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
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 #61

Post by William »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:38 pm [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.
But what are you proposing re this reasoning? That those who are unsure should be grouped in with those who are sure?

And that the sure-group these should be placed into is the group that is sure there are no gods?

Which may be a contradiction re those who say that atheists are not "sure there are no gods" because they don't make positive claims of belief...where does this circular reasoning end...? perhaps when atheists can all agree as to what an atheist actually is?

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 #62

Post by Goose »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:57 am
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.
The atheist Difflugia disagrees with you.
Difflugia wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 4:00 pmAs far as trees being atheists, they certainly are.

As for dogs, some think dogs are people.

https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/aft ... eople-too/
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opin ... e-too.html
https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/blog/ ... eople-too/

Some think personhood should be extended to non-humans such as the Great Apes. The movement is championed by folks like Richard Dawkins et al.

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.
You are correct. Disbelief or lack of belief does not need to be defended. Nor does disbelief itself need to be countered.
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
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 #63

Post by historia »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:38 pm
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.
But would you also agree that this depends on the context of the discussion?

If we're discussing religious demographic patterns, for example, then I would agree with you that there is utility in grouping atheists, agnostics, and even non-religious theists together under a category like "Nones," as Pew does. That makes sense.

But, on the other hand, in a college philosophy class where the distinction between atheism and agnosticism (historically understood) are meaningful, it would seem disadvantageous to collapse those two positions under one term, which is why philosophers generally don't do that.

If you agree with that, then would you also agree that, on a forum like this one, where the question of God's existence is regularly debated and the distinction between various stances on that question are meaningful, it would be disadvantageous to collapse two different positions under a single term?

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 #64

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Goose wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:13 am (iii) Non/lack of belief that God/gods exist.
[/indent]

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."
I find that to be ironic. The weak atheist definition includes a wide range of people and objects even, but when you try to play out that position in a debate it is very limited. In debates, I tend to see little to no difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist. I hardly ever see the neutral positions that you'd expect from someone who lacks belief one way or another.

Even more ironic, it is the agnostic that is perceived as being more neutral (or more moderate, at least) in that they tend to stay clear of the atheist label while not looking to always attack the Christian side or theistic views, in general. Some notable members that come to mind are Corvus, Divine Insight, Mithrae, and myself.

*I've since evolved from being just a neutral agnostic to being a nonpartisan one.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

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 #65

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:57 am
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?
I can accept the definition that Tcg brought up in the OP, but I question if it is practical. Is it sustainable in debates?

More directly to the question you asked, if someone argues that God does not exist, whether it be directly, indirectly, or via implication, then they believe that God does not exist. Hek, if they accept the argument and/or evidence as valid, as many do with metaphysical naturalism/materialism doctrine, I can even say that they KNOW God doesn't exist. That is different than "lacking" belief.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

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 #66

Post by Tcg »

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?
Yes, that sounds like a good correction.


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

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 #67

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:06 pm More directly to the question you asked, if someone argues that God does not exist, whether it be directly, indirectly, or via implication, then they believe that God does not exist.
First of all, devil's advocate is a thing you know. It's not uncommon for me to argue against an argument even when I accept the truth of its conclusion.
Hek, if they accept the argument and/or evidence as valid, as many do with metaphysical naturalism/materialism doctrine, I can even say that they KNOW God doesn't exist. That is different than "lacking" belief.
Okay, but that isn't exactly what I was getting at. Views that are consistent with God not existing, would include things like not going to church, and not saying prayers. You cannot tell whether someone lack belief in God or if they believe God does not exist by noting that they don't go to church. Arguments that are consistent with God not existing, would include things like God is not required to explain the varieties of life on Earth. You cannot tell whether someone lack beliefs in God or if they believe God does not exist by noting that they affirm evolution as the best explanation of life on Earth.

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 #68

Post by Bust Nak »

historia wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:35 pm But would you also agree that this depends on the context of the discussion?

... would seem disadvantageous to collapse those two positions under one term, which is why philosophers generally don't do that.
I agree.
If you agree with that, then would you also agree that, on a forum like this one, where the question of God's existence is regularly debated and the distinction between various stances on that question are meaningful, it would be disadvantageous to collapse two different positions under a single term?
I don't agree, since here we are debating arguments for/against Christianity, the 'unsure' would also side with the 'no.' If the arguments for Christianity works, the 'unsure' would surely become 'yes.'

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 #69

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:42 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:06 pm Hek, if they accept the argument and/or evidence as valid, as many do with metaphysical naturalism/materialism doctrine, I can even say that they KNOW God doesn't exist. That is different than "lacking" belief.
Okay, but that isn't exactly what I was getting at. Views that are consistent with God not existing, would include things like not going to church, and not saying prayers. You cannot tell whether someone lack belief in God or if they believe God does not exist by noting that they don't go to church.
I agree.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:42 amArguments that are consistent with God not existing, would include things like God is not required to explain the varieties of life on Earth. You cannot tell whether someone lack beliefs in God or if they believe God does not exist by noting that they affirm evolution as the best explanation of life on Earth.
My saying "consistent with" wasn't the best words to use. Although, even in that sense, it would be hard to tell the difference between a weak atheist and strong atheist when they both use arguments that are consistent with God not existing. In your example, believing in a natural explanation for life on Earth goes against Creationism, so that is a more definitive case against God's existence. At the least, I would question how is holding that belief about life "neutral" towards God's existence as opposed to leaning one way or another.

In my first 2 years of college, I had a philosophy teacher who was also an atheist. Every time he brought up Christianity and God it was something negative and he was very confident in his assertions, but then at the end of his speech he'd say, "I'm not trying to convert anyone" or "I'm not sure on God's existence." Really? Do you at least see why someone might think that he's hiding behind the weak atheist or agnostic label?
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

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 #70

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:32 am However, believing in a natural explanation for life on Earth goes against Creationism, so that is a more definitive case against God's existence. At the least, I would question how is holding that belief about life "neutral" towards God's existence as opposed to leaning one way or another.
That one very specific kind of God. Ruling that one kind out, doesn't mean one is a strong atheist.
In my first 2 years of college, I had a philosophy teacher who was also an atheist. Every time he brought up Christianity and God it was something negative and he was very confident in his assertions, but then at the end of his speech he'd say, "I'm not trying to convert anyone" or "I'm not sure on God's existence." Really? Do you at least see why someone might think that he's hiding behind the weak atheist or agnostic label
I guess I can see why someone might think that, but on the other hand, I find it easy to believe him. I say that because I am very negative and confident in my assertions against Christianity, yet I am not sure on God's (generic deity, as opposed to the Christian) existence.

Post Reply