Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

Seriously? You sound pretty ignorant.

If there's any field that can correctly determine what atheism is and how it should be defined, it's philosophy. Not math, not science, not stand-up comedy. The field that is by definition about views, perspectives, beliefs about the big questions- the existence of god, the nature of reality, etc.

Philosophy is the undisputed authority when it comes to properly defining what atheism is, because popular definitions that evolve out of a horde of internet using 15 year old boys and 45 year old men on welfare checks can be self-contradictory, incoherent and factually incorrect (your own post, exhibit A).

No more argument is needed.

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.

An argument from authority you don't understand what that is. An argument from authority can be fallacious or it can be sound. Look it up. A fallacious argument from authority uses either improper authority, or invalid reasoning, namely that a claim is right because it comes from an authority as opposed to following the rules of logic.

So you don't understand what argument from authority actually means, Ben Davis. But you also get wrong my argument- I never said the definition is right because Flew says so, in fact my argument is the opposite- I DISAGREE with Flew's definition because he was using his role as a philosopher to change the very nature of the discussion with epistemological tricks that nobody intelligent or educated bought into.

Except, some anti-theists did buy it (let's face it, so many of them buy into nonsense), and somehow it's ended up seeping into the internet.

To see just how silly your definition of "atheist" as "not a theist" is, ask yourself whether an agnostic is "not a theist" and therefore given your false definition, agnostics are the same as atheists.

Just to make it a bit more comical, ask yourself if a bicycle is "not a theist". Agreed, a bicycle is not a theist. Therefore, Ben Davis thinks a bicycle is an atheist.

Seriously, Ben. If you're really about finding out the truth, the first thing you will do is stop declaring things you don't know and start speaking more tentatively. For example, you wouldn't be so confident to declare I'm making an appeal to authority when you're so obviously mistaken given that I DISAGREE with Flew.

Did you just misunderstand me or are you keen on saying things that are not true?

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.

You can disagree with me for no reason or bad reasons, sure. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. It'll be like talking to a drunk (but half as entertaining).

For the record, I do think atheism is either a philosophical view or a mental illness, whether it's defined properly or defined improperly as a lack of belief. But that doesn't mean all -isms are.

I trust there's plenty of evidence that atheism is, properly speaking, a philosophical view. That you choose to ignore it or deny it is your problem, not mine.

If you seriously, sincerely want to engage with this properly, tell me what the cumulative evidence is in support of the claim that your new redefinition ought to be the definition of atheism, as opposed to it's older, more widely accepted definition?

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.

Here's my problem: I don't think rejecting a claim is equivalent to disbelieving or not believing in it.

For example, at 8 am today morning, if you would have told me I was going to go out for pizza later tonight, I would not have believed that claim. Not because I rejected it, but because I didn't know it or had any reason to think it true.

So at 8 am, I did not believe it. Does that mean I was fiercely and desperately arguing against the idea that I'm going to go for pizza later tonight? Hell no. I'm just indifferent.

That's how I see lack of belief or disbelief or not believing in something. That's what agnosticism is, to me. Yes, gnosis, knowledge, therefore etymologically it's making a knowledge claim. But etymology is not the same as accepted usage- see my response to Ben Davis above for one example of how etymology is not accepted usage.

---

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.

You're making one half of the argument. You're telling me definitions change, which I have already conceded- sure they do.

But it's not necessarily simply because one group of people use the word in a particular way. Heck, just because a bunch of hippies started saying "radical" did not establish a new definition for the term. The original definition remained alongside the newer colloquial use.

But the problem with you and your kind is that you're not willing to let the original sit alongside yours. You don't even acknowledge the existence of people who take the original definition to be valid. You just steamroll over them and unilaterally install your definition as the one true definition and all others as false.

So while I DO accept the first half of your argument: That definitions can change- I can't accept the second part- that you can change the meaning of words by force and deny any other definition.

PS- you're right I did misspell intelligentsia. I also mistyped aleph as alpha in another thread. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Darkstar]

To see just how silly your definition of "atheist" as "not a theist" is, ask yourself whether an agnostic is "not a theist" and therefore given your false definition, agnostics are the same as atheists.

Not necessarily. Again, agnosticism vs. gnosticism is about knowledge, whereas theism is about belief. There can be a gnostic theist of an agnostic atheist or vice versa (though self-proclaimed gnostics may only think they know). Someone who identifies as only agnostic is probably someone who would be a four on the Dawkins scale.

Just to make it a bit more comical, ask yourself if a bicycle is "not a theist". Agreed, a bicycle is not a theist. Therefore, Ben Davis thinks a bicycle is an atheist.

Perhaps we should also ask the bicycle if it is agnostic about it? I mean, how could this bike know? I don't think it is accurate criticism to compare inanimate objects.

As for babies, I think they are technically atheists, but I think the term 'non-theist' would be more accurate (i.e. someone who doesn't believe in god because they have never been exposed to the concept).

Here's my problem: I don't think rejecting a claim is equivalent to disbelieving or not believing in it.

For example, at 8 am today morning, if you would have told me I was going to go out for pizza later tonight, I would not have believed that claim. Not because I rejected it, but because I didn't know it or had any reason to think it true.

So at 8 am, I did not believe it. Does that mean I was fiercely and desperately arguing against the idea that I'm going to go for pizza later tonight? Hell no. I'm just indifferent.

Wouldn't indifference be the equivalent of Apatheism? It isn't simply that you are agnostic, but you don't care, either. So while you don't believe it, you can't be bothered to argue against it. And why would you? This hypothetical pizza is not threatening separation of church and state. More importantly, there is not any evidence you would expect to find that would indicate you eating pizza later, so you have no special inclination to disbelieve it.

But the problem with you and your kind is that you're not willing to let the original sit alongside yours. You don't even acknowledge the existence of people who take the original definition to be valid. You just steamroll over them and unilaterally install your definition as the one true definition and all others as false.

I cannot speak for whomever you were originally addressing, but I believe the terms you are looking for would be hard/positive atheism (belief god does not exist) and soft/negative atheism (lack of belief god exists). Agnostic/gnostic can be tacked onto either one.

I would still argue that the second definition is equally valid because the suffix a- means lacking/without, and so atheism could logically be denoted as merely lacking theism (though it can certainly also mean the opposite of theism).

[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.

Seriously? You sound pretty ignorant.

Oh dear god. What did I do to lose the stupid man's respect. Woe is me.

If there's any field that can correctly determine what atheism is and how it should be defined, it's philosophy.

And there is the rub. No field can, no field needs to and no field is entitled to determine what atheism is or should be. You might be more comfortable speaking French. They're big on officialdom over there with committees to decide all manner of usage questions. Of course their language is falling out of favor globally but while it lasts you might be happier under such a system.

Philosophy is the undisputed authority when it comes to properly defining what atheism is, ..

At least according to your own select committee of one. You just keep over estimating the amount of fuck anyone around here gives regarding the decisions of your committee.

.. because popular definitions that evolve out of a horde of internet using 15 year old boys and 45 year old men on welfare checks can be self-contradictory, incoherent and factually incorrect

So which are you again, Vin? Snot nosed young apologist or middle aged variety. Wait. I don't really care.

[Lemonvariable72]

You're making one half of the argument. You're telling me definitions change, which I have already conceded- sure they do.

But it's not necessarily simply because one group of people use the word in a particular way. Heck, just because a bunch of hippies started saying "radical" did not establish a new definition for the term. The original definition remained alongside the newer colloquial use.

But the problem with you and your kind is that you're not willing to let the original sit alongside yours. You don't even acknowledge the existence of people who take the original definition to be valid. You just steamroll over them and unilaterally install your definition as the one true definition and all others as false.

So while I DO accept the first half of your argument: That definitions can change- I can't accept the second part- that you can change the meaning of words by force and deny any other definition

Did you miss the word on the top of the list "Gay"
Because that word was adopted by the LGBT communities to refer to themselves. It originally meant happy.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...omosexual/

[Clueless Morgan]

You're making one half of the argument. You're telling me definitions change, which I have already conceded- sure they do.

But it's not necessarily simply because one group of people use the word in a particular way. Heck, just because a bunch of hippies started saying "radical" did not establish a new definition for the term. The original definition remained alongside the newer colloquial use.

You are correct. The slang use of the word "radical" didn't end up changing the definition of the word. No question there.

But as Lemonvariable pointed out, you completely overlooked the fact that the word "gay" has changed definitions, as has the word "queer," both of which have added definitions to their dictionary entries in the past 100 to 150 years, and who knows whether the original definitions will have been supplanted by the new ones in another two or three or four hundred years.

But the problem with you and your kind is that you're not willing to let the original sit alongside yours. You don't even acknowledge the existence of people who take the original definition to be valid. You just steamroll over them and unilaterally install your definition as the one true definition and all others as false.

Explain to me where in my post I am not willing to let the original definition of atheism sit along side "mine."

In fact, explain to me where I defined atheism. Because I didn't. I didn't make a single statement in which I defined atheism and then explicitly excluded the original, Greek definition.

I made the point that definitions change over time and that it might not be appropriate to be so unremittingly wed to the original, purist, Greek definition. I also never said that a word can only ever have one single definition. Gay has two or three, depending on how you subdivide them. Fantastic has at least two, arguably more. Apology has three, including it's original definition of a defense or justification.

So thanks for straw manning me, but the next time you do it make sure I'm not still checking the thread.

So while I DO accept the first half of your argument: That definitions can change- I can't accept the second part- that you can change the meaning of words by force and deny any other definition.

I think that "gay" and "queer" are good examples of words that have experienced forcible definition changes through them being used as derogatory terms for homosexual people. So I don't accept your not accepting the idea that definitions can be changed "by force" - or by a specific group of people. Bigots can be both amazingly creative in the slang they use against those they are bigoted about, and amazingly effective at adding new definitions to to existing words they re-purpose.

And I don't understand where you're getting the idea that I am "denying any other definition" - presumably of atheism - since I never defined atheism in my original post. Perhaps ask me how I define atheism before you go about trashing me for it.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Seriously? You sound pretty ignorant.

If there's any field that can correctly determine what atheism is and how it should be defined, it's philosophy. Not math, not science, not stand-up comedy. The field that is by definition about views, perspectives, beliefs about the big questions- the existence of god, the nature of reality, etc.

Philosophy is the undisputed authority when it comes to properly defining what atheism is, because popular definitions that evolve out of a horde of internet using 15 year old boys and 45 year old men on welfare checks can be self-contradictory, incoherent and factually incorrect (your own post, exhibit A).

Really? Not philology or etymology then? Explains a lot.

No more argument is needed.

Fair enough, I'll ignore the rest of the post then

[Ben Davis]

An argument from authority you don't understand what that is. An argument from authority can be fallacious or it can be sound...

Pay attention. I said:

"An argument from authority... will not change the etymology of the word"

I was arguing neither the position nor the soundness of the argument from authority, I was pointing out that it was irrelevant. On that basis, most of what you posted was completely beside the point and possibly a feeble attempt at ad-hom point-scoring. I won't let you get away with side-stepping.

But what you say here is worth continuing the discussion because it demonstrates that you're still incorrectly conflating knowledge and belief, even after being corrected, only Jeff knows how many times, by so many people:

To see just how silly your definition of "atheist" as "not a theist" is, ask yourself whether an agnostic is "not a theist" and therefore given your false definition, agnostics are the same as atheists.

*clears throat and prepares best bell-like intonation...

WRONG!!!

An agnostic can be an atheist. An agnostic can also be a theist.

Just to make it a bit more comical, ask yourself if a bicycle is "not a theist". Agreed, a bicycle is not a theist. Therefore, Ben Davis thinks a bicycle is an atheist.

Actually, this is a discussion I had with the team at Mirriam Websters. Part of the reason they updated their definitions a few years ago was the result of discussions with me & those like me who demonstrated that 'The Atheism of a Stone' (as it has become known) is a solid linguistic proposition and an accurate prime use of the word. As a bike isn't a person, you need to drop the personal pronoun. A bike is 'atheist': it has an absence of theism. It's ability to be theistic is irrelevant. Far from being comical, it proves my point.

[Mister Agenda]

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


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.

You can disagree with me for no reason or bad reasons, sure. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. It'll be like talking to a drunk (but half as entertaining).

For the record, I do think atheism is either a philosophical view or a mental illness, whether it's defined properly or defined improperly as a lack of belief. But that doesn't mean all -isms are.

I trust there's plenty of evidence that atheism is, properly speaking, a philosophical view. That you choose to ignore it or deny it is your problem, not mine.

If you seriously, sincerely want to engage with this properly, tell me what the cumulative evidence is in support of the claim that your new redefinition ought to be the definition of atheism, as opposed to it's older, more widely accepted definition?

I don't expect you to take me seriously. None of your responses to anyone that I've seen are what I would consider serious. This is for the lurkers.

If you're comfortable with excluding the middle consciously, far be it from me to quibble about it.

I trust that there is plenty of evidence that atheism is, properly speaking, a state of mind. That you choose to ignore it or deny it is your problem, not mine.

If you seriously, sincerely wanted to engage with this properly, your question wouldn't be so incredibly overloaded that it would be tedious to unpack it.

I find your arrogance and condescension amusingly ironic, and have no doubt you'll continue to please in that regard, which is the most I expect from you at this point. You're just a chew-toy to me, Vinny, I start from a position of assumed respect, but I don't even remember how long ago I stopped having any respect for your 'contributions'. You like to try to give offense (although I grant that for you, this reply was fairly polite), but I can't take offense from someone who comes off as a pretentious teenager, it just makes your posts funnier. I don't think anyone expects any real content from you anymore, we're all just looking forward to seeing what the next furball you cough up on the internet will be.

---

Actually, this is a discussion I had with the team at Mirriam Websters. Part of the reason they updated their definitions a few years ago was the result of discussions with me & those like me who demonstrated that 'The Atheism of a Stone' (as it has become known) is a solid linguistic proposition and an accurate prime use of the word. As a bike isn't a person, you need to drop the personal pronoun. A bike is 'atheist': it has an absence of theism. It's ability to be theistic is irrelevant. Far from being comical, it proves my point.

I once held the same position, but had to reconsider. 'Atheist' is derived from 'athe-ist', not 'a-theist'. The suffix '-ist' denotes a person who performs an action or adheres to a propostion. A theist is a person who adheres to the proposition that at least one god exists. An atheist (athe+ist) is a person who does not adhere to that proposition (when it's a noun).

Arguably, 'nontheist', which is constructed as 'non-theist' would be suitable for a claim like 'a bicycle is a nontheist'.

I hope I didn't get too pedantic there, although my hope is probably misplaced.

[houseofcantor]

Imma atheist, 'cause I just said! But if you wanna call me a Buddhist, then turn around and get mad at me 'cause I don't know alla stuff the Buddha was up to, then that's all you. That seems to be Vinnie's problem, he wants to put everybody into a box that he can stick holes into.

For myself, "atheism" is "a rejection of contemporary theology." I reject Christianity 'cause that's the nonsense some of my contemporaries try to insist is true.

[Ben Davis]

I once held the same position, but had to reconsider. 'Atheist' is derived from 'athe-ist', not 'a-theist'.

It depends on the definition. Some root from 'theos'/'a-theist' (e.g. 'absence of theism'), others root from 'atheos'/'athe-ist' (e.g. denier of theism'). I use the former definition to describe my atheism and I'm a supporter of that use as it's the strictest and most etymologically accurate.

The suffix '-ist' denotes a person who performs an action or adheres to a propostion. A theist is a person who adheres to the proposition that at least one god exists. An atheist (athe+ist) is a person who does not adhere to that proposition (when it's a noun).

Indeed. But here's where the power of the 'theos' root comes in. Because it holds no additional baggage to its definition (unlike 'atheos'-rooted definitions) we can use it as a comparative descriptor of logical attributes by asking the question 'does the subject have any theism in its attributes?'. If the answer is 'no', we can say that there is 'an absence of theism' or 'a-theism'. It's this use of 'a' which supported our position in our discussions with Miriam Webster.

Arguably, 'nontheist', which is constructed as 'non-theist' would be suitable for a claim like 'a bicycle is a nontheist'.

True also 'irreligious' would work. It all depends on the definitions you find most appropriate.

I hope I didn't get too pedantic there, although my hope is probably misplaced.

Not at all