Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #1

Post by 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
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #11

Post by Goose »

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.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #12

Post by Inquirer »

Goose wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:46 am
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:54 am "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.

Is this a good definition?
I think the trouble with both these definitions is that they are not particularly meaningful. Reducing atheism to such a broad definition as a lack of belief or the condition of not believing in God/gods inadvertently captures dogs and trees as atheists since they likewise lack a belief in God/gods. One wonders why atheists have, in recent years, watered down the definition of atheism to a lack of belief. I can’t help but think it’s to excuse the atheist from having to defend disbelief.

Even the American Atheists site where you’ve taken the definition in your signature doesn’t seem to be consistent in its own understanding of atheism. Taken from that site...

”Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.”

“Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.”

“Atheism is about what you believe.”


If atheism about what you believe (according to the American Atheists it is), then atheism is the belief that God/gods do not exist. If atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism is not about what you believe. But Atheism is about what you believe (according to American Atheists). Therefore, atheism is not a lack of belief.

:confused2:
Well said, this is the reason I describe such definitions as vacuous, they are intellectually devoid of meaning.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #13

Post by Tcg »

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.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #14

Post by Inquirer »

Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:06 am
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.
Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief. Even theists can be agnostic, that is they don't claim to know whether or not god/gods exist. They may claim to believe, but not to know.

And what you refer to as the older meaning doesn't accurately describe me. I don't claim that gods don't exist and yet I am an atheist. I am not convinced gods exist. Its rather straight forward.
This reasoning is doomed, as these attempts to rationalize the absurd often are.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #15

Post by Tcg »

Inquirer wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:27 pm
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:06 am
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.
Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief. Even theists can be agnostic, that is they don't claim to know whether or not god/gods exist. They may claim to believe, but not to know.

And what you refer to as the older meaning doesn't accurately describe me. I don't claim that gods don't exist and yet I am an atheist. I am not convinced gods exist. Its rather straight forward.
This reasoning is doomed, as these attempts to rationalize the absurd often are.
It is absurd to not accept that which is asserted absent any evidence? That is a new definition to me.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #16

Post by Inquirer »

Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:31 pm
Inquirer wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:27 pm
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 10:06 am
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.
Well, no. Agnosticism addresses knowledge not belief. Even theists can be agnostic, that is they don't claim to know whether or not god/gods exist. They may claim to believe, but not to know.

And what you refer to as the older meaning doesn't accurately describe me. I don't claim that gods don't exist and yet I am an atheist. I am not convinced gods exist. Its rather straight forward.
This reasoning is doomed, as these attempts to rationalize the absurd often are.
It is absurd to not accept that which is asserted absent any evidence? That is a new definition to me.
Lets stick with "belief" and "knowledge" and leave terms like "accept" and "evidence" aside for now, these do not appear in your definition anyway.

You pointed out the distinction between propositions about beliefs and propositions about knowledge, very well, where does that take us...

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...

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #17

Post by Goose »

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.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #18

Post by TRANSPONDER »

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.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER on Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #19

Post by The Nice Centurion »

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.
The islamic scriptures tell us that rocks and threes cried out to Mohamed: "You are the prophet of god!".
So how could they be atheist.

Also it is a known islamic argument that everithing, also dogs, trees, rocks are mohemedans.

Christian churches sometimes baptize animals.

So . . . it makes sense to bring them up here!
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #20

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:00 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.
The islamic scriptures tell us that rocks and threes cried out to Mohamed: "You are the prophet of god!".
So how could they be atheist.

Also it is a known islamic argument that everithing, also dogs, trees, rocks are mohemedans.

Christian churches sometimes baptize animals.

So . . . it makes sense to bring them up here!
Christians , too, have been known to argue that babies has a sorta concept of God and even argue that nobody can say sor sure that conscious animals don't. And at least they may argue that pebbles, stag beetles and irregular asteroids shew forth the glory of God (ID metaphor) so the same ideas is there, and is equally debatable.

Post Reply