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 #190]

I'll mark my calendar. Not that it matters if we all forget. It's interesting exercise but not too significant. But so far it looks like the atheist definition of atheism has stood up to query, doesn't it? Your list is a bit of fun, you haven't anything other than appealing to others to tweak or fine tune. So what have you as a better definition of atheism than the one now standing up? Looking around, I don't see anything. I'd say that looks like atheism has it right and Theism has fallen headlong and burst open, yet again, yes?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #180]

IF:
Q: The Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism is;



Then:

Q: Should the Personal Opinions of those calling themselves "atheists", be regarded as expressions of Atheism?

List examples of Personal Opinions expressed by atheists.



Which of these, if any, can be considered genuine expression/representation of the position of Atheism, as defined?

[Tcg]

Yep. Normally atheists would ride with it. but Theist apologists can pick on it. Or maybe not. Since for them, there is only One God that is under discussion they wouldn't think of it. So I'm probably getting paranoid.

No, you are right. I was sloppy with my "God?" 'Nope.' example. Both with the capitalization and as Bust Nak correctly pointed out about one of my earlier posts:

No, the question is are you convinced god/gods exist. Answer yes and one is a theist. Answer no and one is an atheist.

What about those who doesn't give an answer? Those who are not sure? Why not make it a true dichotomy, answer yes and one is a theist, anyone else is an atheist?

So, the correct view would be:

"god?" And any answer other than 'yes' = an atheist. But this is longer and not as clear as your excellent:

Atheists are unconvinced of the existence of gods.

I was trying to be clever, and it backfired.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #180]

IF:
Q: The Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism is;



Then:

Q: Should the Personal Opinions of those calling themselves "atheists", be regarded as expressions of Atheism?

List examples of Personal Opinions expressed by atheists.



Which of these, if any, can be considered genuine expression/representation of the position of Atheism, as defined?

non belief in any god -claim seems fine to me.

The next has legs. arguably, logically, there would be no belief in religion and other 'claptrap' unless it is taught. That is certainly the position I take on atheism - that it is the default in babies until they are taught religion. At the same time, you need the explanations for questions or people will make stuff up. A side point is that atheism is limited to the god (or gods) - claim, it does not cover the other claptrap. So technically, an atheist could believe in ghosts but not gods and would still be atheist. In practice an atheist is a rationalist (atheism is a subset of rationalism) and so an atheist would probably be skeptical about Bigfoot, Atlantis and flying saucers, too.

I won't ascribe some nefarious purpose as you describe to 'agnosticism' but I think it is misunderstood as a reasonable doubt about the god -claim as opposed to a posited unreasonable certainty in atheism (amounting to 'gnostic' or Hard atheism). The nefarious porpose is not to smuggle in 'woo' but to push the burden of proof onto atheism where logically the god claim is what has the burden of proof.

That said 'agnosticism' (Deism or irreligious theism) does have More than not knowing; it has belief in a god, but a non religious one. Or that's what I've found.

The degree to which believers can be reasoned out of whatever Woo, religion or claptrap they have gotten themselves into is debatable. I have found that in practice they have invested belief and that = Faith and rational assessment is difficult. Atheists can perhaps be forgiven for seeing the Faithful as unreasonable. They resort to faithbased denial when their arguments are rebutted. This is why I say that to them retreating while maintaining Faith is a Win for them, when actually they may have lost the argument.

p.s love that little homuncule, by the way.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

Are you saying therefore, that these atheist opinions are expressions of atheism, even if those expressions are delivered somewhat crass/poorly?
Given such statements of opinion, are you able to understand how theists might develop confused impressions of atheism through confusing expressions of atheists?
_____________________________________________________


The last one on the list you appear not to have commented on - is there any reason for that? Do you think it is not an expression of atheism?

p.s love that little homuncule, by the way.

Thanks. It was drawn by my 8yrold granddaughter.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #177]

It is actually quite helpful and I was waiting for someone to bring the point up. Atheism is just one simple thing - non belief in any god. It can be written many ways, rejection of the god -claim, disbelief in deities. The idea is the same. Atheists may not be. We come in all flavours, apatheists (don't care) atheist activists (just gotta do something about it) tabula rasa atheists (haven't thought about it) Atheist authorities (have thought about it but sometimes not enough, it seems). Even Not Real Atheists sometimes called sheep in wolfs' clothing.

With this in mind, I can understand why theists can be confused about atheism - not because that no matter how atheists describe it there will be those who intend to misdescribe it, and not because it is theism that confuses atheism by coming up with all sorts of strawman definitions, but because atheists come in all shapes and sizes and use the platform to express their particular opinions, which sometimes are different from other atheists opinions...

...whereas, Atheism itself isn't a position of opinion but a description of a state.

"Is the state not believing/lacking belief that any Gods exists." may be one acceptable way to describe Atheism.

That Atheism can be misused in debate to try to prove atheism blinkered, illogical or even non -existent is not really about the understood meaning of Atheism but about conflating the variety of atheists opinions with Atheism as also being a position of opinion.

When an atheist states something along the lines of "I don't refuse to acknowledge the existence of any god; I'm simply not convinced any gods exist." this is different from the root-description of Atheism if Atheism is "the state not believing/lacking belief that any Gods exists. "
The atheist is simply telling folk WHY he/she does not believe/lacks belief. Atheism [as defined] isn't the state of "not refusing to acknowledge the existence of any god" or "not convinced any gods exist."

Atheists being "unconvinced of the existence of gods." is fine in some atheists defining their opinion , but does not help with defining Atheism, as atheism is not the state of being unconvinced of the existence of gods.

Also - being unconvinced infers there is some responsibility - perhaps the responsibility of theists, to convince the atheists.

Re the Atheist Axiom that, "if there was no Theism, there would be no Atheism, perhaps having a clear definition of theism would help.

If the definition of theism was "The state of belief in the existence of a god or gods" the definition for atheism could be "The state of non-belief in the existence of a god or gods" then one could accept that theists are going to naturally have variety of beliefs re the existence of a god or gods and not all those beliefs will be in agreeance, and one can equally accept that not all atheists are going to be in agreeance. Such acceptance should go a long way towards alleviating any confusion.

Theists and atheists are not the same thing as Theism and Atheism because states remain the same while people tend to change.

[Kylie]

.
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've got no problem with it.

However, I must point out that there is a subtle but important distinction between "not believing that a God or deity exists," and "believing that a God or deity does NOT exist."

Not believing something means that one is open to that thing. I do not believe there is a cat on my front doorstep, but that's not the same thing as me saying that I believe that a cat is NOT sitting on my doorstep.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #194]

Are you saying therefore, that these atheist opinions are expressions of atheism, even if those expressions are delivered somewhat crass/poorly?
Given such statements of opinion, are you able to understand how theists might develop confused impressions of atheism through confusing expressions of atheists?
_____________________________________________________


The last one on the list you appear not to have commented on - is there any reason for that? Do you think it is not an expression of atheism?

p.s love that little homuncule, by the way.

Thanks. It was drawn by my 8yrold granddaughter.

I suppose I am. The thing is that atheism is lockdown logical but atheists is people and they don't always have it right. Though generally the tabula rasa atheists say 'I don't believe in God'. "How about Allah, Krishna or Ahura Mazda? "Yeah don't believe in them either.". Whereas the Thinking atheists generally have it right, though (like me) their idea that agnosticism means 'undecided whether to believe' has to be corrected. But anyone -even atheists - who make logical or factual effors shouldn't be afraid to be corrected.

I missed that last one - No I believe I deal with that in my last. Was there anything I left uncovered? At my age I sometimes forget the zip. Congratulate the Gdaughter, the expression it has in remarkably mature.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #177]

It is actually quite helpful and I was waiting for someone to bring the point up. Atheism is just one simple thing - non belief in any god. It can be written many ways, rejection of the god -claim, disbelief in deities. The idea is the same. Atheists may not be. We come in all flavours, apatheists (don't care) atheist activists (just gotta do something about it) tabula rasa atheists (haven't thought about it) Atheist authorities (have thought about it but sometimes not enough, it seems). Even Not Real Atheists sometimes called sheep in wolfs' clothing.

With this in mind, I can understand why theists can be confused about atheism - not because that no matter how atheists describe it there will be those who intend to misdescribe it, and not because it is theism that confuses atheism by coming up with all sorts of strawman definitions, but because atheists come in all shapes and sizes and use the platform to express their particular opinions, which sometimes are different from other atheists opinions...

...whereas, Atheism itself isn't a position of opinion but a description of a state.

"Is the state not believing/lacking belief that any Gods exists." may be one acceptable way to describe Atheism.

That Atheism can be misused in debate to try to prove atheism blinkered, illogical or even non -existent is not really about the understood meaning of Atheism but about conflating the variety of atheists opinions with Atheism as also being a position of opinion.

When an atheist states something along the lines of "I don't refuse to acknowledge the existence of any god; I'm simply not convinced any gods exist." this is different from the root-description of Atheism if Atheism is "the state not believing/lacking belief that any Gods exists. "
The atheist is simply telling folk WHY he/she does not believe/lacks belief. Atheism [as defined] isn't the state of "not refusing to acknowledge the existence of any god" or "not convinced any gods exist."

Atheists being "unconvinced of the existence of gods." is fine in some atheists defining their opinion , but does not help with defining Atheism, as atheism is not the state of being unconvinced of the existence of gods.

Also - being unconvinced infers there is some responsibility - perhaps the responsibility of theists, to convince the atheists.

Re the Atheist Axiom that, "if there was no Theism, there would be no Atheism, perhaps having a clear definition of theism would help.

If the definition of theism was "The state of belief in the existence of a god or gods" the definition for atheism could be "The state of non-belief in the existence of a god or gods" then one could accept that theists are going to naturally have variety of beliefs re the existence of a god or gods and not all those beliefs will be in agreeance, and one can equally accept that not all atheists are going to be in agreeance. Such acceptance should go a long way towards alleviating any confusion.

Theists and atheists are not the same thing as Theism and Atheism because states remain the same while people tend to change.

Yes. There's the difference between being atheist and being AN atheist. One is a default state, shared by babies, rabbits and Char siu pork noodles. The other has been thought about and is a (hopefully) informed opinion. That covers the difference between the uninformed state and having considered but remaining unconvinced. Still atheism. Thus 'no god' belief covers both states. Keeps it simple. The definition of Theism is equally simple 'Belief in a god (or gods)'.

Atheists being unconvinced is not the basis of atheism, atheism - non belief in any gods - for whatever reason - is the basis of non belief, whether informed or uninformed. I think seeing it as a belief (non) of people rather than a 'state' as you say that exists (non belief) even if there were no humans, is skewing the reasoning, and I blame that old theist definition. 'Atheism is a denial of God'.

It is certainly the burden of proof on the Theists to make their case, if they want to make their case, just as the atheists have to make a decent case for rebuttal. I take the somewhat unpopular view, by the way, that the Bible did not (by default) need to be validated but the burden of proof falls on the critic to validate serious doubts. That having been done, the rebuttal now lies with the believers.

Rather than dictate to Theists what their definitor should be, I prefer to let them say it, and I'll just tell them why they're wrong.

[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've got no problem with it.

However, I must point out that there is a subtle but important distinction between "not believing that a God or deity exists," and "believing that a God or deity does NOT exist."

Not believing something means that one is open to that thing. I do not believe there is a cat on my front doorstep, but that's not the same thing as me saying that I believe that a cat is NOT sitting on my doorstep.

Yes, that is an important distinction. One that some, and perhaps purposefully so, overlook.


Tcg