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

[oldbadger]

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

Apatheism? But I rather like the term ignosticism. I googled for a wiki definition (obviously the ultimate dictionary.... )

Ignosticism - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ignosticism
Ignosticism ......... is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Yes.... my idea of deism, every thing and force and anything else all together is an ambiguous incoherent idea about any entity, and so....... ignostic.
I like it....... I've bought it, got the receipt, will take it home, don't want to exchange, don't want a refund, you've sold me a title.

Thank you for your patience.

[TRANSPONDER]

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 therefore '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.

Anyone who says they don't believe in any gods is an atheist, can't be helped, by definition. That said, there are alternative terms they can use, such as nontheist, un-theists or even 'I don't do religion' which isn't a descriptor but a sign saying "Not today, thank you (and not tomorrow, either)". And of course Deism is believing in a god but not in any man -made religion. Pantheism is a great term as it can cover atheism and Deism alike. Irreligious Theism (which is what 'agnostic' usually means) falls within humanism (which is social pantheism, so to speak, a gaia of human society) which, like Deism, has all the non - religious in the same camp or laager, because to atheists, "agnostics" and irreligious theists alike, religion, organised and intrusive, evangelical, and interfering religion, is the problem, not some sortagod who may keep comet orbits from getting circular and be doing regular updates of the morality wot it writ upon our harts.

Your good lady would probably never want to attend an atheist meetup, but if the both of you did, you might find yourself agreeing afterwards "Well that wasn't so bad; all evening nobody talked about atheism".

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

Indeed. Religious credentials count for nothing here, but any candidate for election can win or lose by whether they think pineapple can be put on pizza.

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.

It sounds as though it really is a synonym with 'apatheist' which means 'Don't care -ist', Which can cover a believer that doesn't care to a non -believer that doesn't care, so it isn't even a grab term within atheism but it is within irreligion, which puts us all in the same camp again, because, at the end of the day, what affects us is not some remote deist -god, but active, organized, evangelical, pushy, religion, in everyday life, and whether we want it or not.

[Inquirer]

[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...

All arguments need to be cognizant of the potential for contradictions, the whole basis of logic is to create arguments that are at least valid.

...but rather evidence that is convincing enough to change their rational default position.

We're not even discussing the question of evidence for or against God, we're discussing the definition of atheism - see the O.P.

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.

Ditto.

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.

Once again any default position is rational if that default position does not lead to contradictions.

Perhaps you have some unusual definition of "rational" in mind?

[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.

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.

It does follow.

If we assert that a theist is "someone who believes there is a God" then we can deduce that a theist is also "someone who does not believes there is not a God".

That's not implying something, its deducing something.

Let me ask you, do you hold a belief that God does not exist? No, therefore you are a theist if we choose to define theist in an analogous way to (Flewsian) atheist.

[Inquirer]

The bottom line here is that (not that all here can see this of course) the definition of atheism as an "absence of belief" that some proposition is true, is inherently illogical, it is the cause of contradictions.

Anyone who adopts such a definition either does not care for logic, soundness of reasoning or does not understand the very thing they claim to understand.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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...

All arguments need to be cognizant of the potential for contradictions, the whole basis of logic is to create arguments that are at least valid.

...but rather evidence that is convincing enough to change their rational default position.

We're not even discussing the question of evidence for or against God, we're discussing the definition of atheism - see the O.P.

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.

Ditto.

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.

Once again any default position is rational if that default position does not lead to contradictions.

Perhaps you have some unusual definition of "rational" in mind?

It doesn't lead to contradictions. You tried to make it look as though it did with a play on words and a pretty clumsy leap from Theists not believing the atheist claim = atheists not believing the theist god -claim, to this making atheism - theism. Did you really think anyone would buy that even if you bawled it in block caps?

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.

It does follow.

If we assert that a theist is "someone who believes there is a God" then we can deduce that a theist is also "someone who does not believes there is not a God".

That's not implying something, its deducing something.

Let me ask you, do you hold a belief that God does not exist? No, therefore you are a theist if we choose to define theist in an analogous way to (Flewsian) atheist.

No. While what you say is true, it is not the best (most useful ) descriptor of Theism because 'it would of course lead to 'If Theism is not buying the atheists disbelief in gods...what actually is it?" Aside from (as I say) that odd leap to arguing that this makes atheism Theism, never mind this supposed contradiction, which if nobody sees it is probably because it isn't really there.

[Difflugia]

If we assert that a theist is "someone who believes there is a God" then we can deduce that a theist is also "someone who does not believes there is not a God".

That's not implying something, its deducing something.

That's a valid deduction exactly as you've written it: if a person believes there is a god, then that person does not believe there is not a god. What you're trying to support with it, however, is this post in which you're trying to make that a definitional identity. To support that, your deduction needs to start with "if and only if" rather than just "if." If you meant "if and only if," then your claim is logically false. If you actually meant "if" like you wrote it, then your implication that it's definitional does not follow.

[Tcg]

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

Apatheism? But I rather like the term ignosticism. I googled for a wiki definition (obviously the ultimate dictionary.... )

Ignosticism - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ignosticism
Ignosticism ......... is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

Yes.... my idea of deism, every thing and force and anything else all together is an ambiguous incoherent idea about any entity, and so....... ignostic.
I like it....... I've bought it, got the receipt, will take it home, don't want to exchange, don't want a refund, you've sold me a title.

Thank you for your patience.

I rather like the definition of Ignosticism as well. Apparently, I'm an ignostic atheist.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #297]

I created a thread in the philosophy section, this is a fresh start and we can discuss it from there.

[TRANSPONDER]

(Inquirer) "Let me ask you, do you hold a belief that God does not exist? No, therefore you are a theist if we choose to define theist in an analogous way to (Flewsian) atheist."

I'm separating this out as it requires some explanation, not that you will listen or care, but to clarify for those who do.

No, and no. Not holding a belief that a god does not exist does not make a theist of us, even if we do not hold a positive belief that a god does not exist. So you are wrong and misrepresenting the logic and definition to start, which is the stock Theist apologetic to try to discredit Atheism.

The explanation is requiring the sliding scale of probability. Depending of course on what the theist means by 'God'. Once they explain that, atheists can explain to what degree they think it improbable. I damn near hold a positive belief that the god of the Bible does not exist. But, there are various outs - I do not buy them but they are unfalsifiable, so it still is not a positive 'gnostic' denial.

So your argument does not fit what atheism actually claims or does not, does not hold up logically, as a definition, nor as an argument that atheists are some kind of Theist or indeed on any credible level. No matter how you keep repeating it and trying to force it through.

You simply have it all wrong, it is a logical and polemic car crash and you need to discard it and start again. Maybe on the philosophy section, where words stand on their heads, as you seem to be getting no very far here.