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]

#

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

Yes. 'Weak' and 'strong' atheist does seem to have some pejorative baggage with it, like one is pathetic and the other arrogant. And I just see an atheist as atheist or not. That's it, plus the 'weak and strong' thing only applies to knowing as how good the case is for a god. And yes, I do perceive that once deconverted, the atheists is unlikely to be persuaded again.And to adapt the old saying, that which was believed without good evidence and was rejected with better evidence is unlikely to convince without extraordinary evidence.

But the problem, mainly in the US, is a massive prejudice against atheism. Avowed non -belief would debar anyone from getting elected to public office. It just isn't the same in Yurrup where nobody cares much about a person's religion, only their policy on closing the borders to Immigrants. Televangelism would not, I think, ever become a million Euro earner. The grossly profitable swindle seems only possible in the US. The only other being some of the old Swamy Fakir swindlers in India and the performing ministers in some places in Africa.

But here, it is almost expected that people don't bother with religion and while ceremonial lip service to the Church is paraded by some as some spurious proof of their moral rectitude, fervent believers are regarded a bit odd, like flat earthists, Nessie - hunters and UFO - enthusiasts. I imagine it would be a shock for me in the US where it is assumed that everyone is a believer and Churchgoer. Or pretends to be.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

It's ok that you think whatever you like, just as it's ok if i disagree. What matters is the case made for and against.

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.

Sure, one can have a belief with little or no evidence. A great many do. But I disagree that non -belief is not being convinced by any side. If one is convinced by one side it implies non -belief in the other side. I may say also that I have no recollection of any atheists liking the 'weak atheist' label. They know that they no longer accept the god -claim and that's the end of it. How weak or strong they are about it never seems to come up in the conversation. Deism or irreligious Theism often does come up. That's very often an attractive option for otherwise non -believers. And of course we have Believers who reject YE and or ET.

[donmc]

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.

Thanks for that, Tcg. Yes, reacquainted. I meant to just pop in and contact one of the contributors here, but now I've already posted on the board a few times.

So please don't say anything really compelling, or I will be tempted to debate here for the next month.

[Tcg]

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.

Thanks for that, Tcg. Yes, reacquainted. I meant to just pop in and contact one of the contributors here, but now I've already posted on the board a few times.

So please don't say anything really compelling, or I will be tempted to debate here for the next month.

Okay then, pizza. Pineapples or not?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Well now I can only say that in all my posting on various forums, I never saw anything like that. I have had some bitter experiences with one or two atheists, especially the ones who hate atheism for political reasons, but apart from a few who propose changing the name, atheists all seem the same, are content to be 'atheists' and see the problem as one of public perception, not what atheists think about themselves or each other.

[Tcg]

You can believe or disbelieve whatever you want.

No. Actually one can't. I've demonstrated this many times by asking theists to just for a moment stop believing in their God. None ever have managed it. And atheists can't start believing in god/gods by choice either. One believes in or disbelieves (all thought that is clumsy wording) in what they do or don't accept as true. I couldn't possibly choose to believe in the existence of god/gods. It is absurd to me. I couldn't choose to believe in that which I consider an absurdity.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

.
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

I'm not an atheist (a deist) but I know a few atheists and they tend not to like the words 'believe', 'belief', etc For example, when asked what they believe in some atheists will tend to get a bit heated because they say that 'atheism isn't any kind of belief'. So that might be a problem.

More:- I wonder if atheists think that atheism is a 'condition'..... that looks a bit like atheism is being treated like arthritis, etc.

And I wonder if atheism needs to cover both 'god' and 'deity'??

[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

I'm not an atheist (a deist) but I know a few atheists and they tend not to like the words 'believe', 'belief', etc For example, when asked what they believe in some atheists will tend to get a bit heated because they say that 'atheism isn't any kind of belief'. So that might be a problem.

More:- I wonder if atheists think that atheism is a 'condition'..... that looks a bit like atheism is being treated like arthritis, etc.

And I wonder if atheism needs to cover both 'god' and 'deity'??

Yes, but "not believing" is most definitely not a belief. I do agree that the word condition is in this case problematic. And of course, who knows if a deity is different than a god. If they aren't then we can pick one word or the other.

Perhaps, "Atheism consists of those who aren't convinced god/gods exist" is better. No mention of belief. No condition. No quandary about god versus deity.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

Sure, one can have a belief with little or no evidence. A great many do. But I disagree that non -belief is not being convinced by any side. If one is convinced by one side it implies non -belief in the other side. I may say also that I have no recollection of any atheists liking the 'weak atheist' label. They know that they no longer accept the god -claim and that's the end of it. How weak or strong they are about it never seems to come up in the conversation. Deism or irreligious Theism often does come up. That's very often an attractive option for otherwise non -believers. And of course we have Believers who reject YE and or ET.

Hi...... you sent the above to another, but I would like to join in.......
You mentioned 'weak atheism'.
There seem to be as many weak Atheists around where I live as weak Christians. I reckon that if I carried out a door-to-door survey that I could get more 'God?....What God?....Nah!' answers than 'We're Christians' answers. I went to a funeral a couple of years back at the church in our high-street, taken by a vicar; the church was full and some folks stood in the aisle but I know some of them and they don't think that any gods exist, but they are easy with their opinions and would attend a Christian baptism, wedding or funeral just the same as social Christians do.

...weak atheists.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #128]

Perhaps, "Atheism consists of those who aren't convinced god/gods exist" is better. No mention of belief. No condition. No quandary about god versus deity.

Or;
"Atheism consists of those who are convinced gods do not exist"

No need for "god/gods" as a "god" is a god whether gods exist or just a "god" exists and a deity is another word for a god.

That way this also shows the agnostic position, the freedom of movement it actually has... [as per Richard Dawkins' graph]