Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Magicthighs]

I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist"

I share your annoyance with that article, in fact, I stumbled upon this website when I used google to see if I was the only one who felt this way.
If I remember correctly, there used to be a separate article on atheism, which they now seem to have merged with the article on agnosticism. I may be wrong, however.


The reason I created an account and am currently posting here is because of this part of their reply:

"In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972)"

This is simply false. Here are just a few examples that predate Flew:

Baron d'Holbach: "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God".

Robert Flint: "every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God"

And, arguably, Bertrand Russell: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely"

[Mister Agenda]

There are atheists that believe a diety is not worthy of belief (that is a belief that something isn't qualified for belief), there are also those that withhold or reject belief in dieties (that is that the null position would be no belief). The former would be hard the latter soft. I don't think it directly needs the agnostic adjective unless one is defining their particular use of atheism. That is fairly standard explanation correct?

Sure, it's only an issue here because Lucent insists that atheists can't also be agnostic.

[reverendjeremiah]

I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist"

I share your annoyance with that article, in fact, I stumbled upon this website when I used google to see if I was the only one who felt this way.
If I remember correctly, there used to be a separate article on atheism, which they now seem to have merged with the article on agnosticism. I may be wrong, however.


The reason I created an account and am currently posting here is because of this part of their reply:

"In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972)"

This is simply false. Here are just a few examples that predate Flew:

Baron d'Holbach: "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God".

Robert Flint: "every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God"

And, arguably, Bertrand Russell: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely"

Welcome to the forum.. . when you get a chance be sure to post an introduction topic so others will get to know you.

[theresidentskeptic]

@Magicthighs

Thanks for redirecting the conversation back to the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsKtjTEJrvY

[houseofcantor]

Atheists need to stop trying to redefine the definition of atheism. To say you lack a belief in something is a meaningless statement. It is simply an attempt by the atheist to redefine the parameters of the debate and escape any burden of proof for their position.

What?!?! It's our atheism. If we don't argue among ourselves the definition of the term, the heck else we got to talk about?

[briliantApe]

I found this forum by chance and registered just to reply here. The letter response from Stanford is laughable really. I would compile my own letter to them and publish it here when its done, lets see.

[Captain Colostomy]

I found this forum by chance and registered just to reply here. The letter response from Stanford is laughable really. I would compile my own letter to them and publish it here when its done, lets see.

You should check out the TOS, newbie, cuz...


Dead thread walking!

(Hello, btw!)

[Lemonvariable72]

I found this forum by chance and registered just to reply here. The letter response from Stanford is laughable really. I would compile my own letter to them and publish it here when its done, lets see.

Dipshits like that are why I call myself agnostic. Saves me from arguing semantics

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist. Well, Stanford replied. Below is the email I sent to them, followed by their response.

(Please excuse the rudeness and crudeness of my email, I was writing out of frustration and was not expecting a reply)


----------------------------------------------------

Dear Stanford,

I am constantly having your definitions of atheism and agnosticism regurgitated to me by people who don't seem to understand what they mean and your authoritative definition completely muddies the waters.

Your definition which can be seen at the the following link states:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

"‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."

I am forced to point out to you that agnosticism deals with knowledge claims, not claims of belief. Why are you conflating the two? A belief necessarily deals with a single claim; God exists is one claim; God does not exist is another claim- or String theory is true is one claim; string theory is not true is another claim.

A cosmologist who does not know if either position about string theory is true would be considered an agnostic. The cosmologist then disbelieves claim 1; string theory is true, therefore, for lack of a better term, is an atheist with respect to string theory. They do not necessarily believe that claim 2; string theory is false, is true.

Similarly, with respect to god claims, a person who does not know if either claim (god exists / god does not exist) is true would be an agnostic. The person who disbelieves claim 1; God exists is an atheist and this does not say anything about their acceptance that claim 2; god does not exist, is true.

I will use an analogy:

If I made the claim that there are an odd number of blades of grass in my front yard, would you believe me?

No, you wouldn't unless I could substantiate that claim (if you are rational). Does that then mean you believe the opposite of that claim? That there are an even number of blades of grass in my front yard? No, you wouldn't accept that claim either. With respect to your belief in the true dichotomy of the nature of the grass then, you are an atheist; you disbelieve claim 1; there are an odd number of blades of grass. If you don't know which claim is true, you are an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

With respect to god claims, I identify as an agnostic atheist; I do not know if a god exists or not, and I disbelieve the claim that a god does exist.

Gnostic: Of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. --> Therefore it's opposite, agnostic, relates to a lack of knowledge.

Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures --> Therefore it's opposite, atheist, relates to a lack of belief in the existence of gods and not necessarily the belief in the opposite claim, that no gods exist.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Source [for definitions]: Oxford English Dictionary

Kindly update your definitions to reflect this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
[theresidentskeptic]



----------------------------------REPLY FROM STANFORD BELOW----------------------------------

Dear [theresidentskeptic]

Thank you for writing to us about the entry on atheism and
agnosticism. We have received messages about this issue before and
are continuing to consider whether and how the entry might be adjusted.

That said, the matter is not as clear cut as you suggest. While the
term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our
entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.
Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism'
means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the
philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as
"positive atheism" and contrast it with the broader notion of
"negative atheism" which has the meaning you suggest--that 'atheism'
simply means not-theist.

In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a
default position.

Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply
on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves
atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an
attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts
seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they
rejected.

All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding
the definitions as presented in this entry.

All the best,
Yours,
Uri

-------------------------------------------------------
Uri Nodelman Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Senior Editor
CSLI/Cordura Hall [email protected]
Stanford University ph. 650-723-0488
Stanford, CA 94305-4115 fx. 650-725-2166
-------------------------------------------------------

This thread should be stickied. This post should be required reading for all atheists who want to argue about the definition of atheism.

Lemonvariable, this post should be tattooed on your forehead, so that whenever you look in the mirror, you remember Uri Nodelman, and trying to argue with Vinny G. about the meaning of atheism.

[Lemonvariable72]

I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist. Well, Stanford replied. Below is the email I sent to them, followed by their response.

(Please excuse the rudeness and crudeness of my email, I was writing out of frustration and was not expecting a reply)


----------------------------------------------------

Dear Stanford,

I am constantly having your definitions of atheism and agnosticism regurgitated to me by people who don't seem to understand what they mean and your authoritative definition completely muddies the waters.

Your definition which can be seen at the the following link states:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

"‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."

I am forced to point out to you that agnosticism deals with knowledge claims, not claims of belief. Why are you conflating the two? A belief necessarily deals with a single claim; God exists is one claim; God does not exist is another claim- or String theory is true is one claim; string theory is not true is another claim.

A cosmologist who does not know if either position about string theory is true would be considered an agnostic. The cosmologist then disbelieves claim 1; string theory is true, therefore, for lack of a better term, is an atheist with respect to string theory. They do not necessarily believe that claim 2; string theory is false, is true.

Similarly, with respect to god claims, a person who does not know if either claim (god exists / god does not exist) is true would be an agnostic. The person who disbelieves claim 1; God exists is an atheist and this does not say anything about their acceptance that claim 2; god does not exist, is true.

I will use an analogy:

If I made the claim that there are an odd number of blades of grass in my front yard, would you believe me?

No, you wouldn't unless I could substantiate that claim (if you are rational). Does that then mean you believe the opposite of that claim? That there are an even number of blades of grass in my front yard? No, you wouldn't accept that claim either. With respect to your belief in the true dichotomy of the nature of the grass then, you are an atheist; you disbelieve claim 1; there are an odd number of blades of grass. If you don't know which claim is true, you are an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

With respect to god claims, I identify as an agnostic atheist; I do not know if a god exists or not, and I disbelieve the claim that a god does exist.

Gnostic: Of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. --> Therefore it's opposite, agnostic, relates to a lack of knowledge.

Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures --> Therefore it's opposite, atheist, relates to a lack of belief in the existence of gods and not necessarily the belief in the opposite claim, that no gods exist.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Source [for definitions]: Oxford English Dictionary

Kindly update your definitions to reflect this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
[theresidentskeptic]



----------------------------------REPLY FROM STANFORD BELOW----------------------------------

Dear [theresidentskeptic]

Thank you for writing to us about the entry on atheism and
agnosticism. We have received messages about this issue before and
are continuing to consider whether and how the entry might be adjusted.

That said, the matter is not as clear cut as you suggest. While the
term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our
entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.
Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism'
means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the
philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as
"positive atheism" and contrast it with the broader notion of
"negative atheism" which has the meaning you suggest--that 'atheism'
simply means not-theist.

In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a
default position.

Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply
on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves
atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an
attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts
seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they
rejected.

All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding
the definitions as presented in this entry.

All the best,
Yours,
Uri

-------------------------------------------------------
Uri Nodelman Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Senior Editor
CSLI/Cordura Hall [email protected]
Stanford University ph. 650-723-0488
Stanford, CA 94305-4115 fx. 650-725-2166
-------------------------------------------------------

This thread should be stickied. This post should be required reading for all atheists who want to argue about the definition of atheism.

Lemonvariable, this post should be tattooed on your forehead, so that whenever you look in the mirror, you remember Uri Nodelman, and trying to argue with Vinny G. about the meaning of atheism.

Okay, I have a question. When you have a entire community of atheists telling you one definition for atheism and a dictionary telling you another then which is it?
Even if you get the dictionary definition to stick it doesn't mean shit, the position that we use atheism to describe will still exist. If we all started to describe our selves as agnostics tomorrow (like I currently do) then what?