Stanfords new definition of atheism

Thomas Eshuis · **#201** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 16, 2017 9:36 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opinion. I do not hold the belief that one or more gods exist. Ergo, I am an atheist.

Lacking belief makes you sound like you suffer from a deficiency and need to be rectified.

You do love your non-sequiturs don't you?
Let's put that into perspective:
Being bald makes it sound you suffer from a deficiency and need to be rectified.
You don't collect stamps makes it sound like you suffer from a deficiency and need to be rectified.
Or the most to the point:
Lacking an alergy makes it sound like you suffer from a deficiency and need to be rectified.

Wortfish wrote: An amoral person lacks morality and an atheist lacks belief....sounds VERY bad.

When you cherry-pick your comparisong and create a false analogy, yes.
But let's try another example:
An alinear line is line that lacks linearity and an atheist lacks belief ..... sounds VERY bad.

Alan B · **#202** by **Alan B** » Aug 16, 2017 9:55 am

Wortfish wrote:
Alan B wrote:What is an 'armchair atheist'?

Someone who is not a professional atheist philosopher or apologist. There are some people who research and teach atheism.

What utter bollocks, Wortfish. Sounds like an 'Armchair Theist' spouting pseudo-philosophy.

Alan B · **#203** by **Alan B** » Aug 16, 2017 10:05 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Atheist cosmology? Talk about an atheist religion next. How can you have a 'nothing' cosmology? Using atheism as adjective does not make sense. There is no such thing as an atheistic belief system or an atheist believer.

Which word in "there never was nothing" do you not understand?
As for your irrelevant complaint abot my use of the word "atheistic", I guess you need a better dictionary. Try Chambers English Dictionary. It's right there, in black and white.

I dont require any dictionary but you apparently do. Just shovelling shit again. Like a theist you apparently dont understand what atheism in the modern sense means. The classic Greek explanation suffices perfectly well.

The problem with dictionaries they were compounded in a time when atheism went against everything in society. Belief was almost 100% and this was reflected in the dictionaries:

Merriam and Webster:
1
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2
archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

Oxford:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Both are bad and irrelevant but reflects purely the time the dictionaries were compounded.

Atheism has nothing to do with belief which is what theists always claim but they of course are stuck with a Victorian mindset.

The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins... :whistle:

Sendraks · **#204** by **Sendraks** » Aug 16, 2017 10:16 am

Alan B wrote:
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

Trust Dawkins to be involved in a bullshit definition of atheism.

OlivierK · **#205** by **OlivierK** » Aug 16, 2017 10:20 am

Wortfish wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
No, it's not correct. Talking about the distance to something that doesn't exist isn't even wrong. By saying that the distance to a non existent thing must be so large that it's infinite, you're just just adding more confusion.

Anything which has no beginning is infinite in extent. But this is not to say that the distance between a real object an imagined non-existent object (like a pink elephant with horns) is infinite.

And yet you make this error incessantly with your repeated claims that the distance to the imagined non-existent beginning of a ruler-that-doesn't-have-a-beginning must be infinite. If you accept that that's nonsense, then you need to accept that arguments that use that as a premise are also nonsense.

DavidMcC · **#206** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 16, 2017 11:49 am

Alan B wrote:...
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why? After all, belief does not have to be belief in god(s), it can be a rational belief.
Also, what is your problem with Dawkins? I only have one minor one: he made a mess of eye biology, and the evolution of the surface vertebrate eye.

Scot Dutchy · **#207** by **Scot Dutchy** » Aug 16, 2017 12:02 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Alan B wrote:...
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why? After all, belief does not have to be belief in god(s), it can be a rational belief.
Also, what is your problem with Dawkins? I only have one minor one: he made a mess of eye biology, and the evolution of the surface vertebrate eye.

Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity

You cant see the problem with that definition? Do you have a belief or doctrine that there is NO deity.

An atheist does not say there is no deity. He would be foolish to do so. To have a belief system that says there is no deity is pure madness and the standpoint often of the theist.
An atheist just says there is no evidence of the existence of a deity.

Sendraks · **#208** by **Sendraks** » Aug 16, 2017 12:09 pm

What Scot said.

zulumoose · **#209** by **zulumoose** » Aug 16, 2017 12:15 pm

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why?

That sort of definition is often used to paint the atheist as the holder of a positive belief, something which must be verified, justified, and defended. It shifts the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

Lack of belief in something for which there is no clear supporting evidence is the default position, it should not need to be defended, and those insisting that there is something wrong or unreasonable about it should not be let off from the burden of proof that is theirs to shoulder.

SafeAsMilk · **#210** by **SafeAsMilk** » Aug 16, 2017 12:31 pm

Wortfish wrote:An amoral person lacks morality and an atheist lacks belief....sounds VERY bad.

Not really, since theists are the folks that demonstrably lack morality. That's why they need a magic fairy to hand their morals down to them, without question or thought. Atheists lack a need for those crutches.

Nice try at trolling, though :lol:

DavidMcC · **#211** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 16, 2017 3:15 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Alan B wrote:...
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why? After all, belief does not have to be belief in god(s), it can be a rational belief.
Also, what is your problem with Dawkins? I only have one minor one: he made a mess of eye biology, and the evolution of the surface vertebrate eye.

Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity

You cant see the problem with that definition? Do you have a belief or doctrine that there is NO deity.

An atheist does not say there is no deity. He would be foolish to do so. To have a belief system that says there is no deity is pure madness and the standpoint often of the theist.
An atheist just says there is no evidence of the existence of a deity.

Ha! The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity is good reason to believe that no such deity exists.

This begins to look like a pointless word game.
EDIT: Perhaps you think that the word, belief necessarily means belief in a deity? :roll:

Adding the word, "system" is to add confusion, because it tends to imply a religious belief.

Thomas Eshuis · **#212** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 16, 2017 3:21 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Alan B wrote:...
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why? After all, belief does not have to be belief in god(s), it can be a rational belief.
Also, what is your problem with Dawkins? I only have one minor one: he made a mess of eye biology, and the evolution of the surface vertebrate eye.

Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity

You cant see the problem with that definition? Do you have a belief or doctrine that there is NO deity.

An atheist does not say there is no deity. He would be foolish to do so. To have a belief system that says there is no deity is pure madness and the standpoint often of the theist.
An atheist just says there is no evidence of the existence of a deity.

Ha! The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity is good reason to believe that no such deity exists.

No, that would be an appeal to personal ignorance fallacy.

DavidMcC wrote:
This begins to look like a pointless word game.
EDIT: Perhaps you think that the word, belief necessarily means belief in a deity?

No, just the acceptance of a claim as true.

romansh · **#213** by **romansh** » Aug 16, 2017 3:24 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote: An atheist does not say there is no deity. He would be foolish to do so. To have a belief system that says there is no deity is pure madness and the standpoint often of the theist.
An atheist just says there is no evidence of the existence of a deity.

What would you call someone who says there is no deity or God? Apart from foolish?
Because there are sevens on the Dawkins' Scale. Frankly I get where they are coming from, but do not necessarily agree with them philosophically, I would not necessarily call them foolish either.

So you did not answer my question what is the definition of atheist I should be using?

DavidMcC · **#214** by **DavidMcC** » Aug 16, 2017 3:25 pm

I accept that the particular dictionary entry that SD is getting excited about is badly worded, as pithy dictionary entries on philosophical matters often are.

Fallible · **#215** by **Fallible** » Aug 16, 2017 3:43 pm

Excuse me butting in, but an atheist does say there is no god if they are an atheist who also holds that belief on top of their lack of belief in the existence of said deity. An atheist who says there is no god is a gnostic atheist, a subset of atheist.

laklak · **#216** by **laklak** » Aug 16, 2017 3:55 pm

Fallible wrote:An urukai lacks empathy and an atheist lack belief.

Including results for Uruk-Hai.

: Uruk-Hai.jpg (25.24 KiB) Viewed 791 times

romansh · **#217** by **romansh** » Aug 16, 2017 4:01 pm

Here's my take on the subject: an atheist is a collective noun for at least one of the following:

weak atheist

agnostic atheist

strong atheist

gnostic atheist

This is the way I use the word atheist and its derivatives.

Thomas Eshuis · **#218** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 16, 2017 4:11 pm

romansh wrote:Here's my take on the subject: an atheist is a collective noun for at least one of the following:

weak atheist ... someone who does not have a belief in a god.
agnostic atheist ... someone who does not know whether god exists or not.
strong atheist ... someone who believes god does not exist.
gnostic atheist ... someone who knows god does not exist.

This is the way I use the word atheist and its derivatives.

And what is the one thing all those derivatives have in common: a lack of belief in gods.

monkeyboy · **#219** by **monkeyboy** » Aug 16, 2017 5:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Alan B wrote:...
The New Penguin dictionary c. 2000 (er, AD):
"Atheism: The belief or doctrine that there is no deity."

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Among the 'Advisers' was a certain Richard Dawkins...

I take it you have a problem with that definition, but why? After all, belief does not have to be belief in god(s), it can be a rational belief.
Also, what is your problem with Dawkins? I only have one minor one: he made a mess of eye biology, and the evolution of the surface vertebrate eye.

Do you have a belief or doctrine on the non existence of unicorns or trolls? Leprechauns or fire breathing dragons (my ex excluded)? Witches and warlocks?

What is the correct term for each?

Atheism stops at non belief or a lack of belief. There's no atheist doctrine or belief system. I can be totally fucking insane and believe I live in Winona Ryder's rabbit hutch with Gerald the badger and Dirty Gertie from number thirty but so long as I lack a belief in a deity, I'm an atheist. I doubtt I'd share any atheist doctrine with anyone else there but what else is required to be an atheist?

Scot Dutchy · **#220** by **Scot Dutchy** » Aug 16, 2017 5:56 pm

romansh wrote:Here's my take on the subject: an atheist is a collective noun for at least one of the following:

weak atheist ... someone who does not have a belief in a god.
agnostic atheist ... someone who does not know whether god exists or not.
strong atheist ... someone who believes god does not exist.
gnostic atheist ... someone who knows god does not exist.

This is the way I use the word atheist and its derivatives.

This looks to me like theist definitions. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a philosophy. It is literally zilch. It is theists that try to create a reason for it and try to define it. I do define myself as an atheist but really I do not think about it as it has no consequence in my life. I dont have to defend atheism as there is nothing to defend.

Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

Who is online