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

[Inquirer]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition.

The fact that you are confused is a clue you might want to consider Tcg.

It isn't because you "mentioned atheism" that I am disagreeing with you, it is what you asked in your OP, remember?

The "definition" is self contradictory when analyzed systematically, I presented the reasoning I used and you've not counter argued, all you are doing is complaining that I am disagreeing with you.

I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

Who accused you of having a "hidden agenda"? me?

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.

There are at least two definitions of "atheist" Tcg, I've explained this to you a hundred times. The established, traditional one, the one that permeates the philosophical and theological literature over several centuries and the Flewsian definition.

The established definition "One who asserts there is no God" is well formed, clear and leads to not contradictions.

The Flewsian one is self contradictory.

You and many others here are simply reticent to discuss the logical implications of these shallow definitions.

You suggest: (emphasis added for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity does exist."

as a definition of atheism, well what of this as a definition of theism:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Seems reasonable surely? Theism too is an absence of belief, yes? in each case it is an absence of belief that some proposition is true.

By this reasoning you are also a theist are you not?

[TRANSPONDER]

In terms of agnosticism's relationship with atheism, I would say that theists and atheists can be either gnostic or agnostic. Thus, a gnostic would claim to KNOW their viewpoint was true, and an agnostic would claim that they could not KNOW FOR SURE that their viewpoint was true.

In this system, I am an agnostic atheist. I lack belief in God, but I do not claim to KNOW that God does not exist.

A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, would say, "I KNOW that God doesn't exist."

And likewise, a gnostic theist would say, "I KNOW that God exists, and an agnostic theist would say, "I believe that God exists, but I can't KNOW it."

Bear in mind, I'm speaking of knowing in the sense that one can KNOW that all corners of a square are 90 degrees. Not the way many people use "know" to mean, "Be really sure of because they feel that it just must be true."

This scheme has become popular among some atheists in recent years, but I don't think it has the requisite adoption or explanatory power to be particularly useful in our discussions.

First, every single person I've ever seen advocate for this scheme describes themselves as an "agnostic atheist." I've never once seen anyone describe themselves as a "gnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist," or what have you. When people only identify with one quadrant of the scheme, that suggests a problem with the scheme.

Second, and perhaps as an explanation for the first, it's not clear in what sense people can claim to have "knowledge" that God exists or does not exist. To be sure, some people express certainty on this question, but is feeling certain the same as having "knowledge"? Does even the most devout believer or the most hardened skeptic "know" that God exists or doesn't exist in the same way that they know all the corners of a square are 90 degrees?

It seems to me that what we are describing across the board here are people's opinions and attitudes toward the proposition of God's existence -- which is to say, their beliefs. Half the scheme doesn't make sense, then.

Finally, the term 'Gnostic' already has a well-established meaning that this scheme, given its low adoption, is unlikely to supplement, and so talking about "gnostic theists" is confusing.

Yes. The term gnostic (in the philosophical sense rather than the theological) is useful to contrast with agnostic, but in fact everyone is agnostic, and few atheists would say they knew - technically, though we are pretty darn sure on some things. As you say it isn't useful because we can be certain of a number of things, even though (technically) we can't be sure.

It's why we have Occam's razor, because if we gave even the remote possibilities equal weight we couldn't opt for any hypothesis. This is where the sliding scale of probability comes in and (e.g) we opt for a god not being the vile god of the OT, even though apologists can come up with various excuses and evasions, they are less persuasive (unless persuaded by Godfaith already) than 'this was a manmade god from a more brutal and less philosophical time'. Which is what atheist Biblecritics will opt for as what they effectively believe despite technically not being certain.

[TRANSPONDER]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition.

The fact that you are confused is a clue you might want to consider Tcg.

It isn't because you "mentioned atheism" that I am disagreeing with you, it is what you asked in your OP, remember?

The "definition" is self contradictory when analyzed systematically, I presented the reasoning I used and you've not counter argued, all you are doing is complaining that I am disagreeing with you.

I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

Who accused you of having a "hidden agenda"? me?

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.

There are at least two definitions of "atheist" Tcg, I've explained this to you a hundred times. The established, traditional one, the one that permeates the philosophical and theological literature over several centuries and the Flewsian definition.

The established definition "One who asserts there is no God" is well formed, clear and leads to not contradictions.

The Flewsian one is self contradictory.

You and many others here are simply reticent to discuss the logical implications of these shallow definitions.

You suggest: (emphasis added for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity does exist."

as a definition of atheism, well what of this as a definition of theism:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Seems reasonable surely? Theism too is an absence of belief, yes? in each case it is an absence of belief that some proposition is true.

By this reasoning you are also a theist are you not?

I think that's a fallacy and a fallacy because it's putting a play on words above an actual mindset.

The actual situation is:

Theism makes claim There is a god.

Atheist doesn't believe it.

(Definition) Atheist doesn't believe there is a god.

(Definition) Theist believes there is.

Theist does not refuse to believe the claim that there is no god because the atheists never made such a claim, let alone non believers being a theist through some kind of reasoning I couldn't get.

Even if the theist does not believe anything the atheist says, more or less, what the theist DOES believe is more important for Theism (god -belief) than what they don't. Even then having both Theist and atheist not believe something does not reverse into both believing something (at best atheists 'believe' the validity of science and logic) let alone an atheist believe in something amounting to Theism.

It seems to me that your effort fails on more levels than an apologetic for the resurrection.

I suggest you take it away and start again. Incidentally, was that your own apologetic or did you get it from some theist apologetic thinktank?

[Inquirer]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition.

The fact that you are confused is a clue you might want to consider Tcg.

It isn't because you "mentioned atheism" that I am disagreeing with you, it is what you asked in your OP, remember?

The "definition" is self contradictory when analyzed systematically, I presented the reasoning I used and you've not counter argued, all you are doing is complaining that I am disagreeing with you.

I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

Who accused you of having a "hidden agenda"? me?

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.

There are at least two definitions of "atheist" Tcg, I've explained this to you a hundred times. The established, traditional one, the one that permeates the philosophical and theological literature over several centuries and the Flewsian definition.

The established definition "One who asserts there is no God" is well formed, clear and leads to not contradictions.

The Flewsian one is self contradictory.

You and many others here are simply reticent to discuss the logical implications of these shallow definitions.

You suggest: (emphasis added for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity does exist."

as a definition of atheism, well what of this as a definition of theism:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Seems reasonable surely? Theism too is an absence of belief, yes? in each case it is an absence of belief that some proposition is true.

By this reasoning you are also a theist are you not?

I think that's a fallacy and a fallacy because it's putting a play on words above an actual mindset.

Claiming someone's argument is a "play on words" is nothing more than a blanket dismissal, if stating someone's post is a "play on words" is regarded by you as a logically reasoned rebuttal then we're never really going to get very far.

I could say that the definition "Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists." is a play on words, would you agree?

The actual situation is:

Theism makes claim There is a god.

Atheist doesn't believe it.

(Definition) Atheist doesn't believe there is a god.

(Definition) Theist believes there is.

Right, so it is also true then that a theist does not hold the belief that God does not exist, do you agree or disagree?

Theist does not refuse to believe the claim that there is no god because the atheists never made such a claim, let alone non believers being a theist through some kind of reasoning I couldn't get.

Even if the theist does not believe anything the atheist says, more or less, what the theist DOES believe is more important for Theism (god -belief) than what they don't. Even then having both Theist and atheist not believe something does not reverse into both believing something (at best atheists 'believe' the validity of science and logic) let alone an atheist believe in something amounting to Theism.

It seems to me that your effort fails on more levels than an apologetic for the resurrection.

I suggest you take it away and start again. Incidentally, was that your own apologetic or did you get it from some theist apologetic thinktank?

This has nothing to do with the OP.

[William]

Theism makes claim There is a god.

Theism makes no claim as it is simply a position.
Theists make statements of opinion and not all those opinions are "there is a GOD". Statements of belief are statements of opinion.

Atheist doesn't believe it.

And creates a position called "Atheism" and then seems confused when attempting to define the position of Atheism.

I suspect that this is because atheists are confused about Theism.

(Definition) Atheist doesn't believe there is a god.

This, based upon a misunderstood concept conflating belief with claiming there is a GOD. The definition of Theism is incorrect, which - naturally - will have the an ongoing affect re the definition of Atheism.
One is defining based upon faulty information.

(Definition) Theist believes there is.

Theists have their opinions/beliefs re the question of GOD. They do not say "There is a god" They say they "believe there is a GOD."

Which is a mile away from the atheistic opinion that;

"Theism makes claim;

[William]

[Replying to William in post #275]

[Difflugia]

Right, so it is also true then that a theist does not hold the belief that God does not exist, do you agree or disagree?

That's true, but it's not an identity like you're trying to imply. In the same way, it's true that every human is a mammal, but that doesn't imply that every mammal is human.

[TRANSPONDER]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition.

The fact that you are confused is a clue you might want to consider Tcg.

It isn't because you "mentioned atheism" that I am disagreeing with you, it is what you asked in your OP, remember?

The "definition" is self contradictory when analyzed systematically, I presented the reasoning I used and you've not counter argued, all you are doing is complaining that I am disagreeing with you.

I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

Who accused you of having a "hidden agenda"? me?

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.

There are at least two definitions of "atheist" Tcg, I've explained this to you a hundred times. The established, traditional one, the one that permeates the philosophical and theological literature over several centuries and the Flewsian definition.

The established definition "One who asserts there is no God" is well formed, clear and leads to not contradictions.

The Flewsian one is self contradictory.

You and many others here are simply reticent to discuss the logical implications of these shallow definitions.

You suggest: (emphasis added for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity does exist."

as a definition of atheism, well what of this as a definition of theism:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Seems reasonable surely? Theism too is an absence of belief, yes? in each case it is an absence of belief that some proposition is true.

By this reasoning you are also a theist are you not?

I think that's a fallacy and a fallacy because it's putting a play on words above an actual mindset.

Claiming someone's argument is a "play on words" is nothing more than a blanket dismissal, if stating someone's post is a "play on words" is regarded by you as a logically reasoned rebuttal then we're never really going to get very far.

I could say that the definition "Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists." is a play on words, would you agree?

The actual situation is:

Theism makes claim There is a god.

Atheist doesn't believe it.

(Definition) Atheist doesn't believe there is a god.

(Definition) Theist believes there is.

Right, so it is also true then that a theist does not hold the belief that God does not exist, do you agree or disagree?

Theist does not refuse to believe the claim that there is no god because the atheists never made such a claim, let alone non believers being a theist through some kind of reasoning I couldn't get.

Even if the theist does not believe anything the atheist says, more or less, what the theist DOES believe is more important for Theism (god -belief) than what they don't. Even then having both Theist and atheist not believe something does not reverse into both believing something (at best atheists 'believe' the validity of science and logic) let alone an atheist believe in something amounting to Theism.

It seems to me that your effort fails on more levels than an apologetic for the resurrection.

I suggest you take it away and start again. Incidentally, was that your own apologetic or did you get it from some theist apologetic thinktank?

This has nothing to do with the OP.

I explained why it was a play on words to achieve an argument, and why it was wrong. Your paraphrase is not such a play on words as it just says the same thing in different words - 'no god -belief - so is not making an argument. It is a red herring to say it was not to do with the OP. It was responding to your argument so presumably that was also nothing to do with the OP either.

[Inquirer]

Right, so it is also true then that a theist does not hold the belief that God does not exist, do you agree or disagree?

That's true, but it's not an identity like you're trying to imply. In the same way, it's true that every human is a mammal, but that doesn't imply that every mammal is human.

I suspect it is you making some odd inference rather me implying anything.

As you can see, I defined "theism" as an absence of belief, if that language is permissible for atheists then it must also be permissible for others.

The claim "There is no God" isn't something I hold a belief in, not without evidence, hence I have an absence of belief in that claim.

By this definition every atheist is also a theist, quod erat demonstrandum!

[Inquirer]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition.

The fact that you are confused is a clue you might want to consider Tcg.

It isn't because you "mentioned atheism" that I am disagreeing with you, it is what you asked in your OP, remember?

The "definition" is self contradictory when analyzed systematically, I presented the reasoning I used and you've not counter argued, all you are doing is complaining that I am disagreeing with you.

I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

Who accused you of having a "hidden agenda"? me?

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.

There are at least two definitions of "atheist" Tcg, I've explained this to you a hundred times. The established, traditional one, the one that permeates the philosophical and theological literature over several centuries and the Flewsian definition.

The established definition "One who asserts there is no God" is well formed, clear and leads to not contradictions.

The Flewsian one is self contradictory.

You and many others here are simply reticent to discuss the logical implications of these shallow definitions.

You suggest: (emphasis added for clarity)

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity does exist."

as a definition of atheism, well what of this as a definition of theism:

"Theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity doesn't exist."

Seems reasonable surely? Theism too is an absence of belief, yes? in each case it is an absence of belief that some proposition is true.

By this reasoning you are also a theist are you not?

I think that's a fallacy and a fallacy because it's putting a play on words above an actual mindset.

Claiming someone's argument is a "play on words" is nothing more than a blanket dismissal, if stating someone's post is a "play on words" is regarded by you as a logically reasoned rebuttal then we're never really going to get very far.

I could say that the definition "Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists." is a play on words, would you agree?

The actual situation is:

Theism makes claim There is a god.

Atheist doesn't believe it.

(Definition) Atheist doesn't believe there is a god.

(Definition) Theist believes there is.

Right, so it is also true then that a theist does not hold the belief that God does not exist, do you agree or disagree?

Theist does not refuse to believe the claim that there is no god because the atheists never made such a claim, let alone non believers being a theist through some kind of reasoning I couldn't get.

Even if the theist does not believe anything the atheist says, more or less, what the theist DOES believe is more important for Theism (god -belief) than what they don't. Even then having both Theist and atheist not believe something does not reverse into both believing something (at best atheists 'believe' the validity of science and logic) let alone an atheist believe in something amounting to Theism.

It seems to me that your effort fails on more levels than an apologetic for the resurrection.

I suggest you take it away and start again. Incidentally, was that your own apologetic or did you get it from some theist apologetic thinktank?

This has nothing to do with the OP.

I explained why it was a play on words to achieve an argument, and why it was wrong. Your paraphrase is not such a play on words as it just says the same thing in different words - 'no god -belief - so is not making an argument. It is a red herring to say it was not to do with the OP. It was responding to your argument so presumably that was also nothing to do with the OP either.

Your very post is a play on words to masquerade as an argument.