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

[William]

[Replying to William in post #438]

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

That is because you are misinformed as to what 'theism is about'. On the question of GOD, an individual who believes that there is a GOD but the GOD is unaware of the finer details of Its creation.
I can see how some may confuse such an idea of GOD as being no different from being non-theist...the belief doesn't go anywhere in relation to the question of GOD [See Deism vs. Atheism. Which is more likely true?] but it still belongs in the Theism category.

FTL;

AthetotheistThe core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

You're falling for a mischaracterization of Deism often employed by the uninformed.

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

If you are saying that I am mistaken about you being a Deist, my bad.

As to ignosticism, the definitions do vary. Which definition do you use?

[oldbadger]

That is because you are misinformed as to what 'theism is about'. On the question of GOD, an individual who believes that there is a GOD but the GOD is unaware of the finer details of Its creation.
I can see how some may confuse such an idea of GOD as being no different from being non-theist...the belief doesn't go anywhere in relation to the question of GOD [See Deism vs. Atheism. Which is more likely true?] but it still belongs in the Theism category.

Of course I'm uninformed....... there are as many definitions of deism as there are dictionaries, search engines, interested minds and who knows who else.
Now that's why I'm moving away from such a title, because the tag has too many definitions.
Hey you!
Who...me?
Yeah! You! What are you?
Hmmm....ummm.... a deist?
Oh no!.... a full moon baby eater! How sick!

FTL;
Athetotheist :- The core tenet of Deism is not that the creator is uninvolved. The core tenet of Deism is that the creator can be discerned by each individual through nature and reason without the aid of special revelation through any individual or group. That's it.

And there goes another one,
not like the other one,
tell me another one...do!

But I do like the focus upon 'Natural World' and since everything and force and all else is a part of NATURE then Nature can be the guvnor that I will bend down for everyday, and the wonderful thing is, that I know everybody else has to bend down each day for it as well.

If you are saying that I am mistaken about you being a Deist, my bad.

As to ignosticism, the definitions do vary. Which definition do you use?

Oh Noooo!! I'm not saying! I don't want the uninformed hat any more! Give it to @Transponder for a bit ....

[TRANSPONDER]

The safety net is 'meanings before definitions'. While of course it is beneficial that we all understand the terms that others use and that they have the same meanings, explanation of what one means by a term is the arbiter, bottom line and safety =net. It is not for one side or the other to point to a definition (which may be one of several) and say: 'That's what you think - or should start thinking'. So start with what you believe (and/or don't) and then find the nearest you can to be the name of it. You can change ii if you find a better one.

For me, 'Atheist' was better than 'agnostic', and it's also better than 'Bright'. .

[Tcg]

As to ignosticism, the definitions do vary. Which definition do you use?

Oh Noooo!! I'm not saying! I don't want the uninformed hat any more! Give it to @Transponder for a bit ....

Yikes! Now we have a yet another definition to argue about. At least it'll let the term "atheism" cool off for a bit. It's about to melt down. If I claimed to be a bowler (which I'm not anymore) I wonder if I'd have to define the term before people could understand what I mean.

Bowler - One who bowls.

Non-bowler - One who doesn't.

#####

Ignostic - One who igs.

Non-Ignostic - One who doesn't.

[/sarcasm]


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheism is as cool as the Webb telescope (in both senses ) I'll leave it to others to have mental meltdowns.

[William]

As has been pointed out, atheism doesn't get to be so special that it can mean two different things.
The confusion about it's definitions can be traced to this declaring that it can cover two differing positions in order to force us to accept that there can only be theists or atheists re the question of GOD.

I consider that to be a deliberate lie, in regard to those who purposefully tell it.

"Atheism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists." is untrue.

Non-theism is the condition of not believing that a God or deity exists
Theism is the condition of believing that a God or deity exists.

Atheism is the condition of absolute ignorance re the question of GOD. Once the question becomes understood and a deliberate choice to believe one way or the other [GOD exists or does not exist] then one shifts from being an atheist to being a non-theist or a theist, or remains undecided re the understood knowledge re the question.

No one born, remains totally ignorant [as the default position]. Therefore no one remains an atheist.

The idea of using the same to describe another position ["I am an atheist AND a non-theist"] is where the source of the confusion lies.

As such, atheism is ill-defined and I am confident that I am neither atheist nor theist and that being neither is a legitimate position to hold regarding the question of GOD.

[TRANSPONDER]

As has been pointed out, there is no need or cause for confusion. It is like football and footballers. simple. The latter does the former. It is also not a cause for confusion to consider other meanings. American or European, professional or amateur? Male or female ( I presume there are female footballers in America, except in Florida where they are kept busy polishing their Man's gun -collection) good or bad ones, top rank or botom league...all valid sub - divisions but no affect on the basic meaning and use of the definition. Anyone who tried to confuse the issue and suggest that there was something wrong with football (footballers were confused) were trying to sow confusion because of some Agernda of their own.

That's how I see those who try to make a dogs' dinner of the definition of atheism. We usually know why. They hate atheism and atheists either for religious or for political reasons.

[William]

The only horse I have in this race is the one I am riding. I have earned the pass as I have identified that the one calling itself "atheist" is actually a "non-theist"

The non-theist and the theist can battle it out as they see fit - I have better things to do.

[TRANSPONDER]

You have earned no Pass nor credit nor entry ticket, except the one to the Theist apologetics camp through trying to mangle atheism into something it isn't. Whether you use the ticlkt or not is up to you. Whether you stick around or not is up to you as well, but I see no hope for your line of argument, if you do.

[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