast to Atheists in our ATS Community, many atheists proudly reference this
fact. Are Atheist at ATS ashamed?
In 2003 an award winning article by Sam weaver and another By Dr. Gregory S. Neal, explains why Dave420 is talking non sense and as I have seen him do
for many years using his form letter cookie cutter posts where he condescendingly pontificates his belief he is an authority on what religion is and
what it isn't. Many times he has cited the separation powers to support his claim as is our obligation by the rule of law. Yet that high court in
the land of milk and honey, the same one Dave420 and liberals supporting the NWO and Darwinian dimwittedeness too dumbfounded by the ever lying
illusion of evolution, object to that same rule of law that has decided, Dave420 is wrong. Atheism most ceratainly IS a religion and THAT is
undeniable.
The word theism or the study of religions uses the word "Theism" or "Theist is a person not having a religion per-se but one who believes in God.
Theology is the study of Religion and the religionist who is of a religion that has a God is called a Theist. Of theism we have, Pantheism or a "pan
Religion" encompassing many and then their is monothiesm which of course is "one" God and then we have "Atheism" or the theism having no Gods
such as taoists and Buddhist etc,
The Meaning of Atheism
- Dr. Gregory S. Neal
On the Internet it has become very common for self-professed Atheists to define their position as being a simple lack of a god-belief and not as a
denial of the existence of God. By claiming to affirm only a passive lack of a god-postulate, and by denying that they actively assert the
nonexistence of deity, such Atheists conveniently absolve themselves from having to defend their position. In other words, they claim that there is a
big difference between asserting: "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." The difference is supposed to be one
of an active as opposed to a passive postulate: are they asserting that God does not exist, or are they claiming that they simply don't make a
god-postulate? While this is obviously a major splitting of tiny little hairs, it is nevertheless the kind of argument that many Christians are
encountering from Atheists on the Internet. Unfortunately, it is also an argument to which most simply do not have an adequate response. This article
will offer a response based upon the etymological and contextual meaning of the word "Atheism." The focus will not be upon English definitions, but
on the original word in its original language.
One usually finds the idea of "passive Atheism" articulated as if it were based upon the linguistic roots of the word "atheism." It is sometimes
broken down like this:
"a" = no/not/without
"theism" = god-belief
therefore:"atheism" = without god-belief
This kind of linguistic argument is certainly one possible way of arriving at a definition for a word which has been derived from another language.
One sees this kind of thing, from time to time, regarding lots of derived words (like "theology" and "archeology" and "anthropology.") Sometimes
such derivations are accurate, but other times they are quite erroneous and reflect an unfortunate misunderstanding of the source-language. In this
case those who have made the above argument regarding the meaning of "atheism" are, in effect, misunderstanding the use of such a process and, as a
result, are producing an argument which is neither linguistically sound nor historically accurate.
It should be noted that the above method of determining a word's meaning works rather well when that word has been created by using roots and/or
particles from another language (usually Latin or Greek). When and where there are no direct cognates in the primary language, the meaning of the new
word in the secondary language is open to interpretation based upon this kind of morphological analysis. However, when the word has a direct cognate
in, or is a pure transliteration from, the primary language it is that primary language's usage which always takes precedence in determining its
meaning in the secondary language. As matter of lexicography, that is the case here.
The word "atheism" is a direct cognate -- in fact, it is a transliteration -- of the Classical Greek word atheos (here, written with English
letters). Its meaning, as demonstrated in the writings of Aeschylus and Diogenese Laertius, is best expressed as: "one who disdains or denies God or
the gods and their laws." (See Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.20).
In Greek the particle "a" can certainly mean "without" or "lacking" in the passive sense and when related to passive verbs, but in the case of
the Greek noun atheos "a" conveys the active sense of "reversal of essence" or "opposite of condition" or "inversion of meaning." Hence, in
this case, it means the bipolar opposite of its root-word theos. If "theism" is the belief that deities exist, then "atheism" is the belief that
no-deities exist. Please note the place of the negation particle: when applied to nouns it should always be linked with the object, not an implied
predicate; that which is believed IN is being negated, not the act of believing which is implied in the noun. In other words, and as a matter of
simple Greek grammar, an atheos is one who denies the existence of a specific deity or of deities in general. Since "atheism" and "atheist" are
derived from this noun, their meaning in English should follow suit. It is, hence, a misunderstanding of Greek morphology for the act of believing to
be negated by the linguistic particle "a."
This analysis is supported by the word's usage in Greek literature. Essentially, it is rarely (if ever) used of a simple failure to acknowledge
deities; rather, it is almost always found in the active sense of direct opposition to such beliefs, or (most often) a particular expression of such
beliefs. For example, when used of Christians by Roman authorities and other Greek writers (and it was) it generally referenced their active denial of
the deities of other religions ... a practice for which early Christians were labeled "atheists" by their political and religious opponents. It
didn't matter that such Christians held theistic beliefs regarding their own deity, what mattered was their refusal to be ecumenical and at least
passively accept the existence of other deities. Their refusal to do this -- their active denial of the existence of other gods and, particularly,
their refusal to at least offer the nominal sacrifice to the deity of the Roman Emperor -- got them branded as "atheists." As a penalty for such a
serious breach of cultural and political etiquette, these early Christians were sometimes severely persecuted.
While atheists will assert their identity however they wish, their analysis of the construction of the word "atheism" as being simply a passive
"without god-belief" is linguistically invalid. True, the sense of passive negation is, indeed, one which the particle "a" can convey; however,
that particular sense is foreign to the grammar and historical usage of the noun atheos. In summary,
The particle "a" must be applied to the Greek word theos, not to the English word "theism," thus reflecting the negation of the object, not the
predicate.
The passive negation of the theistic precept isn't attested to in the historic usage of the Greek word atheos.
Active negation of the theistic precept (either in general or in particular) is exceedingly common throughout Greek literature, thus reflecting the
morphological formation of the word atheos.
As a result, it is inadvisable to use the word "atheism" to reflect a passive position. This observation need not govern how such atheists
understand themselves: if they wish to affirm that they do not deny God's existence but, rather, simply make no assertion on the subject, that is all
well and good. However, their continued use and re-interpretation of a word which linguistically means "active denial of the theistic postulate" is
confusing. They should change the term which they use for their position, rather than attempt to change the lexical meaning of an ancient,
long-established word.
I have researched the phenomena of those actively disbeleiving in God for many years and some of the clever idioms and axiomatic syllogisms they claim
as logical rational and full of reason exclaiming that theirs is the Science Arena and they by their profound Atheism have some sort of genetic
predispostion of having a better grasp of such things as Science and critial thinking than say your average "Fundie" "xtian". Using such clever
inside out then reversed semantics where the syllogism is given in sound bytes or talking points memorized off a Atheist website and given to the
chatrooms where Christians engaged in sharing the word of God are summarily challenged with more sound butes and discontextual meanings of scripture,
they again have taken from such anti religion activists headings and titles such as 101 Bible contradictions and How to argue with Christians using
commonly seen tactics of rasing questions about whether God approves of Homosexuality or some claiming Jesus never existed.
The Christian duped into their intention to clarify the Bible and its meaning are then ridiculed for using such bigotry and hatred when the fact is
they weren't talking about their own opinions but what is clearly given as the word of God according to their own understanding of Scripture. Such
comparisons that a sex sin is a sex sin no matter who commits it whether it is gay or straight Pedophile or Homosexual, the gays then berate the
Christian even further by posturing a position of indignant objection, asking "Are you comparing gays to pedophiles! ? then hitting the alert key to
the threads moderators in the hope of getting one more Christian Post Banned or at least be given some venomous u2u by a mod instructing them to
compromise their beliefs and walk on eggshells or you are out of here banned forever!.
Light Lightangelo, expressed his utter contempt for the religious using trhe extreme fringe of those claiming to be Christians in spite of there
obviously un Christian behavior and we see this kind of attitude in both philosophies
Another is to use semantics, again the same way in clever response to this argument ie; "If Atheism is a religion then Not Collecting stamps is a
hobby."
The fact is if colletcing stamps was a religion, then Atheists would be actively engaged in attacking those who collect stamps so much and so often
it WOULD be their damn hobby.
Their claim is that there is a big difference between asserting "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist."
Fundamentally, this argument is nothing but semantic nonsense. It is not just the splitting of thin hairs, it is the splitting of thin air. To
demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion "I believe a deity exists" any different from the assertion "I
believe a deity does exist"? Clearly, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero ... and such is also the case for the Atheistic postulate.
That they make their claim in order to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof for their anti-theistic position is understandable: they desire to
deny that God exists while, at the same time, denying that they have a burden of proof. They want Christians to prove their belief in God, but they
don't want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while
severely criticizing Theists for failing to do the same.
This is usually called "hypocrisy."
www.errantskeptics.org...
I have offered some compelling external information which dispells the dis information Atheists and many Religious have about this argument and also
gives the sound reason why Atheism is a religion and one the Supreme court has used in its findings.
The anticipated argument that this was about a prison blah blah blah is atheist sophistry for they have a very good reason they for not wanting such a
definition and that is that Christians are starting to find out that separation of church and state works for them to remove evolution from schools
the same way the ACLU, Atheists and gays have used it to advance their political agendas.
March 4, 2003
The following comes from www.renewamerica.us...
The modern liberal worldview
By Sam Weaver
NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of columns designed to proffer my peculiar views and insights concerning Western worldviews and culture.
A worldview is a person’s comprehensive philosophy of life. Every worldview consists of four fundamental building blocks. These building blocks are
1) Religion, 2) Politics, 3) Economics, and 4) Science.
This entry in my series will examine the modern Western liberal worldview. It will address all four elements of intellectual thought as they relate to
today’s liberal worldview philosophy.
Religion
The religion of the modern liberal is atheism (a.k.a., secularism, humanism, or “secular humanism”). One might think that atheism is not a
religion. Rather, one might argue, atheism is the complete absence of any and all religious ideology. To the contrary, even the U.S. Supreme Court all
but declared secular humanism a religion in the case of Torcaso vs. Watkins in 1961. Many atheists proudly reference this case.
(NOTE: The obiter dictum, stated by Justice Black in the case of Torcaso vs. Watkins, is an essential component of this case. Whether or not it was a
“footnote,” or merely “said in passing,” it is not only relevant, it is quite important: “Among religions in this country which do not teach
what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” [Emphasis added]
Shouldn’t the following statement by Justice Black also have been an obiter dictum?: “We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the
Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws
or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God
as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”)
But, please, don’t just take the orbiter dictum of Justice Black or, God forbid!, the word of the Supreme Court of the 1960’s! Consider, if you
will, the very nature of every religion. Every religion contains two postulates: 1) an explanation of origins, and 2) an ethic. An atheist (or a
secularist), by definition, rejects any notion of a Supernatural Creator. This rejection leads to the atheistic (or secular) ethic.
The modern liberal (or secular) explanation of origins hinges upon an acceptance of some variation of the “Big Bang ‘Theory’” and the
“’Theory’ of Evolution.” (A bit more on that below, under the heading of Science.) Secularism rejects any belief in a Supernatural Creator and
assumes that the universe and all life on earth came about through purely random, natural circumstance. There is no Creator, and there is no Divine
Author of all law.
This random, natural explanation of the origin of life leads to the modern liberal ethic, which is often expressed in the phrase, “If it feels good,
do it!” (It could be better stated, perhaps, in the phrase, “If it seems right, then go ahead and do it!”) The ethic of secularism is
relativism. Law, and the “rightful” force of law, is developed through ever-evolving “mores.” Because “mores” change, law must evolve and
adapt to fit both the time and the circumstances. There are no natural rights (rights that are endowed by a Creator); there are only legal rights
(rights that are subject to change according to the will of the majority, the ruler [or ruling powers], or by judicial decision, for example).
The true, modern Western liberal believes in the inherent goodness of the nature of man. It is not the nature of man; rather the inequalities and
prejudices of his environment make a person do bad things. If only such things as religious discord, political strife (e.g., “nationalism” and
racism), and economic disparities (e.g., wealth vs. poverty) could be eradicated, then the whole world would live in harmony and peace. The really sad
fact is that many Western liberals actually believe that it is within the power and the scope of world government to achieve this level of human
“equality” and “security.” Die-hard liberals actually believe in this utopian pipe dream!
I am in no way claiming that all modern liberals are atheists! Religion is only one part (albeit the essential component!) of any worldview. I believe
former President Carter when he says that he is a born-again Christian! (Who am I to judge President Carter’s relationship with the Omnipotent
Creator? I would dare not, lest I myself be judged!) However, it is very obvious to me that the doctrines of relativism and the inherent goodness of
man play a vital role in every aspect of modern liberal philosophy. My own understanding of Scripture coupled with hard-learned life experiences show
me without any doubt whatsoever that these doctrines run counter to the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity.
Politics
Politics is the art and science of human government. Modern Western liberals believe that the primary role of government is to ensure the political
(and economic) equality and security of every citizen. It could be argued that this idea of the role of government goes as far back in history as the
world’s first king. As a beloved, respected, charismatic, and seemingly “benevolent” man, the earth’s very first king became the monarch over
his subjects by convincing them that he would give them peace, security, and equality.
In modern Western society, however, the “enlightened” variant of this political idea has its roots in Rousseau and Hegel. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“liberated” the Christian world from the idea of the inherently evil nature of man. Rousseau “showed,” via specious argument, that “man is
good by nature.” To his credit, however, Rousseau argued eloquently against monarchy. (And just so you’ll know that I know; John Locke, whose
words echo throughout America’s Declaration of Independence, also believed in the inherent goodness of man. America’s Founders, thankfully,
rejected this aspect of Locke!)
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel spoke of “God” as “the Absolute.” As I understand Hegel, “the Absolute” is a relativistic term that
represents the general will of the people. I am not a brilliant person, and Hegel’s writings go beyond my I. Q. level; but from what I can gather
through Hegel’s writings on God and “the Absolute,” he viewed national government as a sort of demigod. The ultimate charge of national
government was to ensure the security and the equality of every citizen. In Hegel’s mind, a world-wide (global) government with the power,
authority, and ability to provide (impose) complete safety and equality for (upon) every human being would be the ultimate embodiment of “the
Absolute.” In other words, according to Hegel, a global government would be God.
Every modern Western liberal is willing to cede some degree of individual liberty to society (i.e., to government) in exchange for some degree of
perceived happiness, equality, or safety. Benjamin Franklin said it best in two ways. First, he is credited with saying: "A man who is willing to
give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither." Second, Old Ben stated,
“[I]…believe farther that this (new government under the Constitution) is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end
in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any
other.” (For the full text of this written speech, click here.)
Modern liberals seek to empower the federal government and its vast bureaucracies for the sake of “justice,” “security,” and/or
“equality.” Individual citizens should not necessarily be held accountable for their own actions; rather, government is responsible for the
happiness and the well-being of every citizen. The modern liberal concept of politics is totalitarian (or BUREAUCRATIC) CONTROL of the masses.
National guidelines (i.e., controls from the highest level, and encompassing the greatest authority of government) are the only way to ensure the
relative justice, equality and safety of every citizen.
Again, this idea arose with the world’s first king. The modern version of this idea rightfully rejects absolute monarchy and the false doctrine of
“the divine right of kings.” However, this modern (liberal) version merely replaces monarchy with bureaucracy. This modern Western political
philosophy has its roots in the philosophies of Rousseau, Hegel, et. al. The ultimate modern liberal wants to empower a world government for the
purpose of securing “justice,” “security,” and “equality” for all of the world’s people. In the mind of the ultimate modern liberal,
government (esp., world government) is the Absolute. There is no god but human government!
Economics
A modern Western liberal believes that it is the responsibility of society (i.e., government) to ensure economic equality for all people.
“Capitalism” (Stalin’s epithet—via Karl Marx—for free-enterprise) is inherently evil, it is surmised, because “capitalism” leads to
unequal distribution of wealth. Modern liberals believe, as did Rousseau, that inequalities necessarily breed evil. A person is inherently good until
something “foreign to him corrupts him,” according to Rousseau. In other words, it is man’s environment, not his nature, that compels him to
make bad decisions and bad choices. Therefore, “reasons” the liberal, man is not responsible, nor should he even be held accountable for his poor
decisions and his misguided choices. As long as great rifts in religious ideology, political power, economic class, or social status/levels of
education exist in this world, man is simply a product of these divisions and inequalities. He cannot and must not be held responsible as long as
these divisions and inequalities exist.
It is the job of government to provide a good economic environment for every member of society so that no one makes bad economic decisions or choices.
What’s more, “bad” economic decisions and choices versus “good” ones are purely relative. No Supreme Creator and Author of Law has
established what is bad and what is good. There is no clear standard of right and wrong or good and evil, except that which is established by human
government. It is the duty of government, saith the liberal, to ensure the economic equality of every person—regardless of poor choices or lack of
ambition, commitment to excellence, degree of talent, etc.
The modern Western liberal concept of economics is socialism. Socialism comes in many shapes and sizes, but its goal is always some form or some
degree of shared communal wealth. The upshot of every socialistic scheme is the arbitrary confiscation of one man’s property or wealth for the
arbitrary blessing of another.
James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, rejected just such a scheme more than two centuries ago. He wrote:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government, . . . nor
is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one
class of citizens for the service of the rest." (See, for example, "Private Property: Right from God, Friend of Republics," by Steve Farrell.)
The economic idea of socialism flows from the secular humanist religious doctrines of the inherent goodness of man and relativism. It follows the
modern liberal political idea of strong governmental (bureaucratic, or totalitarian) control.
Science
Science is the most extensive of the four worldview/cultural institutions. From a worldview perspective, science can be defined as a search for
knowledge and understanding of the physical universe and all of its systems. In terms of culture, science includes language, art, architecture,
entertainment, customs, traditions, and technologies. From both the worldview and the culture viewpoint, however, the most important aspect of science
is the method of discovery. How does an individual approach his quest for knowledge and understanding? By what process does a society advance its
technologies?
The modern liberal method of “’scientific’ discovery” is the dialectic method. Simply stated, a group of scholars and experts convenes to
discuss and debate the latest peer-reviewed hypothesis of a certain field of study. After a period of discussion, debate and compromise, the
hypothesis is either rejected, accepted, or accepted with modifications. An accepted hypothesis—even one that has been modified by the
symposium—becomes the working “theory” of the day.
(Please note two important characteristics of this method: 1) It is primarily applied to such discoveries that are beyond the capability of science to
fully prove or to comprehend; and, 2) it cedes power and liberty of individual scientists to certain panels of “scholars” and “experts.”)
The “Big Bang ‘Theory’” and the “’Theory’ of Evolution (as it is currently “accepted”) are both products of this method. It is
completely beyond the scope of science at this time to prove—and it is beyond the capability of man to fully comprehend—exactly how the universe
and life on earth came to be. Ultimately, this is absolutely a matter of faith! If truth be told, science simply cannot honestly answer the questions
of how the universe began and how life on earth came to be! Bear in mind that the “scholars” and “experts” who accepted these so-called
“theories” have all been heavily influenced by the naturalistic philosophies of men like Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. At the risk of sounding
like some whacko conspiracy theorist, I would even venture to state that these “scholars” and “experts” were indoctrinated in today’s
secular, socialistic institutions of “higher learning” with mega-doses of the philosophies of these and many other men!
Objectivity is not a major part of the dialectic method of today’s secular “scientific” community. Empirical evidence is often discarded or
totally ignored when it fails to meet the standards of “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced that you would be shocked by the amount of empirical
evidence that is routinely overlooked by today’s scientists. I am both shocked and deeply saddened! Conventional wisdom demands that all things came
about naturally. “Conventional ‘wisdom’” says, “There is no god.” Evidence to the contrary is “conveniently” swept under the
proverbial rug.
Three types of modern Western liberals
There are basically three types of modern liberals: 1) Elitists, 2) Activists, and 3) Automatons. Elitists, for the most part, cling to the modern
liberal worldview because they crave the degree of power and control that it offers them. Activist liberals are the “useful idiots” of the
elitists. Activists by and large fight the emotionally-charged “good” fight for liberal causes with no clue of the damage that this “’good’
fight” is doing to American liberty and the American Ideal. Automatons vote for liberal candidates because they have been programmed by public
schools, by the “media” and popular culture, by liberal politicians and pundits, and/or even by their parents or guardians to believe that the
liberal worldview philosophy truly offers them peace, equality, and/or security with little or no requirement for responsibility or accountability on
their part.
In the end, every modern liberal wants to fundamentally alter one or more of the four cultural institutions upon which this great nation was
founded.
A liberal is one who wants to change one or more of the four institutions upon which his society (i.e., culture, or nation) is established. NOTE: (The
word change is used often by President Elect and advocate of Democratic Socialism Barack Hussein Obama) A conservative is one who wants to
fundamentally conserve all four institutions as they were founded. The ideas summarized above represent the four worldview/cultural institutions that
the archetypical modern liberal wants to impose upon American society (not to mention all of Western civilization and—eventually—the world
entirely!). If these impositions represent fundamental change in American society and American culture, then what are the institutions that
conservatives want to preserve and maintain? Are these changes necessary for progress in the modern world? These questions will be addressed in my
next column.
[edit on 15-12-2008 by Aermacchi]
