Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #1

Post by 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
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #151

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to William in post #150]

A true realist: Let those who consider themselves one describe what they mean by any word the use to describe it.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #152

Post by William »

Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:13 pm [Replying to William in post #150]

A true realist:
Realist will suffice, until such a time that it is established that there is such as thing as a "true" Scotsman/anything.

Atheist: Let those who consider themselves one describe what they mean by any word the use to describe it.

Realist Agreed!
While we all wait for the Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism;
Image

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #153

Post by oldbadger »

Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:37 am
Well, no. Just because they attend social functions based on the society around them doesn't mean they are wavering on their atheism.
Nor are the atheists that I know around here...... by 'weak atheist' I don't think that they are wavering in their atheism, I just mean that they have an opinion about about atheism like they might have an opinion about how to grow grass, or catch a fish. It's no big deal to them.
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.
Well, sure...... local atheists around here who attend religious functions probably don't do that as any statement about their atheism either, but I reckon that many of them would not go much further than 'Gods? Me? Nah!' and turn on the telly, or buy another beer, or go out shopping, whatever. Weak atheism, just as most Christians around here are weak-Christians...it's just not a big deal to them.
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.
It's good to laugh. One or two neighbours (some Atheists and some Trinitarian Christians) have told me about how they enjoy leaning on their door jambs when the JWs call, with their 'So you reckon that......' responses and clever arguments..... Yeah...lots of folks enjoy a visit from the JWs, but around here theism and atheism alike are not followed strongly by the majority, imo. Weak atheism...weak Christianity.
Neither the church wedding nor the JW pamphlets turn me into "not an atheist."

Tcg
Yep..... around here nobody gives much of a hoot either way, it's not a big deal.


WHY? Well, I just asked my wife about all this when I saw your post..... she is something between an agnostic and an atheist, I reckon, she just doesn't believe in any gods. And whilst she strongly supports gender and sexuality freedoms and rights she isn't a hot feminist. So I asked how she would feel if she lived in a land where fundamentalist theists were making the laws, controlling her freedoms both as a women and as a person and she thought for a very short time and answered.... 'I would be a rock-hard 'n' red-hot feminist and atheist.' ....... oh yes.

That's why, around here, women (and most blokes) expect total gender and sexuality freedom but they tend not be red-hot about their beliefs about religion or feminism..... because they live in a land where they don't need to today. Weak atheism (and feminism).

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #154

Post by oldbadger »

Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:47 am
oldbadger wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:32 am
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
If you replace 'believe and belief' with think and though, maybe this might please some atheists more?

I'm a deist so all I can say is that my deism is an idea, an opinion...... I don't believe so much as think.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #155

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to William in post #150]

I'd say that is a perfectly fine Synonym, or descriptor, but not a definition, because it doesn't explain anything. 'Non theist' can also be (mistakenly) to mean: 'Not a divinity'.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #156

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:51 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:46 pm 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
True. One cannot opt to believe or not (though my point was that what one does believe in, they are - outside Certain countries - free to believe what they want, and say so on the internet without being publically spanked - apart from in polemical texting) but there is (and has been) a debate about being able to choose Faith or open mindedness (on either side). I have found that the trick is to put one's beliefs, preferences or pet theories aside and look at the facts, whether one likes them or not. It's not easy, but can be mastered. One day I may be able to.
oldbadger wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:04 am
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:54 am .
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. Thinking back some atheists can get heated about this subject. I suspect because they know what they are being accused of is not true, but they can't explain it. After all, if Dawkins seems to be a bit confused, who can blame them? And, yes, to ask atheists about their beliefs is to ask someone who does not collect stamps which countries he does not particularly like to collect. It's relevant "Which gods don't you believe in?"

"All of them." (1) And then we get the crafty stuff like asking atheists to define what a god is before they can say they don't believe in it. But I won't go down that rabbit - hole. One part of the debate is to see the funny side, or it's too easy to get 'heated' as you say. Especially with the strings of canards like 'atheists believe in nothing' or 'don't believe in anything. To which the reply is 'No, Atheists believe in everything - excepts gods'. This is too snappy to be true (they don't believe in Leprechauns for example) but essentially this translates from Atheist to English ;) as "We see nature for the wonderful working of nature that it is and not as one big billboards advertising a huge invisible human".

An example of that would be that Genesis literalists don't believe in science, Geology, Palaeontology, or anything - if it contradicts the Bible. One might say that "Theists don't believe in anything -except their religion". Which again is too snappy to be true. Many do believe in science but try to fit Religion in there as gaps for God, a social necessity or a crediting of a First Cause. Or try to make the Bible fit the science (e.g a Biblical 'day'is 14 billion years divided by 7. Which of course requires ignoring that Genesis talks of morning (light) and evening (dark). Or (logically) they may reject ET and opt for UR instead. But that's another rabbit hole (Cafeteria Christianity is a truck stop on the way to atheism central).

(1) "What? You claim that all the gods exist, but you deny all of them?" "NOOO!!!" I'd get heated , too.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #157

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 2:47 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 6:13 am
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.
I first became interested in internet discussions when I was a Christian hoping to find answers to resolve the doubts I was having about the Bible and God. Obviously, that didn't work out so well, or rather it did but not in the way I'd expected. In any case, once I became an atheist, I simply continued to stay involved in these debates/discussions.

On occasion some question why an atheist would want to discuss these issues about God and the Bible. There are many reasons to, but at least for me this is one of them. I started discussing them when I was a Christian and quite simply didn't stop once I became an atheist. It's really not mysterious. I'm not hoping to become a theist again and I'm not obsessed with God. I am fascinated with how people think and especially so in this area.

Part of why I am interested in refining an accurate definition of atheism is that I want others to understand what I mean by calling myself one. I'm not terribly interested in what the term meant a hundred years ago, nor do I feel bound to abide by that meaning today. Oh, and it's not an attempt to avoid the burden of proof. I understand fully that in a debate setting I am responsible to support what I claim. If I were to ever claim that God doesn't exist, I realize that I'd need to present evidence that is true and I would attempt to.


Tcg
I'm getting behind on comments (I do have a life outside the Forum) so I may skip a few posts, but I jest luv deconversion stories (bias confirmation rules in atheism, too) as 'really reading the Bible' leads to deconvers 50% of the time is a recurring meme (Problem of Evil being the other). And Here's mine - hopefully relevant to what an atheist is, does and why they talk about something they don't believe in. I'm a lifetimer (never believed, though schooled where religion was taught I wonder that I remained skeptical all the time). I was good at it. Got top marks in RI (before they stopped teaching Christianity as a school subject) but mainly it was the ancient history that interested me. I remember being irritated that they kept on about old Jewish prophets calling down fire when I wanted to hear more about those cool Assyrians. And I won't get into a paid and supposedly qualified teacher talking about the healing properties of spit and mud curing blindness in an instant. "This guy is standing there presuming to teach me? Get out of here."

So it was in my Teens and I was listening to radio broadcasting Rock and pop from Europe (banned on UK radio - folks, you don't know how unfree it was back then) and it was funded by adverts including US Evangelism. And I had reservations about their pitch (1) but it must have interested me as I sent for their literature. And if it had stacked up, they might have got me. I saw the prophecies as too Biblical derivative, the claims about Soviet Citizens fearfully tuning secretly onto their preaching on clandestine radios was ludicrous and though I accepted that Tyre had never been rebuilt. I could see the cheat of their challenge 'Prove us wrong - rebuild Tyre! God says you cant!"

I pinned the decision on the prophecy of Armageddon hitting the fan about '67. and it didn't. And that was it for me. It's always dodgy to make dated prophecies. But then I read C.S Lewis and 'Who moved the stone' and though I saw that the former used invented fantasy to argue doctrine and the latter raised more questions than it answered, I still saw the religious claim as one to consider. I'd already looked at the non religious god arguments and decided they were irrelevant. Practical organised worship was the issue here. So I won't divert into my pursuit of the Mystic through Buddhism, my travels in Asia and marriage to a Budddhist but the ongoing propaganda of Christianity. And really that it looked like credible history was a point. True, the nativity was nonsense, but surely there was a true record there.

And the move to being an online atheist came when the Internet became a thing (used at work) and a colleague was pestering me about Christianity; I should Really Read the Bible. So I did, beginning with reconciling the contradictions and seeing what the basic true (claimed) story was. I was shocked at how discrepant it was and I reported back to my pal who went into excuses mode. He was a good guy but trying to excuse the Bible made him sound untrustworthy and dishonest. In any case, it might be good enough excuses for him but it was nowhere near good enough for me ("Walking on water might just be wading through the shallows to the shore" - one has to see the funny side, or one could get annoyed at being treated like a fool). And online reading of Farrell Till and Cliff Walker (positive Atheism) was my apprenticeship (so to speak) in critical thinking and the apologetics of both sides. And here I am.
Like, subscribe and leave a tip in the supersticker facility.

(1) "...and if you think that a universe popped into existence without any reason, I do not respect your intelligence..." Well sunshine, I thought, maybe I don't respect yours, either.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #158

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:14 pm Atheist: You are right. Strictly speaking atheism is nothing to do with politics. [...snip...]

Atheist: Yes, atheism says nothing about politics, human rights, law, morality, care of the planet, etc. [...snip...]

An accurate and easily understood definition of Atheism is along the lines of "Atheism consists of those who are convinced gods do not exist"

What ones reasons are for choosing to be among those who are convinced gods do not exist, are not important to that definition...

...Are beside the point...
No; that may be an easily understood definition but it is not accurate; it is tweaked from a logical position of not believing a god - claim to those expressing a positive conviction that gods do not exist. This is actually justified by the weight of the evidence but is not a correct definition as it excludes those who haven't given it much thought to the matter but still don't believe. And you won't get away by trying to guillotine the discussion by saying (effectively) that anything other than just accepting your definition is not important and beside the point.
historia wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:13 pm
Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:47 am
oldbadger wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:32 am
Atheism is the opinion that no Gods exist.
No, it is the lack of belief that they do.
I do wonder if we might find greater accord on this issue if, instead of taking the position that atheism is one of these definitions and not the other, we instead acknowledge that the term atheism as it is used today has multiple definitions.

The Wikipedia article on atheism summarizes this nicely:
Wikipedia wrote:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Now, personally, I think that, if accuracy is our primary concern, then having separate terms to describe these separate positions would be preferable to using just one term for all three, and then each time having to clarify which sense you are referring to.

But accuracy is not everyone's concern:
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:06 pm
Theist and non-theist will do. I'm just sorta attached to the name Atheist'.
I feel like this summarizes the debate neatly.

If your overriding concern is an emotional attachment to a specific label -- which is perhaps understandable when that label is tied-up with issues of self-identity -- then you're just not going to see eye-to-eye with those who don't share this concern.
Yes. Narrow is as narrow does, and given that the narrow definition is the logically most accurate one, one can go wider, while understanding that broader usages (rather than definitions) will be less accurate. As to personal attachment, I don't mind non -theist or untheists or non- believer, so long as they don't say that is the right term and we should no longer use the term 'Atheist'. That was what Dennett's 'Brights' was intended to do and it had gone the wrong way. The way of deception and subterfuge is toxic to atheism.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #159

Post by William »

William wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:29 pm
Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:13 pm [Replying to William in post #150]

A true realist:
Realist will suffice, until such a time that it is established that there is such as thing as a "true" Scotsman/anything.

Atheist: Let those who consider themselves one describe what they mean by any word the use to describe it.

Realist Agreed!
While we all wait for the Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism;
Image
Atheist: I am unconvinced that gods exist.

Theist: GOD is everything, including gods.

Atheist: ... :?: ...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #160

Post by William »

Perhaps atheists who used to be theists, have muddied the waters which have made Atheism so difficult to define so that others might altogether clearly understand the position being held?

Image

Post Reply