(December 29, 2015 at 10:28 pm)Delicate Wrote:(December 29, 2015 at 11:12 am)paulpablo Wrote: 1) I prefer the definition which is correct and most up to date. I won't agree with this unless some historical reference given that shows the definition of atheism has changed from including a lack of belief in gods to not including a lack of belief in gods.
2) Let me just try and understand this sentence. Incompetent = Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successful.
Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
If you can explain to me what incompetent atheism is then I'd be grateful and I might agree with you on this point.
3) The first time I heard about epistemology is in this thread, I don't consider myself well informed about it enough to agree with you on this either.
If this is anything to do with your informed opinion based on the fact you have knowledge of epistemology then I already replied to this before by telling you that atheism is not necessarily a belief, it's a lack of a belief, disbelief and can also be a belief that there is no god.
The only circumstances in which these three things would be correct is where atheists believe there is no god and claim to know there is no god and for theists who claim there is a god and they know there is a god.
We're talking about two sets of things here.
On the first three, given that the redefinition arose on the internet, I don't see how there can be a historical reference. The evidence for (1) would be the established works on atheism and agnosticism.
The origin of agnosticism is in the work of TH Huxley. In his article titled Agnosticism, he explicitly positions agnosticism as contrary to atheism. Atheism, he points out, is a form of "gnosis".
Likewise, I point to the SEP article on Atheism, written by none other than eminent philosopher JJC Smart. This article rules out the view that atheism is merely a lack of belief.
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, written by none other than William Rowe (the legend that brought us the contemporary version of the problem of evil) agrees with this position.
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief."
But that's not all, many laypersons detest this revision. Here's one example: https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/
One of the comments in that post references Anthony Flew, that great legend, and his failed attempt to make atheism a default position.
Strangely enough, there are also comments in the post referencing internet atheism.
How does JJsmart rule out the view that atheism is merely a lack of belief? I don't understand how someone can rule out possibilities of what a word can mean. Surely definitions are created by common usage for understanding. And if I'm speaking to people who haven't accepted the new definition of atheism then I would simply say by their definition I would be considered agnostic.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
