In America, atheists are still in the closet

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
No.
I'm refuting the attempt of atheists to make up definitions of words.
If you don't like the meaning of a term, use a different term.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether it is bad or good is not the issue.
If the people want to be governed along those lines, the people are free to change the Constitution.
Having it changed by a a few men on a court is illegitimate.
We are supposed to be our own rulers.

IRYW wrote:

<quoted text>
C'mon Buck, you are smarter than this. The only definitions that matter in a conversation are the ones agreed upon. Most of the self-proclaimed atheists here appear to clearly have agreed on the following:
1. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. Insisting one is sure there are no deities may make one a member of a subset of atheists but it does not change the core definition.
2. Agnosticism is a philosophical position on the nature of knowledge. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Scientists are largely agnostic regarding the claim of final knowledge in a particular discipline. I am agnostic with regards to what the founders meant by certain clauses in the constitution; I have opinions and think I have reasoned support for those opinions but I know that I cannot know what they intended.
When you refuse to accept the group consensus and insist on arguing that atheists by definition deny the possibilities of the existence of deities you are joining ranks with the likes of Barefoot and Educated What, with whom I doubt you would identify.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, maam.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
If you and your neighbors get together and agree that a dogs tail is a leg, I would not accept that a dog has 5 legs.
If words have meanings, and I trust they do, then those adopting a label such as "atheism" are obligated to accept what that word means.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>He cannot possibly be right.

He claims to know for a fact.

He's lying.

As to the evidence for a god, you are also wrong.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
You from Sweden?
You up against France tonight! Think you can take them?

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>You like that corruption of the Constitution.

Good for you.

You might not like the next one.

That's the whole point in having a Constitution.

Consider coming over to the American side.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>Disproof of alleged gods is no evidence whatsoever that there is no god.

If I steal your car, and you prove 150 other white males didn't steal it, it is not evidence as to whether I stole it.

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry baby, that's not how words work. Words are defined by how people understand them - common usage.
That's why language changes with every new generation.

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
And it's not evidence that you didn't.
I repeat-so what?

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey don't blame us.
It's those intellectually dishonest U.S. Supreme Court justices.
They change the definitions of words.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>If you and your neighbors get together and agree that a dogs tail is a leg, I would not accept that a dog has 5 legs.

If words have meanings, and I trust they do, then those adopting a label such as "atheism" are obligated to accept what that word means.

The word means a belief that no god exists.

It is not a lack of belief.

And there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist, as the terms are self-contradictory when used together.

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.

Here is a letter from the editor of the Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy addressing this very question.

He agrees with me.
----------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

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>She's wrong either way.

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a Finn in Sweden

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't seem to either agree or disagree with you.
And there's this from wiki:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry.
Can you tunnel out?

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove it.
You are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly possess.
You are either omniscient or a liar.
And we all know you're about as far from omniscient as one can get.
How do you like it?

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
way better than the bible belt in usa
tunnel would get filled with water from the baltic sea