Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

[Tcg]

.
I recently heard this definition of atheism:

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

I think it is clearer than the one I usually espouse which is that atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. The only issue I have with is its singular nature. Perhaps, Atheism is the condition of not believing that any gods or deities exist, would be better.

Is this a good definition?


Tcg

[Tcg]

Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

In the same way that being a non-bowler is a consequence of not bowling.

In the same way that being bald is a consequence of not having hair.

In the same way that being a non-numismatist is the consequence of not collecting coins.

As you have aptly pointed out, a clear definition of atheism has been presented. There is no reason to pretend that we don't know what it means to be bald, to not bowl, to not collect coins, or to be an atheist.

There is also no reason to continue to search for a lost heirloom once it has been found.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

In the same way that being a non-bowler is a consequence of not bowling.

In the same way that being bald is a consequence of not having hair.

In the same way that being a non-numismatist is the consequence of not collecting coins.

As you have aptly pointed out, a clear definition of atheism has been presented. There is no reason to pretend that we don't know what it means to be bald, to not bowl, to not collect coins, or to be an atheist.

There is also no reason to continue to search for a lost heirloom once it has been found.


Tcg

Yes. That's absolutely right. Or as has become almost a meme or icon of atheism, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, so not believing in a god is not a religion, which refutes the accusation that atheism is faith -based as much as religion (because to maintain otherwise denies science, effectively) and especially that atheism is a 'church'. And we -all may have seen in the past theist apologists trying to make atheist spokesbods, meetings and publications the equivalent of priests, religious assemblies and scripture. Where it falls down is in the fallacy of Biased sample, where a particular point is emphasised and manifold equal are ignored. It's why 'appeal to unknowns' is a fallacy but the ones making the argument don't see it because they can see only the point the make.

I remember on a board far, far away, one apologist tried to argue that religions were 'organizations' and because atheism could be called an 'organization' it was a religion. Of course this was bosh, because it was making the term so wide as to be meaningless as it made any organised activity a religion as well as, as collecting stamps, let alone Not collecting stamps.

But (the stamp apologetic went on - because it became iconic) atheism is not like not stamp collecting because it IS an organisation whereas there are no organized clubs or forums to argue against stamp collecting. Sure, there are those who will despise it and even see some moral deficiency in those who "Fiddle about with those silly bits of paper," instead of doing some decent, worthwhile and socially sound activity such as driving high powered cars around at speed.

But the fact remains, we are content to let collectors collect their cards or toys and just not bother ourselves. So why can't we atheists let people 'believe what they like, go away, and shut up?' Because, the iconic analogy goes, we do not get told that our lives depend on stamp collecting, that all life's problems can be found in a stamp album and that the post office created the universe. Nor that stamp collecting should be taught in school, no one who does not collect stamps should ever be voted to public office and we -all should be ready to rush into a jihad against people who collect anything else.

If that were the case, then for sure we'd have forums, films and books shouting that stamp collecting should be shown its' place, in the private home and not in school, workplace or politics.

But I sorta got diverted from the point I had in mind which is sniping, nit picking and the one shot win. It's a bit like trying to pick holes in evolution. That is actually futile, not because evolution does not refute God or Jesus (but only Genesis) but because Evolution is an established Thang, and raising problems, real or invented only makes for unexplained questions and does not bring the whole evolutionary edifice crashing down as they seem to hope. Which is what I can only suppose our pal was trying to do there with these pointless questions ("Is this what we can say about atheism?") as (as you succinctly said) the heirloom is found and we don't need to keep searching.

[Tcg]

Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

In the same way that being a non-bowler is a consequence of not bowling.

In the same way that being bald is a consequence of not having hair.

In the same way that being a non-numismatist is the consequence of not collecting coins.

As you have aptly pointed out, a clear definition of atheism has been presented. There is no reason to pretend that we don't know what it means to be bald, to not bowl, to not collect coins, or to be an atheist.

There is also no reason to continue to search for a lost heirloom once it has been found.


Tcg

Yes. That's absolutely right. Or as has become almost a meme or icon of atheism, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, so not believing in a god is not a religion, which refutes the accusation that atheism is faith -based as much as religion (because to maintain otherwise denies science, effectively) and especially that atheism is a 'church'. And we -all may have seen in the past theist apologists trying to make atheist spokesbods, meetings and publications the equivalent of priests, religious assemblies and scripture. Where it falls down is in the fallacy of Biased sample, where a particular point is emphasised and manifold equal are ignored. It's why 'appeal to unknowns' is a fallacy but the ones making the argument don't see it because they can see only the point the make.

I remember on a board far, far away, one apologist tried to argue that religions were 'organizations' and because atheism could be called an 'organization' it was a religion. Of course this was bosh, because it was making the term so wide as to be meaningless as it made any organised activity a religion as well as, as collecting stamps, let alone Not collecting stamps.

But (the stamp apologetic went on - because it became iconic) atheism is not like not stamp collecting because it IS an organisation whereas there are no organized clubs or forums to argue against stamp collecting. Sure, there are those who will despise it and even see some moral deficiency in those who "Fiddle about with those silly bits of paper," instead of doing some decent, worthwhile and socially sound activity such as driving high powered cars around at speed.

But the fact remains, we are content to let collectors collect their cards or toys and just not bother ourselves. So why can't we atheists let people 'believe what they like, go away, and shut up?' Because, the iconic analogy goes, we do not get told that our lives depend on stamp collecting, that all life's problems can be found in a stamp album and that the post office created the universe. Nor that stamp collecting should be taught in school, no one who does not collect stamps should ever be voted to public office and we -all should be ready to rush into a jihad against people who collect anything else.

If that were the case, then for sure we'd have forums, films and books shouting that stamp collecting should be shown its' place, in the private home and not in school, workplace or politics.

But I sorta got diverted from the point I had in mind which is sniping, nit picking and the one shot win. It's a bit like trying to pick holes in evolution. That is actually futile, not because evolution does not refute God or Jesus (but only Genesis) but because Evolution is an established Thang, and raising problems, real or invented only makes for unexplained questions and does not bring the whole evolutionary edifice crashing down as they seem to hope. Which is what I can only suppose our pal was trying to do there with these pointless questions ("Is this what we can say about atheism?") as (as you succinctly said) the heirloom is found and we don't need to keep searching.

Yes, it reminds me of a dear friend who many years ago wrote (in a religious book) about when he or his wife, I forget which, lost their wedding ring at the beach. They took a rake and used it in an attempt to find the ring. He wrote about the magic of finding the ring on the last use of the rake. No offense to him, it was actually a pretty good book, but of course it was the last use of the rake. You found the ring. Might as well enjoy the sunset at that point. We know what atheism is, sure we can iron out minor details, but at this point we can enjoy the sunset.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Ignoring the odd grammar in this reply. The difference is that one can be not convinced that something exists without being convinced that it doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that an invisible purple people eating machine exists. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that it doesn't. Two totally different issues.


Tcg

The two statements say nothing about "convinced" Tcg nor does the traditional definition or the Flewsian definition, of course you can as many do, make up yet-another-definition but if you do that I don't see how you can accurately describe yourself as an atheist. I could call myself an "astronaut" if I make up my own definition for it.

Look at the two propositions again, read them.

Then please kindly explain how they can mean different things if - as you yourself said earlier, and I quote:

Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief.

So atheism is defined in terms of beliefs not knowledge, very well then so what is the difference between these two statement in terms of beliefs?

See? there is no epistemological difference between not holding a belief in God and holding a belief in not God - each is a belief - neither is a statement about knowledge.

So contrary to the dramatic dog and pony show, the hand waving reasoning I see from many atheists today, to assert an "absence of belief in X", is epistemologically indistinguishable from asserting a "belief in not X" - neither is a statemen about knowledge.

To believe - regard as true - that there is no God is no different to not believing - regarding as true - that there is a God.

To claim that atheism is not a statement about belief and not a statement about knowledge really makes me wonder if atheists have really deeply thought about any of this.

To even say "I do not hold a belief in God" means that you do believe it is appropriate to not hold a belief in God, surely?

Atheism (in the Flewsian sense) is epistemologically vacuous, has no meaning, it is an attempt to express "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" as something more profound, it isn't.

[Tcg]

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Ignoring the odd grammar in this reply. The difference is that one can be not convinced that something exists without being convinced that it doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that an invisible purple people eating machine exists. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that it doesn't. Two totally different issues.


Tcg

The two statements say nothing about "convinced" Tcg nor does the traditional definition or the Flewsian definition, of course you can as many do, make up yet-another-definition but if you do that I don't see how you can accurately describe yourself as an atheist. I could call myself an "astronaut" if I make up my own definition for it.

Look at the two propositions again, read them.

Then please kindly explain how they can mean different things if - as you yourself said earlier, and I quote:

Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief.

So atheism is defined in terms of beliefs not knowledge, very well then so what is the difference between these two statement in terms of beliefs?

See? there is no epistemological difference between not holding a belief in God and holding a belief in not God - each is a belief - neither is a statement about knowledge.

So contrary to the dramatic dog and pony show, the hand waving reasoning I see from many atheists today, to assert an "absence of belief in X", is epistemologically indistinguishable from asserting a "belief in not X" - neither is a statemen about knowledge.

To believe - regard as true - that there is no God is no different to not believing - regarding as true - that there is a God.

To claim that atheism is not a statement about belief and not a statement about knowledge really makes me wonder if atheists have really deeply thought about any of this.

To even say "I do not hold a belief in God" means that you do believe it is appropriate to not hold a belief in God, surely?

Atheism (in the Flewsian sense) is epistemologically vacuous, has no meaning, it is an attempt to express "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" as something more profound, it isn't.

I'm not concerned with the "traditional definition" or correcting the many misunderstandings of an accurate definition. It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #220]

[Inquirer]

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Ignoring the odd grammar in this reply. The difference is that one can be not convinced that something exists without being convinced that it doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that an invisible purple people eating machine exists. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that it doesn't. Two totally different issues.


Tcg

The two statements say nothing about "convinced" Tcg nor does the traditional definition or the Flewsian definition, of course you can as many do, make up yet-another-definition but if you do that I don't see how you can accurately describe yourself as an atheist. I could call myself an "astronaut" if I make up my own definition for it.

Look at the two propositions again, read them.

Then please kindly explain how they can mean different things if - as you yourself said earlier, and I quote:

Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief.

So atheism is defined in terms of beliefs not knowledge, very well then so what is the difference between these two statement in terms of beliefs?

See? there is no epistemological difference between not holding a belief in God and holding a belief in not God - each is a belief - neither is a statement about knowledge.

So contrary to the dramatic dog and pony show, the hand waving reasoning I see from many atheists today, to assert an "absence of belief in X", is epistemologically indistinguishable from asserting a "belief in not X" - neither is a statemen about knowledge.

To believe - regard as true - that there is no God is no different to not believing - regarding as true - that there is a God.

To claim that atheism is not a statement about belief and not a statement about knowledge really makes me wonder if atheists have really deeply thought about any of this.

To even say "I do not hold a belief in God" means that you do believe it is appropriate to not hold a belief in God, surely?

Atheism (in the Flewsian sense) is epistemologically vacuous, has no meaning, it is an attempt to express "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" as something more profound, it isn't.

I'm not concerned with the "traditional definition" or correcting the many misunderstandings of an accurate definition. It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning.

Tcg

If a creationist, when questioned about the veracity of their claims, had responded to your questions with flimsy statements like "It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning." I think we both know how that would go down!

If this is the best you can do, then it only reaffirms my own rejection of atheism as intellectually vacuous, devoid of meaning, words for the sake of words, I gave you the opportunity to defend your claims and you chose not to, very well.

[Tcg]

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Ignoring the odd grammar in this reply. The difference is that one can be not convinced that something exists without being convinced that it doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that an invisible purple people eating machine exists. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that it doesn't. Two totally different issues.


Tcg

The two statements say nothing about "convinced" Tcg nor does the traditional definition or the Flewsian definition, of course you can as many do, make up yet-another-definition but if you do that I don't see how you can accurately describe yourself as an atheist. I could call myself an "astronaut" if I make up my own definition for it.

Look at the two propositions again, read them.

Then please kindly explain how they can mean different things if - as you yourself said earlier, and I quote:

Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief.

So atheism is defined in terms of beliefs not knowledge, very well then so what is the difference between these two statement in terms of beliefs?

See? there is no epistemological difference between not holding a belief in God and holding a belief in not God - each is a belief - neither is a statement about knowledge.

So contrary to the dramatic dog and pony show, the hand waving reasoning I see from many atheists today, to assert an "absence of belief in X", is epistemologically indistinguishable from asserting a "belief in not X" - neither is a statemen about knowledge.

To believe - regard as true - that there is no God is no different to not believing - regarding as true - that there is a God.

To claim that atheism is not a statement about belief and not a statement about knowledge really makes me wonder if atheists have really deeply thought about any of this.

To even say "I do not hold a belief in God" means that you do believe it is appropriate to not hold a belief in God, surely?

Atheism (in the Flewsian sense) is epistemologically vacuous, has no meaning, it is an attempt to express "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" as something more profound, it isn't.

I'm not concerned with the "traditional definition" or correcting the many misunderstandings of an accurate definition. It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning.

Tcg

If a creationist, when questioned about the veracity of their claims, had responded to your questions with flimsy statements like "It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning." I think we both know how that would go down!

If this is the best you can do, then it only reaffirms my own rejection of atheism as intellectually vacuous, devoid of meaning, words for the sake of words, I gave you the opportunity to defend your claims and you chose not to, very well.

No, I've explained repeatedly what I mean. It's not my fault that some can't understand (or chose to not understand) an astonishingly easy to understand explanation. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him tie his shoes.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Ignoring the odd grammar in this reply. The difference is that one can be not convinced that something exists without being convinced that it doesn't exist. I'm not convinced that an invisible purple people eating machine exists. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that it doesn't. Two totally different issues.


Tcg

The two statements say nothing about "convinced" Tcg nor does the traditional definition or the Flewsian definition, of course you can as many do, make up yet-another-definition but if you do that I don't see how you can accurately describe yourself as an atheist. I could call myself an "astronaut" if I make up my own definition for it.

Look at the two propositions again, read them.

Then please kindly explain how they can mean different things if - as you yourself said earlier, and I quote:

Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief.

So atheism is defined in terms of beliefs not knowledge, very well then so what is the difference between these two statement in terms of beliefs?

See? there is no epistemological difference between not holding a belief in God and holding a belief in not God - each is a belief - neither is a statement about knowledge.

So contrary to the dramatic dog and pony show, the hand waving reasoning I see from many atheists today, to assert an "absence of belief in X", is epistemologically indistinguishable from asserting a "belief in not X" - neither is a statemen about knowledge.

To believe - regard as true - that there is no God is no different to not believing - regarding as true - that there is a God.

To claim that atheism is not a statement about belief and not a statement about knowledge really makes me wonder if atheists have really deeply thought about any of this.

To even say "I do not hold a belief in God" means that you do believe it is appropriate to not hold a belief in God, surely?

Atheism (in the Flewsian sense) is epistemologically vacuous, has no meaning, it is an attempt to express "I have absolutely no idea if God exists" as something more profound, it isn't.

I'm not concerned with the "traditional definition" or correcting the many misunderstandings of an accurate definition. It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning.

Tcg

If a creationist, when questioned about the veracity of their claims, had responded to your questions with flimsy statements like "It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning." I think we both know how that would go down!

If this is the best you can do, then it only reaffirms my own rejection of atheism as intellectually vacuous, devoid of meaning, words for the sake of words, I gave you the opportunity to defend your claims and you chose not to, very well.

No, I've explained repeatedly what I mean. It's not my fault that some can't understand (or chose to not understand) an astonishingly easy to understand explanation. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him tie his shoes.

The questions I asked:

Well if a belief is not a statement about knowing, then what is the difference between:

I do not believe there is a God
I do believe there is no God

There is no difference is there...

Should be "astonishingly easy" for you to answer should it not?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #223]

We know what atheism is, sure we can iron out minor details, but at this point we can enjoy the sunset.

[Replying to Tcg in post #225]

It's as plain as day. Of course, some wish it were midnight. It's not. One can keep their eyes closed and pretend. But the sun is still shinning.

Interesting in that Theism fares no better at being commonly defined...perhaps that too, is an unnatural response to nature.

Theism or metaphysical personocracy (especially in cosmocentric theism in which God is the origin of cosmogony) is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) – or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.[3][4]

Atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.[5] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[6][7]{SOURCE}

Belief in the existence of a divine reality; usually referring to monotheism (one God), as opposed to pantheism (all is God), polytheism (many gods), and atheism (without God). Theistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the monotheistic belief in a God, whereas a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism holds a belief in many gods.{SOURCE}

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).{SOURCE}

et al
https://www.yourdictionary.com/theism
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/theism