The Religion of Atheism (Vanity Post)

A brave post

for a newbie

IBTZ

Everyone will know the truth when they stand before God on that last day...

I could turn it all inside out and do a post on "the science of ignorant anti-science." It would be more justifiable than what you have done. I've been watching the "science" of anti-science claw its way through one lie, one fallacy after another. The fashion six years ago was to cite gold chains in coal and trilobite fossils embedded in sandal prints. Now the same people are breathlessly waiting for the trojan horse of ID to get religion back into science class. Nothing good will come of that.

Welcome Tzimisce,

And good luck with them. When they say you are lying you are not when they call you a troll you are not when they when they..

Wolf

the theist might represent god, but the a denotes no god so your point is mute. As far as it being a religion...that is rediculous. religions are based on a set of beliefs, not a set of disbeliefs. religion existed before atheism because by definition, atheism could not exist without religion existing first. therefore atheism is always defined in relation to religious belief. Since atheism has to be defined this way, the only correct way to express it properly is not that it is the belief that there is no god, but rather it is the the disbelief that god exists...disbelief cannot be the basis for a religion since we learned earlier that religions are based on beliefs, not disbeliefs. although you might consider your argument legitimate, it is really kind of cutesy in a sophmoric way and not at all able to stand up to any real scrutiny.

Pan-critical rationalism is not a religion, because it takes nothing on faith. Atheism is a religion only for those who dogmatically assert that God does not exist.

As a religion, atheism is a dogmatic committment to the belief that God does not exist. Many atheists disbelieve in God in exactly this way, and so their disbelief is religious.

However, holding to a falsifiable theory that God does not exist, based on a critical preference rationally formed by considering the evidence, is not a religious belief. It is a rational and scientific one--even if it's wrong (which it admittedly could be.)

Similarly, holding to a falsifiable theory that God does exist, based on a critical preference rationally formed by considering the evidence, is not a religious belief either. It also is a rational and scientific one--even if it's wrong (which it admittedly could be.)

Religion is a faith--a core philosophy about fundamental issues, such as existence, life, the afterlife and morality--that the believer assumes to be true without proof, and is not willing to disbelieve, regardless of the evidence.

Just my two cents.

You're overcharging.

I refuse to believe in God because I refuse to believe in Leprechauns, Werewolves, Superman, and other fictions whose sole evidence is folklore and mythology.

The burden of proof is not on me...it is on the shamans and witch doctors.

Nobody has ever said this before

The Religion of Atheism

*Yawn*

prove that there is no god.

Prove that the Almighty Santa Claus doesn't exist, tough guy.

I am not exactly sure what your point is

but as a Christian I will tell you this

Yes people can make a religion out of anything they want

but the truth remains the same

Jesus Christ died on the Cross

so that man and God could be reconciled

All we have to do is accept this salvation

All other things are trivial

Oh nonsense!

The Meaning of Atheism

By: The Reverend 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.

The above should shed some illumination on the semantic argument which was cited in the beginning of this article. 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."

Here comes the dark horsemen armed with flamethrowers...

Very powerful post bump to you GarySpFc

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."

I call it another word, something that ***** does.

Wolf