Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

I wonder if anyone could be mistaken about an attempted genocide?

 

A record in your own mind koko, when will you understand you do not speak for anyone but yourself, you are not considered competent to judge or have the integrity to realise it! Me, I make no great intellectual claims.

 

Oh, look smileys are back, or are you asking mama for a blackcurrant drink?

 

Brilliant keep showing your own total lack of understanding!

 

Dont you want to go to church and sing along with fellow lackers?

Instead of hymns, the non-faithful get to their feet to sing along to Stevie Wonder and Queen songs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945

Queen:

and stevie songs?

 

Nope probably share nothing in common with them apart from lacking belief, which is why atheism is not a religion, like theism is not a religion.

 

Its only a religion in educated circles, that does not mean its not a religion just because uneducated dont want it to be.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the ‘secularisation’ of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential. https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion


looks like you are wrong again.

To everyone else in the world it looks walks talks like a duck but to a lacker well its a lack

 

Priceless you actually undermine your own argument again, read it fool!

 

oh? so supporting my argument that atheism is a religion in your opinion is undermining my argument. More than likely your reading skills arent as sharp as you imagine, I have done nothing to undermine any position I hold.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1

 

You are really priceless, you try to pass off a creationist opinion piece as from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:!

As falsification goes you really have taken it to a whole new level!

 

Is Atheism a religion?
by Daniel Smartt

Published: 4 May 2010 (GMT+10)

Would Richard Dawkins ever acknowledge that his rabid atheism is actually a religious view?
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
Do you have no shame Koko?

 

Nothing false about that, but this is stellar!



"theresidentskeptic"
#1
Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2nd December 2011, 21:47
I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist. Well, Stanford replied. Below is the email I sent to them, followed by their response.

(Please excuse the rudeness and crudeness of my email, I was writing out of frustration and was not expecting a reply)


----------------------------------------------------

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/atheis...sticism/#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.
[That means philosophy does not recognize lackerism as valid, nor the lacker flew nor the lacker dawson.]
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.
[Lackers are not convincing in academic circles]
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
------------------------------------------------------- [/QUOTE]

The failure of lackerism

 

Why would I want to rethink a position when neither I nor anyone else can demonstrate how illogical they are?

 

Do you have no comprehension ra ra?

Hint: Lackerism does not affirm a positive disbelief, traditional atheism in fact does.

 

You edited the quote, removed the author, straightened the text from italics, and removed According to.
Sorry Koko, you have gone beyond any normal limit of making things up I have ever seen on a forum, and you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

I do, you aren't

While fundamentalism is a highly illogical and stupid position to hold. I wasn't calling you idiots for being fundamentalist. I said you either are fundamentalist and idiots, or you made up for the fundamentalism with extra retardation. The reason I know you are idiots is because I couldn't come up with a concept simple enough or easy enough to not sail completely over your heads, nor did I see you make a single legitimate logical argument. At a certain point, you can't go any lower.

 

no material alteration. your desperation is glowing brighter than the sun!

 

You tried to pass of a creationist opinion piece as from a philosophical encyclopaedia, you are an absolute hoot, your denial, your silly comment, your silly smiley, everything is comical! Priceless, just priceless.

 

Just look at what you claimed Koko , and you claim it is only a religion in educated circles, a creationist website, educated circles, please!

Is Atheism a religion?
by Daniel Smartt

Published: 4 May 2010 (GMT+10)

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Incredible you still have the front to stay on the forum!

 

comprehension is key.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart stated in my post.

Its not my problem you fail to understand the meaning of an end quote and missed the reference number so I apologize for not satisfactorily dumbing it down, I will make greater effort in the future.

 

Smart a creationist! You falsified it koko you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever!

 

This is stellar!

"theresidentskeptic"
#1
Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2nd December 2011, 21:47
I sent an e-mail to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's webmaster concerning their definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism which can be seen here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheis...sticism/#1

I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist. Well, Stanford replied. Below is the email I sent to them, followed by their response.

(Please excuse the rudeness and crudeness of my email, I was writing out of frustration and was not expecting a reply)


----------------------------------------------------

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/atheis...sticism/#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.

[That means philosophy does not recognize lackerism as valid, nor the lacker flew nor the lacker dawson.]

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. [Lackers are not convincing in academic circles]

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. [In other words a legitimate rejection]

All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding
the definitions as presented in this entry. [Translation: to bad so sad dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!]

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
------------------------------------------------------- [/QUOTE]

The failure of lackerism

 

Go away fraud, you even removed the Italics!

 

The failure of lackerism[/QUOTE]
Did you falsify that as well I really cannot be bothered to check anymore!

 

Hmm looks like I did no such thing, please stop disrupting the thread with drama queen desperation. Theres the quotes and reference number, duh! Calling me names wont fix your screw ups.