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

[Kylie]

I fully understand that you don't think your scheme is measuring whether the person's position is objectively true or not, and have said so several times throughout our discussion.

The thrust of my argument is that your scheme is inconsistent in measuring the person's subjective opinion. But each time I point this out, you respond by saying the scheme is not meant to measure the objective truth of their opinion, which is simply not relevant.

Perhaps we can make better headway going forward if we both keep that in mind.

I don't see why it is not relevant.

Perhaps I can clear-up your confusion, then.

There are two different issues here: (a) whether your scheme measures if the person's position is objectively true or not, and (b) whether your scheme consistently measures their subjective opinion.

Every time I offer a criticism of (b) you respond by talking about (a). But, clearly, your response about (a) is not relevant to my criticism on (b), since these are two different issues. This is conflating the two issues.

Makes sense?

I don't see how my scheme is inconsistent. I am asking where a person stands on the issue of whether God exists or not, and I am asking whether they claim to know if their beliefs are right or not. The only criticisms that I've seen presented are based on what is meant when a person claims they KNOW their position is true, but that onl;y works if we are trying to find out if the person's position is objectively true or not.

If someone just has a feeling that God exists, I wouldn't necessarily categorise that as "knowing."

Right. So, again, if someone says they "know" that God exists because "they just feel it must be true," you would not classify their position as "gnostic theist" because, even though they uttered the word "know" what they meant by that is not what you mean by knowledge?

Agreed?

Again, I'm just summarizing the point you made in your very first post, quoted above. You said people often use the word "know" to mean "be really sure of because they feel that it just must be true," but that is not what you mean by knowing.

Don't tell me that you are offering a criticism of (b) and then turn around and insist I start talking about whether my scheme is a measure of whether their position is objectively true. I have stated repeatedly, I don't care if their position is objectively true, I only care if they THINK their position is objectively true.

Okay, but keep in mind you are the one making this comparison. You said you are as certain that God doesn't exist as you are that there are no elephants in your front yard.

So, if you are as certain that God doesn't exist as you are about something for which you can have "objective proof," then that is very certain indeed, right? More than enough to affirm a proposition.

At the moment, I do NOT have sufficient objective evidence to claim there is a 100% chance that there is no elephant in my front yard. I haven't been out to check, after all. I just believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is a elephant in my front yard.

Right, so you believe there is no elephant in your front yard.

You can't be 100% certain of that, of course. But, as Sean Carroll reminded us above, we can never be 100% certain. Everything we believe (outside of logical and mathematical axioms) we hold with less than 100% certainty. Right?

Are you seriously reduced to this now?

Do you know what country you are in? You must answer NO because you could just be a brain in a jar that could exist anywhere!

Yes, I believe that the chances of me being wrong are extremely small, but I will not ever treat such small chances as being the same thing as zero chance.

And nobody is asking you to. There is always a non-zero chance we are wrong about everything we believe -- we could all be plugged into the Matrix and the world around us is just an illusion, for example. Yet you and I believe all kinds of things despite that.

Yes you are asking me to do just that.

So they don't get assigned one of the four labels and your scheme can't describe them at all, then?

If you are so bothered by it, please feel free to assign numbers for the horizontal and vertical axes.

A person in the exact center would be 0,0, for example.

I'm not bothered. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that your scheme "describes this position easily" turned out to be false, since it doesn't even have a label for it.

*sigh*

The position of such a person on the graph is easily plottable. Do you think things don't exist unless we have a specific name for them?

Here, as elsewhere in our discussion, you appear to have lost track of the original point you were making, so let me remind you. You said:

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.

And then offered this claim:

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.

So, again, on the old scheme, both positions are described as "agnostic," but people have historically extended the scheme to use the labels "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic" to distinguish between these two position.

Now, you think your scheme describes these two positions better because we can refer to them as "0,0" and "0,50" or some such thing. But would anyone in their right mind think that is better than "soft agnostic" and "hard agnostic," or even just "agnostic"? Have you ever met someone who describes themselves as "0,0"?

The entire point of a scheme -- the very reason it exists -- is to assign labels to positions. If a scheme has no label for a position that is a deficiency in the scheme.

We can, of course, put down some kind of numerical spectrum on any scheme, assigning numbers to positions. We can do that with my scheme or Dawkin's scheme -- it's not like this is somehow unique to your scheme. But assigning numbers instead of labels is, to use your own words, "kooky."

It doesn't matter if I have met someone like that or not. My personal experience is completely irrelevant when it comes to recording the different position of people with regards to the existence of God.

I can show anyone a chart with the axes labelled and say that such-and-such-a-person holds some particular position, and they can immediately pinpoint them on the diagram and understand where they fit. But if someone says that they are a hard agnostic, or a soft agnostic, there's no specific meaning included. All they can say is, "I'm a hard agfnostic, and that's a shorthand way of saying X," and that relies on arbitrarydefinitions. You might as well say, "I'm a snarklefoozer, and that means X."

Are you going to demand that I create completely unique names for every single possible position on the graph?

Again, you are the one saying these positions are important and that your scheme is better at describing them. As we just saw, it isn't. In fact, it's worse, and obviously so.

You say it isn't, yet I can precisely describe any position on that diagram with only two numbers.

[Kylie]

.................................................. You don't seem able to understand the concept of a spectrum.

ATHEIST...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

The person who holds that the existence of God is unknowable would be at position ZERO. They do not think it is more likely than not that God exists, nor do they think that it is more likely than not that God DOESN'T exist.

.....................................

This isn't easy enough. Poor minds like mine would decide where we are on your spectrum and nominate (say) number 6, but since you haven't used the +/- or A/T gradients nobody is going to have a clue about me.

ATHEIST...-9...-8...-7...-6...-5...-4...-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

Was that complicated?

Where I live I sometimes receive documents from our health service, local and national government, etc, that include a questionnaire about my age, nationality, gender orientation and more..... including religion if any. Thus:-

Document:- Please enter your position on the atheism-theism spectrum.
Normal Brit (fick, see?) :- Ummmm, errr... 5

Now, how is the department office going to have a clue about me?

The government doesn't ask this question in the same way as Kylie, therefore Kylie must be wrong!

The other thing is: Is an atheist (number 0) in certitude about this, and if so, how?
...and is the Theist (number 0) in certitude about this and how?

Please keep any answer to me within the ABC code of info delivery. (accurate, brief and clear).

I've already shown a diagram that has one axis for position about God and a second axis to measure whether the person claims to know for a fact or not. Please don't argue against my position if you have looked at what my position actually is.

[oldbadger]

ATHEIST...-9...-8...-7...-6...-5...-4...-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

Was that complicated?

That's a bit better, but I would prefer to see a + before each of the Theist gradients....... it would make me happy. Any chance?

The government doesn't ask this question in the same way as Kylie, therefore Kylie must be wrong!

Well, even with Kylie new improved spectrum, nobody is going to have a clue where to circle for 'social Christian', say the Weddings, Baptisms Funerals folks, is that a +2, possibly? Who knows?

I'm a deist/ignostic..... where do I fit the spectrum?

I've already shown a diagram that has one axis for position about God and a second axis to measure whether the person claims to know for a fact or not. Please don't argue against my position if you have looked at what my position actually is.

I'm not arguing..... I'm simply telling you that I would not know where (accurately) to circle the spectrum for self.

I'm, guessing that the far right and far left positions are for certitude, so the Christian faith might not tick the Theist box so much.
If it's easy it'll win...... Oh dear.....

[Kylie]

ATHEIST...-9...-8...-7...-6...-5...-4...-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

Was that complicated?

That's a bit better, but I would prefer to see a + before each of the Theist gradients....... it would make me happy. Any chance?

I'm certain you can figure out how to do it yourself.

The government doesn't ask this question in the same way as Kylie, therefore Kylie must be wrong!

Well, even with Kylie new improved spectrum, nobody is going to have a clue where to circle for 'social Christian', say the Weddings, Baptisms Funerals folks, is that a +2, possibly? Who knows?

That would be up to them to decide, wouldn't it? Remember, I'm asking people to place themselves here. I'm NOT telling people where they should be placed.

I'm a deist/ignostic..... where do I fit the spectrum?

You'd know better than me.

I've already shown a diagram that has one axis for position about God and a second axis to measure whether the person claims to know for a fact or not. Please don't argue against my position if you have looked at what my position actually is.

I'm not arguing..... I'm simply telling you that I would not know where (accurately) to circle the spectrum for self.

I'm, guessing that the far right and far left positions are for certitude, so the Christian faith might not tick the Theist box so much.
If it's easy it'll win...... Oh dear.....

No, there's a separate axis for whether the person claims to know for a fact that they are right or is open to the idea they are wrong.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #494]

I'm asking people to place themselves here.

That may be so, but to the point where there is no position on your model to accommodate my position of "neither nontheist nor theist", I cannot place my position therein, unless it is the zero point.

Would you agree that with your model, the zero position is where "neither nontheist nor theist" is situated?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #494]

I'm asking people to place themselves here.

That may be so, but to the point where there is no position on your model to accommodate my position of "neither nontheist nor theist", I cannot place my position therein, unless it is the zero point.

Would you agree that with your model, the zero position is where "neither nontheist nor theist" is situated?

As I have stated NUMEROUS times, this is a system where I expect people to place themselves. I am NOT going to tell people where they should be, I want them to tell me where they feel best reflects their position.

So if you think the zero point best reflects your position, then you go right ahead and put yourself there. I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong.

[William]

Where do you place your own position?

[oldbadger]

I'm certain you can figure out how to do it yourself.

That would be up to them to decide, wouldn't it? Remember, I'm asking people to place themselves here. I'm NOT telling people where they should be placed.

You'd know better than me.

No, there's a separate axis for whether the person claims to know for a fact that they are right or is open to the idea they are wrong.

Me? ...Know better than you?
I just hope that our government bodies and depts stick with the present list, at least they do offer a box titled 'Prefer not to answer'. Now if your spectrum had a 'Prefer not to answer' box to tick, then lost folks like me would be saved.


Alas....

[William]

.................................................. You don't seem able to understand the concept of a spectrum.

ATHEIST...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

The person who holds that the existence of God is unknowable would be at position ZERO. They do not think it is more likely than not that God exists, nor do they think that it is more likely than not that God DOESN'T exist.

.....................................

Why is there no placename for position ZERO?

[TRANSPONDER]

.................................................. You don't seem able to understand the concept of a spectrum.

ATHEIST...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...THEIST

The person who holds that the existence of God is unknowable would be at position ZERO. They do not think it is more likely than not that God exists, nor do they think that it is more likely than not that God DOESN'T exist.

.....................................

Why is there no placename for position ZERO?

There is: "Agnostic". In the confused mind of those who cannot tell a belief - position from a knowledge position, "Agnostic" is a name given to those mythical floating voters who don't know whether to believe in a god or not. Quite aside from the half - full bias of the believer who sees it as those half convinced it does exist, whereas correctly, it is not being sure that a god exists {never mind which one} so logic dictates that you don't believe until you are (reasonably) sure.

The sliding scale relates to the evidence and how good it is for reasons to believe or not that there is a god. But the clickover from disbelief to belief or belief to non - belief is pretty much as instantaneous as a light switch.