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: 2137 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
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2597
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 #81

Post by historia »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:34 am
Goose wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:12 am
Because I've defined 'unsure' as something like not certain. So I believe that God exists yet I am not certain.
"Not certain" is fine, but not certain about what though? The question was "are you convinced God exists?" In light of that question, 'unsure' means you are not certain if you are convinced or not convinced. You believe that God exists, that's a yes, you are convinced.
Which perhaps just indicates that the original question is too narrowly phrased.

If the term 'atheist' applies to people who believe God exists but are just not certain, then it seems like we're employing a definition that has little practical utility -- on this forum or anywhere else -- and doesn't reflect how people in real life use the term atheist. Which is, of course, Goose's argument.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #82

Post by William »

[Replying to historia in post #80]
Also, not every discussion on this forum is strictly for/against Christianity, like the broad question of whether God exists, or, you know, this thread. In many of those discussions, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism remain important, as you already agreed.

So I don't see a compelling reason in your responses to collapse them together.
From what I think I understand so far, on the question of whether a creator [GOD] exists, a person who say's "maybe-maybe not" is categorized as a "weak atheist" by atheists, due to the not knowing and not having faith so not believing.

It is a simple matter of belief, because if there is a Creator GOD - there is no direct way of knowing and there is no sure way of showing any indirect way if there is or not.

The term "weak atheist" appears to be derogatory in relation to being a strong atheist, who appear to be those who have taken the step into believing that a Creator GOD does not exist, and expressing that belief into the community.

I think that perhaps some agnostics have a problem with accepting the term "weak" as it implies they are apathetic, indifferent, [stuff like that] and those ones at least are making efforts to examine the question and have not reached a point where they feel they can honestly make a choice either way.

I have also observed that many ex- theists who have chosen to become [proselyte] strong atheists are among the most outspoken in their zeal to preach their new message - the message that a Creator GOD does not exist and think it is reasonable to assume that they were also outspoken when they believed that a Creator-GOD did exist.

[I think of it therefore, in terms of personality traits.]

When I began to question theism - specifically The Christianities - it was to do with their imaging of a Creator-GOD and when I made the move away from that, [perhaps largely due to my personality - I was never outspoken] I quietly approached the subject [Creator GOD] rather than simply abandon it "because of" theisms handling of it or any other number of reason as to why folk say they chose to become atheist.

Which is to say, I did not choose to believe that there was no Creator-GOD simply on account of "theist behaviours" or "reading the bible" [some reasons given by some who have changed position from theist to atheist] but rather, I chose to examine the question in more detail, and today I am grateful for having made that choice.

One thing I have learned is that the real question to be asking is not the one which separates "atheist" from "theist" [demanding that an individual must either be one or the other re the question] as believing or not believing in the existence of a Creator [and in the case of believing that there is - defining that Creator] because this step is jumping the gun and is thus a mis-step or stumble.

So - from my position, I see both atheists and theists as having jumped the gun, and instead of working together [as people] on finding answers to the Real Question which we should be asking, they fight over the question of a Creator GOD.

It is from that position I remain firm that I am neither theist or atheist, or for that matter - even agnostic - because the question re the existence of a Creator isn't the one I have been asking and finding out answers to.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

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

Post #83

Post by brunumb »

Goose wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:12 am
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:51 am
Goose wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:33 am Yes I believe in God. I'm also 'unsure'.
How can you be unsure...
Because I've defined 'unsure' as something like not certain. So I believe that God exists yet I am not certain.

Maybe it would be helpful for you to define what you mean by 'unsure'.
The believer who doesn't know for sure is an agnostic theist. No? The non-believer who doesn't know for sure is then an agnostic atheist.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

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

Post #84

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

I was listening to Matt Dillahunty's call-in show last night and a caller stated that Matt's definition (which is similar to the one under consideration here) of Atheism would mean that rocks are atheists. He explained that it would make rocks implicit atheists not explicit atheists. That lead me to this article:

Implicit and explicit atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism.[1] In George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further.

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_ ... %20deities.
So yes, rocks and babies are implicit atheists. So what? This reality doesn't reveal much less demonstrate a flaw in the definition under consideration. Its value should be based on whether or not it helps others understand what one means when they describe themselves as an atheist. So far in my experience, no rocks have ever tried to help me understand what they mean by describing themselves as an atheist. Quite a few non-infant humans have.


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: 1612
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 #85

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:41 am
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.
I'll give you that it doesn't mean you are a strong atheist towards every God, but you are one towards one god. That would also apply to much of the theistic systems of the West, since most of it is based on the God of monotheistic religions.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:41 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:32 amIn 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.
To date, I've yet to see a weak atheist that has walked the fine line of being neutral on God's existence. I also don't even believe that agnostics can remain neutral, although I do see them as the more moderate side in the debate. I won't say that it's impossible to remain completely neutral, but if you're in a debate, and you want to do more than just say "I don't know" or remain neutral (you're gonna do more than the atheistic tree or baby, in other words), then eventually you're going to tip to one side or the other. This is why I say that in practice, the 'weak atheist' label is useless (impractical), and in many cases, it is disingenuous.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

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

Post #86

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Tcg wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:43 pm [Replying to Tcg in post #1]

I was listening to Matt Dillahunty's call-in show last night and a caller stated that Matt's definition (which is similar to the one under consideration here) of Atheism would mean that rocks are atheists. He explained that it would make rocks implicit atheists not explicit atheists. That lead me to this article:

Implicit and explicit atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism.[1] In George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further.

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_ ... %20deities.
So yes, rocks and babies are implicit atheists. So what? This reality doesn't reveal much less demonstrate a flaw in the definition under consideration. Its value should be based on whether or not it helps others understand what one means when they describe themselves as an atheist. So far in my experience, no rocks have ever tried to help me understand what they mean by describing themselves as an atheist. Quite a few non-infant humans have.


Tcg
Yes. Rocks, socks and clocks are implicit atheist. This causes a lot of heartache and cursing. I might help to make a small but important distinction between being atheist and being atheists.

The former not having the capacity to consider the god -question and thus being a -theist (without a god belief) whereas being atheists implies an individual able to consider the god - claim (whether or not they actually did) and they do not accept it, either not yet, or because they have considered it and not accepted it, which is all that is needed to be an atheist. We do not need 100% proof of the non existence of God, only a lack of good reason to believe any god -claim

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

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

Post #87

Post by Tcg »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:03 am
To date, I've yet to see a weak atheist that has walked the fine line of being neutral on God's existence.
Then you haven't met me. I don't reject the concept of god/gods (although the capitalization and singularity reflected in your reply usually points to one singular god) existences and yet certainly don't accept it. If you look around, you'll find a whole bunch of us. Where have you looked?

Oh, and it's not a fine line. "Do you believe in god/gods?" No, I don't. "Are you convinced god/gods exist?" No, I'm not. "Which god/gods do you lack belief in?" All of them. How could I/we possible state it more clearly.

Now the fuzzy position of agnosticism. Sure, there's plenty of reason to be confused about that.


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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

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

Post #88

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:58 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:03 am
To date, I've yet to see a weak atheist that has walked the fine line of being neutral on God's existence.
Then you haven't met me. I don't reject the concept of god/gods (although the capitalization and singularity reflected in your reply usually points to one singular god) existences and yet certainly don't accept it. If you look around, you'll find a whole bunch of us. Where have you looked?

Oh, and it's not a fine line. "Do you believe in god/gods?" No, I don't. "Are you convinced god/gods exist?" No, I'm not. "Which god/gods do you lack belief in?" All of them. How could I/we possible state it more clearly.

Now the fuzzy position of agnosticism. Sure, there's plenty of reason to be confused about that.


Tcg
Yes, given that 'weak atheist' (aside from Dawkins' scale which requires a bit of integration into reality) is the normalcy for the agnostic non -believer and a 'Strong atheism' is a polemic straw atheist who is irrationally denialist about the possibility of a god - mainly (as I argued) to make atheism look irrational and untenable.

Look at the iconic 'atheist professor' and you'll know what a 'strong atheist' (in the Theist mind) looks like.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

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

Post #89

Post by Tcg »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:20 am
Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:58 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:03 am
To date, I've yet to see a weak atheist that has walked the fine line of being neutral on God's existence.
Then you haven't met me. I don't reject the concept of god/gods (although the capitalization and singularity reflected in your reply usually points to one singular god) existences and yet certainly don't accept it. If you look around, you'll find a whole bunch of us. Where have you looked?

Oh, and it's not a fine line. "Do you believe in god/gods?" No, I don't. "Are you convinced god/gods exist?" No, I'm not. "Which god/gods do you lack belief in?" All of them. How could I/we possible state it more clearly.

Now the fuzzy position of agnosticism. Sure, there's plenty of reason to be confused about that.


Tcg
Yes, given that 'weak atheist' (aside from Dawkins' scale which requires a bit of integration into reality) is the normalcy for the agnostic non -believer and a 'Strong atheism' is a polemic straw atheist who is irrationally denialist about the possibility of a god - mainly (as I argued) to make atheism look irrational and untenable.

Look at the iconic 'atheist professor' and you'll know what a 'strong atheist' (in the Theist mind) looks like.
Yes, and I know this isn't strictly accurate, but how many 'atheist professors' are there? Ten? I remember that one Donald Sutherland played in "Animal House." Or was he even an atheist? I don't remember, but anyway.


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: 1612
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 #90

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:58 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:03 am
To date, I've yet to see a weak atheist that has walked the fine line of being neutral on God's existence.
Then you haven't met me. I don't reject the concept of god/gods (although the capitalization and singularity reflected in your reply usually points to one singular god) existences and yet certainly don't accept it. If you look around, you'll find a whole bunch of us. Where have you looked?
I've spent over a decade engaging with atheists on various platforms (chat rooms, forums, in school, etc). Also keep in mind that I am being very careful to not associate any negative comment or disagreement about Christianity as being a "strong atheist". I'm well aware that being against certain Christian beliefs doesn't mean someone is a strong atheist.

As for you personally, I haven't read enough of your posts to give an opinion.

Perhaps we can leave it up to people like Goose or historia to compare our views and approach to Christian claims? I'm willing to bet that they would have a hard time associating my views with strong atheism, and it's not just because of a label, but because of my ACTIONS (how I debate, the conclusions I draw, being willing to go against atheist views and Christian views alike, etc).
Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:58 amOh, and it's not a fine line. "Do you believe in god/gods?" No, I don't. "Are you convinced god/gods exist?" No, I'm not. "Which god/gods do you lack belief in?" All of them. How could I/we possible state it more clearly.
You are not considering actions here. It's one thing to say that you lack belief and it's another to act on it. My point to you has been that weak atheism is impractical because of the way it plays out in debates. Even if you were one of the few implicit or weak atheists that remained neutral it wouldn't make much of a difference because there are many more that think and act like strong atheists.
Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:58 am Now the fuzzy position of agnosticism. Sure, there's plenty of reason to be confused about that.

Tcg
Just ask, why are agnostics and atheists perceived differently eventhough both groups lack belief in god? I'm willing to bet that actions play a role .
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

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

Post Reply