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 oldbadger in post #459]

I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #459]

I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright.

It is a logical conclusion based on the available evidence. If there is some other hypothesis, let them state it and support it with evidence. So far (despite strenuous fiddling of the data, such as prophecies, messages from beyond, visions of angels, dreams, NDE's and religious claims without much support) there is nothing to present a better hypothesis than we (conscious entity) was not there before we were born and we won't be there after we die.

And there's another example of a fair number of words needed to deal with a fairly short comment.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #462]

I read your statement of opinion. Very enlightening.

I am interested in hearing what Old Badger One Kenobi has to say in answer to my question about his statement.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #459]

I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright.

Please Sir!
Wot's the difference?

My question:- Further to your question.....
Is Faith an opinion or a belief? Or a hope? Or a trust? ....... or outright certitude?

[William]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #459]

I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright.

Please Sir!
Wot's the difference?

Sometimes there is a difference. I take it from your reply above that in this case, your statement of opinion is a statement of belief.

My question:- Further to your question.....
Is Faith an opinion or a belief? Or a hope? Or a trust? ....... or outright certitude?

How can I answer except to ask you if the belief your shared;

"I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright."

can also be said to be a statement of faith, hope, trust certainty et al?

[TRANSPONDER]

No. It is a default hypothesis based on what we know about the way the world works. When you're dead, you're dead and afterlife claims (though obviously a common human belief) are still not valid and even if that doesn't mean (like the 2nd coming) that it simply isn't true (because it isn't disproved, exactly) it is not the evidence -based go to theory.

Now one may call that a belief, Faith or opinion. It doesn't matter, as it is valid on evidence and logic and whether one firmly has Faith in it or (like myself) holds it to be the theory that best fits the evidence, is irrelevant. You question is irrelevant and only a theist would see it as a question that needs asking. It's amusing to see a god -apologist pretending to be an atheist, but they give themselves away by arguing like a theist.

a p.s. that is an aside, It occurred to me while writing a previous post that God -apologists are sometimes funny because it's like...the classic example is Prince Henry and Falstaff where Falstaff gives an account to the prince of how he was set upon by a pack of robbers and was robbed despite his heroic defence, and all the time Henry knows he telling a pack of porkies because he was the one who knocked Falstaff down and took the purse.
It's not uncommon to have God -apologists claiming to be atheists - and then attack atheism using arguments that no atheist would use, or those claiming to be scientists and then show no understanding of science or the scientific method.

Cue aggrieved protests ..ok, I can't read minds and my crystal ball needs a new battery. I just know theist fallacies, back to front arguments and wrongheaded apologetics when I see them,

[William]

I read your statement of opinion. Very enlightening. As neither, I think it is important for me to know how a nontheist thinks/believes. I think it is equally important for me to know how a theist thinks/believes.

I am interested in hearing what Old Badger One Kenobi has to say in answer to my question about his statement.

[oldbadger]

How can I answer except to ask you if the belief your shared;

"I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright."

can also be said to be a statement of faith, hope, trust certainty et al?

It's just how I perceive life...and death.
Requests for more information about how I see, think of and believe about life ..... I can't add any more information than those two sentences.
That's it.
If you was to torture me for more, I should scream out loud 'Alright! Yes! I am certain that I was dead for all time before, and shall be dead for all time after!' I can claim certitude about that (even if I'm wrong) and if any person (or time, or anything, or nothing) could prove to me that I'm wrong.... Win-Win for old badger.

[TRANSPONDER]

How can I answer except to ask you if the belief your shared;

"I was dead for countless billions of years and it was alright.
After this life I will be dead for countless billions of years and it will be alright."

can also be said to be a statement of faith, hope, trust certainty et al?

It's just how I perceive life...and death.
Requests for more information about how I see, think of and believe about life ..... I can't add any more information than those two sentences.
That's it.
If you was to torture me for more, I should scream out loud 'Alright! Yes! I am certain that I was dead for all time before, and shall be dead for all time after!' I can claim certitude about that (even if I'm wrong) and if any person (or time, or anything, or nothing) could prove to me that I'm wrong.... Win-Win for old badger.

No! No! ..the Bager has morphed into ...a Gnostic agnostic.

[historia]

Then since you seem to be able to grasp the concept that "knowledge" doesn't need to mean "things you can provide irrefutable proof for," I fail to see why you are so insistent that a believer can't KNOW that God exists.

I'm not, actually.

Philosophers define 'knowledge' as a justified true belief without any defeaters. So, if God exists, then people with a justified belief that God exists do, in fact, have knowledge. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then people with a justified belief that God does not exist have knowledge.

The overarching point I'm trying to make in our discussion is that, when it comes to controversial issues like God's existence -- on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's not useful to categorize the various positions in terms of "knowledge." Instead we should categorize the positions simply in terms of belief, which is what we normally do with controversial topics.

So, if someone says that they "know that God exists" because they "just feel that it must be true," would you classify them as a "gnostic theist" because they used the word "know" in this loose sense?

If they claim that what they have is knowledge, yes.

But that's the thing: Is "just feeling that it must be true" a straight-forward claim to having knowledge?

Let me remind you, again, that in your first post (which you have not retracted) you said "just feeling that it must be true" is not what you meant by "knowledge." I think you were right the first time.

As I've repeatedly said, this is NOT about conforming to some strict interpretation of what "knowledge" is.

Okay, but at some point your scheme has to define what it means by "gnostic."

The chart you posted above describes a "gnostic theist" as someone who is "100% certain there is a God." But, if pressed, would our hypothetical person here who "just feeling that it must be true" actually say they are 100% certain? What if they're only 99% certain? Are they now an "agnostic theist," even though they uttered the magic word "know"?

It seems to me that your scheme is fraught with these kinds of difficulties. It's not measuring knowledge objectively, on that we both agree. But I also don't think it can consistently measure subjective claims to knowledge. Rather, it's taking people's varied expressions of psychological conviction and misleadingly labeling those as "knowledge" or "100% certainty."

If you are just as sure that there is no God as you are that there isn't an elephant in your front yard, then that is a pretty high level of certainty! There is no good reason, then, for you to not accept the proposition that God doesn't exist.

Yes there is, because as I have said so often I'm losing count, there's a big difference between "I have no belief there is a God," and "I have belief there is no God."

I agree there is a difference between those two things. But that cannot, in itself, be the reason you won't affirm a proposition. Your comment here is little more than a non-sequitur, then.

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough,"

On the contrary, if your description above truly reflects your perspective, you have way more than enough.

Let's back up here a second:

I believe that there are no elephants in my front yard. I'm looking out my front window right now, in fact, and can see for myself that there are no elephants. Do you believe that there are no elephants in your front yard?

(Note: I'm not asking if you can be 100% certain, but simply whether you believe there are no elephants in your yard. Also, I'm not "demanding" you do anything. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument.)

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

Sorry, but this comment is nonsensical as a rebuttal to my critique here.

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an [a]theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

Well, no. Your scheme doesn't describe people as being "raised an atheist" or "former believer," or what have you. So quite clearly it's not capturing this distinction at all.