"Laughing At Religion" Meme Thread

[Sheldon]

TheWhiteMarten

"We are killing you with the explicit goal of making the Soviet Union an atheist society."

"Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with atheism."

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

All you need for common usage is a dictionary, and the definition is unequivocally clear, archaic definitions and niche archaic philosophical terms don't obviously always reflect common usage), so if he's (or anyone else) is using something other than the current dictionary definition, which reflects common usage, then it is incumbent on them to say so, and say why. Any word, and any topic. 

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

This misses the point, atheism has no dogma or doctrine, thus it is nonsensical to imply atheism motivates anyone to do anything. What atheists are motivated to do, is entirely down to them, not atheism per se. 

Sheldon, however, is using a newer definition of "atheism" which is popular now on the Internet. For him, the word simply means a lack of belief in any god, and implies nothing further. By his definition, if a person says, "I am an atheist," we know nothing except that he lacks belief in certain propositions. 

No it's not a new definition, the one currently reflecting common usage has been around for quite a while. It certainly predates the internet, but you are correct that when I use a word, you can assume I am always referring to the current primary dictionary definition, and I would state clearly if I was deviating from that common usage, or from the primary definition of a word if I felt the explanation was apropos. 

From this, he concludes that the Soviet atrocities were motivated by something other than simple lack. If atheism is ONLY and ALWAYS simply lack, then it can not lead to further conclusions. 

I would appreciate it if you didn't tell others what I think, they can ask me for clarification if they need it. The lack of a belief can of course lead to further conclusions, and while atheists obviously hold beliefs, even a belief that no deity exists, atheism is not itself a belief. If atheism were a generic belief that no deity exists, then someone like me for example, who does not believe any deity exists, but who does not hold a generic belief that no deities exist (as it is unfalsifiable), would not be an atheist. 

people who are more familiar with the older definition sometimes call Sheldon's definition "lacktheism." 

All they need do is look in any dictionary, and like asymptomatic, asexual, and amoral, the a.. in atheism donates a lack of theistic belief. Though again this is off topic, from our trolling friends original claim. As whether one holds a generic belief no deities exist or not, atheism still has no dogma or doctrine, the Soviets added that themselves. Unlike theisms like Christianity and Islam and Judaism, for example, all of which come with masses of doctrine and dogma. 

I was interested to see that recently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been edited to include Sheldon's preferred definition. 

It is not "my preferred definition", it is the current dictionary definition, and thus reflects common usage. how many people read the Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy? If someone wants to use a definition from that fine, but they'd need to use it in context and be clear why, using it to label atheists in a generic way (in my experience) is usually done dishonestly to peddle straw men, I've seen it cited many times by apologists, almost as if they Googled the definition they wanted to create a lazy stereotype, and found that ref. 
Again, for clarity, none of this matters in the context of his claim about the soviets, as beyond the claim no deity exists (in that definition) atheism still has no doctrine or dogma. It's like claiming not believing in dragons motivated the Yorkshire Ripper to kill prostitutes.

They call this "psychological atheism." While at the same time reiterating that in philosophy, the standard definition remains "the position that no gods exist." 

Which of course would mean that I am not an atheist, despite not believing any deity exists, so I shall let everyone decide how useful outside of niche philosophy that definition is. 

Some lacktheists argue that since atheism is a nothing -- merely an empty space where belief might have gone -- then nothing can be concluded from a lacktheist position and no results -- good or bad -- can be attributed to it.

I have read that three times, and it still it makes no sense, why do we need such word salad, when the dictionary currently reflects common usage. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, thus anyone who lacks that belief is an atheist, this would include any atheist who also held a generic belief that no deity exists. Good and bad, whilst subjective, can be assigned to people's actions, and to doctrine or dogma, it is nonsensical to to assign such terms to the absence of a single belief. Is not believing in mermaids bad or good?
NB we don't need that term, atheism and atheist (the current common usage) amply define what is meant. 
The abuses of human rights under Stalinism and in the former Soviet union had nothing to do with atheism, it was down to the atheists who made those choices.