RE: Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
November 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
houseofcantor
Theism and atheism are not merely about "belief" in God, because then theism and atheism are essentially about whether someone practices a religious faith or not, rather than about whether a deity does or doesn't exist. If we're talking to atheists about their "belief" in God rather than "the existence of" God then the conversation ends quickly- there is no belief, end of story. But this "lack of belief" extends not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists, some broad pantheists, some Buddhists and even some nominally religious people. Ie, someone can be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheist.
That should tip you off that houseofcantor's reasoning has gone off the deep end. But wait, there's more! Not only does houseofcantor's reasoning allow for the silliness that is fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheists, but it also voids a well-accepted term already in use that already does the job houseofcantor wants atheism to do. That term is "irreligious." The irreligious do not have any beliefs in Gods, whether or not they believe such deities exist.
So not only is your attempt a necessary precursor to much silliness, but it also requires a wholesale readjustment of well-established norms of the English language, like an atheist miracle whereby you steal the meaning of irreligious and apply it to atheism without anyone noticing.
One is forced to ask why you are so desperate to relabel atheism? What's the real reason you're so desperate to make such silly arguments to preserve your ridiculous redefinition?
Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg
Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.
I wouldn't say atheists are winning, because there really are some kooky theists I've talked to. But it looks pretty close if we're going by this forum.
Ben Davis
Imagine if Deepak Chopra tried to correct you. Would you accept what he says, or ask him to provide citations? Now imagine you are saying something as kooky as Deepak Chopra, trying to convince me that words mean what you declare that they mean.
PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866
athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery
Optimistic Mysanthrope
Yes, silly you.
Theism and atheism are not merely about "belief" in God, because then theism and atheism are essentially about whether someone practices a religious faith or not, rather than about whether a deity does or doesn't exist. If we're talking to atheists about their "belief" in God rather than "the existence of" God then the conversation ends quickly- there is no belief, end of story. But this "lack of belief" extends not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists, some broad pantheists, some Buddhists and even some nominally religious people. Ie, someone can be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheist.
That should tip you off that houseofcantor's reasoning has gone off the deep end. But wait, there's more! Not only does houseofcantor's reasoning allow for the silliness that is fundamentalist evangelical Christian atheists, but it also voids a well-accepted term already in use that already does the job houseofcantor wants atheism to do. That term is "irreligious." The irreligious do not have any beliefs in Gods, whether or not they believe such deities exist.
So not only is your attempt a necessary precursor to much silliness, but it also requires a wholesale readjustment of well-established norms of the English language, like an atheist miracle whereby you steal the meaning of irreligious and apply it to atheism without anyone noticing.
One is forced to ask why you are so desperate to relabel atheism? What's the real reason you're so desperate to make such silly arguments to preserve your ridiculous redefinition?
Esquilax
Someone is wrong on the internet.jpg
Although, to be fair, I'm curious as to whether there are atheists who think critically about their own views and beliefs. In a way, I'm testing the hypothesis that atheists are just as irrational, if not more so, than theists.
I wouldn't say atheists are winning, because there really are some kooky theists I've talked to. But it looks pretty close if we're going by this forum.
Ben Davis
Imagine if Deepak Chopra tried to correct you. Would you accept what he says, or ask him to provide citations? Now imagine you are saying something as kooky as Deepak Chopra, trying to convince me that words mean what you declare that they mean.
PS-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1385761866
athe·ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
Looks like you need to have another talk with Mirriom-Wibstar Docktianery
Optimistic Mysanthrope
Yes, silly you.
