Thoughts?:
“... atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.”
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Another ill thought out attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the theist position.
One need not prove something does not exist if there is no evidence for it's existence, I do not need to prove there is no easter Bunny, no Santa Clause, no Michael Myers and I need not prove the non existence of god(s) since if they/ he /it has failed so spectacularly to prove the opposite
LenHazell53
Level 9
May 9, 2020
2
That is just one of the reasons why I regard the article on Stanford's web site to be ridiculous.
(But I cannot be bothered to give it all the ridicule that it richly deserves.)
Well, I take this as a kind of rejection of agnosticism, implied anyway. Being a strident atheist, I broadly agree here, though I see atheism not merely as a proposition but a statement that there is not a scrap of evidence that any god exists. Anyone got any evidence, then give us a call.
I note that some have chewed you out for not defining God. Well, I think that's being picky, since no matter how you define it -- supernatural being, great cosmic energy thingy thing, or whatever -- by definition it is supernatural and metaphysical. My point would be different: don't use God singular, but Gods plural, since people believe, or have believed, in thousands of them. Again, no evidence for any of them. I dislike the use of God in the singular in such debates, and have said so here before. The reason is too often people are referring to the god they grew up with, mostly here the Christian God, since they don't care about all the other gods. We need to think bigger and reject all god beliefs equally.
David1955
Level 8
May 8, 2020
4
Good point about gods in the plural. This site especially tends to be post christian and USA centric, so that god singular tends to be the default. But that is just allowing imperial chritianity to dictate the terms.
Or “creator(s)”
For the post to be relevant it is necessary to determine what god is and what god is not.
This is a philosophical question. If you want a determinate answer, you must define what is to be agreed to and what is not.
It is not sufficient to ask what appears to be a question with a religious bias
Geoffrey51
Level 8
May 8, 2020
5
First, it's not a philosophical question but a theological one. Second, why should the poster be obliged to define what god means when no one else has, in my view? That's the point. God or gods can be a big ogre in the sky, through to a vague energy thingy, and all things in between. His point, I think, is the basis of belief in god or gods, not how it is defined, and there is no basis to any belief, and atheism nails this point.
@David1955 Hardly an academic approach to the question as there is no incumbency on anyone to agree to a dualistic viewpoint.
Gods or no gods are irrelevant unless one believes or doesn’t believe in them.
@Geoffrey51 agnosticism isn’t about belief. It is about what is known and knowable. It isn’t knowable if “gods” (paste generic label here) exist. It isn’t knowable if “gods” do exist. Finally, there’s nothing to say, based on what is knowable, why one wouldn’t have a belief based on what they know.
@RobertLudwick If you say so but seems like you’re missing the point. Whether gods exist or not is no more relevant than the abominable snowman or Loch Ness Monster!
@Geoffrey51 agreed. Why are they irrelevant, again? Not missing the point. We just see the world from different perspectives.
The question is already meaningless until a definition of “God” is specified.
skado
Level 9
May 8, 2020
5
"Which god would you like, Sir? I can offer you Thor with lots of bangs and flashes, or Neptune with great crashing waves, or Qetesh for love, beauty and sex."
Word:
The point one I make that atheism as defined as above is rather illogical. God is a very generic word. It could mean a lot. I have not seen "God" listed specifically as a weasel word or glittering generality but I think it could really easily be considered as such.
I think that the debate of such a word would be rather illogical and a nonsense debate topic. I think atheism by defination and premise raises debate by its definition to be in opposition to anything "god".
Where, debate of a specific Willy Wanka style God or Harry Potter style God might make for a more appropriate debate topic.
Historically and now people have been accepted to be a style of god. People exist, therefore a style of god exist to show athiesm wrong thus illogical.
If AHarryPotterism were coinable for people to label themselves that opposes the existence of Harry Potter style God, it as a label might be more logical for a person to be an Aharrypotterist.
am·big·u·ous
(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
wea·sel words
noun
noun: weasel word
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason.
And: ",,,are terms with which people all over the world have powerful associations, and they may have trouble disagreeing with them. However, these words are highly abstract and ambiguous, and meaningful differences exist regarding what they actually mean or should mean in the real world. " wikipedia
. . . false dichotomy (as you describe it), there are thousands of implementations of 'gods'.
FearlessFly
Level 9
May 8, 2020
2
Again..not me..I was quoting the article.
@RobertLudwick . . . ok "as the article describes it" -- still a fallacy. 
Sigh. That is yet another example of extremely sloppy thinking in the "Does God exist" debate.
anglophone
Level 9
May 8, 2020
2
Just so we are clear...It’s not my thinking. I’m quoting an article written by philosophy academia.
@RobertLudwick Understood., 
@RobertLudwick no you were not you were quoting from a philosophical mutual ego stroking blog, that can and is able to be contributed to by any and all users without editorial interference.
For that is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wikipedia for philosophers
Sure. How is that different than peer reviewing academic research? Also, it is an academic website, so I’m not sure where you’re confusion is.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.