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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #270]

Mathematicians do this routinely, they choose some "rational default" position unless and until it leads to a contradiction, this is something more atheists need to consider.

Atheists don't need to consider contradictions, but rather evidence that is convincing enough to change their rational default position. I see claims going back thousands of years for the existence of thousands of gods of all manner of description (how many of those do you believe existed?). Yet I have never seen convincing evidence that any of them existed in the past, or exist now.

A rational default position is to assume that gods don't exist ... unless and until this is shown to be wrong. It is such a simple scenario that you seem to want to overcomplicate and build word games around when it is a simple matter of lack of belief in gods due to lack of any evidence for their existence (for this atheist). The fact that humans have invented literally thousands of gods and god concepts to date just makes it even easier to believe that gods exist only in the imagination of humans who create and define them.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #281]

[Kylie]

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.

I'd say it works for everyone, but many of those people just don't care to use it. That doesn't mean that it can't be used to describe everyone's position.

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?

Perhaps not to the same degree of "knowing" in the sense of KNOWING that the corners of a square are 90 degrees, but perhaps in the same way they KNOW that theior spouse loves them.

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.

And how certain they are of those beliefs. I agree that it is all just a belief. You can't, after all, KNOW a fact if that fact isn't true. And since we both (presumably) hold the position that God does not exist, we are going to conclude that if someone claims to KNOW that God does exist, they are not speaking of knowledge, but rather just a very deeply held belief. But to the person who claims to know, they will hold that they KNOW that God exists in just the same way they KNOW that the corners of a square are 90 degrees. They have their logical reasoning for God which they view as just as valid as the logical reasoning that the square's corners are each 90 degrees. When viewed in this way, that it's a description of the position the person holds, it is entirely plausible that a person can indeed hold the position that they KNOW that God exists. After all, this system isn't describing the validity of their position, just the position itself.

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.

True, but that's why I laid out exactly what I meant by the terms when I brought it up.

[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.

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

Then you're having trouble understanding your own argument.

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.

Perhaps as part of a different argument, but here is where you made the implication I mean:

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?

Your "then" implies that your construct follows from TRANSPONDER's definition as an identity. It doesn't. If you didn't intend to imply that, then though your statement might be true, it becomes a non sequitur and doesn't support the claim you're arguing in the first place.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. It isn't that it is untrue, but it is not the best definition. It's like defining a professional footballer as 'one who is not a professional player of any game other than football'. It is not untrue, but it sure ain't useful as a definition. Never mind equating that to one who hates all sports because they also do not play any other sports.

Not an exact analogy but I hope it gets the idea over
My preferred pronouns are Me, mine, and gimme.

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.

I'll leave it to others to decide which of us is doing that.

I'm obliged to point out that you didn't support your case but tried a red herring (off topic) and accused me of doing what you were doing. I don't think people will be fooled or impressed.

To be quite clear Maybe you saw my unplugging 'Theist non belief in atheists' non belief' by reversing the proposition as a 'play on words' but the main point is that it isn't helpful.

(quote) "what the theist DOES believe is more important for Theism (god -belief) than what they don't". never mind arguing that atheism is a form of theism, which surely doesn't follow.

[Tcg]

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

Well, Inquirer, a simple review of what I actually stated reveals the fact that I didn't claim that anyone accused me of having a hidden agenda. Given that fact, it certainly wouldn't involve you now, would it?


Tcg

[oldbadger]

Obviously, I'm not TRANSPONDER and TRANSPONDER may answer differently, but any answer that is something other than yes, reveals that the person is an atheist. Both 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so' are not yes. They have no belief. The fuzzy areas I see, and if I understand your position correctly, you may fit in. Not trying to assign a label to you, but if one is a deist or a pantheist or something similar, are they a theist? They have some concept of a god, but not a personal god. They aren't an atheist, but are they a theist? I don't know.

If Theism is about 'aware god/s' then it seems logical that pantheism must also be about 'aware god/s'.
Deism and Pandeism presumably refer to 'unaware gods'.

But I'm beginning to move away from either term; any kind of deism is supposed to refer to unaware, uninterested dietys and that leaves dear old mother nature to be the absolute guv'nor around here and that must surely be the force or power to worry about during this life. I've just got fed up with folks telling me who I am because I was daft enough to 'tattoo myself with a term that cannot make any difference here and now.

I don't know specifically what you have in mind here, but the only answer that would disqualify one from the title atheist would be - yes, I believe in god/gods. Of course, some balk at the title 'atheist' perhaps because of its societal baggage and would prefer 'nontheist.'

Tcg

On some occasions in my life folks have demanded that I take a side about something. I've never heard the 'With us or Against us' challenge from moderates in any situation. But if I was put up against a wall and forced to answer then I would have to answer 'atheist', simply because there isn't a god anywhere or at all that has ever bothered with or even known about this place, this world.

But what happened to agnosticism? My Wife (makes gusto-coffee for JWs when they call) has politely told theists on a few occasions 'I don't believe in any gods' but when on one occasion a person told her 'That makes you an atheist' she replied that she didn't want either tag..... she just wants to be completely clear of any part of the conversation about gods..... and that could be the average idea amongst the population of Kent UK, I reckon, and therfore 'agnosticism' might be the best term for them in general.

If Agnostic means 'Don't know' then we also need a term for 'Don't give a hoot today', I think.

[Tcg]

If Agnostic means 'Don't know' then we also need a term for 'Don't give a hoot today', I think.

We've one poster, well at least one, who identifies with that. Is it called igtheist or ignostic? I'm getting old so I forget, but it's basically that I don't care if there are gods or not. It's like shrugging one's shoulders when asked anything about gods. Kind of like, ehh, should we order pizza? Because of course, pizza is important.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

We've one poster, well at least one, who identifies with that. Is it called igtheist or ignostic? I'm getting old so I forget, but it's basically that I don't care if there are gods or not. It's like shrugging one's shoulders when asked anything about gods. Kind of like, ehh, should we order pizza? Because of course, pizza is important.

Tcg

Ha ha! I will look them both up. Igtheist sounds and looks like some extinct creature so I hope that ignostic might be the one, and any explanation is so short and sweet..... 'couldn't care less'! In a world where Nature's chaos rules, and where no gods have ever made any difference, ignostic would suit me fine....... I'm off to check it out.

[Tcg]

We've one poster, well at least one, who identifies with that. Is it called igtheist or ignostic? I'm getting old so I forget, but it's basically that I don't care if there are gods or not. It's like shrugging one's shoulders when asked anything about gods. Kind of like, ehh, should we order pizza? Because of course, pizza is important.

Tcg

Ha ha! I will look them both up. Igtheist sounds and looks like some extinct creature so I hope that ignostic might be the one, and any explanation is so short and sweet..... 'couldn't care less'! In a world where Nature's chaos rules, and where no gods have ever made any difference, ignostic would suit me fine....... I'm off to check it out.

Well, maybe it's apatheism:

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/;[citation needed] a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.[1][2][3] The term was coined by Robert Nash, theology professor at Mercer University,[4] in 2001.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Man, we have a lot of words to describe all this stuff. Ain't nobody an apapizzaist. Everyone loves a good slice of pie! Well, every true pizzaist that is.


Tcg