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

[William]

[Replying to historia in post #108]

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 think the use of labels does confuse things and it would be unfair/unreasonable to state that the confusion comes through a conspiracy involving theists actively attempting to wrongfoot atheism...

If non-theists wish their position to be known by others and if that position they wish to be known by/identified with, is "Atheist" and along with that, they wish others to understand that "Atheism" is "lack of belief in gods" what about that implies others should be interested in the reason WHY they lack this belief?
Such explanations can also cause confusion for other, re Q: 'What is atheism?'.
____________________________________________
In answer to the OPQ and suggestion;

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists."

I think the same can be said more simpler;

"Atheism is the philosophical position of not believing that gods exist."

[philosophical - relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

or the even more succinct;

"Atheism is not believing that gods exist."

[Tcg]

#

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)

This is just a personal thing, but "Weak Atheist" which I suppose could be applied to me, sounds like I'm on the verge of becoming a theist. Like any minute I'm going to confess, "Okay, I believe in God again." I'm about a million miles from that.

I use the word atheist to describe myself because I want to show that we all aren't baby eaters or something. I was a theist a great deal of my life and now I'm not. Guess what has changed concerning my morality? Pretty much nothing other than that I no longer consider gayness problematic.

Maybe it's futile, some surveys have shown that an atheist is the last person folks would vote for in an U.S. presidential race. One showed they'd be voted for at the same level as a rapist would be. It's astonishing and again on a personal level quite painful to be considered so lowly. Thankfully I have a partner (a theist by the way) who assures me I'm not a horrible person. Wow, thank goodness. Most of the Western world thinks I am simply because I say, "I'm not convinced", about one single issue.


Tcg

[donmc]

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

People have shared their confusion over that question for many years, but yours is one of the clearest expressions of that confusion I’ve ever read. Thank you.

Is it okay if I still think Goose made a good point, though?

[Tcg]

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

Not to derail the conversation, but a PM remains in one's Outbox until the recipient opens it. Once they have it moves to, I think what is called sent messages.


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

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.[/quote
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.

[emphasis added]

You can still have a belief even if you're not sure or certain.

Non-belief involves not accepting or being convinced by any side. If you accept that "logic and evidence is against god", then you do not have a non-belief. This is big problem that I see what a lot of weak atheists. They want to accept the weak atheist label while their thinking and actions are NOT consistent with the label.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

I certainly don't call myself an atheist and one big reason is because the label is damaged. Too many atheists act and think like strong atheists, and even gnostic atheists while calling themselves weak atheists. On top of that, I hardly see the weak atheists going against the strong atheists but instead they always associate together. So perhaps there is some guilt by association or guilt or a guilt by silence. As an agnostic, I go on whichever side I believe is right and sometimes that leads me to be on the theist side and other times on the atheist side on a given issue.

For the record, I'm not even against strong atheism. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you want. I just don't want people hiding behind a label that they're not, perhaps to not seem extreme or to not scare people away.

[donmc]

Not to derail the conversation, but a PM remains in one's Outbox until the recipient opens it. Once they have it moves to, I think what is called sent messages.

Ahh, yes. It's been awhile, but it's all coming back to me.

Thanks for the information...and the snark. Lol. I would expect nothing less here.

[Tcg]

Not to derail the conversation, but a PM remains in one's Outbox until the recipient opens it. Once they have it moves to, I think what is called sent messages.

Ahh, yes. It's been awhile, but it's all coming back to me.

Thanks for the information...and the snark. Lol. I would expect nothing less here.

I didn't intend my comment to include snark in anyway. I was just trying to provide helpful information. Hopefully it did.


Tcg

[donmc]

I didn't intend my comment to include snark in anyway. I was just trying to provide helpful information. Hopefully it did.

It did, thanks. I apologize for reading too much into the reply.

Probably I was just projecting a bit of my own regrettable insecurity and snarkiness...

[Tcg]

[Replying to donmc in post #119]

I'm just curious and certainly you don't have to answer if you think it would somehow reveal your actually identity, but are you a returning poster? It sounds like you are getting reacquainted with the site rather than being new to it. In any case welcome or welcome back, whichever is accurate.


Tcg