Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
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
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

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

Post #51

Post by AgnosticBoy »

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."
Is this a good definition?
Tcg
I think it is.
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:38 pm
William wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:21 pm 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
If the only options were to believe and not believe then you'd be correct. However, lacking belief is a nonbinary position because you are saying that you neither believe nor disbelieve. One problem that I tend to have with atheists who claim to simply lack belief is that in practice it is hardly ever maintained. They usually join forces with the strong atheist side in debates. Unlike the trees and babies that are also atheist, the atheists that have encountered/contemplated the concept of God usually venture into views and arguments that are consistent with God not existing. For instance, if you accept materialism (or metaphysical naturalism), which many atheists do, then you don't believe that God's exists.

A neutral atheist or even an agnostic would have little to nothing to offer to an argument.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

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 #52

Post by Goose »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:48 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."
Is this a good definition?
Tcg
I think it is.
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:38 pm
William wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:21 pm 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
If the only options were to believe or not believe then you'd be correct. However, lacking belief is a nonbinary position because you are saying that you neither believe nor disbelieve. One problem that I tend to have with atheists who claim to simply lack belief is that in practice it is hardly ever maintained. They usually join forces with the strong atheist side in debates. Unlike the trees and babies that are also atheist, the atheists that have encountered/contemplated the concept of God usually venture into views and arguments that are consistent with God not existing. For instance, if you accept materialism (or metaphysical naturalism), which many atheists do, then you don't believe that God's exists.

A neutral atheist or even an agnostic would have little to nothing to offer to an argument.
I think you nailed it here.

(i) Belief that God/gods exist.

(ii) Belief that God/gods do not exist

(iii) Non/lack of belief that God/gods exist.

Propositions (i) and (ii) require justification, they are beliefs. (i) implies the belief that the existence of God/gods is true. (ii) implies the belief that the existence of Gods/god is false. Proposition (iii) requires no justification, it is simply non-belief or lack of belief in (i). It sits on the fence and is as useful as a bag of hammers. It's a meaningless position in debate. My dog also lacks belief in the existence of God/gods. Framing atheism as (iii), a position if non-belief or lack of belief, does not advance the argument for the atheist. When the the atheist who holds (iii) says she does not believe or lacks belief, the theist can rightly reply, "Well, whoop-de-do."
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)

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

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

Post #53

Post by Bust Nak »

Goose wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:46 am 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...
The -ist suffix rules out dogs and trees, they are not people.
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.
We never needed any excuse to defend disbelief in the first place. The burden of proof is on those who makes a claim, not those who disbelieve.
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:36 pm No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.
What about those who doesn't give an answer? Those who are not sure? Why not make it a true dichotomy, answer yes and one is a theist, anyone else is an atheist?
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:48 am One problem that I tend to have with atheists who claim to simply lack belief is that in practice it is hardly ever maintained. They usually join forces with the strong atheist side in debates. Unlike the trees and babies that are also atheist, the atheists that have encountered/contemplated the concept of God usually venture into views and arguments that are consistent with God not existing.
Why would venturing into views and arguments that are consistent with God not existing, indicate that a person have failed to maintain a lack of belief?
For instance, if you accept materialism (or metaphysical naturalism), which many atheists do, then you don't believe that God's exists.
Materialism (or metaphysical naturalism) does not rule out the existence of materialistic deities.
A neutral atheist or even an agnostic would have little to nothing to offer to an argument.
That doesn't seemed to have stopped a self-proclaimed agnostic like yourself from joining in an argument.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

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

Post #54

Post by historia »

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.
"Condition" sounds like you're describing an affliction or something.

I've seen "psychological state" used instead, which has the added bonus of getting us away from rocks and trees and such.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

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

Post #55

Post by historia »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
At this point, I think (hope?) that nobody is genuinely confused.
Indeed, nobody here is likely confused by this (or any other) definition of atheism.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
It looks to me like the argument is because theists want "you can't prove it" to be an argument against atheism
I don't know what you mean by this.

The argument that I see people making -- both here an in earlier threads -- is that this broad definition of atheism is not as precise or meaningful as the older, narrower definitions of atheism. Those older definitions continue to be the primary ones used in philosophy, which may be a good reason for us to use them as well.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
From the standpoint of word construction, "atheist" means "not a theist,"
That's not really the etymology of the term, though. Rather, it's derived from the Greek work atheos meaning "without God" or "godless." The word 'atheist' actually predates the word 'theist', and so was not coined as a-theist (not theist) but as athe-ist (one who is godless).

At any rate, the definition in the OP concerns not 'atheist' but rather 'atheism,' which, from the standpoint of word construction, as you put it, would lead us to the expectation that we are describing an '-ism,' a doctrine or set of beliefs. Instead, the definition presents us with a "condition," which makes any appeal to the superiority of this definition based on etymology rather fruitless.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pm
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.
Okay, but notice that the quote from American Atheists in Tcg's sig is not just defining the term "atheism," it's actually advocating that the older, narrower definitions are wrong ("Atheism is not . . . "). That is not the kind of neutral clarification of a term that you are describing here, so much as an argument that will invite debate. It seems odd then to complain that people are doing just that.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

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

Post #56

Post by historia »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:57 am
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:36 pm
No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.
What about those who doesn't give an answer? Those who are not sure? Why not make it a true dichotomy, answer yes and one is a theist, anyone else is an atheist?
This actually gets at a question I have: What advantage is there in making it a true dichotomy?

If there are three predominant answers to the question ('yes', 'no', 'unsure'), what do we gain by collapsing two of them together? Wouldn't having three terms ('theist', 'atheist', 'agnostic') instead of two be more precise and therefore preferable?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #57

Post by William »

[Replying to historia in post #56]
If there are three predominant answers to the question ('yes', 'no', 'unsure'), what do we gain by collapsing two of them together? Wouldn't having three terms ('theist', 'atheist', 'agnostic') instead of two be more precise and therefore preferable?
I suggest that the problem with doing so is that it is already a common understanding that agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. Whenever that occurred - and why - would be an interesting topic to explore - but may have something to do with both theists and atheists regarding the position as weak and pointless fence-sitting, from the perspective of those more militant positions and an easy enough thing to accomplish since the ones not having their minds made up could be considered to 'lack belief in gods', therefore - like human babies - 'must be atheists'.

Whatever my position on the subject of GOD is, I am neither atheist or theist, because of the realization that until the question of whether we exist within a creation or not is answered, the question whether there is a creator [GOD] is a pointless one to be arguing.

Thus when such unsupported statements as "There is no position as not a theist and also not an atheist" arise, whether they derive from atheists or theists these types of statement are clearly constructed through cognitive bias filters, having no basis in what is really going on.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

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

Post #58

Post by Bust Nak »

historia wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:27 pm This actually gets at a question I have: What advantage is there in making it a true dichotomy?

If there are three predominant answers to the question ('yes', 'no', 'unsure'), what do we gain by collapsing two of them together? Wouldn't having three terms ('theist', 'atheist', 'agnostic') instead of two be more precise and therefore preferable?
More precise, yes; preferable, I don't think so. The 'no' and 'unsure' acts behave pretty much the same way in real life. You'd be hard pressed to tell them apart because neither would act religiously.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #59

Post by William »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:18 pm
historia wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:27 pm This actually gets at a question I have: What advantage is there in making it a true dichotomy?

If there are three predominant answers to the question ('yes', 'no', 'unsure'), what do we gain by collapsing two of them together? Wouldn't having three terms ('theist', 'atheist', 'agnostic') instead of two be more precise and therefore preferable?
More precise, yes; preferable, I don't think so. The 'no' and 'unsure' acts behave pretty much the same way in real life. You'd be hard pressed to tell them apart because neither would act religiously.
This supposes that theists all act religiously, and that acting religiously requires belief in gods. It can be argued that atheists might act religiously if it serves some personal agenda.

It is not difficult to understand why the waters of atheism are so muddied that coming up with any clear definition is so darned troublesome...

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

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

Post #60

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to William in post #59]

Okay, I accept I have over simplified the situation, there are also atheists who go through the motion of going to church and saying prayer, while inwardly rejecting very single word of it. But I stand by the general idea I proposed. There are a lot of commonalities between the 'no' and 'unsure' and lots of difference between both of them and the 'yes.' Such that it would be useful to group the 'no' with the 'unsure' even if it means we lose a bit of fidelity.

Post Reply