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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #100]

Of course there is. Non - belief in any god (that is gods/god -claim). Easy enough. It is theism that confuses it by coming up with all sorts of strawman definitions.

[Tcg]

[Replying to William in post #100]

It's always odd when folks present Sir Richard Dawkins as the "Pope of Atheism" or whatnot. He is just some dude really, an extremely brilliant one, but even he himself doesn't claim to be an "authority" of science or atheism. It's as easy as this:

"Hey man, are you a theist?"

'Nope or say what now or simply???

The so-called confusion baffles me. It's those over there, they are theists. Us over here, we aren't. (My poor imitation from "It's a Wild Wild Wild Wild World.")


Tcg

[William]

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

Just to add an observation re the video, Richard Dawkins [a world famous atheist] explains the differing spectrums of agnosticism between the positions of theism and atheism, using a handy graph.


I do not know whether Richard thinks that it is theists who confuse the definition of atheism or why theists might be confused but his graph is handy in relation to agnosticism, which has various positions re belief in gods and has often been regarded as a subset of atheism - which may be where the confusion arises.

It doesn't matter as it is easily pointed out that atheism is non belief in any gods.

That is simple enough to understand.

If someone chooses to call themselves an atheist, it is enough for me to understand that they lack belief in gods. I myself do not need to understand why they have the lack.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #103]

It didn't help that Dawkins, when talking about the scale of agnosticism (which I totally get) talks of belief, because agnosticism is about what one knows and Theism or atheism is about what one believes, and confusion of the two is much of the problem.

It is simple. Do we know that a god exists? No That is what agnosticism is. If we don't know that a god exists, should we believe in one? Logically, no. To believe in one where we don't know is an act of Faith, and is illogical at base.

That said, a scale of what is known affects the whole thing. It's based on the evidence and how we interpret the evidence. It's what we argue about here. Is Genesis true? No science says not "Well, science is wrong" or at least "the data is wrongly interpreted" You know how it goes, and I needn't rehearse it here. Can we trust the gospels? Yes, it's clearly a reliable record of Jesus as God incarnate. "No, it isn't." And I won't revisit the arguments here. Does Kalam validate a god? If so, does it validate Biblegod?

This is the sliding scale of what we know, or maybe what we deny that we know, and that is going to affect what we believe about the god -claim.

[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.

I have always felt that agnostic was a useless and confusing term.

I disagree the term agnostic is useless. Professional philosophers use it.

Is it really possible to withhold belief?

Yes it’s possible.

If you can't decide then you are clearly not yet a believer. Doesn't that make you an atheist?

No, that doesn’t make you an atheist. An atheist believes God does not exist.

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.

What about someone who would answer no to that question but also answer no to the question “Do you believe that God/gods do not exist”?

By defining atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God/gods you incorrectly capture people like Agnosticboy as an atheist when he has gone out of his way to distance himself from atheism.

If we were to define theism as something like a lack of belief that God/gods do not exist we would also capture Agnosticboy, TCG, and maybe even yourself as a theist. The only group that would not fall into theism under that definition would be anyone who believes that God/gods do not exist.

There is a very good paper from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Atheism and Agnosticism. It’s worth reading.

I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

Okay.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I disagree the term agnostic is useless. Professional philosophers use it.

Is it really possible to withhold belief?

Yes it’s possible.

If you can't decide then you are clearly not yet a believer. Doesn't that make you an atheist?

No, that doesn’t make you an atheist. An atheist believes God does not exist.

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.

What about someone who would answer no to that question but also answer no to the question “Do you believe that God/gods do not exist”?

By defining atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God/gods you incorrectly capture people like Agnosticboy as an atheist when he has gone out of his way to distance himself from atheism.

If we were to define theism as something like a lack of belief that God/gods do not exist we would also capture Agnosticboy, TCG, and maybe even yourself as a theist. The only group that would not fall into theism under that definition would be anyone who believes that God/gods do not exist.

There is a very good paper from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Atheism and Agnosticism. It’s worth reading.

I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

Okay.

You do not get to force your definition of atheism on atheism. Atheism (logical belief -position) is non belief in one claim - the god -claim. You do not get to force on us an untenable claim of gnostic - type denial of a god. Especially as the only point I can see in doing that is to logically wrongfoot atheism. Atheists (myself included) may be very much convinced that none of the personal gods exist, and I also think the logic and evidence is against any sorta god. But I know I can't be sure.Non -belief has to be based on non -knowledge.

It is also a ploy that I'd propose rejecting (1) to point to this atheist or that and argue as though that individual was a spokesbod for all atheists. Your plonking assertion that the 'non -belief' position that is correct for atheism makes theists of us all is far wrong and damn near impudent in trying to frogmarch atheists into an untenable extreme claim. Hoo Boy. I will have a look at the Stanford article,but last time I read Stanford on atheism it was a disgrace and written by someone who did not understand atheism and didn't want to.I trust he's been sacked by now.

(I had a look and it's still a disgrace.It perhaps can be justified as cataloguing the misunderstandings of old philosophers and the misrepresentations of religion, but if that was the case,it should say so. I still think the writer should be sacked.)

(1)perhaps you'd explain how non belief in a god claim makes us 'maybe' theists. If you can't do it, I think atheism deserves an apology. (p.s -I guess you misinterpret 'agnosticism'as a 'half -belief that God is real'. .No,that is Deism/irreligious Theism, not agnosticism).

[donmc]

If we were to define theism as something like a lack of belief that God/gods do not exist we would also capture Agnosticboy, TCG, and maybe even yourself as a theist. The only group that would not fall into theism under that definition would be anyone who believes that God/gods do not exist.

Good point, Goose.

On a related note: I'm pretty sure my dog lacks a belief that God exists, but I'm also pretty sure he would never describe himself as an atheist.

P.S. Could you send me a PM? There's something I'd like to ask you. I tried to send a PM to you and it's stuck in my Outbox for some reason. I'm hoping maybe I can reply to yours and it will go through. Thanks.

Don McIntosh

[historia]

It's those over there, they are theists. Us over here, we aren't.

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?

To reiterate a point I made above, different labels are useful in different contexts:

If all you want to do is distinguish between those who believe in God and those who don't, then may I suggest the labels 'theist' and 'non-theist'. That accurately describes the distinction you are trying to make, and won't cause any problems.

Using the term 'atheist' for this purpose, on the other hand, can be problematic, because that term previously had a narrower definition (i.e., one who believes God does not exist) which is still used by many people -- including, importantly, by philosophers -- today.

This would be like repurposing the term "Republican" to mean "anyone who is not a Democrat." And then, when people complain that that is confusing, coming up with qualifiers like "soft Republican" and "hard Republican" or "implicit Republican" and "explicit Republican" to distinguish between actual members of the Republican party and Independents who are just being subsumed under this redefined label.

I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

I appreciate this perspective, but would just point out that these and other qualifiers are necessary work-arounds to the problem introduced by using an overly-broad definition for 'atheism' in the first place.

There is still a need -- at least in some contexts -- to distinguish between different non-theistic positions on the proposition of God's existence. If you don't like these qualifiers, then just use the older definitions of atheism and agnosticism, as they serve the same purpose.

[TRANSPONDER]

If we were to define theism as something like a lack of belief that God/gods do not exist we would also capture Agnosticboy, TCG, and maybe even yourself as a theist. The only group that would not fall into theism under that definition would be anyone who believes that God/gods do not exist.

Good point, Goose.

On a related note: I'm pretty sure my dog lacks a belief that God exists, but I'm also pretty sure he would never describe himself as an atheist.

P.S. Could you send me a PM? There's something I'd like to ask you. I tried to send a PM to you and it's stuck in my Outbox for some reason. I'm hoping maybe I can reply to yours and it will go through. Thanks.

Don McIntosh

It is not a good point, but yours is about the dog. That's why I distinguish between something that is atheist (lacks a god -belief but is unaware of it) and an atheist who lacks a god -belief but is aware of that. I repeat, this is not hard, but Theists always seem to want to over -complicate it

[TRANSPONDER]

#

It's those over there, they are theists. Us over here, we aren't.

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?

To reiterate a point I made above, different labels are useful in different contexts:

If all you want to do is distinguish between those who believe in God and those who don't, then may I suggest the labels 'theist' and 'non-theist'. That accurately describes the distinction you are trying to make, and won't cause any problems.

Using the term 'atheist' for this purpose, on the other hand, can be problematic, because that term previously had a narrower definition (i.e., one who believes God does not exist) which is still used by many people -- including, importantly, by philosophers -- today.

This would be like repurposing the term "Republican" to mean "anyone who is not a Democrat." And then, when people complain that that is confusing, coming up with qualifiers like "soft Republican" and "hard Republican" or "implicit Republican" and "explicit Republican" to distinguish between actual members of the Republican party and Independents who are just being subsumed under this redefined label.

I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.

I appreciate this perspective, but would just point out that these and other qualifiers are necessary work-arounds to the problem introduced by using an overly-broad definition for 'atheism' in the first place.

There is still a need -- at least in some contexts -- to distinguish between different non-theistic positions on the proposition of God's existence. If you don't like these qualifiers, then just use the older definitions of atheism and agnosticism, as they serve the same purpose.

Theist and non -theist will do. I'm just sorta attached to the name Atheist'. I would rather amend what atheist means (at one time it meant Christians, because they did not believe in the Emperor -cult) than shun the term as though (accepting the accusations) I was ashamed of it. I suspect it could blow up in our faces too.

"Don't let these non -theists fool you - they're really atheists by another name."

"Is that true?"

"Well...er...."

"Well, get out of here you...737 Maxers!"

As a rule I think that subterfuge and cover - up is a bad idea. It's why I firmly rejected Dennet's "Brights" and will have nothing to do with it.

And I would totally NOT recommend using some 'old' definition conflating atheism and agnosticism because (like a lot of these old, usually theistic, and therefore not to be trusted definitions) it is not in line with what atheism actually is today, and likely plays in the hands of Theist polemicists, whether intended to do so or not.

I agree with you about weak and hard atheists. 'Hard' implies a position more extreme than atheism as such and, as such would probably not be logically tenable as it would imply certainty that we simply cannot have. We do have differing understanding of the evidence and case for or against the god -claim, but in the end, one either believes the claim or does not. I don't really credit a postulated undecided wad of fence -sitters, because they have not decided yet to believe, have they? There are no agnostics in the belief position, only in the Knowledge position.

"So if you don't yet believe, that makes you atheist".

"Hang on, I don't say that a god doesn't exist!"

"Nobody said you should, but do you believe in it?"

"Well...er..."

"Then you don't believe - yet - which makes you atheist".

"But I want to believe.."

"But you can't. Let me know when you can and we'll say you're theist."

(ther's always Some spelling to correct)