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

[oldbadger]

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

I think it might depend upon where atheists live.... !!

For example, a survey in a Kent (UK) high street asking 'Do you believe in a God or follow any religion?' will probably receive more 'easy' answers than in.....let me guess..... Austin, Texas, or New York, NY. I have noticed that subjects such as feminism and atheism are much more heated (red heat!) among US folks and when I read news about women's rights and freedoms in the US, or the Supreme Court's judgements, then I get it!

Your definition, above....... 'aren't convinced' would fall in to agnosticism here, and a simple opinion 'There are no Gods' might suit atheism.
Ergo: Atheism is the opinion that no Gods exist.

[Tcg]

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.

Well, no. Just because they attend social functions based on the society around them doesn't mean they are wavering on their atheism. If one of my grandchildren decided to get married in a Christian church and I choose to attend, it wouldn't mean I was no longer an atheist or an atheist doubting my position. I'd totally simply be an atheist attending a Christian wedding of my grandchild.

It's like when I receive pamphlets in the mail from JWs. Reading them doesn't somehow turn me into a JW. I'm simply reading them, usually for the amusement factor.

Neither the church wedding nor the JW pamphlets turn me into "not an atheist."


Tcg

[Tcg]

Ergo: Atheism is the opinion that no Gods exist.

No, it is the lack of belief that they do. The not being convinced that they do. The answer "no" when asked if one believes god/gods exist.

Let's pick a less emotionally charged example. "Do you believe in the Jersey Devil?" 'No' That answer doesn't imply the answerer believes he/she doesn't exist. It means they aren't convinced that he/she does.

ETA: wiploc sums it up in eight words which is why I quote them in my signature:

"Not believing isn't the same as believing not."


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

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 was speaking within the context of weak atheism. A weak atheist has no beliefs on God's existence. He or she is not convinced by either side.

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.

Well now I can only say that in all my posting on various forums, I never saw anything like that.

I pointed to an example of that in this forum, assuming that you are a weak atheist. Based on your previous response which I quoted earlier in this thread, one problem may be that you're not understanding what non-belief (lack of belief) involves in the context of weak atheism.

You can not be a weak atheist and then claim the following:

I also think the logic and evidence is against any sorta god.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

I meant to say that it doesn't bother me what someone believes, and I was hoping that all atheists thought the same. It's no secret that there is still a stigma to being an atheist in some cases. While skepticism/atheism is popular in many Universities, but in regular public life, especially in politics, it's not as accepted yet. And yes, some of this is due to how religionists used to use the term to disgrace someone which is also similar to how politicians demonize others today (e.g. baby killer if you're pro abortion, unAmerican if you opposed Iraq war, etc). Hek, that was even done to Thomas Huxley even after he made it clear that he was agnostic and not an atheist.

Because of all this, I'm sure some atheists are trying to invent a sort of Atheism-lite version with the goal of overcoming the stigma. I'd honestly like to know when the concept of weak atheism was coined and why.

As I brought up before though, a lot of the damage to the atheist label is also done by atheists.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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 was speaking within the context of weak atheism. A weak atheist has no beliefs on God's existence. He or she is not convinced by either side.

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.

Well now I can only say that in all my posting on various forums, I never saw anything like that.

I pointed to an example of that in this forum, assuming that you are a weak atheist. Based on your previous response which I quoted earlier in this thread, one problem may be that you're not understanding what non-belief (lack of belief) involves in the context of weak atheism.

You can not be a weak atheist and then claim the following:

I also think the logic and evidence is against any sorta god.

Then 'weak atheist' seems to be a misnomer for an uninformed atheist' which is a fair point. Most are and only a small modicum of non theists get into the arguments. I didn't myself until really in the 80's when the ID push drew the debate to my attention.

Sure - but that's not what I thought 'weak' and 'strong' atheism was about. I dubbed the situation you speak of as thinking and unthinking atheists. As an unthinking atheist I just saw the Bible as a book of mythological tales and Jesus (if there was one) some kind of reforming teacher pilloried by the authorities he criticised. That's a common view. As to a non -religious creator, Science explained a lot of what once require a god (name your own) to have done it. And 'maybe science will find the answers' is fair enough. It has done it often before.

So Unthinking or uncritical atheism is one thing and critical atheism (having been through the debate) is another, but I am no more weak, strong or undecided than I was before, so I think those terms are misnomers.

They could apply to the state of belief about the evidential case for either side. There may be an application there. But I still think one either believes or doesn't. But obviously the weight of the case and the belief are related, so I may be open to rethink.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

I meant to say that it doesn't bother me what someone believes, and I was hoping that all atheists thought the same. It's no secret that there is still a stigma to being an atheist in some cases. While skepticism/atheism is popular in many Universities, but in regular public life, especially in politics, it's not as accepted yet. And yes, some of this is due to how religionists used to use the term to disgrace someone which is also similar to how politicians demonize others today (e.g. baby killer if you're pro abortion, unAmerican if you opposed Iraq war, etc). Hek, that was even done to Thomas Huxley even after he made it clear that he was agnostic and not an atheist.

Because of all this, I'm sure some atheists are trying to invent a sort of Atheism-lite version with the goal of overcoming the stigma. I'd honestly like to know when the concept of weak atheism was coined and why.

As I brought up before though, a lot of the damage to the atheist label is also done by atheists.

I don't think it bothers atheists what people believe. I don't care if someone believes in Allah, Vishnu or Buddha. I may even enjoy their curious festivals (invited to join in or just watching). So long as they don't bother me with it. Unfortunately religion does bother us all in work, family, school and politics, and that's why secularism needs to become the dominant view so that religion can be told to stay out of all our lives.

[William]

Atheism is a device through which one can use to express their particular political agenda?

That seems to be far removed from simply having no belief in gods.

Once some calling themselves 'atheists' get into trying to explain why they say have no belief in gods, they become people who confuse others about what atheism is.

Hey sure - go ahead and tell the those listening, that "atheists don't believe in gods". Fine.
"Got it".

Once it goes militant/political et al - it has become something other than merely not believing in gods...more than just a 'definition of atheism'...

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheism is a device through which one can use to express their particular political agenda?

That seems to be far removed from simply having no belief in gods.

Once some calling themselves 'atheists' get into trying to explain why they say have no belief in gods, they become people who confuse others about what atheism is.

Hey sure - go ahead and tell the those listening, that "atheists don't believe in gods". Fine.
"Got it".

Once it goes militant/political et al - it has become something other than merely not believing in gods...more than just a 'definition of atheism'...

You are right. Strictly speaking atheism is nothing to do with politics. Just as - say - human rights, law and morality, Entertainment and communication and society and care of the planet. Yet, as you will know as well as I, these things can easily become politicised. I have had some experience in the past with non -believers who still attack atheism and will not call themselves atheists for political reasons - they identify Atheism with the Liberal side of politics. And yet I know many right wing leaning non -believers who have as much concern for human rights (etc) as i do, and I have been shocked (more recently) to see how a left -inclined socio -political movement has used Atheism a club to beat anyone who does not agree with everything they say - which includes me.

It is not about a definition of atheism, but a definition of what atheist politics supposedly is. I agree - it should not be political, but political is what it has become, particularly in the US, where religion and politics seems to be in symbiosis in a way that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe - though religion vs irreligion falls into Right wing and left wing parties easily enough.

[Tcg]

You are right. Strictly speaking atheism is nothing to do with politics. Just as - say - human rights, law and morality, Entertainment and communication and society and care of the planet. Yet, as you will know as well as I, these things can easily become politicised. I have had some experience in the past with non -believers who still attack atheism and will not call themselves atheists for political reasons - they identify Atheism with the Liberal side of politics. And yet I know many right wing leaning non -believers who have as much concern for human rights (etc) as i do, and I have been shocked (more recently) to see how a left -inclined socio -political movement has used Atheism a club to beat anyone who does not agree with everything they say - which includes me.

It is not about a definition of atheism, but a definition of what atheist politics supposedly is. I agree - it should not be political, but political is what it has become, particularly in the US, where religion and politics seems to be in symbiosis in a way that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe - though religion vs irreligion falls into Right wing and left wing parties easily enough.

Yes, atheism says nothing about politics, human rights, law, morality, care of the planet, etc. However, for those who don't accept the concept of an afterlife, which also isn't a component of atheism, it gives us or at least can give us strong motivation to care about these things. I've met some theists who have such a strong belief in the afterlife that they aren't particularly concerned about any of these. One was particularly unconcerned with the massive amount of plastic in our oceans and the fact that many of the fish we eat now actually have some degree of plastic in their bodies. Not just in their stomach, but as a component of their bodies.

While I can't prove that there is no afterlife, I am utterly not convinced of one and am pretty sure this is our one go round. Because of this I think the issues we face here and now are rather important.


Tcg