Stanfords new definition of atheism

Still bullshit

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#521  Postby Pebble » Sep 17, 2017 1:05 pm

Back to the issue at hand: Possibly some progress with SED:


Perhaps I could have stated things more simply -- following the
discussion in the entry more closely. That is, instead of saying

'atheism' means the denial of the existence of God

I should have said that

'atheism' is the view that God does not exist.

That is, in the context of doing philosophy of religion, people often
consider the truth of the proposition:

(G) God exists.

'Theism' is the view that proposition (G) is true. 'Atheism' is the
view that proposition (G) is false.

This meaning of 'atheism' is the traditional one and it is quite
useful for reading, understanding, and doing philosophy. But, as the
entry acknowledges, this is not the only definition -- not even the
only definition within philosophy. A range of these definitions is
discussed in Section 1 on "Definitions of 'Atheism'".

All the best,
Yours,
Uri
Pebble
 
Posts: 2627

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#522  Postby Tracer Tong » Sep 17, 2017 1:06 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:If Tracer Tong just wants to continue his passive-agressive trolling, I'll just report them.
The record of this thread speaks for itself.


Argumentum ad baculum, plus argumentum ad inexplicable hyphen hominem. It does speak to the blind and counterfactual nature of your posts, yes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:If anyone agrees with Tracer Tong, I invite them to explain to me how I did post obnoxiously, as Tracer Tong refuses to do so.


He's done so repeatedly. I fear you just don't see. Nor are meeting your burdens of proof.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1087
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#523  Postby Pebble » Sep 17, 2017 1:22 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Pebble wrote:
VazScep wrote:
Pebble wrote:To me you are simply skirting around the issue.
The issue was this claim of yours:

Short of deduction/mathematics we still have no method of proving negatives.
This is a popular mantra we hear from atheists, and it is evidence to me that people who go on sites called "rationalskepticism" are every bit as incapable of being critical about the crap they read on the internet as anyone else.

If the definition of atheism is denial of god(s),
Thommo and I are not talking about the denial of a specific proposition. We're talking about your general claim above, which clearly annoys the both of us, and we want it to stop being repeated.


Then you are both intent on derailing the thread. Context!

How exactly are they derailing the thread? :ask:


I'll give this one more go then.

Thread title: Stanfords new definition of atheism.

Issue under discussion: Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist

So the challenge is to provide evidence for the negative proposition, rather than for the theists to provide evidence that one simply negates.

In this context - the atheist is charged with providing evidence for the absence of any conceivable god(s).

In this context, proving a negative is impossible. One can certainly provide evidence that such a deity is improbable or logically inconsistent, and one can point to the absence of evidence for the opposing view. However, in so doing one is letting the theists set the agenda and end up unable to force the debate into an arena where the weaknesses of the theistic arguments can be exposed. The theist simply needs to take a scatter gun approach (Trump like) firing out a number of simple questions requiring complex frequently incomplete answers, to ensure no-one apart from committed academics can follow the arguments.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2627

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#524  Postby surreptitious57 » Sep 17, 2017 1:28 pm

Like Rachel my atheism is no big deal either for it does not matter that much to me though it is easy to say from my position
of extreme privilege. I do not really care what Stanford says about atheists because they are not talking about me personally
but how they define the word. I am actually an apatheist so care even less. I cannot help but notice though a 25 page thread
about atheists debating the meaning of atheism. If that is not surreal I dont know what is. Still you got to admire the passion
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 8544

Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#525  Postby OlivierK » Sep 17, 2017 1:37 pm

Prove that supernatural entities don't exist? The hint's in the name.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7441
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#526  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 17, 2017 1:41 pm

Atheism is the default and requires no evidence. Theists have to give evidence for their deity.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 37900
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#527  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2017 3:32 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Atheism is the default and requires no evidence.


Another mantra. A long time ago, people scrabbling in the bush for food wondered how the world came to be, and concluded the world (object that it seemed to be) was fashioned much in the way their flint points were, with a purpose. Nobody's innovated any concepts of god since then. Even the people who natter on about god being existence itself try to distinguish existence from non-existence in an imprecise or simply informal way. Finding evidence for stuff doesn't tell you what 'existence' denotes. If you want to dive into the problems brought on by a language that uses the copulative verb in several different ways, have at it, because the way you use 'is' in your sentence is as a logical operator akin to 'equals' whereas 'god is' uses it a different way. How the world came to be? Oh, to be. Or is that to seem to be?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24320
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#528  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2017 3:39 pm

VazScep wrote:For modern philosophers putting out arguments about Divine Hiddenness or the Beginning of the Universe, God is an incredibly simple idea. He has to be simple, because he has to be fully specifiable in one or two premises of a trivial argument of five or so lines. He is some G which appears in the conclusion as "G exists" or "G does not exist".

Philosophers often struggle with variables.


I don't think I'm trying to make it much less simple.

I made a graph (undirected) of this discussion; it does not have a marker, "You are here", but does seem to have something like a main route back and forth along its, er, spine, and numbers that don't mean anything, er, in context. I think everybody should just pick a number and say, "this is where you can find me". It's connected, so we can all find each other.
Attachments
NNUYRMMC.jpg
NNUYRMMC.jpg (126.36 KiB) Viewed 272 times
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24320
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#529  Postby VazScep » Sep 17, 2017 4:08 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:I made a graph (undirected) of this discussion; it does not have a marker, "You are here", but does seem to have something like a main route back and forth along its, er, spine, and numbers that don't mean anything, er, in context. I think everybody should just pick a number and say, "this is where you can find me". It's connected, so we can all find each other.
Now I'm curious. How did you make the graph? (I'm the sort of twat who would spend a wet afternoon generating this sort of thing)
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4505

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#530  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2017 4:39 pm

VazScep wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:I made a graph (undirected) of this discussion; it does not have a marker, "You are here", but does seem to have something like a main route back and forth along its, er, spine, and numbers that don't mean anything, er, in context. I think everybody should just pick a number and say, "this is where you can find me". It's connected, so we can all find each other.
Now I'm curious. How did you make the graph?


I generated a random graph using inputs of number of vertices and density of edges so that every possible edge is tested against the density threshold (excluding parallel edges - the graph shows the directed edges going in both directions for each pair that shares edges). Then I output a list of edges starting at vertex 0 and running through its adjacency list and then iterating by vertex. I gave the list of edges to GraphViz using the 'dot' notation for input files and out pops the plot. My graph classes and driver are in C++, though I prefer Objective-C.

It's like theology, or reading tea leaves, to figure out what the picture means.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24320
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#531  Postby VazScep » Sep 17, 2017 4:46 pm

It reminds me of the Tree of Life in Kaballah, but with numerology thrown in. I think you're onto a winner.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4505

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#532  Postby Tracer Tong » Sep 17, 2017 4:59 pm

To me, it looks like a Doctor Who villain, after more budget cuts.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1087
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#533  Postby Thommo » Sep 17, 2017 5:40 pm

Looks like a goggle-eyed pelican with a stubby tail to me.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21631

Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#534  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2017 5:50 pm

It's a logogram of "BBNATOKS BUKI'RISBD", which is findable on the internet. 'god' and 'atheism' are ideographs for stuff that is not findable on the internet despite the claims of the many.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24320
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#535  Postby scott1328 » Sep 17, 2017 9:34 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
Argumentum ad baculum

:lol:

Shall we go into the etymology of this term?

Or shall I assume you meant baticulum
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7586
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#536  Postby Tracer Tong » Sep 17, 2017 9:41 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Argumentum ad baculum

:lol:

Shall we go into the etymology of this term?

Or shall I assume you meant baticulum


Argumentum ad remedial-Latin-classes-needed-um?

For Scottorum, of courseum.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1087
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#537  Postby surreptitious57 » Sep 17, 2017 10:02 pm

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 8544

Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#538  Postby Tracer Tong » Sep 17, 2017 10:04 pm

Argumentum ad linkum.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1087
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#539  Postby scott1328 » Sep 17, 2017 10:14 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Argumentum ad baculum

:lol:

Shall we go into the etymology of this term?

Or shall I assume you meant baticulum


Argumentum ad remedial-Latin-classes-needed-um?

For Scottorum, of courseum.

Boy am I embarrassed :oops:

I was certain that the word was baticulum. Which now I can't find anywhere on the internet, because presumably someone expunged it to make me look bad.

Anyway. Argumentum ad baculum, appeal to the penis bone, makes me giggle.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7586
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism

#540  Postby Tracer Tong » Sep 17, 2017 10:23 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Argumentum ad baculum

:lol:

Shall we go into the etymology of this term?

Or shall I assume you meant baticulum


Argumentum ad remedial-Latin-classes-needed-um?

For Scottorum, of courseum.

Boy am I embarrassed :oops:

I was certain that the word was baticulum. Which now I can't find anywhere on the internet, because presumably someone expunged it to make me look bad.

Anyway. Argumentum ad baculum, appeal to the penis bone, makes me giggle.


No worriesuus. At least you can admit your errorii.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1087
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest