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

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Miles in post #29]
No.

Are people who lack beliefe in deity and never heard of such no atheists?

A lack of belief in Zimbelmuepfs is just that.

One can have a lack of beliefs in Zimbelmuepfs wihout even knowing the term.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #29]
No.

Are people who lack beliefe in deity and never heard of such no atheists?

A lack of belief in Zimbelmuepfs is just that.

One can have a lack of beliefs in Zimbelmuepfs wihout even knowing the term.

Trees also believe this...The term for trees which believe this is "Zimbelism"

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

It's astonishingly straight forward.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

It's astonishingly straight forward.


Tcg

I am totally fine with the idea that atheism is a response to an unsupported theist claim as it leaves some headroom for those who are in that position.

It means that an atheist can possibly accept that we exist within a creation, and still be an atheist.

[Difflugia]

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

I agree, but the former may be easier to comprehend than the latter. For whatever reason, some are confused about or perhaps even intentionally try to confuse what it means to be an atheist. I'm just wondering if the definition I presented would help people understand what atheism actually is.

At this point, I think (hope?) that nobody is genuinely confused. You've always been clear about what you mean and this definition is no worse than any other. It looks to me like the argument is because theists want "you can't prove it" to be an argument against atheism, when in fact many (most?) atheists consider that to be the very reason for their atheism. "Atheist" means "not a theist."

As far as trees being atheists, they certainly are. They're not theists. That's hardly a weakness in the definition. Trees are also areligious, amoral, apathetic, and aphasic according to how those words are constructed, but that hasn't stopped most people from either understanding the words in context or finding meaning in their use. If one takes Webster's classic approach and definitions reflect usage rather than prescribing it, then those words practically never refer to trees. Neither does "atheist."

From the standpoint of word construction, "atheist" means "not a theist," which includes everybody and everything that doesn't actively believe in a deity. That includes adult humans, baby humans, adult trees, baby dogs, and herbal tea.

From a descriptive standpoint, "atheist" clearly has (at least) two valid definitions, one of which is "not a theist." Absolutely every time it comes up in this forum, Tcg explains, usually eloquently and at length, that that's what he means; it's in his sig, for crying out loud. I'd include ad nauseum, but the nauseum is induced by the theists' repeated attempts to tell Tcg that he can't possibly mean exactly what he has written in every possible way imaginable to avoid misunderstanding.

I'm atheist by either definition. I don't believe in gods and I believe that there are no gods. I'm also agnostic about gods in the strict sense of the word construction because I can't know that there are no gods in the same way that I can't know that there are no leprechauns. One might also claim that definition of agnostic is meaningless as well, but as long as there are people that claim to know that gods are real, it has a very profound meaning. I'd like to think we wouldn't need it, like one rarely needs a word like "aleprechaunist," but here we are.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

It's astonishingly straight forward.


Tcg

I am totally fine with the idea that atheism is a response to an unsupported theist claim as it leaves some headroom for those who are in that position.

It means that an atheist can possibly accept that we exist within a creation, and still be an atheist.

No, not if the implication is that the creator of what you term as a creation is a god or some number of gods. Atheists can believe in a great number of things, but if one believes in a creator god, they are not an atheist.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #36]

The problem appears to be that those in the position of "Maybe - Maybe not. More investigation is required" ...

...as an answer to the question of whether GODs exist, the answer confuses the issue, because clearly we understand what a theist is [claiming GODs exist] and so just as clearly we should be able to understand that an atheist is not a theist.[does not claim GODs exist]

The claim; "GODs exist", [therefore we exist within a creation]

The protest: "Show us that these GODs exist" [and we will accept that we exist within a creation]

The non-theist non-atheist observer: "Wait a minute...before we go jumping to conclusions either way, we first should make great effort to investigate whether or not we exist within a creation."

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

It's astonishingly straight forward.


Tcg

I am totally fine with the idea that atheism is a response to an unsupported theist claim as it leaves some headroom for those who are in that position.

It means that an atheist can possibly accept that we exist within a creation, and still be an atheist.

No, not if the implication is that the creator of what you term as a creation is a god or some number of gods. Atheists can believe in a great number of things, but if one believes in a creator god, they are not an atheist.


Tcg

Agreed. They would have to change their position, which was what I was referring to with the 'having headroom" - as in - it allows those holding the atheist position to have a way out, without having to become theists.

In any case, it also allows those holding the theist position, the same 'out'. They can cease being theists without having to become atheists.

It gets down to realizing that before y'all go fighting about whether there is some creator involved, y'all best get about first investigating whether we exist within a creation or not.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #23]

Already answered ...

So, your answer is the cart before the horse. Did I miss anything?


Tcg

The cart follows after the horse.

In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"

Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

It's astonishingly straight forward.


Tcg

I am totally fine with the idea that atheism is a response to an unsupported theist claim as it leaves some headroom for those who are in that position.

It means that an atheist can possibly accept that we exist within a creation, and still be an atheist.

No, not if the implication is that the creator of what you term as a creation is a god or some number of gods. Atheists can believe in a great number of things, but if one believes in a creator god, they are not an atheist.


Tcg

Agreed. They would have to change their position, which was what I was referring to with the 'having headroom" - as in - it allows those holding the atheist position to have a way out, without having to become theists.

In any case, it also allows those holding the theist position, the same 'out'. They can cease being theists without having to become atheists.

It gets down to realizing that before y'all go fighting about whether there is some creator involved, y'all best get about first investigating whether we exist within a creation or not.

No, we don't agree at all. There is no position as not a theist and also not an atheist. One may be confused or uncertain of the position they take, but if they aren't convinced that god/gods exist, they are an atheist. If they are they are a theist. It's binary, one or the other.


Tcg