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

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #238]

Well, don't leave us hanging...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #236]

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.

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.

Right ... gods exist or they don't. But someone's belief as to the existence of gods is not so black and white. I don't believe that gods exist for exactly the same reason I don't believe that Bigfoot exists (or the Loch Ness Monster). I can highly doubt the existence of Bigfoots (due to lack of any convincing evidence) but leave open the option that they could exist (pending evidence to support this view). The default position should be that Bigfoots (or gods) do not exist until there is convincing evidence that they do.

Your colored comparison above forces a denial of gods in the red part when that is not the only other option. I can have the position that "I do not regard it as true that there is a God" (ie. I don't think this has been proven beyond any doubt and so is therefore "true"), without regarding the statement "there is not a God" as true, because the second statement is an outright denial of the existence of God (or gods) which is different from a lack of belief due to lack of convincing evidence. The red and blue statements do not have identical meaning.

[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.

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.

Boolean algebra can be used to reason about binary propositions, the claim "I do not X" and "I do X" are binary expressions, they are either true or false as are compound expressions constructed from then with operators OR, AND, NOR and NAND.

I already told you that I use it to show that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory, an unposition so to speak, not that God does or does not exist.

Some atheists mistakenly claim that it's true that "I do not regard it as true that God exists" logically differs from "I regard it as true that God does not exist".

But if they did really differ, if they actually have different meanings then it must be logically possible to affirm one and not the other - is it?

[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.

Boolean algebra can be used to reason about binary propositions, the claim "I do not X" and "I do X" are binary expressions, they are either true or false as are compound expressions constructed from then with operators OR, AND, NOR and NAND.

I already told you that I use it to show that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory, an unposition so to speak, not that God does or does not exist.

Some atheists mistakenly claim that it's true that "I do not regard it as true that God exists" logically differs from "I regard it as true that God does not exist".

But if they did really differ, if they actually have different meanings then it must be logically possible to affirm one and not the other - is it?

I see. Math, not matter what kind, can't be used as evidence for the existence of gods. I agree.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #242]

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #236]

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.

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.

Right ... gods exist or they don't. But someone's belief as to the existence of gods is not so black and white.

Yes it is when we consider the Flewsian definition favored by the "modern" atheists, which is:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

That is to say, the belief either is or is not present - that is binary, black and white as you put it.

I don't believe that gods exist for exactly the same reason I don't believe that Bigfoot exists (or the Loch Ness Monster). I can highly doubt the existence of Bigfoots (due to lack of any convincing evidence) but leave open the option that they could exist (pending evidence to support this view). The default position should be that Bigfoots (or gods) do not exist until there is convincing evidence that they do.

Indeed, so atheism is not a statement about knowledge but a statement about belief, I already agreed to that in this earlier post.

Your colored comparison above forces a denial of gods in the red part when that is not the only other option. I can have the position that "I do not regard it as true that there is a God" (ie. I don't think this has been proven beyond any doubt and so is therefore "true"), without regarding the statement "there is not a God" as true, because the second statement is an outright denial of the existence of God (or gods) which is different from a lack of belief due to lack of convincing evidence. The red and blue statements do not have identical meaning.

If they do not have identical meaning as you claim then one must be able to affirm one and deny the other, one can always do that with propositions that do not have identical meaning (that is if meaning means anything).

Now which of these do you regard as not being contradictory:

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).

Which of these do you regard as logically self consistent? I've used parentheses to improve the clarity.

[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.

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.

Boolean algebra can be used to reason about binary propositions, the claim "I do not X" and "I do X" are binary expressions, they are either true or false as are compound expressions constructed from then with operators OR, AND, NOR and NAND.

I already told you that I use it to show that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory, an unposition so to speak, not that God does or does not exist.

Some atheists mistakenly claim that it's true that "I do not regard it as true that God exists" logically differs from "I regard it as true that God does not exist".

But if they did really differ, if they actually have different meanings then it must be logically possible to affirm one and not the other - is it?

I see. Math, not matter what kind, can't be used as evidence for the existence of gods. I agree.

Whereas (as you can now see), it can be used to demonstrate that Flewsian atheism is self contradictory, I agree.

(Though the existence of Math takes some explaining if one is an "atheist" of any denomination)

[Inquirer]

How about this as a much better definition of atheism:

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods and a lack of belief in no Gods".

Although this still begs the question how a disbelief is not the same as not a belief or not a disbelief differs from a belief and so on...

I mean do atheists know that they believe things or just believe that they believe them?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #246]

Now which of these do you regard as not being contradictory:

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).

"regard as true" is the same as "regard as fact" in my book, which takes the discussion away from beliefs or reasoned opinions and into whether something has been absolutely proven, or not. The question of whether or not gods exist has not been proven either way, so neither position can be regarded as "true." That leaves belief or reasoned opinion in one position or the other, and in that case there is an entire spectrum of probability involved from 100% certainty in a belief that gods do exist to 100% certainty in a belief that they don't.

Someone can hold the belief (as I do) that the probability that gods exist is very small, simply due to a lack of any convincing evidence (eg. same as for Bigfoot), without reaching a 100% certainty level in a belief that gods do not exist. In the earlier post you said:

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...

Using believe instead of true (as in top quote here) for the statements makes all the difference.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #248]

I mean do atheists know that they believe things or just believe that they believe them?

They can not believe in something that has no convincing evidence (to them) to justify belief in that something. That is a rational default position to take, with a change in position requiring convincing evidence (to them). I know that I believe that the probability of gods existing is very small, and I have reasons for believing that which make sense to me. So the answer to the question is yes.