Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts) Sat Mar 28, 2015, 04:30 PM Mar 2015

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ [View all]

Not going to link to that other forum but a certain poster keeps trying to redefine atheism by citing the above source.

As a PSA I would like to point out that it's the same source used by Conservapedia in their entry titled "Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism".

Thank you.

bmus cares.

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ [View all] beam me up scottie Mar 2015 OP

Good to know, Curmudgeoness Mar 2015 #1

I was curious about who else was using that idiotic definition. beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #2

One has to question the position skepticscott Mar 2015 #6

Oh I questioned more than that. beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #7

The people who wrote that obviously LostOne4Ever Mar 2015 #3

Exactly. beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #4

The stupid part of it all is LostOne4Ever Mar 2015 #9

It's also in conflict with the worldview of every atheist I know. LiberalAndProud Mar 2015 #5

Supposedly they have recieved multiple petitions to do that LostOne4Ever Mar 2015 #8

Great find, LO4E! beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #10

Yes this is a very nice find SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #11

Rational discourse is not possible with dogmatic fundamentalist anti-atheists. beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #13

you seem a little hostile SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #14

LMAO! beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #15

Can you tell me... SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #16

There was none. beam me up scottie Mar 2015 #17

The Stanford site is, for better or worse, the goto web source for philosophical definitions. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #12

Why would you be shocked by Stanford's reply? PhamNewan Feb 2016 #18

Give us some examples skepticscott Feb 2016 #19

Talking about a subject without getting the input of the subject is bad philosophy LostOne4Ever Feb 2016 #22

OK now my head is throbbing. lindysalsagal Feb 2016 #20

Find an arcane academic technical definition... onager Feb 2016 #21