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 #160]

Atheism is the same definition for ex -theists and lifetimers, alike.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #161]

While we all await what the definition is...maybe Jesus will return while we are all waiting...



Crickets are chirpin' the water is high
There's a soft cotton dress on the line hangin' dry...



As serendipity would have it, the gif is in time with the music...

[wannabe]

[Replying to William in post #160]

Atheism is the same definition for ex -theists and lifetimers, alike.

I think lifetimers and ex-theists, under the banner of atheism, are either consciously or subconsciously sitting on the fence about God.
The subconscious ones are, because they probably haven't considered God one way or another, for whatever reasons ( babies etc,),
as from Gods pov : if you are not against God then you are with God.

And the conscious ones are being held there by God, or at least they might humble themselves as being curious.
However, as a christian I feel that once you reach out to Jesus, even if you let go , he won't.
Because what else would keep one on the fence.(God)
Keeping one on the fence can't be coming from the other side, because there is nothing there.

So maybe 'Atheism' is just the curious human in regards to the supernatural.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #160]

Atheism is the same definition for ex -theists and lifetimers, alike.

I think lifetimers and ex-theists, under the banner of atheism, are either consciously or subconsciously sitting on the fence about God.
The subconscious ones are, because they probably haven't considered God one way or another, for whatever reasons ( babies etc,),
as from Gods pov : if you are not against God then you are with God.

And the conscious ones are being held there by God, or at least they might humble themselves as being curious.
However, as a christian I feel that once you reach out to Jesus, even if you let go , he won't.
Because what else would keep one on the fence.(God)
Keeping one on the fence can't be coming from the other side, because there is nothing there.

So maybe 'Atheism' is just the curious human in regards to the supernatural.

I agree that one always has to be open to being given new information (unlike the believer who will never change their mind, no matter what the information) but that is (logically) not the same as 'sitting on the fence', implying nether believing nor unbelieving. Logically (and really in practice) if the information does not validate the god -claim (let alone which one) then one logically does not believe. Godfaith (that is when the 'evidence' has failed (1) until there is better evidence. And, as I have said, where Biblegod is concerned it's like the Flat earth or Geocentric system. I cannot imagine any evidence that would validate that particular god.

(1)those still debating Lewis, McDowell or Woodmorappe can be forgiven.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #161]

While we all await what the definition is...maybe Jesus will return while we are all waiting...



Crickets are chirpin' the water is high
There's a soft cotton dress on the line hangin' dry...



As serendipity would have it, the gif is in time with the music...

Since we have a perfectly fine definition, you can stop holding your breath.


And, since we are posting music videos, here's mine. Which at least has this relevance - I can still enjoy great music even if it is religious and I'm not.

[Tcg]

[Replying to wannabe in post #163]

I don't feel like I'm sitting on the fence at all concerning the existence of god/gods. I am totally unconvinced any do and in the last 15 years or so (when I first became an atheists) I have remained totally unconvinced. The only weird thing is that during the first few months I'd find myself praying, but I realized that was simply habitual and almost a self-soothing action. I eventually stopped.

The reason I won't claim god/gods don't exist is because I don't think it is possible for anyone to present sufficient evidence of that claim. Same with the god/gods do exist claim. I don't think it is possible to provide sufficient evidence this is so. But there are plenty who are totally convinced some or at least one does. There are also plenty who are totally unconvinced any do. Neither should be considered as sitting on the fence as if any minute they're going to suddenly become convinced or unconvinced.


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #165]

If one really desires to eat a great deal of popcorn, they should keep an eye on this site:

Your Guide to the Gods

Discover almost 4000 Gods, Goddesses and Spirits from around the world

Welcome to Godchecker
We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.

https://www.godchecker.com/

So, how many Gods have humans identified/invented?

Which one/ones are real?

Which ones are dangerous not to believe in?

Which offer the best retirement from life plan?

How many more will humans invent?

etc., etc., etc.

In the meantime, I know which ones I'm in the condition of not believing in.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #165]

If one really desires to eat a great deal of popcorn, they should keep an eye on this site:

Your Guide to the Gods

Discover almost 4000 Gods, Goddesses and Spirits from around the world

Welcome to Godchecker
We have more Gods than you can shake a stick at.

https://www.godchecker.com/

So, how many Gods have humans identified/invented?

Which one/ones are real?

Which ones are dangerous not to believe in?

Which offer the best retirement from life plan?

How many more will humans invent?

etc., etc., etc.

In the meantime, I know which ones I'm in the condition of not believing in.


Tcg

God-U-like - buy into one, get one free.

Yes, yes. It is an atheist saw that there are many (possible) gods. But in fact Christians oniy consider One god valid, and in fact, one religion, Judaism being (like the baptist) no more than an intro to the main event and Islam being simply wrong and that's the end of it. And a Christian colleague made the best case - "Christianity is better historically validated". And what it comes down to is gospel credibility, and that to me is the only discussion that matters at all. Genesis doesn't matter (other than making Sin a God -imposed Law (though Mans' fault) that Jesus has to make a loophole in) Kalam and ontological arguments don't matter other than for Deism, not for any particular god or religion. Morals don't matter in the debate (1), Evilooshun doesn't matter, Religious abuses don't matter, only whether Jesus really did (on evidence) rise from the dead.

(1) Pascal's wager is implicit in your post...(sorry, I don't mean you were arguing for it, but the idea is lurking there) . It fails because one could be wrong betting on Christianity. Yet it is true that one has to 'Bet' on the harshest and most unforgiving god. Which really means that if one takes Pascal's wager, one should bet on Islam. I may say that I debated with a Buddhist monk and he used a Buddhist version of Pascal's wager. I explained that the LAST religion one should bet on is Buddhism because if you reject Buddhism and it's true, you get another life. That and Karma having to be an intelligent entity invalidated Buddhism for me, though I still like it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #165]

Since we have a perfectly fine definition, you can stop holding your breath.

The definitions so far given are inconsiderate of other positions, which is why there hasn't been overall agreement.

One persons "perfectly fine definition" is another persons "hey, you forgot to take into account such and such"

I think that as long as atheists aren't attempting to tell all and sundry why they are atheists the 'perfectly fine definition' of atheism [whichever definition that has been deemed perfectly fine] won't confuse others.

For example;

Atheist: I don't feel like I'm sitting on the fence at all concerning the existence of god/gods. I am totally unconvinced any do

That is sufficient information. Adding to that...

Atheist: In the last 15 years or so (when I first became an atheist) I have remained totally unconvinced. The only weird thing is that during the first few months I'd find myself praying, but I realized that was simply habitual and almost a self-soothing action. I eventually stopped.

...just muddies the waters...

It may be the theist habit to "bear witness" which impulses the ex-theist atheist to express themselves giving testimony and waving the flag of their atheist positions, but the confusion created by that expression erodes the claim that atheism is simply "a position of being unconvinced in the existence of gods"

The way around this problem is to read the atheist up to the point where they start "bearing witness" and skipping that part altogether.

"We get it. Atheists are unconvinced in the existence of gods. WHY that is so, is of no importance, being outside the definition of atheism.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #169]

It can accommodate any other position, given the correct definition, into:

'correct, but different words',
'incorrect, for whatever reason',
'nothing to do with it, or beside the point'.

Give me any of the 'other positions' and I'll be happy to explain how and where it fits in, or doesn't.

take this:

"The way around this problem is to read the atheist up to the point where they start "bearing witness" and skipping that part altogether.

"We get it. Atheists are unconvinced in the existence of gods. WHY that is so, is of no importance, being outside the definition of atheism."

Skip where atheists 'bear witness' or not, it's irrelevant to what atheism, what it isn't why it is ir why it isn't or whether theists bear witness or not, which is also irrelevant,

Atheists are unconvinced of the existence of gods. It's of basic importance as it is the basis of what atheism is. What is of no importance is you airy dismissal of it.