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

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

He was like an overgrown puppy until the Pentecost and then he became as ill -informed, capricious, violent and above the law as any Christian Authority. And you are probably correct. Avoid quips and jokes as Authority is quick to take offence and has no sense of humour.

[historia]

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.

So, if someone says that they "know that God exists" because they "just feel that it must be true," would you classify them as a "gnostic theist" because they used the word "know" in this loose sense?

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.

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.

Right, you understood the first sentence perfectly. Don't stop there, though. The very next sentence says:

But the later Wittgenstein understood that taking such a purist stance renders the notion of "to know" (or "to believe") completely useless.

As he got older, Wittgenstein realized what you just realized: If we define knowledge as being 100% certain about something, then we can't "know" anything, since we can never be 100% certain about things. There is always a possibility, however remote, that our senses deceive us.

And so Wittgenstein later rejected his previous position, and Carroll is urging us to do the same. We don't have to be 100% certain to know or believe things. So when someone rhetorically asks "what is knowledge if not something that you are 100% certain about?" tell them that that definition creates serious epistemological problems.

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.

I appreciate the fact that you see the connection between the young Wittgenstein's position and your own here, as it makes my job easier.

If by "know" here you mean "being 100% certain" then you are using a definition of knowledge that, if applied consistently, would lead you to the conclusion (as you just recognized above) that you can't "know" anything. Wittgenstein eventually rejected that naive definition of knowledge, and you should too.

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.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have to be 100% certain to affirm a proposition.

If you are just as sure that there is no God as you are that there isn't an elephant in your front yard, then that is a pretty high level of certainty! There is no good reason, then, for you to not accept the proposition that God doesn't exist.

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.

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

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 [a]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.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

[Kylie]

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.

So, if someone says that they "know that God exists" because they "just feel that it must be true," would you classify them as a "gnostic theist" because they used the word "know" in this loose sense?

If they claim that what they have is knowledge, yes.

As I've repeatedly said, this is NOT about conforming to some strict interpretation of what "knowledge" is.

It's about the opinions of people. And if their opinion is that they KNOW that their beliefs are right, then so be it.

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.

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.

Right, you understood the first sentence perfectly. Don't stop there, though. The very next sentence says:

But the later Wittgenstein understood that taking such a purist stance renders the notion of "to know" (or "to believe") completely useless.

As he got older, Wittgenstein realized what you just realized: If we define knowledge as being 100% certain about something, then we can't "know" anything, since we can never be 100% certain about things. There is always a possibility, however remote, that our senses deceive us.

And so Wittgenstein later rejected his previous position, and Carroll is urging us to do the same. We don't have to be 100% certain to know or believe things. So when someone rhetorically asks "what is knowledge if not something that you are 100% certain about?" tell them that that definition creates serious epistemological problems.

Then since you seem to be able to grasp the concept that "knowledge" doesn't need to mean "things you can provide irrefutable proof for," I fail to see why you are so insistent that a believer can't KNOW that God exists.

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.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have to be 100% certain to affirm a proposition.

If you are just as sure that there is no God as you are that there isn't an elephant in your front yard, then that is a pretty high level of certainty! There is no good reason, then, for you to not accept the proposition that God doesn't exist.

Yes there is, because as I have said so often I'm losing count, there's a big difference between "I have no belief there is a God," and "I have belief there is no God."

You are demanding I say, "Meh, close enough," and I think that would be intellectually dishonest.

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.

That doesn't make sense.

Both people don't believe in God, right? So surely they would be classified as "atheist" in your scheme. Neither claims to know that God does not exist, right? So then they must be "agnostic atheist" in your scheme. In other words, your scheme "just lumps them together under the same umbrella."

Even if we accept your (frankly rather labored) explanation here that these two positions somehow fall on the axes themselves, and so don't get assigned any of the four labels, that would mean that your scheme has no description (no label) for these positions, and so doesn't "describe" them at all, let alone "easily."

Hence why I said they would be in the CENTER, and not off on the THEIST or ATHEIST sides.

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 [a]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.

Okay, but your scheme doesn't capture this distinction either.

It comes closer than your suggestions.

[William]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #429]

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

That would fit under "E = Other"

It is not about how to define atheists, theists or others.

The issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold isn't relevant to the definition of Atheism, or non-Theism or Theism or Other.

A - B - C = the position whereby one moves from absolute ignorance through knowledge to personal choice resulting in the branching from position B into the three positions of D E F and finally G.

[oldbadger]

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.

I never learned how to ice-skate because the only two really cold winters (61 & 62) I was stuck in a boarding school...no freedom.
I did learn how to go forward and turn corners (gently) on roller skates because my kids went roller skating and like to watch me fall over during lessons.

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

Meh........ fishing for true bits among all them fibs.
However, during the Vietnam war the medics could just stick bits back on (in the field) for the boffin surgeons to sort out later.
Question....... Could Jesus have known about superglue? That's a reasonable question! All this negative stuff about him.... I mean.... ?

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

Tcg

I am useless with systems on forums....... that's why I erase everything but a member's last post when I reply, and even then I mess up, have to leave and re-enter the whole forum and then try again.

[oldbadger]

That would fit under "E = Other"

It is not about how to define atheists, theists or others.

The issue of WHY a person holds the particular belief they hold isn't relevant to the definition of Atheism, or non-Theism or Theism or Other.

A - B - C = the position whereby one moves from absolute ignorance through knowledge to personal choice resulting in the branching from position B into the three positions of D E F and finally G.

So how do I get off position 'A'?

I know nuffin'. People tell me 'Go this Way!' and I get lost. Then other people tell me I'm nuts, should have gone 'That Way'.
If getting to heaven requires map reading your diagrams, then I'm toast, William.

[oldbadger]

He was like an overgrown puppy until the Pentecost and then he became as ill -informed, capricious, violent and above the law as any Christian Authority. And you are probably correct. Avoid quips and jokes as Authority is quick to take offence and has no sense of humour.

Well, yeah....... a puppy...... A pit bull puppy.
Cephas was definitely a bruiser, imo.
He wasn't bright, for sure; seeing Jesus tearing over the water like that I suppose it did look easy, until he tried.

Everybody thinks boatmen are brilliant swimmers............. wrong!
The Smacksmen and bargemen of the East-coast and Thames Estuary, many of them couldn't swim...I know it defies reason, but they couldn't. I once heard an old waterman tell me that because he and his mates all wore heavy leather waders that they'd never get free of them in time anyway.
Definitely Cephas couldn't swim....... says so in the bible. !!!

[William]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #436]

So how do I get off position 'A'?

A B C & G are natural progression and if you are [Deist?] you have chosen rail/path F [Theist] because you believe that there is a GOD even that the God is not personal.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #436]

So how do I get off position 'A'?

A B C & G are natural progression and if you are [Deist?] you have chosen rail/path F [Theist] because you believe that there is a GOD even that the God is not personal.

That seems fine. One must be prompted to consider the god - claim, directly or indirectly. Of course this is rarely just the sorta -god (Deist) - claim because it is generally Jesusgod that is being peddled, so the discussion may not be about the god - claim, but the validity of the Bible. However, 'Who made everything, then?' will likely come up as soon as one questions the Bible (if they don't refer to Josh McDowell). So it's not (in my experience) going to be a consideration of the non -religious god -claim such as we get here.

I think this is actually a good place for those wondering about Cosmic Origins to follow the ramifications of the argument. That is, aside from the obscuring clutter of personal religious-gods.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to William in post #438]

Theist? *Sniffs*
Theism is about aware, interested, involved god's..... That contradicts everything that I think.

Tcg has introduced me to ignosticism which I might hide behind on future.