Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #1

Post by 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
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Longfellow
Student
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 12:48 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #391

Post by Longfellow »

historia wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 4:13 pm I do wonder if we might find greater accord on this issue if, instead of taking the position that atheism is one of these definitions and not the other, we instead acknowledge that the term atheism as it is used today has multiple definitions.
Agreed.
Now, personally, I think that, if accuracy is our primary concern, then having separate terms to describe these separate positions would be preferable to using just one term for all three, and then each time having to clarify which sense you are referring to.
This is what I remembered you saying. My question is, if more categories means more accuracy, why stop at three, and why those three, with those definitions? What beneficial purposes has that ever served, or can it serve? Just saying that's how they're defined in philosophical literature doesn't answer that question. I'm thinking that maybe the only purposes that it ever served were monotheistic purposes promoting prejudices and discrimination against people who openly rejected God beliefs.

(later) I want to see if I'm understanding all the reasons for not liking "lack of belief" definitions, and you might be the best person to ask.
- They erase a distinction that people want to make sometimes between firmly believing that some gods do not exist, and not being convinced one way or another.
- They are sometimes used as a smokescreen over a double standard in disparaging and denouncing people for believing without evidence.
- They create confusion, misunderstandings, and antagonism.
- They are different from established, traditional definitions in philosophy.
- There are people who lack belief but who don't identify with atheists, and who don't like being labeled that way.

Can you think of any other reasons that you've seen for not liking "lack of belief" definitions?
Last edited by Longfellow on Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #392

Post by Kylie »

historia wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:51 pm
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:36 pm
I honestly do see what the point of your point here is.
The point I was making there is two-fold:

First, we don't typically draw a distinction between belief and knowledge when it comes to other controversial issues. We don't, for example, categorize people as "gnostic pro-choice" or "agnostic pro-choice" or as a "gnostic evolutionist" or an "agnostic evolutionist."
Well, why not? A "gnostic pro-choice" person is someone who claims to have a solid logical argument which shows why their position must be correct. An "agnostic evolutionist" is a person who accepts evolution, but doesn't really understand how evolution works.
Second, I suspect that many, if not most, people haven't given much thought to issues of epistemology, so asking them to assess whether their beliefs on a controversial issue somehow constitute knowledge or not isn't going to tell us much about their position on that controversial issue. It just creates noise in our data.
Oh come on, it's not that hard. You are just asking them, "Do you consider that you KNOW this to be true, or not?"
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:36 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 12:07 pm
Kylie wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:13 pm
historia wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:31 pm
The problem here is that we both agreed that your proposed scheme is really only measuring belief, so the 'knowledge' axis isn't measuring anything meaningful.
At worst, it's measuring how strongly that belief is held.
I think at best this is what it can accomplish. In that case, I think the scheme should drop the language of "knowledge" and replace it with adjectives that actually describe what it is measuring, like 'certain/uncertain' or 'strong/weak'.
And what is knowledge if not something that you are 100% certain about?
That's not how philosophers define knowledge.

It's also not how you seemed to be using the word earlier in the thread. You said previously:
Kylie wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:37 pm
You can't, after all, KNOW a fact if that fact isn't true . . . if someone claims to KNOW that God does exist, they are not speaking of knowledge, but rather just a very deeply held belief.
It seems then you agree with me that knowledge is not just feeling certain about a belief. Moreover, outside of a priori statements in mathematics and logic, we can never be 100% certain about our conclusions. To make that the bar for "knowledge" creates a whole other set of problems.

We can measure people's feelings of certainty on the question of God's existence -- as we can measure their feelings of certainty on any other issue -- but to label that "knowledge" is, by your own admission, problematic.
However, the believer who claims to KNOW that God exists holds that fact to be true in their own point of view - and it is their own point of view that I'm asking about.
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:36 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 12:07 pm
Kylie wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:13 pm
There are, after all, many people who believe that they KNOW that their position is true. Most are believers (in my experience), but I've seen some atheists who KNOW that God doesn't exist.
I think that difference in frequency exists because many believers are using the word "know" in a different sense from the atheists, which is, again, why framing the positions in terms of "knowledge" is problematic and should be discarded.
I KNOW the Earth is roughly spherical because I have seen what I consider to be valid evidence from the real world and arguments which show that a roughly spherical earth is the best possible explanation.

A believer KNOWS that God exists because they have seen what they consider to be valid evidence from the real world and arguments which show that God existing is the best possible explanation
Right, so when people describe what they believe in, they tend to use the word "know" in this looser way, as indicating that the belief is reasonable or supported by arguments, evidence, or experience. Believers do this for God.

But when you ask non-believers whether they "know" God doesn't exist, they tend to switch to a much narrower sense of "knowledge" as meaning not possibly being wrong.
Not from their point of view - which is what I am asking about.
In his article What I Believe But Cannot Prove -- which is broadly relevant to our discussion of knowledge so worth reading in whole -- Sean Carroll makes this same point:
Carroll wrote:
The young Wittgenstein would not admit to Bertrand Russell that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, because he couldn’t be absolutely sure (in the sense of logical proof) that his senses weren’t tricking him. But the later Wittgenstein understood that taking such a purist stance renders the notion of "to know" (or "to believe") completely useless. If logical proof were required, we would only believe logical truths — and even then the proofs might contain errors. But in the real world it makes perfect sense to believe much more than that. So we take "I believe x" to mean, not "I can prove x is the case," but "it would be unreasonable to doubt x."
By this logic, we can't know anything at all.
Back to your questions on the alternative scheme:
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:36 pm
historia wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 12:07 pm
The old scheme is simple: If you are willing to affirm the proposition that God exists then you are a 'theist'. If you are willing to affirm the proposition that God does not exist, then you are an 'atheist'. If you are unwilling to affirm either proposition then you are 'agnostic'.

I leave it to you to decide which propositions, if any, you are willing to affirm. But let me just note that one doesn't have to be 100% certain to affirm a proposition.
The trouble is there's a big difference between not believing in God and believing that God does not exist. Your system can not account for that.
Sure it does. On the old scheme, someone who believes the former is agnostic and someone who believes the later is an atheist.
By your definition then, I'm an agnostic, yet I identify as an atheist.
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:36 pm
There's a person who thinks that the issue of God's existence is inherently unknowable. They claim to KNOW that God's existence is always going to be unknowable. There's another person who, similarly, can't say if God exists or not, but they do NOT think that God's existence is inherently unknowable. How would your system describe the difference between these two people?
The old atheist / agnostic / theist scheme is (sensibly) just interested in belief, so categorizes people based on their willingness to affirm the proposition that God exists or the proposition that God does not exist.

It doesn't address this separate epistemological question, as that is a different issue. But if that is something you want to describe, historically people have used the terms "strong agnostic" and "weak agnostic" to differentiate these two positions.
[/quote]

Yet "agnostic" doesn't adequately cover it. Most people take "agnostic" to be someone who isn't sure if there's a God, or someone who thinks that the existence of God is unknowable. I do not hold either of these positions, yet your argument would label me as an agnostic. And your system does not actual describe the difference between the two people I spoke of, it just lumps them together under the same umbrella, despite the fact that the difference between their positions is, I'd say, fairly important. Yet my system describes this easily.

Also, the term "agnostic" means that there is also "gnostic", which your system doesn't use at all.

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #393

Post by Kylie »

William wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:09 pm [Replying to Kylie in post #352]

Image
Yeah, replying to images rather than actual text is really annoying.

Please just write your responses instead of going into Photoshop or whatever you use.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #394

Post by William »


Longfellow
Student
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 12:48 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #395

Post by Longfellow »

Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:37 am 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.
I've seen you and Historia using this argument, but it looks very doubtful to me. Seriously? Established, traditional, as reasons for doing something, ignoring, denying or excusing what harmfulness anyone sees in it?

I agree with people using whatever definition they want to, in discussions between people who are all using the same definition. That would include philosophical discussions in a public forum between people who are all using the "established, traditional" definition. I don't see it as a reason not to use a "lack of belief" definition in other discussions.

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #396

Post by Kylie »

William wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:14 pm [Replying to Kylie in post #393]

Image
Yeah, if I wanted to reply to just one part of what you wrote, I can't do it. I have to quote everything or nothing. And I can't even specify which part of what you wrote I am replying to unless I write it out myself. Please just write your responses in the text box like everyone else.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #397

Post by William »

[Replying to Kylie in post #396]
Yeah, if I wanted to reply to just one part of what you wrote, I can't do it.
Which 'part' would you want to reply to and which parts would you not? I see no reason why quote-mining would help you in any reply you might have to my answer to your question.

But even so, if you want to reply to just one part of what I wrote, as grand-pappy once told me.

Image

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #398

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 7:30 am An atheist - ghetto - locality is usually fun, but noisy at night. Education is generally good, but the Sunday church - attendance is usually rubbish.
I've just got in to trouble for laughing loudly at 0610hrs in the morning, my Wifey's day off!
Your fault, I think!

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #399

Post by oldbadger »

Tcg wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:51 am
Much of it is. I've been to New Belgium Brewing in Ft. Collins, CO and they make some fabulous beers. Yuengling out of Pottsville, PA claims to be America's Oldest Brewery and makes a great Lager. That beer with the big horses, not so much.

Tcg
I haven't heard the term 'big horses' before, I guess that means higher alcohol %.......

A 'beer-enthusiast' mate tells that true beer was all about the small beer that was brewed for day-by-day thirst quenching and much safer than any water, part of the way of life of everyday folks. But most of the bottled beers here have Alc contents of 4-7% and if I should drink a whole 'heavy beer' bottle now I would end up signing to the wife (the neighbours, the dachshunds, the ducks) and get slapped, sent to bed.

Kylie
Apprentice
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Post #400

Post by Kylie »

William wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:25 am [Replying to Kylie in post #396]
Yeah, if I wanted to reply to just one part of what you wrote, I can't do it.
Which 'part' would you want to reply to and which parts would you not?
I'm just pointing out that if you do more than a few sentences, I might want to respond to one sentence in particular. In such a case, I would generally put quote tags around that sentence alone and then write my reply. I would then go and put new quote tags around the next part, and type my response to that.
I see no reason why quote-mining would help you in any reply you might have to my answer to your question.
No, it's not quote mining. It's just typing my reply directly after the part of your post that I am replying to. I've just done it here. If you had typed this as one image, I would not be so able to place my replies so specifically.
But even so, if you want to reply to just one part of what I wrote, as grand-pappy once told me.

Image
Another thing: When I am writing my reply, I can't actually see the image. All I can see is the URL of the image. I would have to constantly switch back and forth to see what you actually wrote. Makes it rather time consuming. A little thought for the convenience of others is all I'm asking.

Post Reply