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.

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

Trees who are atheists, are called athreeists.

In middle earth atheists are named Atherol.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atherol

Difference between Theist, Atheist and Amethyst
https://www.indiastudychannel.com/engli ... thyst.aspx

[Goose]

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.

No believer or non-believer knows "for sure". There's no need to complicate things by attaching the agnostic label. Besides I think that's highly problematic anyway. My understanding is that the theist says, I believe that God exists. The atheist says, I believe that God does not exist. The agnostic says, I do not believe that God exists. The agnostic also says, I do not believe that God does not exist. The agnostic withholds belief, she sits on the fence so to speak, not knowing what to believe. By calling theists and atheists agnostics we create confusion if not outright contradictions.

[Goose]

[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

The distinction between implicit and explicit atheism above moves us away from rocks, trees, and probably, as far as we know, most non-humans being atheists. But it is still just an absence of belief, a rejection of the theistic view that God exists. It just says, I do not believe God exists. That's not really how atheism has been traditionally understood, which is the view that God does not exist. The view you are describing seems far more consistent with agnosticism. Why not just call yourself an agnostic? Why are you holding on so tightly to the term atheist?

[William]

William: Once it was established beyond any doubt that we exist within a creation. Until such - questions of GOD are cart before horse stuff.

AB: I think it's smart to separate the two. Doing so eliminates a lot of baggage since presuming we exist in a creation does not have to involve the traditional gods. We can ask who or what created us.

William: Q: Can one be agnostic re the question of existing within a creation, or only re the question of creator?

AB: A: Based on the common definition of agnosticism, which is uncertainty towards God's existence, I would say someone can only be agnostic towards the creator.
____________________________________________________________

Given the definitions expressed so far in this thread, I would have to say;

On the Question of GOD, I am a weak atheist/weak theist depending on how the one I am debating with identifies the position they are arguing from.

On the Question of Existing Within a Creation, I am continuing to investigate that possibility and the data to date definitely has me leaning toward it being the case that I exist within a creation.

[Whatever 'position' this might be called, it cannot be called theist or atheist or agnostic.]

[brunumb]

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.

No believer or non-believer knows "for sure". There's no need to complicate things by attaching the agnostic label. Besides I think that's highly problematic anyway. My understanding is that the theist says, I believe that God exists. The atheist says, I believe that God does not exist. The agnostic says, I do not believe that God exists. The agnostic also says, I do not believe that God does not exist. The agnostic withholds belief, she sits on the fence so to speak, not knowing what to believe. By calling theists and atheists agnostics we create confusion if not outright contradictions.

I have always felt that agnostic was a useless and confusing term. Is it really possible to withhold belief? If you can't decide then you are clearly not yet a believer. Doesn't that make you an atheist? My approach is that anyone who responds to the question "Do you believe in god(s)?" with a yes is a theist. Everyone else is an atheist. I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

[Diogenes]

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?

I try to avoid "atheism" because it seems to have to many different meanings to many people.

I'll suggest some examples I think are valid, but different.
1. The absolute belief their are no gods and could not be.
2. Some one who absolutely does not believe in an orthodox God like that of the Hebrews. He may also believe it is 99% unlikely that any god exists, but is open to evidence there is some sort of vaguely conceived God, such as a deist might believe in. This god may even have a personality, but he takes little to no interest in people.
2. a) - z) Various combinations of the factors in (2.)
I suggest it would be misleading to call this person 'agnostic.'
I can see, however, this could be debated as well.
Is an agnostic totally open to whatever? ... no preference at all? At what point does "Pretty sure there's no god" fit into one or the other.

... and depending on how one defines 'theist' one who believes in an impersonal vague sort of god melding into the universe, I'd call that guy an atheist too.

[brunumb]

I try to avoid "atheism" because it seems to have to many different meanings to many people.

If the word 'atheist' was eliminated, what would you suggest as an alternative to use for someone who identifies as not believing in any sort of gods?

[William]

I try to avoid "atheism" because it seems to have to many different meanings to many people.

If the word 'atheist' was eliminated, what would you suggest as an alternative to use for someone who identifies as not believing in any sort of gods?

Suggestion:
Apatheist (plural apatheists) (religion) A person who does not care about the existence of a God or gods; a supporter of apatheism.

Apatheism is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of God(s).

[Tcg]

I have always felt that agnostic was a useless and confusing term. Is it really possible to withhold belief? If you can't decide then you are clearly not yet a believer. Doesn't that make you an atheist? My approach is that anyone who responds to the question "Do you believe in god(s)?" with a yes is a theist. Everyone else is an atheist. I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

I agree. Besides, the so-called strong or hard atheist who claims there are no gods, would also logically lack belief in gods. So, at least from how I view it, the common denominator is lack of belief. This is true of all atheists. Some also just happen to be convinced that no gods exist. So, all atheists at least from this perspective are weak atheists. Some may also be what some would describe as a hard atheist, but they don't then stop being a weak atheist. Because of this and perhaps other reasons, I don't think the categories are helpful.


Tcg

[William]

The categories are helpful in that they reflect the reality that there is no simple Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism.