Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Ben Davis]

Actually they are mutually exclusive, unless you are confusing atheism with irreligiosity.

Wrong. Simon's right, you've had this explained to you many times:

Theism/Atheism describes what you claim to believe
Gnosticism/Agnosticism describes what you claim to know

Unless of course, you're claim is that knowledge & belief are identical in which case I'm unsure but don't believe you.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

You can call yourself whatever you like but if all you have are 4 legs & a flat surface, to the real world you're just wooden.

[Lemonvariable72]

And Vinnie Wtf does it even matter to you anyway? Weither we call ourselves agnostic or atheist the position we really hold does not change.

[Mister Agenda]

It may be that our position fits him uncomfortably well and he's suffering cognitive dissonance from being an atheist and not wanting to acknowledge it. If he can get us to call ourselves what he thinks we should call ourselves, than it resolves the dilemma. So would calling himself an agnostic and being at peace with us calling ourselves agnostic atheists, but he may not be able to do that.

[Simon Moon]

I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.

Then, by your reasoning, shouldn't be using the original definition of atheism as coined by the Greeks? They defined the Christians as atheists because they did not believe in the Greek gods.

The definition you want to use is also a relatively new invention.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

You seem to be applying the colloquial meaning here, and not the formal one.

But tell me, how can the word 'gnostic' (or agnostic), which means 'pertaining to knowledge' have anything to do with belief or disbelief?

I get the feeling you might not understand the difference between the meaning of the words 'knowledge' and 'belief'.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

Do you mean to say that if you disbelieve a claim that is made by an individual, you are agnostic towards the claim itself?

What does disbelieve mean to you?

Is it equivalent to rejecting a claim, or to being indifferent to it?

Isn't albinism a medical condition? It's not a philosophical position or a view.

Neither is atheism. It is the state of not having a belief in any deities being real.

If you want to define atheism as a medical condition, be my guest. But the mentally sick are not usually taken seriously.

Theism is the state of having a belief that at least one deity is real. If you want to go the route that correctly describing it as a state of belief instead of a philosophy is the same as calling it a mental illness, whatever floats your boat.

This shows the hoops you jump through when you try so desperately to redefine atheism.

It shows my grasp of the English language.

Why not just accept that philosophical or intellectual views are one type of -ism, medical conditions are another. And all philosophical/intellectual views about reality are characterized by what they affirm.

I do accept that. I should have anticipated that you would fixate on albinism being a medical condition and be unable to conceive of any other examples of 'isms' that aren't philosophies or medical conditions on your own. I chose albinism because it's an example of an 'ism' defined by a lack of something. My apologies for not foreseeing your predictable difficulties. Having been in conversations with people who can't imagine a use for 'half-a-wing' in a world with dozens of gliding species, I'm well aware of the collapse of imagination characteristic of people who are committed to arriving at a particular conclusion rather than thinking about it, so I've no excuse.

Here are some more 'isms' that are neither medical conditions nor philosophies: absenteeism, antagonism, aphorism, atonalism. baptism, bilingualism, electromagnetism, exorcism, galvanism, lyricism, magnetism, malapropism, mannerism, mechanism, mesmerism, microorganism, neologism, organism, photojournalism, plagiarism, spoonerism, syllogism, tourism, truism, vandalism, voltaism, vulcanism, and witticism.

I hope these examples help you grasp that noting that a word ends in 'ism' isn't a sufficient reason on which to base a conclusion that it is either a medical condition or a philosophy.

---

I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.

Atheist writers have been using the word 'atheism' in the sense that we are describing for centuries.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

And you're so concerned about that because why? It's our lookout, isn't it?

You know what, all this bullshitting tires me out. If you're going to disagree with me, bring me some evidence. I don't accept mere assertions.

PS- I didn't say that all -isms fall into either views or medical conditions. Of course there are other -isms out there. But if you're arguing that atheism is a different ism from other philosophical views, bring me the evidence. Mere claims don't convince me. Same to pretty much everybody else who wants to challenge this.

And Vinnie Wtf does it even matter to you anyway? Weither we call ourselves agnostic or atheist the position we really hold does not change.

Because it's just slimy to lie to people and call yourselves what you are not. Conmen and liars grind my gears.

I know you feel like you know everything about this, but I think it's unlikely that you do. If you just read the OP, it makes it clear that the definition of atheism being used is a new invention. It just isn't the proper definition.

Then, by your reasoning, shouldn't be using the original definition of atheism as coined by the Greeks? They defined the Christians as atheists because they did not believe in the Greek gods.

The definition you want to use is also a relatively new invention.

I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

You seem to be applying the colloquial meaning here, and not the formal one.

But tell me, how can the word 'gnostic' (or agnostic), which means 'pertaining to knowledge' have anything to do with belief or disbelief?

I get the feeling you might not understand the difference between the meaning of the words 'knowledge' and 'belief'.

You raised an interesting point in all this mess, and that is the question of whether the definitions of words can change and under what condition. One might ask "Why can't we use the word this way because eleven thousand idiots on the internet use the word this way."

My beef with that is precisely that they are idiots. They are unaware of what and why atheism is defined the way it is. They don't know what it means, what the point is of shifting definitions. Heck, do any of them even know who Anthony Flew is? I had him on my avatar for like two years here.

Ignoramuses should not have the right to redefine words. It must come from the intelligensia. People who are aware of the discourse, aware of how the words are used, the history, background and effects. Who have a commitment to ethical conduct and not self-serving agendas.

I don't think this redefinition has any of that going for it, sorry.

If you seriously, really think your definition is not just convenient and nice and keeps people happy and trendy, but the actual, real, objective, correct definition, then you know the discussion is at least starting on the right foundation. Trouble is, who here can honestly say that?

[Whateverist]

So when Vinny uses the word "atheist" and specifies that it is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy whose definition he has in mind .. what are we supposed to do with that exactly?

English is much broader than its use in any particular field, including philosophy. Since where we all meet is the called the atheistforums and not the philosophyforums, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not authoritative here. Vinny is entitled to keep making the request that we all adhere to that definition. We are entitled to keep telling him to get stuffed.

Since when is "atheism" first and foremost about its use in the field of philosophy? Much as the Vinmeister would have it otherwise, philosophy has no official role to play in policing the usage of English in the broader arena. Its definitions and conventions are for those who are part of that club. Vinny, if you can't communicate an argument that will stand on its own merits here in the broader world, I recommend you return to the club. Oh, and fuck you.

[Ben Davis]

My beef with that is precisely that they are idiots. They are unaware of what and why atheism is defined the way it is.

It seems that it's you who are unaware of what & why atheism is defined the way it is. An argument from authority (e.g. Flew) will not change the etymology of the word. The consensus of the intelligentsia (your requirement!) is that the strictest, most accurate definition of 'a-thesim' is 'not theism'. Consequently an 'atheist' is 'not a theist'. A variety of dictionaries list a number of other definitions which have arisen through misuse & common use but that doesn't mean you get to pick one that you agree with and discount the rest especially when your own criteria mean that you should be agreeing with this definition.

If you seriously, really think your definition is not just convenient and nice and keeps people happy and trendy, but the actual, real, objective, correct definition, then you know the discussion is at least starting on the right foundation. Trouble is, who here can honestly say that?

I can.

[Mister Agenda]

You know what, all this bullshitting tires me out. If you're going to disagree with me, bring me some evidence. I don't accept mere assertions.

I don't need to bring anything to disagree with you. That's ridiculous.

PS- I didn't say that all -isms fall into either views or medical conditions.

No, you merely presented atheism being either a mental illness or a philosophy as the only choices. Now you seem to be indicating that you knew there were more choices than that. Deceptive people really grind my gears. And mere claims supported only by fallacies and more assertions don't convince me.

[Strongbad]

Do you mean to say that if you disbelieve a claim that is made by an individual, you are agnostic towards the claim itself?

What does disbelieve mean to you?

Is it equivalent to rejecting a claim, or to being indifferent to it?

Gee, Batman, do you always answer a question with another question (or two)?

I'll try again:

Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you like, but if all you do is disbelieve, to the real world you're just an agnostic.

Do you mean to say that if you disbelieve a claim that is made by an individual, you are agnostic towards the claim itself?

Now for your questions: to me, disbelieve means "to not believe". So it appears that disbelief is equivalent to rejecting a claim.

[Clueless Morgan]

You raised an interesting point in all this mess, and that is the question of whether the definitions of words can change and under what condition.

Definitions do change, under the conditions of usage among the population of speakers of that language.

The word Addict used to mean "a person given as a slave to one whom they owed money." Now it means to become physically or psychologically dependent on an activity, substance or habit.

The word Decimate used to mean "to kill one out of every ten people." Today it means to totally destroy something.

The word Nice comes from the latin word for "ignorant" and used to be used as a synonym for "foolish." Today it means to be pleasing or agreeable.

The word Atheism may have changed meaning from its original usage, but not nearly as much as Decimate or Nice or Addict have. If you are a language purist and insist on using the original definition of a word and only that definition ever, than here are some other words you'll have to rethink your usage of:

Gay.
Infant.
Munition.
Inmate.
Legacy.
Apology.
Manure.
Exorbitant.
Engross.
Bully.
Fantastic.
Complexion.
Promiscuous.
Balderdash.
Affluent.
Abandon.
Bimbo.
Husband.
Cute.


Definitions of words are not immutable. They can, and often do, change meaning. What is so special about the word Atheism that is has to, must always, and forevermore be only ever defined as it's original, millennia-old, Greek-rooted definition?

Ignoramuses should not have the right to redefine words. It must come from the intelligensia.

No single body of people is in charge of how language evolves over time; it does so naturally through its use by every speaker of that language, whether they be ignoramuses or intelligentsia.

BTW, you misspelled "Intelligentsia" which disqualifies you from being apart of it and therefore you are not allowed to redefine words in the English language like Atheism. Sorry.