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)

10. Great find, LO4E!

Reply to LostOne4Ever (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:14 PM

Mar 2015

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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