Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:54 am
.
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
Looks ok to me.
1213 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:45 am
Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:54 am
.
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?
I think the older, atheism means person claims god's don't exist, is more accurate. This modern sounds more like agnosticism.
No. Atheism doesn't regard that as an accurate or even logical view of atheism. We are agnostics aty base, just as theists are, because nobody knows for sure.
That said, the Belief position (given that nobody knows) is why believe? It is simply (and logically) based on whether the evidence or arguments are persuasive or not, which is what we argue about here. Belief based on faith is of course illogical and I reckon Believers only play the faith - card when their evidence and arguments fail.
That 'older' view of atheism is
passe, not to say wrong, because it seems to be based on the older def (which I saw in Websters before it was corrected) that atheists denied God. Positive denial would be an untenable position when we don't know, but non - belief (because the evidence isn't convincing) is logically sound.
n -The use of 'agnosticism' is not too valid either. It can mean that someone really doesn't know whether they believe or not, but it is often used (by theists) to imply a more reasonable 'not sure' belief to make the 'Denial' of atheism look invalid. In actual fact 'agnosticism' seems in practice to mean deism or non -religious Theism - they believe in a creator -god, but not in any particular religion.
Goose wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:53 pm
Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:26 pm
Goose wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:21 pm
Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:57 am
[
Replying to Goose in post #8]
Oh, my goodness. Not the "dogs and trees" are atheists argument! At least you didn't include rocks.
Yes, dogs, trees
and rocks are atheists under your definition of atheism.
Atheists are humans not dogs or trees or rocks or chairs etc. etc. etc.
Atheists are also dogs and trees. You don't get to discard them from atheism because the implication of your definition is uncomfortable. If you want to nuance the definition to something like atheists are
humans who lack belief in God/gods then, okay. But that capture infants as atheists.
Of course, maybe dogs are smart enough to be atheists, who knows.
And infants too.
Trees? I'm not under the impression they hold any positions about anything at all.
But atheism, as you've defined it, doesn't require
holding a position so we are free to include trees.
No, atheists are humans who have the capacity to contemplate the concept of god/gods. They aren't trees.
I never argued atheists are trees. I argued trees are atheists because that's what your definition implies. You are merely describing one
kind of atheist, presumably the kind you identify with, and excluding others because you don't like the idea of trees being atheists. The trouble for your definition of
atheism as a lack of belief is that it captures dogs and trees. It isn't a meaningful definition.
D I've always liked this one, because both sides get so het up over it. I think the clue in in
atheist versus
atheists. The former implies anything lacking a god - belief. That (on all evidence) would include rocks, trees and...of course...babies, because they don't understand the god -concept any more than does a squirrel, carrot or pair of sneakers.
'Atheists' (an atheist vs being 'a -theist') however, implies a thinking entity that can consider the god claim and either accept or reject it, which rock candy or digital watches can't (on all evidence) do, so they may be atheist, but they are not atheists.
Hope that helps.