Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[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.