because I would never have known that. I don't use Conservapedia and would not realize it.

Interesting that it is used here. Hmmmm.

After seeing atheists repeatedly beaten over the head with it I wanted to take it away from him.

I loves me some google.

of anyone who constantly uses other people's ideas as a substitute for their own.

And I'm still waiting for a response.

You guys did a good job trying to counter it.

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Never looked up the definition of negate & denial. Those words don't mean opposite but rather holding something as not true...meaning the difference between an agnostic & atheist is non-existent.

Regardless, they are not an authority on the English language and their def is in direct conflict w the Oxford English dictionary (considered THE authority on the English language) as well as the historical meaning of the word atheist.[/font]

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

It's simply one definition and I got sick of seeing it cited like it was the sole authority.

Several atheists tried to reason with the poster and were treated like they were too stupid to know what they were talking about.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That no matter what definition one uses to define an atheist it does not change our position on the issues.

Its like they think if they can change the definition they can claim we are wrong because we are making a claim...when in fact that changing the definition to suit their agenda does not suddenly make us implicit atheists start believing there are no gods.

It just another way for people like that poster to try and act as if they are superior to both theists and atheists...when it just makes them look like an ass.[/font]

Somebody should tell Stanford they need a rewrite.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And they refuse. Here is one response from them:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://atheistforums.org/thread-9794.html[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Dear Stanford,

I am constantly having your definitions of atheism and agnosticism regurgitated to me by people who don't seem to understand what they mean and your authoritative definition completely muddies the waters.

Your definition which can be seen at the the following link states:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1

"‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."

I am forced to point out to you that agnosticism deals with knowledge claims, not claims of belief. Why are you conflating the two? A belief necessarily deals with a single claim; God exists is one claim; God does not exist is another claim- or String theory is true is one claim; string theory is not true is another claim.

A cosmologist who does not know if either position about string theory is true would be considered an agnostic. The cosmologist then disbelieves claim 1; string theory is true, therefore, for lack of a better term, is an atheist with respect to string theory. They do not necessarily believe that claim 2; string theory is false, is true.

Similarly, with respect to god claims, a person who does not know if either claim (god exists / god does not exist) is true would be an agnostic. The person who disbelieves claim 1; God exists is an atheist and this does not say anything about their acceptance that claim 2; god does not exist, is true.

I will use an analogy:

If I made the claim that there are an odd number of blades of grass in my front yard, would you believe me?

No, you wouldn't unless I could substantiate that claim (if you are rational). Does that then mean you believe the opposite of that claim? That there are an even number of blades of grass in my front yard? No, you wouldn't accept that claim either. With respect to your belief in the true dichotomy of the nature of the grass then, you are an atheist; you disbelieve claim 1; there are an odd number of blades of grass. If you don't know which claim is true, you are an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

With respect to god claims, I identify as an agnostic atheist; I do not know if a god exists or not, and I disbelieve the claim that a god does exist.

Gnostic: Of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. --> Therefore it's opposite, agnostic, relates to a lack of knowledge.

Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures --> Therefore it's opposite, atheist, relates to a lack of belief in the existence of gods and not necessarily the belief in the opposite claim, that no gods exist.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Source [for definitions]: Oxford English Dictionary

Kindly update your definitions to reflect this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
[theresidentskeptic]



----------------------------------REPLY FROM STANFORD BELOW----------------------------------

Dear [theresidentskeptic]

Thank you for writing to us about the entry on atheism and
agnosticism. We have received messages about this issue before and
are continuing to consider whether and how the entry might be adjusted.

That said, the matter is not as clear cut as you suggest. While the
term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our
entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.
Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism'
means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the
philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as
"positive atheism" and contrast it with the broader notion of
"negative atheism" which has the meaning you suggest--that 'atheism'
simply means not-theist.

In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was
introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The
Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was
using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to
follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe
the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a
default position.

Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply
on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves
atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an
attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts
seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they
rejected.

All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding
the definitions as presented in this entry.

All the best,
Yours,
Uri

-------------------------------------------------------
Uri Nodelman Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Senior Editor
CSLI/Cordura Hall editors@plato.stanford.edu
Stanford University ph. 650-723-0488
Stanford, CA 94305-4115 fx. 650-725-2166


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It took intense pressure before the APA changed their bigoted definition of homosexuality, so it will probably take intense pressure before standford changes their bigoted definition as well.[/font]

Since I started having the 'dictionary' debate on DU many online dictionaries have changed the definition of atheism to include both.

Sources that only use one narrow definition are few and far between and you have to wonder why Stanford won't simply make an adjustment.

I find it refreshing that people would like to have well defined meanings to words. It allows for more rational discourse.

Discussing this issue with you would be as futile as trying to reason with the religious mouth-breathers who use Conservapedia as their go-to reference.

They also prefer to use only those "well defined meanings to words" that suit their anti-atheist agenda.


Perhaps you should stick to studying the written word, your ability to comprehend what others think and believe seems to be ... limited.

Can you tell me three ideas that are important to you?

Gee, ya think so?

Being told what I do and don't believe tends to piss me off.

Before this goes any further please explain:

I am an atheist.

Can you tell me where I've made "a simple mistake in thinking"?

What was the thought process by which you came to your position?

I was born this way.

Their position appears to be immune to arguments regarding popular usage of terms, as they aren't interested in anything other than meaning within the context of the history of philosophy.

Academic philosophy is not about activism and is not required to bend to the popular will of one ideology. I am agnostic and use Huxley's original definition. I do not care what version of atheism you ascribe to, but the rejection of Flew's redefinition is warranted. It is so warranted exactly because of the mentality of activist atheists, whom behave like strong atheists or anti-theists, but claim they are agnostic atheists. It is no more than a cop out that trolls on social media use to maintain a dominance of discussion, and it serves almost no use in philosophical discussion. I think I will be contacting them and thanking them for maintaining academic integrity.

of "activist atheists, whom behave like strong atheists or anti-theists, but claim they are agnostic atheists."

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]It is telling people what they think.[/font]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Throwing the word activist in there is nothing more than a red herring to distract from the fact that Atheists are telling Stanford they are misrepresenting atheism. If anyone should know what atheists believe or disbelieve...it is atheists.[/font]





[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]So am I. That is why I am an agnostic atheist.

I just don't act like a pretentious prick who thinks they are better than everyone because of it. [/font]



[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]You don't care so much you not only had to post here to try and antagonize us.

Just because you throw the word "activist" in there doesn't magically make the fact that atheist are telling standford that they are misrepresenting atheism disappear. How one behaves, has no bearing on what one's personal philosophy may or may not be.

That said, there is nothing wrong in standing up for yourself and group from blatant lies.[/font]




[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Cop out of what? Taking a position they never held in the first place?

No matter the label one uses one position stays the same. If we did redefine atheism as you and standford wish, that would not change the position of those who are being "activists" just the label. We would still dominate the discussion because the position remain logically sound.

But your post demonstrates exactly why they should change it. Not only does it misrepresent what actual atheists actually think, but it allows disingenuous people to try to ascribe to atheists a position they do not take in order to refute it because they can't refute the person's actual position.

And technically, as you identify as an agnostic...you are making the same exact "cop out" to "troll social media" and "dominate" discussion. You are no better or different than the people you hate.

And BTW, this is the Atheist AND Agnostic SAFEHAVEN. If you can't respect BOTH atheism and agnosticism you should delete your post and leave. You obviously has issues with atheists. Either learn to be respectful to both or you have no place here.[/font]



[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]You misspelled bigotry. It is spelled "Bigotry" not "academic integrity" something they and anyone who would write a letter to them congratulating them on their bigotry both lack.

Oh and I guess this further proves how much you don't care what version of atheism we ascribe to. [/font]

Gods are imaginary. Classify away. They're still imaginary, and until anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, see statement #1.
Thank you, and have a secular day.

Then try to apply it universally. Happens all the time in That Other Group. Especially with the science of describing the Emperor's new clothes, theology.

Now seriously. How many people who don't live in the ivory tower of academia, and loftily discuss "the history of philosophy" every day, are even going to care about this definition? I sure don't, but I admit I'm a dumbass. It's just another attempt to confuse atheists and would-be atheists with academic bafflegab. And if anyone expects me to believe that the people flinging these definitions around are all serious academics devoted to the history of philosophy, I'll probably die laughing.

I think all of us REALLY appreciate it when somebody comes along and says: "No, that's not what you really believe and you're too stupid to even understand what you really believe. So let me tell you exactly what you really believe." /sarcasm

It reminds me of a woman in the documentary "Hating Obama." The interviewer mentions some Very Serious & Important Black Intellectuals who are criticizing Obama. The woman listens patiently to all this, then says: "Well, FUCK Cornel West."

That would be my own learned response to this BS, too.