Atheism, as it is a group it has to have a capital letter, just like Wicca has to have a capital letter, if it is a thing or a name or even a title, it has to have a capital letter.
Atheism
(noun)
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
It has synonyms but we are not here to look at synonyms for atheism, if you want to look at the synonyms of Atheism, then please look it up on google.
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
The etymological root for the word atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity it had multiple uses such as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. it could refer to someone who was was forsaken by the gods or someone who had no commitment to the gods. However, the actual term Atheism emerged first in the 16th century. With the spread of free-thought, sceptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word Atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.
Since conceptions of Atheism vary, accurate estimations of current numbers of atheists are difficult. Several comprehensive global polls on the subject have been conducted by Gallup International: their 2015 poll featured over 64,000 respondents and indicated that 11% were "convinced atheists" whereas an earlier 2012 poll found that 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists." An older survey by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 2004 recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population. Other older estimates have indicated that atheists comprise 2% of the world's population, while the irreligious add a further 12%. According to these polls, Europe and East Asia are the regions with the highest rates of atheism. In 2015, 61% of people in China reported that they were Atheists. The figures for a 2010 Euro-barometer survey in the European Union (EU) reported that 20% of the EU population claimed not to believe in "any sort of spirit, God or life force".
A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit Atheism.
Explicit strong/positive/hard Atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Explicit weak/negative/soft Atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Implicit weak/negative Atheists (in blue on the left), according to authors such as George H. Smith, would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)
In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "Atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.
The term Atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods", predates Atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566, and again in 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. The term atheism was derived from the French Athéisme, and appears in English about 1587. An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term Atheonism. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662, deism in 1675,and theism in 1678. At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.
Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'Atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'Atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an Atheist."
Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe Atheism as simply "disbelief in God".
William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word Atheism
William Lane Craig declared:
“ There’s a history behind this. Certain Atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of Atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of Atheism used the term “Atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional Atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...
Such a re-definition of the word “Atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of Atheism, for on this definition, Atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as Atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an Atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would Atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many Atheists. If Atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then Atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view."
Atheism is a religion and this has implications in terms of the disciplines of religion, philosophy, Christian apologetics and law. In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a number of beliefs such as naturalism, belief in evolution and abiogenesis.
If the view that there is no God (or are no gods) is a religion, it is argued its expression is constitutionally protected in the United States. The government cannot force Atheists to recant and adopt the opposite belief.
If atheism is not a religion, then the expression of atheistic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses.
The implications go deeper, affecting public education. If Atheism is a religion, then the Atheism adhering to the methodological naturalism of physical science cannot be given excessive government support. That would violate the establishment of religion clause. So, evolution education would have to allow students freedom to dissent from the "orthodox" pseudo-scientific view that human beings evolved from earlier forms of life without any intervention from God. It should be noted that biology courses only require knowledge of what the theory of evolution, its mechanisms, and the evidence supporting it, rather than belief that evolution occurred.
In 2013, a trend of atheist services began and atheist services were reported in the New York Times, The Blaze and other major news outlets.
This is a blog to post about all that I believe, and other stuff. I will also be posting videos and writing about books that I am reading.
Translate
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Things I wouldn't do while calling myself pro-life part 2
You cannot hold anti-immigration sentiments or support oppressive immigration policies.
At first you may be shocked to hear this, but I really need you to consider, one thing, if you were part of a group of people, and there was a sudden civil unrest and your life was at a severe risk, wouldn't you become an immigrant, a political immigrant, wouldn't you desire to reside in a country that is sympathetic to your plight?
I suggest that you consider this one long and deep.
You cannot oppose healthcare for all
This is another unheard of part of being pro life, being pro life means that you desire everyone to have the same medical treatment no matter their financial background, race, religion, or sexuality, etc.
but, in order to eradicate this form of inequality completely within society, we need to educate everyone to a high standard from an early age. What does this have to do with healthcare for all? well, everything!
for one, healthcare starts with the individual and education. And we cannot have good health care workers in any field without a high standard of education, in place.
Secondly, we have to look at how we as a community can help to fund healthcare in order to make it free, such as using tax on wages, like they do in Britain. On average, in a single year, at least 643,000 people are forced into bankruptcy simply because of medical bills alone.
Medical treatment is and should be a medical right, and it can be! the right to life and health should be fundamental to all, a right that all should collectively work for.
You cannot use dehumanizing words or language
To use dehumanizing words, is to view others as being non human and not worthy or respect. To do so, means that you strip people of all positive human traits and qualities. It also makes people feel worthless to society and to the human race as a whole.
There are many ways that someone can be dehumanized, most of which should always be frowned upon, especially if you call yourself pro life.
If you wish to know more about how to tackle dehumanization then please follow the link provided
https://anawimcc.org/what-is-deumanization/
Even forcing someone to live contrary to their values and/or beliefs that they hold, then ineffectively, you are dehumanizing that person and you can no longer call yourself pro life if you do so, for do so is contrary to the pro life view.
you cannot support the death penalty
Do you know how many innocent men and women have been given the death penalty?
Since 1973, 144 people have been found to be have been innocent of the crime that they were accused off, in turn meaning that they have been exonerated. If this isn't reason enough to oppose the death penalty, then what is?
You cannot call your self pro life if you approve of the death penalty, lukewarm or otherwise.
No one can justifiably approve of the death penalty. period.
grief can blur the lines between right and wrong, and you are more likely to bay for the blood of anyone, if no one knows who the real killer/murderer is.
If we view ourselves as being pro life then we must rise above the carnal need for revenge killings. If we can't rise above this carnal feeling, then we cannot be pro life and must re-examine our stance in the world.
You cannot support, advocate for, or participate in war.
You may know the refusal to participate in war as a conscientious objector. Those were people who refused to participate in any war, as it went against their moral outlook.
In today's world, it is still viewed as necessary to go to war. If you view war as a necessary means to achieve an aim or goal, then you cannot call yourself pro life as you are advocating for the death of countless innocent men, women, children and animals. If you then are on your way to being pro life and as a conscientious objector, and you should embrace such a path.
Until we turn away from those highlighted paths, then true purposeful peace cannot happen.
At first you may be shocked to hear this, but I really need you to consider, one thing, if you were part of a group of people, and there was a sudden civil unrest and your life was at a severe risk, wouldn't you become an immigrant, a political immigrant, wouldn't you desire to reside in a country that is sympathetic to your plight?
I suggest that you consider this one long and deep.
You cannot oppose healthcare for all
This is another unheard of part of being pro life, being pro life means that you desire everyone to have the same medical treatment no matter their financial background, race, religion, or sexuality, etc.
but, in order to eradicate this form of inequality completely within society, we need to educate everyone to a high standard from an early age. What does this have to do with healthcare for all? well, everything!
for one, healthcare starts with the individual and education. And we cannot have good health care workers in any field without a high standard of education, in place.
Secondly, we have to look at how we as a community can help to fund healthcare in order to make it free, such as using tax on wages, like they do in Britain. On average, in a single year, at least 643,000 people are forced into bankruptcy simply because of medical bills alone.
Medical treatment is and should be a medical right, and it can be! the right to life and health should be fundamental to all, a right that all should collectively work for.
You cannot use dehumanizing words or language
To use dehumanizing words, is to view others as being non human and not worthy or respect. To do so, means that you strip people of all positive human traits and qualities. It also makes people feel worthless to society and to the human race as a whole.
There are many ways that someone can be dehumanized, most of which should always be frowned upon, especially if you call yourself pro life.
If you wish to know more about how to tackle dehumanization then please follow the link provided
https://anawimcc.org/what-is-deumanization/
Even forcing someone to live contrary to their values and/or beliefs that they hold, then ineffectively, you are dehumanizing that person and you can no longer call yourself pro life if you do so, for do so is contrary to the pro life view.
you cannot support the death penalty
Do you know how many innocent men and women have been given the death penalty?
Since 1973, 144 people have been found to be have been innocent of the crime that they were accused off, in turn meaning that they have been exonerated. If this isn't reason enough to oppose the death penalty, then what is?
You cannot call your self pro life if you approve of the death penalty, lukewarm or otherwise.
No one can justifiably approve of the death penalty. period.
grief can blur the lines between right and wrong, and you are more likely to bay for the blood of anyone, if no one knows who the real killer/murderer is.
If we view ourselves as being pro life then we must rise above the carnal need for revenge killings. If we can't rise above this carnal feeling, then we cannot be pro life and must re-examine our stance in the world.
You cannot support, advocate for, or participate in war.
You may know the refusal to participate in war as a conscientious objector. Those were people who refused to participate in any war, as it went against their moral outlook.
In today's world, it is still viewed as necessary to go to war. If you view war as a necessary means to achieve an aim or goal, then you cannot call yourself pro life as you are advocating for the death of countless innocent men, women, children and animals. If you then are on your way to being pro life and as a conscientious objector, and you should embrace such a path.
Until we turn away from those highlighted paths, then true purposeful peace cannot happen.
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
the things I wont do while I view my self as "pro-life"
You cannot oppose a livable, minimum wage.
this is one area that most pro choice advocates often dont talk about, quite often when you are pro choice, the first thing you will talk about is women's rights.
but, being either pro choice or pro life isn't all about just women's rights, no, it goes much further than that. If you want to advocate for women's rights then egalitarianism and feminism are two paths you really should consider following.
"After adjustments for inflation, the minimum wage today is $2 less an hour than it was in 1968. [1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/10-minimum-wage_n_3474024.html] However, a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty. [2. ibid] There are millions of Americans stuck in an inescapable life of poverty- not because of laziness, but because their hard work at lagging minimum wages are insufficient for basic needs, such as housing. According to the Low Income Housing Coalition, the best case scenario for minimum wage workers can be found in Arkansas and West Virginia where one would only need to work 63 hours a week at minimum wage in order to rent a two bedroom apartment at fair market value. Live in New York? You’re looking at working 136 hours a week in order to pay just for housing. My home state of Maine? That’s 81 hours a week. [3. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/5302012wage/5302012wage-jumbo.jpg]"
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
to be a true advocate, is to be an advocate for the lifting up of people out of poverty, we must work together to establish a minimum wage that will lift people out of poverty. You do not have to be on benefits to be in poverty, you will often be in low paid jobs with little pay and be in poverty, especially with all the price rises in gas, electric, food, rent, council tax, water rates, etc. etc.
just a simple low rise in any or all of those factors can push people on low pay in to poverty and spiraling debt, of which many never get out of. this is when depression and suicide rates can increase.
this is one area that most pro choice advocates often dont talk about, quite often when you are pro choice, the first thing you will talk about is women's rights.
but, being either pro choice or pro life isn't all about just women's rights, no, it goes much further than that. If you want to advocate for women's rights then egalitarianism and feminism are two paths you really should consider following.
"After adjustments for inflation, the minimum wage today is $2 less an hour than it was in 1968. [1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/10-minimum-wage_n_3474024.html] However, a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of poverty. [2. ibid] There are millions of Americans stuck in an inescapable life of poverty- not because of laziness, but because their hard work at lagging minimum wages are insufficient for basic needs, such as housing. According to the Low Income Housing Coalition, the best case scenario for minimum wage workers can be found in Arkansas and West Virginia where one would only need to work 63 hours a week at minimum wage in order to rent a two bedroom apartment at fair market value. Live in New York? You’re looking at working 136 hours a week in order to pay just for housing. My home state of Maine? That’s 81 hours a week. [3. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/5302012wage/5302012wage-jumbo.jpg]"
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
to be a true advocate, is to be an advocate for the lifting up of people out of poverty, we must work together to establish a minimum wage that will lift people out of poverty. You do not have to be on benefits to be in poverty, you will often be in low paid jobs with little pay and be in poverty, especially with all the price rises in gas, electric, food, rent, council tax, water rates, etc. etc.
just a simple low rise in any or all of those factors can push people on low pay in to poverty and spiraling debt, of which many never get out of. this is when depression and suicide rates can increase.
"Low pay continues to be a feature of employment throughout Europe, with around one in seven employees in the EU estimated to have a low wage - though definitions vary considerably. Furthermore, there has been increasing attention in recent years to the phenomenon of the 'working poor'. This EIRO comparative study looks at the extent of low-paid employment and working poverty across the EU and Norway, highlighting the different definitions used, and examines the factors that lead to low pay. It then sets the issue in its industrial relations context, examining the role of minimum pay systems, set by law or collective agreement, and of trade union bargaining strength, in influencing the extent of low pay.
In recent years, a debate has intensified across Europe over the issues of 'low-wage workers' and the 'working poor'. There has been considerable change and reform in European labour markets since the beginning of the 1980s, during which period the distribution of wages is widely regarded as having become more unequal. This is seen by some commentators as a result of: a weakening of workers' bargaining power under the pressure of unemployment; institutional change; and changes in the composition of the labour force. This increase in earnings inequality raises concerns about the consequences for the lives of workers located at the lower end of the wage distribution, with a growing proportion of workers receiving a wage so low as to harm their ability to maintain decent living standards. The response from some quarters is to call for the improvement or introduction of mechanisms to prevent excessively low pay, such as 'wage floors' of some kind." (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/comparative-information/low-wage-workers-and-the-working-poor)
truthfully, we may never be able to abolish poverty forever, but with simple changes we could at least make a difference to the poor of the world.
You cannot advocate, support, or passively tolerate economic policies which oppress the poor, minorities, or any other marginalized group.
blimey, now we are really getting started here, if we advocate, support, or even passively tolerate any policy that could even oppress any marginalized group, the poor, or minorities, then we need to get our priorities in order!
"All throughout scripture, we are warned about this and in fact, in Amos 5, Isaiah 1, and other prophets, God makes it quite clear that our religious activity is offensive to him if we are failing to defend the poor and needy. Job wanted it on the record that he had never oppressed a poor person. Jesus warned that the judgement of the nations would be a judgement based upon how they treated the poor and vulnerable. And when the disciples sent Paul out? Their last words were “remember the poor” (Gal 2:9-10)
Being in favor of life, must mean being in favor of the poor and oppressed." (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
"he available statistics on the number of low-wage workers across the EU and Norway (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of employees) show that low pay in is relatively common, although its extent varies between countries, as well as depending on the definition used. Table 1 below sets out the proportion of all employees who are low-paid according to the definitions commonly used in each country, providing data for the most recent available year."
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/comparative-information/low-wage-workers-and-the-working-poor)
You cannot oppose gender equality
This is where pro life and feminism actually agrees on something!
"Being in favor of life, means we equally value the life of both genders. In 2013, we should seriously be ashamed that women still earn approximately 73% of what men earn for the same work, and that places like Texas just declined to become the 43rd state to pass a law against gender based wage discrimination. But, it gets more tough than that: as scripture teaches, there is no longer “male or female, slave nor free”, and as a result, we need to demand an end to gender based discrimination in our churches as well." (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
- the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
this is from google-search, here you can see that pro life can go hand in hand with feminism, to some degree.
"If we really value life, we need to actively oppose gender based discrimination everywhere we find it, even if that’s a little too close to home for our comfort." (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
I will look at the following points in another blog, for now.
You cannot hold anti-immigrant sentiments or support oppressive immigration policies
You cannot oppose healthcare for all
You cannot use dehumanizing language
You cannot support the death penalty
You cannot support, advocate for, or participate in war
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/pro-life-or-pro-birth/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)