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 TRANSPONDER in post #540]

You can call yourself whatever you like and claim to be whatever you like;

That is all I am doing. In order to make that clear to the reader, my model is better suited to that end, than the model you use.

that does not alter the actual position, the correct designations and logical mandate of not knowing whether there is a god or not.

It does if those designations and mandates have been misrepresented through the false model you are using.

The question of GOD existing cannot be known or unknown, so logically the best position is neither theism or nontheism.

Which is the position I am currently holding as real and independent of theistic and nontheistic belief systems.

[oldbadger]

What is your opinion or belief about religion, God etc?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #540]

You can call yourself whatever you like and claim to be whatever you like;

That is all I am doing. In order to make that clear to the reader, my model is better suited to that end, than the model you use.

that does not alter the actual position, the correct designations and logical mandate of not knowing whether there is a god or not.

It does if those designations and mandates have been misrepresented through the false model you are using.

The question of GOD existing cannot be known or unknown, so logically the best position is neither theism or nontheism.

Which is the position I am currently holding as real and independent of theistic and nontheistic belief systems.

Don't try playing the traduced martyr; you have argued at length and with flowcharts that the current consensus definition of atheism is wrong and the stock theistic misrepresentation is correct. If you wanted to call yourself the banana -gnome, to label your position on the god claim, I'd do the same: shrug my shoulders and do a piece on the Humpty fallacy "Words mean what I want them to mean" (Refutation - but if you want people to understand, let alone credit, what you say, you will have to speak the same language that they speak". Obvious, but the Obvious is never obvious to the theist).

You may (in an uncanny way, yet again theist-think) claim that your 'model' is as valid as mine (if you deny everything, you scrape a draw at least, if not a win) but that does you no good, as it is the peanut and popcorn gallery that you have to persuade, and that is what you have tried to do with your flowcharts. You even have an advantage as that Theist - based misconception (1) seems to be a common misperception, but to post your argument with flowcharts here is to try to persuade others, and specifically atheists, not just tell us what your preferred self -designation is. This is just more evidence that you are trying to mislead and bamboozle the posters here.

You will have to get up a lot earlier before you can bamboozle We, the goddless .

(1) which you either consistently fail to understand or stubbornly refuse to admit:

"The question of GOD existing cannot be known or unknown,"
Yes., (at the present time) That is the correct knowledge position - unknown (agnosticism)

"so logically the best position is neither theism or nontheism". No; if the 'position' is belief in the god - claim (Theism) or not. Reasonably one either believes or not, though I concede areas of doubt about the evidence or case for or against (which is what we debate here). but Logically, all the time there is serious doubt about the god - claim, the logical mandate is not to believe the claim until one is sure, or at least convinced.

This is simple and logically sound, and you know better than me why you cannot or will not see it.

[Kylie]

An interesting video...

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll be interested to look at that, given that basic atheism (no god -belief) is very simple and all the ramifications are additions, and the sliding scale of disbelief/god - credibility is just that, not sects of the church of Atheism.

I'm rather inclined to see it as a Venn diagram of Atheism in the middle and various Aspects branching off it but not dividing it.

it is very good, as it should be, especially as the dude did a paper on atheism - and I don't know whether he's atheist or not and it doesn't matter, so long as he's fair and mot misguided.

I have got as far as negative and positive atheism, and even better, he prefers strong and weak atheism and is even seeing that they are over - simple and maybe misleading terms, because of course EVERYONE is agnostic. Just some credit a god more than others and one could call them strong and weak theists but Also I'd say 'Irrelevant. Do they believe or do they not?' Not 'How strong is their belief?' In the same way the firmness of disbelief or (better ) being pretty sure about the improbability of God (or A god) being real, it is that ''there is no God' is a high degree of disbelief in the case for God (or a god) and is not a Gnostic claim. Whereas a Theist god - claim MAY be gnostic (Faith) or May be based on their view or assessment of the evidence.

However, back to the video. Still good. I agree with his focus on 'explicit atheists' which I call "Thinking atheists" because don't know or don't care have no theist belief, but no reasoned position on the matter.

Yes very good. Mustwatch, I'd say. Just one slip I noticed, in talking of atheist Ontology and epistemology he slipped into seeing atheism preference for the materialist option and science as the better method of gaining knowledge as a belief -position, rather than a disbelief (agnostic -based) position on the claims of revelation or the mystical. Easy slip to make, and probably no harm other than if Theist apologists tried to force the burden of proof on the materialists. But then the proof is in the pudding.