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]

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?

Yes, it is. The answer is that yes there is a difference.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

[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

Atheism (Flewsian) is a statement about one's beliefs, specifically the belief that it is appropriate not to hold a belief in God.

The deception inherent in Flewsian atheism is that there is no belief involved, that "absence of belief" is not itself adopted as a belief.

[Tcg]

[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

Atheism (Flewsian) is a statement about one's beliefs, specifically the belief that it is appropriate not to hold a belief in God.

Sometimes when I eat spaghetti, it gets wound up amongst itself. This explanation does the same, but doesn't taste as good.


Tcg

[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.

[Tcg]

[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.

Another example of yet continued misquotes. Kudos, William. You've provided yet another one. The waters are muddy not because atheists don't explain clearly what they mean, but because others misrepresent what they have said. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Not much skill involved but I guess some get their kicks from it.


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?

Yes, it is. The answer is that yes there is a difference.

Only perhaps a lexical difference, there is no epistemological difference is there?

Lets replace "believe" with "regard it as true that" - can we do that?

Then I argue that "I do not regard it as true that there is a God" is logically equivalent to "I regard it as true that there is not a God" - these carry identical meaning to me.

If they are indeed not equivalent then it must be a logically consistent position to affirm one and deny the other, let's try that:

I do not regard it as true that there is a God yet at the same time I also do not regard it as true that there is not a God.

or the converse:

I do not regard it as true that there is not a God yet at the same time I also do not regard it as true that there is a God.

These are the only options for affirming one and denying the other and they are both quite clearly oxymorons.

So they must have identical meaning, if they really did not have identical meanings then we could affirm one and deny the other without contradiction.

To regard something as not true is the same as to regard it as false, these are the only states allowed for God, it does exist or it does not.

This is why atheism is intellectually vacuous, null, meaningless, it is a not-position rather than a position, those who are familiar with mathematics, particularly boolean algebra will have no difficulty understanding this, to those who are struggling I suggest some study of the subject, it is a subject that every self respecting science advocate should be familiar with.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #232]

Atheism (Flewsian) is a statement about one's beliefs, specifically the belief that it is appropriate not to hold a belief in God.

[Replying to Tcg in post #233]

Sometimes when I eat spaghetti, it gets wound up amongst itself. This explanation does the same, but doesn't taste as good.

[Tcg]

This is why atheism is intellectually vacuous, null, meaningless, it is a not-position rather than a position, those who are familiar with mathematics, particularly boolean algebra will have no difficulty understanding this,

Well, don't leave us hanging, please explain how Boolean algebra proves the existence of gods.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

This is why atheism is intellectually vacuous, null, meaningless, it is a not-position rather than a position, those who are familiar with mathematics, particularly boolean algebra will have no difficulty understanding this,

Well, don't leave us hanging, please explain how Boolean algebra proves the existence of gods.

I never argued that Boolean algebra proved the existence of Gods. I explained that it demonstrates that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory - see the post where I demonstrated that.

[Tcg]

This is why atheism is intellectually vacuous, null, meaningless, it is a not-position rather than a position, those who are familiar with mathematics, particularly boolean algebra will have no difficulty understanding this,

Well, don't leave us hanging, please explain how Boolean algebra proves the existence of gods.

I never argued that Boolean algebra proved the existence of Gods. I explained that it demonstrates that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory - see the post where I demonstrated that.

No thanks. Just explain here what Boolean algebra has to do with the question of whether or not gods exist. It's math, right? Should be pretty straightforward.


Tcg