RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
November 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2013 at 5:50 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(November 19, 2013 at 1:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(November 19, 2013 at 1:27 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Because it affirms a view, rather than a lack of one.
Typically, almost all "-isms" that define a person's intellectual state describe views they hold. Even other "-isms" like Communism, is defined as a view, and not a "lack of belief in capitalism".
How is albinism defined? Not all 'isms' are ideologies. An 'ism' can be a condition. Theism is the condition of believing in at least one god or God. Atheism is the condition of not believing in at least one god or God.
Isn't albinism a medical condition? It's not a philosophical position or a view.
If you want to define atheism as a medical condition, be my guest. But the mentally sick are not usually taken seriously.
This shows the hoops you jump through when you try so desperately to redefine atheism.
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.
(November 19, 2013 at 3:32 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(November 19, 2013 at 1:27 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Kudos for being intellectually honest.
Because it affirms a view, rather than a lack of one.
Typically, almost all "-isms" that define a person's intellectual state describe views they hold. Even other "-isms" like Communism, is defined as a view, and not a "lack of belief in capitalism".
This is how the English language works. This is how the world works. A rose is a rose, it's not a "lack of non-rose properties", a Ferrari is not defined as a "non-Lamborghini", and voting for candidate A is characterized by an act, not a "non-action of (non?)voting towards the non-candidate of non-choice".
The only time this silly game is played is when it comes to atheism.
There's no reason to play games. Let's get real here. Let's bring intellectual honesty into the discussion.
[/hide]
And if I call myself a agonistic (like I do) then what?
Then you should be gently corrected, as it's agnostic.
But if that's the view you hold, and it lines up with the definition, then good for you.
Agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism anyway.
