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

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #419]

I just noticed that I called it Genesis Stout. It's been around a long time, but I don't think it's that old. Adam, the first brew master. Adam and Eve (not suggesting they were actual individuals) were theists of the highest order, they knew God. I mean he was their neighbor or something. The rest of us, well those who are convinced of a God, must take it on faith. Those of us who don't are atheists.

This may be seen by some who desire to confuse the issue as yet another definition of atheism. Not at all. It is yet another way to say exactly the same thing.


Tcg

[William]

A = Tunnel of Birth
B = First Steps
C = Decision made on the question of GOD
D = Non - Theism
E = Other
F = Theism
G = Tunnel of Death

[Miles]

A = Tunnel of Birth
B = First Steps
C = Decision made on the question of GOD
D = Non - Theism
E = Other
F = Theism
G = Tunnel of Death

My version

?= Questionable existence
A = Birth
B = First Steps
C = Decision made on the question of GOD
D = Theist
E = No other option
F = Atheist
G = Death
? = Questionable existence

.

[historia]

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?

Because it's not particularly useful.

Note, the issue here is not whether it could, in theory, be done -- it's logically possible to categorize any position along any number of dimensions, including "pro-pineapple-on-pizza evolutionist" (the correct position, BTW). The point here is that we we don't, in practice, do this with either pineapples or knowledge, because it's just adding noise to our data.

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.

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?"

It's easy to ask the question. The hard part is that you're going to get incongruent answers in return. Consider the fact that you have yourself used the term "knowledge" in at least three different (conflicting) ways just in the course of our conversation.

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.

Okay, but the point I'm making here is that, if believers and non-believers are using the word "know" in different senses, then the label "gnostic" is being applied inconsistently across the scheme. If it spans everything from "I just feel it must be true" to "doesn't meet the burden of absolute proof" it's not very useful.

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:

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.

Yeah, that's nearly the opposite of what Carroll is saying here. But it depends on how one defines "knowledge," which is kinda the problem with using that as a dimension on which to categories people's opinions.

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.

Well, if you are "as sure that there is no Go[d] as I'm sure that there isn't an elephant in my front yard," as you said above, then it seems you should be able to affirm the proposition that God doesn't exist and be classified as an atheist on the old scheme.

Again, you don't need to be 100% certain that a proposition is true to affirm it.

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.

It does? Here are the two positions again:

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.

On the scheme you are proposing, wouldn't both of these positions be described as "agnostic atheist"?

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

Yeah, the term gnostic doesn't typically mean "having knowledge." There's not even an entry for that in Websters. Using non-standard definitions is not a feature of your proposed scheme, it's a bug.

[Kylie]

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?

Because it's not particularly useful.

Note, the issue here is not whether it could, in theory, be done -- it's logically possible to categorize any position along any number of dimensions, including "pro-pineapple-on-pizza evolutionist" (the correct position, BTW). The point here is that we we don't, in practice, do this with either pineapples or knowledge, because it's just adding noise to our data.

I think the issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold is an important one. As I've said, I think there's a big difference between an theist who is an atheist because they were never raised to be a believer and an atheist who is an atheist because they used to be a believer and then critically examined the arguments for and against and gave up their faith.

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.

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?"

It's easy to ask the question. The hard part is that you're going to get incongruent answers in return. Consider the fact that you have yourself used the term "knowledge" in at least three different (conflicting) ways just in the course of our conversation.

And yet the only one that matters for my purposes here is whether the person being asked what their beliefs is claims to KNOW that they are right, or if they do not make such a claim.

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.

Okay, but the point I'm making here is that, if believers and non-believers are using the word "know" in different senses, then the label "gnostic" is being applied inconsistently across the scheme. If it spans everything from "I just feel it must be true" to "doesn't meet the burden of absolute proof" it's not very useful.

Again, I'm asking for people's SUBJECTIVE beliefs. You are insisting that we limit what they can say.

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:

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.

Yeah, that's nearly the opposite of what Carroll is saying here. But it depends on how one defines "knowledge," which is kinda the problem with using that as a dimension on which to categories people's opinions.

Seems quite clear to me that "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," is that Wittgenstein was saying that he couldn't KNOW FOR A FACT that there wasn't a rhino because his senses might be tricking him. That same argument can apply to EVBERYTHING. I do not KNOW that I am writing a reply to your post, because my senses might be tricking me. I do not KNOW that I am a Human, because my senses might be tricking me. Thus, it is saying that we can't KNOW anything.

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.

Well, if you are "as sure that there is no Go[d] as I'm sure that there isn't an elephant in my front yard," as you said above, then it seems you should be able to affirm the proposition that God doesn't exist and be classified as an atheist on the old scheme.

Again, you don't need to be 100% certain that a proposition is true to affirm it.

And therein lies the problem.

Just as Wittgenstein could have said, "While I lack the belief that there is a rhino in this room, I would NOT say that I believe that this room lacks Rhinos," I will say that I lack belief in God, yet I do not claim to know that there are no Gods. As I have stated many times, there is a big difference between "I have no belief in X" and "I have a belief in no X." Yet you are asking me to consider the two equal.

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.

It does? Here are the two positions again:

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.

On the scheme you are proposing, wouldn't both of these positions be described as "agnostic atheist"?

No.

Both people would be in the middle of the theist/atheist axis, while one would be on the positive side of the gnosticism axis and the other would be on the negative side.

In the following chart, the first person would be towards the top center, and the second person would be towards the bottom center.

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

Yeah, the term gnostic doesn't typically mean "having knowledge." There's not even an entry for that in Websters. Using non-standard definitions is not a feature of your proposed scheme, it's a bug.

The term “agnostic” was coined in 1870 by the biologist, T.H. Huxley (1825-1895). He took the Greek word “a” which means “without” and the Greek word “gnostos” which means “known” to create the word agnostic. This is simply an expansion of that.

[historia]

The Wikipedia article on atheism summarizes this nicely:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

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?

I suppose the three definitions of atheism above reflect a logical set of responses to the proposition of God's existence:

[*] You can be unaware of the proposition (the broad definition of atheism).
[*] You can choose not to accept the proposition (the middle definition).
[*] You can choose not to accept the proposition and also affirm the opposite proposition that God does not exist (the narrow definition).

I suppose one could, in theory, subdivide some of those categories further -- any ideas on how? But after awhile you're defining increasingly narrow positions, which loses utility. Sticking with a good Encyclopedia description is more practical, I think.

What beneficial purposes has that ever served, or can it serve?

It labels significant phenomena we see in the world and so is useful for communication?

(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?

- They suggest that atheists hold a purely neutral position on the proposition of God's existence, when the vast majority have clearly rejected it.

[oldbadger]

Lol! Well... I have walked on water, quite a few times. It was always during the heart of winter... but still.

I didn't have my readers on when I read this at first.........
I thought...... Oh my!..... walking on water in the heat of winter....... the bloke's obviously a secret friend of Big-G's... No big electric bills for him!

Yeah, if Peter's up there I might regret not being convinced of Wit. Of course, I could ask him about that whole cock crowing thing and him picking Witout three times in a row. That might get me kicked down the staircase, but I'd have a point.

Tcg

Please........ if by some amazing chance you find yourself in fron of him.......just don't irritate him!

Anyway, if that had been me, on the spot and accused of being with my lifelong mate and rebel, I know how I would have replied ....
'Wot? Who? Nah!'

[oldbadger]

You should be ok if you ask. Peter's letter says the Christian should always be ready to answer questions cheerfully (1.Peter 3.15) so unless they have gone full Maafia up there, he shouldn't begrudge you a fair response.

Yeah..... right.......... since your answer could lead to an infinity of joy, or of everlasting torture it might be best to leave out any cheeky answers..... after all, he might be in a bad mood..?
He was a grumpy guy, you know.

[oldbadger]

My version[/size]

?= Questionable existence
A = Birth
B = First Steps
C = Decision made on the question of GOD
D = Theist
E = No other option
F = Atheist
G = Death
? = Questionable existence

.

Why not have E = couldn't give a hoot!
??

[Tcg]

Lol! Well... I have walked on water, quite a few times. It was always during the heart of winter... but still.

I didn't have my readers on when I read this at first.........
I thought...... Oh my!..... walking on water in the heat of winter....... the bloke's obviously a secret friend of Big-G's... No big electric bills for him!

As a kid I lived in South Carolina and there were some days that could have been described as the heat of winter. It was in Pennsylvania however where I learned to walk and even skate on water. Bet ol' Pete never played ice hockey.

Yeah, if Peter's up there I might regret not being convinced of Wit. Of course, I could ask him about that whole cock crowing thing and him picking Witout three times in a row. That might get me kicked down the staircase, but I'd have a point.

Tcg

Please........ if by some amazing chance you find yourself in fron of him.......just don't irritate him!

Anyway, if that had been me, on the spot and accused of being with my lifelong mate and rebel, I know how I would have replied ....
'Wot? Who? Nah!'

Good advice. Wasn't he the one who cut off that dude's ear? Jesus put it back and all, but still!

(I messed up the quote and unquote thing but can't figure out how to fix it.)


Tcg