Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[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?