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]

(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.

Very well...

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.

Well it DOES make you a theist IF we define theism analogously to Flewsian atheism - that's the point I'm making, if the atheists can invent a new definition then so too can the theist; why should the privilege to assert "I do not hold a belief that proposition X is true" be extended to only some of us?

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.

Well the question as to whether God exists or not is not what's being discussed here, it is the meaning of being an "atheist" what it means from the point of view of human knowledge, what does it actually mean.

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.

Is this a true statement for an atheist to assert "I do not hold a belief that God exists nor do I hold a belief that God does not exist"?

Would you object to such a definition?

Does it differ in meaning from "I do not hold a belief that God exists"?

Or what about this for a definition "I do not know if God does or does not exist"?

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

Hence my description of such shenanigans as vacuous, the emperor's new clothes, much fussing over nothing, an unposition.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #311]

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

Again, you need to define what you think the word "really" means if you are going to keep using it in statements like this, because with the normal definition of the word the above positions are identical. Speaking for myself, I do not hold a belief that gods exist, and I also really believe gods do not exist, because these are exactly the same thing. Both express the lack of belief that gods exist, without denying the possible existence of gods.

And this position is very easy to defend ... it arises from the lack of any convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #311]

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

Again, you need to define what you think the word "really" means if you are going to keep using it in statements like this, because with the normal definition of the word the above positions are identical. Speaking for myself, I do not hold a belief that gods exist, and I also really believe gods do not exist, because these are exactly the same thing. Both express the lack of belief that gods exist, without denying the possible existence of gods.

IF I am confident that the reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they believe Gods do not exist but do not want to say it in those words, because they know they can't defend it.
THEN: Speaking for myself, I do not hold a belief that gods exist, and I also believe gods do not exist, even that these are not exactly the same thing.
They both express the lack of belief that gods exist, without denying the possible existence of gods.
One has the lack of belief because the belief is not held
The other continues having the lack of belief having reached hold of the belief [opinion] that Gods actually do not exist.

And this position is very easy to defend ... it arises from the lack of any convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

No debate to be had therein. Each individual has the task of seeking out evidence or not and such is independent of the requirement to seek it out for others.
Trial and error has shown it to be the case that no matter what evidence one might present as "good enough, given the circumstance" it is never good enough for atheists and so I no longer waste time with the delusional properties/unreasonableness of "The Demand re Burden of Proof."

I have better things to do than attack such defense...it's just a tar-baby and thus, something one can reasonably avoid getting stuck on.

If I believe Gods don't exist, that is my burden to bear/position to defend and it is no one's responsibility to convince me otherwise.

[Just saying that is the position I take on the matter and it is not something I need debate with anyone about]

[Purple Knight]

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

I actually admit it. And I know I technically can't defend it. But I question why nobody is ever put on this same spot when they say they believe bigfoot or unicorns don't exist because that technically can't be defended either, in exactly the same way.

People just generally accept that things that haven't been seen in a long time are, in all probability, at very least, gone forever. And somewhere around midrange guessing is that they never existed to begin with. It really is just guessing but still, we tend to dismiss the past's claims about things like unicorns. Show me one now, we say. Show me fossils. Show me bones. Show me something tangible, not just, these people hundreds or thousands of years ago saw it and wrote about it.

There might have been unicorns, especially since whales and horses share lineage and the only thing that actually has that horn happens to be a whale. And there is a use for it, hence a rhinoceros. Hence deer antlers. But without hard evidence my default is no, and not only does nobody question it except in the case of God, but me saying unicorns might have existed for the reasons above, is actually regarded as a little foolish. So why the different truth standards here?

Why should an atheist have to explain what theists mean by "believe?"

That would definitely be an unreasonable expectation. But if people are actually using two different words here, they might easily be talking past one another, hence why this never gets anywhere.

[William]

I actually admit it. And I know I technically can't defend it. But I question why nobody is ever put on this same spot when they say they believe bigfoot or unicorns don't exist because that technically can't be defended either, in exactly the same way.

What I find interesting about this argument has to do with "GOD" never having being defined as a form, which is different from big-foot, unicorns and all other mythological beasts.
In that, I think the argument becomes fallacy...due to its conflating mythological beasts with the claimed invisible creator of the universe.

[brunumb]

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

I hold both positions and don't have to defend either unless I am trying to convince others to do the same. The basic definition of atheism is pretty straightforward. if theist want to get their knickers in a twist over it and require clarification, all they have to do is ask. I'm sure it is all just disingenuous word play to distract from the fact that theists really have nothing compelling to support their position.

[historia]

By "knowledge" do you just mean feeling certain that your belief is true?

A believer who claims to know that God definitely exists holds that they KNOW that God exists in the same way they KNOW the corners of a square are 90 degrees. The terms are a reflection on the person's reported position, that's all. And if they report to KNOW that God exists, then that is there position, even if it is one that we don't agree with.

I understand the point you're trying to make here. But in your first post you acknowledged that people sometimes use the word "know" in a much looser sense:

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."

If that's correct -- and I think it is -- then we can't just assume that a believer who says they "know" God exists must be making a straight-forward epistemological claim in the way she might when asserting that "the corners of a square are 90 degrees."

It seems quite clear to me that faith in God is much more complex than that.

Again, the fact that I consider it to be belief, not knowledge doesn't mean that someone else can consider it knowledge. And this isn't a system meant to objectively specify a person's attitude, it's a system by which a person can describe their subjective point of view.

But the scheme itself draws a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge', suggesting that this is an objective and meaningful difference among the various positions.

To then turn around and let the vague ways in which people use the word "know" determine things -- while simultaneously acknowledging that you don't think one can have certain knowledge on this issue -- would seem to undermine the scheme completely.

True, a system with more positions may be clearer, but then, how would you describe it?

I'm not suggesting we should have more positions. I'm simply noting that, if there is only one axis (belief) instead of two (belief and knowledge) on which to measure the positions, then there is no specific reason for there to be four.

I think the older scheme of atheist / agnostic / theist is more widely used, more accurately describes people's positions, and gets us away from sticky epistemological issues by correctly framing the positions simply in terms of belief.

[Kylie]

By "knowledge" do you just mean feeling certain that your belief is true?

A believer who claims to know that God definitely exists holds that they KNOW that God exists in the same way they KNOW the corners of a square are 90 degrees. The terms are a reflection on the person's reported position, that's all. And if they report to KNOW that God exists, then that is there position, even if it is one that we don't agree with.

I understand the point you're trying to make here. But in your first post you acknowledged that people sometimes use the word "know" in a much looser sense:

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."

If that's correct -- and I think it is -- then we can't just assume that a believer who says they "know" God exists must be making a straight-forward epistemological claim in the way she might when asserting that "the corners of a square are 90 degrees."

It seems quite clear to me that faith in God is much more complex than that.

I fear you are trying to make this much more complicated than it needs to be. This is not meant to be a system that perfectly describes all nuances of a person's position regarding God. It's simply meant to ascertain two things. Do they have a belief in God or not? And do they view their position to be subjectively true or objectively true?

Again, the fact that I consider it to be belief, not knowledge doesn't mean that someone else can consider it knowledge. And this isn't a system meant to objectively specify a person's attitude, it's a system by which a person can describe their subjective point of view.

But the scheme itself draws a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge', suggesting that this is an objective and meaningful difference among the various positions.

To then turn around and let the vague ways in which people use the word "know" determine things -- while simultaneously acknowledging that you don't think one can have certain knowledge on this issue -- would seem to undermine the scheme completely.

Again, this is not meantr to be anything more than a way for people to communicate their own subjective ideas about it. That's all. You're finding flaws in it by demanding that it does something it was never intended for.

True, a system with more positions may be clearer, but then, how would you describe it?

I'm not suggesting we should have more positions. I'm simply noting that, if there is only one axis (belief) instead of two (belief and knowledge) on which to measure the positions, then there is no specific reason for there to be four.

I think the older scheme of atheist / agnostic / theist is more widely used, more accurately describes people's positions, and gets us away from sticky epistemological issues by correctly framing the positions simply in terms of belief.

However, your proposed system doesn't differentiate between an atheist who doesn't believe in God because they were never raised to be religious and has never put much thought into it and an atheist who has studied the issue for a long time and believes that they have proof that God can not exist.

And with two axes, four positions does seem to come most naturally. If the two axes were up/down and left/right, then there are four different positions possible: up-left, up-right, down-left, and down-right.

And the system I proposed is adaptable as well. We can say that the atheist/theist axis is divided up, and people can describe how far towards either side they are on a scale of 0-100. So zero would be completely between the two, 100 theist would be completely believes that God exists, 100 atheist completely lacks belief in God. That allows for a great deal of specificity in the description while still keeping it relatively simple.

[Diagoras]

...differentiate between an atheist who doesn't believe in God because they were never raised to be religious and has never put much thought into it and an atheist who has studied the issue for a long time and believes that they have proof that God can not exist.

That latter would be... a gnostic atheist, correct? One who 'knows' (by some proof) God doesn't not exist?

Your twin axes put me in mind of a thread from many years ago which set out the meanings of 'strong' and 'weak', 'atheist' and 'theist', and 'gnostic' and 'agnostic'. That would place me as an agnostic strong atheist: not knowing with 100% certainty that any god or gods exist, but 'far along the scale' towards -100 on the axis of 'I believe a god or gods exist'.

A pair of axes labelled knowing/believing would therefore have me in the very high +90's for 'knowing' my position, and about -99 for 'believing in god'. That last percentage point has to be left for the possibility of a Type IV Kardashev civilisation, which would reasonably fit the definition of a 'god' as something immensely more powerful than any human (or group of humans) could imagine. At least for me. Such an entity would be very different from El-Shaddai, Vishnu, Anup, or any of the rich pantheon of Greek gods from Achlys to Zeus.

[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.

Very well...

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.

Well it DOES make you a theist IF we define theism analogously to Flewsian atheism - that's the point I'm making, if the atheists can invent a new definition then so too can the theist; why should the privilege to assert "I do not hold a belief that proposition X is true" be extended to only some of us?

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.

Well the question as to whether God exists or not is not what's being discussed here, it is the meaning of being an "atheist" what it means from the point of view of human knowledge, what does it actually mean.

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.

Is this a true statement for an atheist to assert "I do not hold a belief that God exists nor do I hold a belief that God does not exist"?

Would you object to such a definition?

Does it differ in meaning from "I do not hold a belief that God exists"?

Or what about this for a definition "I do not know if God does or does not exist"?

I am confident that the true reason many adopt "I do not hold a belief that God exists" is that they really believe God does not exist but do not want to say it because they know they can't defend it.

Hence my description of such shenanigans as vacuous, the emperor's new clothes, much fussing over nothing, an unposition.

The atheist definition is perfectly fine; the Theist definition is not as it is logically untenable, which is why we cannot use it. The 'sliding scale' was to clarify what 'agnosticism' actually is and it is about what we know, not what we believe. What we believe about the god claim is we do or we don't. A positive assertion of knowing cannot be claimed and is not.

It does not matter whether an atheist actually does believe that no god exists. Logically it cannot be a claim of positive knowledge so it must be a rejection based on not knowing, not on knowing. The atheist position that the god -claim is not believable (the actual atheist position) is logically based on consideration of the evidence (even if various non believers don't even bother with it) and so is not a faith claim and certainly no kind of theism. Even if you wangle the Theist belief statement into a non -belief in the atheist position it only reverses into a non -belief in the theist position, which hardly makes it Theism. I just don't see how that is going to work for you.

No more that your wishful thinking that we really do believe in a god but don't want to admit it, for the absurd reason that we couldn't defend such a claim. I don't see how that makes any sense.

But at least thank you for revealing what the atheist Think -tank already knew - that theists simply cannot accept that people can actually not believe in a god, even though that has nothing to do with whether atheism declines to accept the god - claim or asserts that they believe (based on certain knowing) that no god exists.

p.s I looked up Anthony Flew on atheism (he can only give his take on it; it is not his job to impose a definition on us) but I only see that he agrees with the definition I repeated here, as he says that the burden of proof is on the Theist. Perhaps you would like to show how the 'Flew definition' supports your argument.