RE: POLITICS Atheism a Religion? (was White Missionaries' )

[Guest guest]

I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly used senses.

It is, however, a cosmological view that opines on the supernatural (namely,

that it doesn't exist) using faith and dogma rather than relying on experience

and scientific reasoning, which makes it very similar to a religious paradigm.

It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led to the

persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led to

the persecutions of people of other religions.

In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in all

important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had, my

statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have led to

state-sponsored violence is correct, even if atheism differs from what is

typically considered religion by opining/declaring that there is no God rather

than

that there is a particular God.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/04 6:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> n that one cannot show scientifically, or mathematically that God does or

> does not exist, there is a certain similarity in the beliefs that God does

> exist, or that God does not exist. However I think that the dissimilarities

> are far greater. I don't know for a fact that dog like creatures with

greater

> than human intelligence don't exist in the far reaches of space. However I

> don't believe that they do. There is simply no evidence that they do, as

far

> as I can tell, and to posit that they do doesn't really help me explain the

> world any better. I can also posit that a God exists, but, in my mind, this

> produces far more problems than it solves, and I also see no evidence that

> there is a God. Given that there isn't any evidence, why should I believe

it?

> I don't worship my non existent God, and my faith isn't in a belief system

or

> a being - it is simply the absence of faith. It is merely a rhetorical

trick

> to accent this 'similarity'.

_____

[CHRIS] I essentially agree with what you're saying (with the exception that

I believe in God), but I would not call a viewpoint that simply sees there to

be no reason to believe in God " atheism. " If we do not *know* that these

dog-like super-intelligent creatures do not exist, to claim categorically that

they do not, is a matter of faith. A matter of science and reason is to say " We

have no reason to believe that they do, and will refrain from believing so

until we have such a reason. " If this is the attitude you take towards God, I

would consider that agnosticism. If, on the other hand, you believe " There is

no God, " despite the fact that you cannot prove this to be true, then your

belief is a matter of faith in the same way belief that there is a God is.

Since you cannot prove a negative, atheism is inherently a matter of faith.

Agnosticism is not.

_______

> > It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led

to

> the

> > persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led

to

>

> > the persecutions of people of other religions.

> >

>

> Which is interesting, but has absolutely nothing at all to do with the

> discussion as to whether atheism is a religion.

______

[CHRIS]

Well, now that we have dissociated the question from its context this is

true, but the sense in which I referred to atheism as a religion the statement

is

entirely relevant. My original statement was in response to a list of

religions that have led to state-sponsored violence, and I said that atheism

should

be included in the list.

______

> > In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in

> all

> > important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

> >

>

> Again - really nothing at all to do with the discussion. If you want to

say

> that all official state 'beliefs' that result in persecutions are similar

in

> that respect - fine. But it still ain't a religion.

_____

[CHRIS]

Since I started the discussion, and I started it in exactly that context, I'm

not sure how my comment can be irrelevant.

_____

> > I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had,

my

>

> > statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have

> led to

> > state-sponsored violence is correct, even if atheism differs from what

is

> > typically considered religion by opining/declaring that there is no God

> rather

> > than

> > that there is a particular God.

>

> Ah - so atheism isn't a religion, but should be considered such so that

you

> were correct in your original statement.

_____

[CHRIS] It doesn't necessarily have to be considered a religion to understand

the point. The point that atheism has been used to justify state-sponsored

violence and persecution in the same way religions have been is a valid point.

It has some similarities to religion, and it has been used by states as a

substitute for an official religion. But it is not technically a religion.

Chris

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>

> I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly used senses.

Ok, so it is not a religion. We agree.

> It is, however, a cosmological view that opines on the supernatural (namely,

> that it doesn't exist) using faith and dogma rather than relying on experience

> and scientific reasoning, which makes it very similar to a religious paradigm.

In that one cannot show scientifically, or mathematically that God does or does

not exist, there is a certain similarity in the beliefs that God does exist, or

that God does not exist. However I think that the dissimilarities are far

greater. I don't know for a fact that dog like creatures with greater than human

intelligence don't exist in the far reaches of space. However I don't believe

that they do. There is simply no evidence that they do, as far as I can tell,

and to posit that they do doesn't really help me explain the world any better. I

can also posit that a God exists, but, in my mind, this produces far more

problems than it solves, and I also see no evidence that there is a God. Given

that there isn't any evidence, why should I believe it? I don't worship my non

existent God, and my faith isn't in a belief system or a being - it is simply

the absence of faith. It is merely a rhetorical trick to accent this

'similarity'.

> It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led to the

> persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led to

> the persecutions of people of other religions.

>

Which is interesting, but has absolutely nothing at all to do with the

discussion as to whether atheism is a religion.

> In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in all

> important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

>

Again - really nothing at all to do with the discussion. If you want to say that

all official state 'beliefs' that result in persecutions are similar in that

respect - fine. But it still ain't a religion.

> I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had, my

> statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have led to

> state-sponsored violence is correct, even if atheism differs from what is

> typically considered religion by opining/declaring that there is no God rather

> than

> that there is a particular God.

Ah - so atheism isn't a religion, but should be considered such so that you were

correct in your original statement.

>

> Chris

>

> ____

>

>

> I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly used senses.

> It is, however, a cosmological view that opines on the supernatural (namely,

> that it doesn't exist) using faith and dogma rather than relying on experience

> and scientific reasoning, which makes it very similar to a religious paradigm.

> It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led to the

> persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led to

> the persecutions of people of other religions.

>

> In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in all

> important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

>

> I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had, my

> statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have led to

> state-sponsored violence is correct, even if atheism differs from what is

> typically considered religion by opining/declaring that there is no God rather

> than

> that there is a particular God.

>

> Chris

>

> ____

>

> " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

> heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

> animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them

> make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

> which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight

of

> the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

> ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

> those

> who do them wrong. "

>

> --Saint Isaac the Syrian

>

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

> HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

> & mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

>

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></

> LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A>

> to the list</LI>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A>

from

> the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A>

> to the List Owner & Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Hmm. Interesting thoughts. As I said in my response to I had not read

all of the posts in this thread. You were going in a very different

direction than I was. I'm trying to look way prior to the actual uses of

atheism and simply at the nature of atheism itself.

I think your arguments below hold some weight, for sure.

Ron

> I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly

> used senses.

> It is, however, a cosmological view that opines on the

> supernatural (namely,

> that it doesn't exist) using faith and dogma rather than

> relying on experience

> and scientific reasoning, which makes it very similar to a

> religious paradigm.

> It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially,

> and has led to the

> persecutions of religious people, like religions have been

> and have led to

> the persecutions of people of other religions.

>

> In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially

> identical in all

> important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

>

> I think in all respects important to the discussion that was

> being had, my

> statement that atheism should be included among the religions

> that have led to

> state-sponsored violence is correct, even if atheism differs

> from what is

> typically considered religion by opining/declaring that there

> is no God rather than

> that there is a particular God.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly used senses.

Ah, so you concede the entire debate, then -- because make no mistake,

that's the ballgame.

>It is, however, a cosmological view that opines on the supernatural (namely,

>that it doesn't exist) using faith and dogma rather than relying on

>experience

>and scientific reasoning, which makes it very similar to a religious

>paradigm.

This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's no evidence or

scientific rationale for various supernatural theories including all the

branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no reason to believe

in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is developed. This

is the exact opposite of faith.

>It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led to the

>persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led to

>the persecutions of people of other religions.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of debate.

>In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in all

>important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

No. Besides being a disgusting and typical smear of atheism (equating

atheism itself with systematized slaughter in people's minds) you might as

well say that ANYTHING a state does " is essentially identical in all

important respects to the adoption of an official religion " .

>I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had, my

>statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have

>led to

>state-sponsored violence is correct,

This is what's called moving the goalposts, since this wasn't the original

topic of discussion, and anyway, you're wrong, as indicated above.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's

> no evidence or

> scientific rationale for various supernatural theories

> including all the

> branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no

> reason to believe

> in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is

> developed. This

> is the exact opposite of faith.

I disagree. Here's the definition:

a·the·ism (?the-iz´?m) noun

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The

doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

Third Edition

Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi Again ,

Disregard this last post. I hit send too early. I'm resigning from the

discussion even though it was fun. And while I understand your arguments I

still hold them to be incorrect.

Cheers,

Ron

> Hi ,

>

> > This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's

> > no evidence or

> > scientific rationale for various supernatural theories

> > including all the

> > branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no

> > reason to believe

> > in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is

> > developed. This

> > is the exact opposite of faith.

>

> I disagree. Here's the definition:

>

> a·the·ism (?the-iz´?m) noun

>

> 1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The

> doctrine that there is no God or gods.

>

> Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the

> English Language,

> Third Edition

>

> Ron

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ron-

> > This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's

> > no evidence or

> > scientific rationale for various supernatural theories

> > including all the

> > branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no

> > reason to believe

> > in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is

> > developed. This

> > is the exact opposite of faith.

>

>I disagree. Here's the definition:

>

>a·the·ism (?the-iz´?m) noun

>

>1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The

>doctrine that there is no God or gods.

>

>Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

>Third Edition

Well, I admit this gets to be a fine point of semantics, but from what I

had in the way of a philosophical education, my understanding is and was

that atheism withholds belief in the God and gods of the world's religions

and doesn't positively *believe* that there is a God or gods but

acknowledges that it's possible some sort of agency could have been

involved in the creation of the universe which might be considered

deity-like. So, yes, atheism rejects the various branches of Christianity,

Judaism, Budism, Hinduism, paganism, etc., because of their highly specific

and extraordinarily unlikely claims, but that's about the extent of it. I,

an atheist, don't believe that the Judeo-Christian God exists any more than

I believe in the various trappings of other religions because there is no

evidence that meets my standards to support any of them. Zip. Zero. Nada.

From my empirical, scientific, evidence-requiring standpoint, the claim

that the archetypal spirit of poison ivy created the world just to have

victims to irritate is just as plausible as the various Christian creation

myths that are prevalent today. More to the point, even a cursory reading

of history reveals that as science has advanced, religion has repeatedly

retreated, changed and adapted severely undermines the religious claim to

faith-based truth.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 8:36:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >I will concede that atheism is not a religion in the commonly used senses.

>

> Ah, so you concede the entire debate, then -- because make no mistake,

> that's the ballgame.

____

~~~> Fine. Since I never intended to enter a debate on the status of atheism

as a religion or non-religion, since referring to atheism as a religion was

entirely incidental to my point, and could be modified only slightly to be a

perfectly valid point, it is not a large leap for me to concede the " entire "

debate, which exists wholly outside of my original point.

_____

> This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's no evidence

or

> scientific rationale for various supernatural theories including all the

> branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no reason to believe

> in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is developed. This

> is the exact opposite of faith.

_____

~~~~> I call that agnosticism. To say that something does not exist is

different than to say there is no reason to believe it exists.

_____

> >It has, like religions, been adopted by states officially, and has led to

> the

> >persecutions of religious people, like religions have been and have led to

> >the persecutions of people of other religions.

>

> This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of debate.

______

~~~~> As per the concession of my first line I have left your debate, and now

return to making my original point.

_______

> >In this sense, official atheism of the USSR is essentially identical in

all

> >important respects to the adoption of an official religion.

>

> No. Besides being a disgusting and typical smear of atheism (equating

> atheism itself with systematized slaughter in people's minds) you might as

> well say that ANYTHING a state does " is essentially identical in all

> important respects to the adoption of an official religion " .

_____

~~~~> Killing people for Christ is a disgusting fundamentally anti-Christian

act, but I do not deny that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity officially,

sanctioning it and offering it privilege, and persecuting, at some points, and

to certain degrees, other religions. Nor do I deny that the Crusades were a

religious war.

That the USSR officially supported an atheist view, required the teaching

that there is no God in schools and thus erase theism from the minds of its

children, and horribly and violently persecuted people of all religious faiths

within its borders, likens its relationship to atheism as a persecutory state's

relationship to any official religion.

This obviously is not a function of the religion per se, but the state's

adoption of it. Likewise, the USSR's actions do not reflect atheism per se, but

reflect the state's adoption of a prosyletizing brand of atheism. My point is

not to disparage atheism (I would do that for entirely different reasons, but

it would be dishonest to do it for this reason), but to show that holy wars

and state-sponsored violence that use religion as justification are a similar

phenomenon to state-sponsored violence that uses atheism as a justification,

and, despite the fact that the former examples have been much more numerous, the

death toll is not necessarily so. The main point is that there is nothing

about religion *per se* that leads to such violence, as lack of religion can

too.

Rather, it is the state's adoption of a particular " religious " view (call it

a prosyletizing form of ideology if you like, rather than religion, to

include atheism) and enforcement of it that is to blame.

_____

> >I think in all respects important to the discussion that was being had, my

> >statement that atheism should be included among the religions that have

> >led to

> >state-sponsored violence is correct,

>

> This is what's called moving the goalposts, since this wasn't the original

> topic of discussion, and anyway, you're wrong, as indicated above.

_____

~~~~> I love it when-- actually I find it mildly irritating-- you set up goal

posts outside a field in which I was speaking, and then when I try to return

from the debate you started to my other point, you accuse me of moving the

goal posts. This is not the first time.

That I called atheism a religion is incidental to my point. I did not even

make the statement that atheism is a religion, but said it should be included

in a list of religions that have been used to justify state-sponsored violence.

If I concede the atheism is a religion debate, this point can be valid if

the word religion is changed slightly to something that includes both religion

and atheism. You could call it dogmatic cosmology. Or you could call it an

ideology. Whatever. The point is that religion is not unique IN THIS RESPECT

(that of state-sponsored violence) but that atheism can replace religion with

similar or even more horrifying results.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Looks like RBJR is technically correct.

" atheism " originally meant " without belief in a god "

The word breakdown: " theism " = belief; " a " = without.

As it turns out, the modern dictionary seems to contradict its own self,

judging from its own word breakdown:

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-,

without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]

The definition says " disbelief " , when it should obviously be " without

belief " .

-Mark

******************************

The active misidentification of evil

is the worst kind of evil.

-MRN

RE: POLITICS Atheism a Religion? (was White Missionaries' )

Hi ,

> This is simply incorrect. What atheism says is that there's

> no evidence or

> scientific rationale for various supernatural theories

> including all the

> branches of Christianity, and that therefore there's no

> reason to believe

> in any of them -- until and unless some kind of proof is

> developed. This

> is the exact opposite of faith.

I disagree. Here's the definition:

a·the·ism (?the-iz´?m) noun

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The

doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,

Third Edition

Ron

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 1:09:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> The definition says " disbelief " , when it should obviously be " without

> belief " .

_____

~~~> I don't think that's apparent from the word breakdown. It is ambiguous,

because it can be broken down two ways:

a, theos, ism

or

a, theism

If theism is considered as a unit, meaning belief in God, then the " a "

pertains to the belief. If " theos " and the suffix " ism " are considered

separately,

than " a " pertains to " theos " and " ism " pertains to " atheos, " which would be

belief in the absence of (a) god(s).

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 5:44:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> Under that rationale, " asexual " would be the disbelief in the existence of

> sex.

____

No, it wouldn't, because " sexual " does not indicate anything about belief.

Theos is Greek for God, but TheISM is used in English to indicate belief in

God, or some philosophy that integrates God, or however you like to put it.

" Belief " is not attributable to " a " , but to " ism. "

___

> You are confusing the prefix " a " , with " anti " .

____

I am certainly not. " A " means " absence of. " Anti means " against or in place

of. " (Usually against in English, from most words I've seen, but it can mean

" in place of " in Greek.)

____

> Let's hear some other " a " -words:

> " apolitical " = Having no interest in or association with politics.

> (indicates no such DIS-belief)

____

Isn't " words " plural? It appears you've only offered one. Here's another:

anarchy: absence of government

anarchism: a philosophy that advocates the absence of government. it does

not mean a philosophy that does not advocate a particular kind of government,

but one that actively advocates the absence of government.

This is obviously more analogous, since it deals with a belief system, and

uses both " a- " and " -ism. "

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 8:28:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

> [ " A " means " absence of. " ]

>

> Yes. Therefore " atheism " means " absence of belief in god " . We are in

> agreement.

____

We're not in agreement. By the word roots, atheism could mean one of two

things:

" absence of a belief in god "

OR

" belief in the absence of god "

The word roots are ambiguous, and either one would make sense. As I stated

in my first email, you could consider " a- " to apply to " theism, " which would

yield your definition, or you could consider " a- " to apply to " -the- " and " -ism "

to apply to " athe, " which would yield the one the dictionary and most people

use.

I offered one analogous word of similar components, anarchism, which follows

the latter model rather than yours.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Under that rationale, " asexual " would be the disbelief in the existence of

sex.

You are confusing the prefix " a " , with " anti " .

Let's hear some other " a " -words:

" apolitical " = Having no interest in or association with politics.

(indicates no such DIS-belief)

******************************

The active misidentification of evil

is the worst kind of evil.

-MRN

Re: POLITICS Atheism a Religion? (was White Missionaries' )

In a message dated 12/16/04 1:09:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> The definition says " disbelief " , when it should obviously be " without

> belief " .

_____

~~~> I don't think that's apparent from the word breakdown. It is

ambiguous,

because it can be broken down two ways:

a, theos, ism

or

a, theism

If theism is considered as a unit, meaning belief in God, then the " a "

pertains to the belief. If " theos " and the suffix " ism " are considered

separately,

than " a " pertains to " theos " and " ism " pertains to " atheos, " which would be

belief in the absence of (a) god(s).

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the

sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

[ " A " means " absence of. " ]

Yes. Therefore " atheism " means " absence of belief in god " . We are in

agreement.

-Mark

******************************

The active misidentification of evil

is the worst kind of evil.

-MRN

Re: POLITICS Atheism a Religion? (was White Missionaries' )

In a message dated 12/16/04 5:44:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> Under that rationale, " asexual " would be the disbelief in the existence of

> sex.

____

No, it wouldn't, because " sexual " does not indicate anything about belief.

Theos is Greek for God, but TheISM is used in English to indicate belief in

God, or some philosophy that integrates God, or however you like to put it.

" Belief " is not attributable to " a " , but to " ism. "

___

> You are confusing the prefix " a " , with " anti " .

____

I am certainly not. " A " means " absence of. " Anti means " against or in

place

of. " (Usually against in English, from most words I've seen, but it can

mean

" in place of " in Greek.)

____

> Let's hear some other " a " -words:

> " apolitical " = Having no interest in or association with politics.

> (indicates no such DIS-belief)

____

Isn't " words " plural? It appears you've only offered one. Here's another:

anarchy: absence of government

anarchism: a philosophy that advocates the absence of government. it does

not mean a philosophy that does not advocate a particular kind of

government,

but one that actively advocates the absence of government.

This is obviously more analogous, since it deals with a belief system, and

uses both " a- " and " -ism. "

Chris

____

[Guest guest]

>>ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

>> [ " A " means " absence of. " ]

>>

>> [Mark]Yes. Therefore " atheism " means " absence of belief in god " . We are in

>> agreement.

>>

>>

>____

>

>We're not in agreement. By the word roots, atheism could mean one of two

>things:

>

> " absence of a belief in god "

>

>OR

>

> " belief in the absence of god "

>

Actually guys, I do know about the roots of " a " here. It comes from

Sanskrit of the Indus valley. For example, himsa means violence and

ahimsa means nonviolence in Sanskrit. The use of the word is much like

a minus sign in front of a number or variable. It means " non " *AS A

PREFIX* and cannot be switched in the middle of a word, as has

done above. Only his first version is close. Non belief in God is

better still. Atheism is " non-theism " . Y'all can haggle over those

theism roots, but Sanskrit is a refined, precise language. The " a " in

front means the non (or negative of), because in some contexts, " absence

of " makes no sense.

" a- non " ~ _Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali_, by BKS Iyengar

" a, an (negative prefix) " ~ _Sanskrit_, by Coulson

Deanna, a yogini through and through

[Guest guest]

" Anarchism " proves MY point. It means " without gov " . It does not mean a firm

disbelief in the existence of government.

Another example:

" amoral " = lacking moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor

immoral.

If you claim " atheism " could mean " belief in the absence of god " , please

give an example of another a-prefix-word that means " belief in the absence

of _____ (anything) "

-Mark

******************************

The active misidentification of evil

is the worst kind of evil.

-MRN

Re: POLITICS Atheism a Religion? (was White Missionaries' )

In a message dated 12/16/04 8:28:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

> [ " A " means " absence of. " ]

>

> Yes. Therefore " atheism " means " absence of belief in god " . We are in

> agreement.

____

We're not in agreement. By the word roots, atheism could mean one of two

things:

" absence of a belief in god "

OR

" belief in the absence of god "

The word roots are ambiguous, and either one would make sense. As I stated

in my first email, you could consider " a- " to apply to " theism, " which would

yield your definition, or you could consider " a- " to apply to " -the- " and

" -ism "

to apply to " athe, " which would yield the one the dictionary and most people

use.

I offered one analogous word of similar components, anarchism, which follows

the latter model rather than yours.

Chris

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn wrote:

[ " A " means " absence of. " ]

And another thing! " A " cannot be considered " absence of " in the root

Sanskrit meaning because absence of supposes belief. How? The absence

of x is NOT the same as the opposite of x. Absence means missing, which

by default supposes it should be there. Oh no! " A " means non or negate

the word. But then, unlike I actually believe pure logic can

conclude certain things.

Deanna

" We cannot fully understand the Trinity from language (which is

human and imperfect) or logic (which is human and imperfect, and which, in any

case, cannot itself lead to the understanding of anything); however there are

no logical contradictions within it. " ~ Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>If theism is considered as a unit, meaning belief in God, then the " a "

>pertains to the belief. If " theos " and the suffix " ism " are considered

>separately,

>than " a " pertains to " theos " and " ism " pertains to " atheos, " which would be

>belief in the absence of (a) god(s).

Come on, this is beneath you. " atheism " clearly should be broken down as

" a theism " .

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 9:43:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Actually guys, I do know about the roots of " a " here. It comes from

> Sanskrit of the Indus valley. For example, himsa means violence and

> ahimsa means nonviolence in Sanskrit. The use of the word is much like

> a minus sign in front of a number or variable. It means " non " *AS A

> PREFIX* and cannot be switched in the middle of a word, as has

> done above. Only his first version is close. Non belief in God is

> better still. Atheism is " non-theism " . Y'all can haggle over those

> theism roots, but Sanskrit is a refined, precise language. The " a " in

> front means the non (or negative of), because in some contexts, " absence

> of " makes no sense.

____

You claim it is from Sanskrit, yet all the dictionaries and medical

terminology textbooks claim it from Greek and claim it means " absence of, " which

is its

meaning in medical terminology. Perhaps the Greek root is derived from the

Sanskrit, but that doesn't make the English word hold true to the Sanksrit

usage. According to the dictionary definition Mark cited, the Greek root

" atheos "

or godless is a root of the word (and the definition is in accord with what

I've said rather than Mark).

Besides that, I've already cited a comparable word using the same two roots,

a/an, and ism. Anarchism is not the non-belief in government, but the belief

that government should not exist.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 10:40:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> " Anarchism " proves MY point. It means " without gov " . It does not mean a firm

> disbelief in the existence of government.

___

Anarchism does not mean " without government. " It refers to a philosophical

school of thought that advocates the absence of government. " Anarchy, " not

" anarchism " is the word referring to the absence of government.

The " ism " indicates some kind of paradigm, school of thought, philosophy,

etc. In " anarchism, " if the " an- " were to refer to the " archism " as a unit, it

would mean the lack of an advocation of government. But, instead, the " an- "

refers to the " arch, " meaning absence of government, and the " ism " refers to the

" anarch " as a unit, meaning a philosophy that advocates the absence of

government.

Likewise, one interpretation of the roots of " atheism " would hold the " a- " to

refer to " theos " yielding " atheos, " or absence of god, and the " ism " would

refer to " atheos " as a unit, yielding a philosophy that holds that there is no

god.

Again, if " anarchism " followed the model you are proposing, it would mean a

lack of belief in government, rather than a belief that there should be no

government. Someone who holds no opinion on whether a government should exist

or

not would be agnostic toward the issue. Just like someone who had no opinion

on whether or not there was a God would be agnostic toward that issue.

____

> Another example:

> " amoral " = lacking moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor

> immoral.

____

You keep using two-root words as models for three-root words. How can you

battle my claim that three-root words can be interpreted two different ways,

which two are taken as a unit that which third refers to, with words having only

two roots?

Your example of " amoral " is perfectly analogous, in meaning, by to

" agnostic " in any issue regarding knowledge.

In order to make your word an analogous model to either of the two we are

discussing, you'd have to consider what " amoralism " would mean. Would it mean a

positive belief that one should make no moral distinctions, or would it mean

the absence of a belief in moralism? Or could it be reasonably interpreted as

either based on the word roots alone?

This is analagous to the question of whether atheism could mean a positive

belief in the absence of God, or the absence of a belief in God.

> If you claim " atheism " could mean " belief in the absence of god " , please

> give an example of another a-prefix-word that means " belief in the absence

> of _____ (anything) "

_____

I already did: anarchism. You incorrectly stated that " anarchism " was the

absence of government, confusing the word with " anarchy. " Anarchism is a

political philosophy that positively advocates an absence of government.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 11:26:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> And another thing! " A " cannot be considered " absence of " in the root

> Sanskrit meaning because absence of supposes belief. How? The absence

> of x is NOT the same as the opposite of x. Absence means missing, which

> by default supposes it should be there.

____

I have no idea how it is used in Sanskrit, but the dictionary entries and

medical terminology texts I've seen so far cite the Greek for this root, and

claim it means " absence. "

Absence does not suppose something " should " be there, but that it " could " be

there. There is an absence of coffee stains on my shirt. That doesn't mean

my shirt is " supposed to be " stained with coffee.

_____

> Oh no! " A " means non or negate

> the word. But then, unlike I actually believe pure logic can

> conclude certain things.

_____

I never, ever, ever, claimed that logic could not conclude certain things.

If you can't " understand " the difference between " concluding " and

" understanding " you may want to rely less on logic and do a little less

concluding and a

little more understanding.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 4:23:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Sorry, but the roots of anarchy don't fit. It's an-archy, not a-narchy

____

There's no need to apologize . You simply overlooked the fact that " a- "

and " an- " are interchangable word roots, used depending on whether the root

that follows it is a consonant or a vowel. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 5:08:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

> According to most sources I've seen, " a " and " an " are interchangeable.

>

> It looks like the modern definition of " atheist " (a firm denial of the

> existence of god) is technically wrong, but IS the definition of

> " antitheist " .

____

It would seem that using your model, and the one agrees to, where

" atheism " breaks down into a-theism, that antitheist would break down into

anti-theist. So an antitheist would be someone who opposes theists, people who

believe

in God.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Besides that, I've already cited a comparable word using the same two roots,

>a/an, and ism. Anarchism is not the non-belief in government, but the belief

>that government should not exist.

Sorry, but the roots of anarchy don't fit. It's an-archy, not a-narchy.

-