Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 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

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

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

Post #511

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Goose wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:46 am
Tcg wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:54 am "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.

Is this a good definition?
I think the trouble with both these definitions is that they are not particularly meaningful. Reducing atheism to such a broad definition as a lack of belief or the condition of not believing in God/gods inadvertently captures dogs and trees as atheists since they likewise lack a belief in God/gods. One wonders why atheists have, in recent years, watered down the definition of atheism to a lack of belief. I can’t help but think it’s to excuse the atheist from having to defend disbelief.

Even the American Atheists site where you’ve taken the definition in your signature doesn’t seem to be consistent in its own understanding of atheism. Taken from that site...

”Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.”

“Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.”

“Atheism is about what you believe.”


If atheism about what you believe (according to the American Atheists it is), then atheism is the belief that God/gods do not exist. If atheism is a lack of belief, then atheism is not about what you believe. But Atheism is about what you believe (according to American Atheists). Therefore, atheism is not a lack of belief.

:confused2:
No. You do not get to pick your own (well -poisoning) definition of atheism and then impose it on us.

Let's look at it logically. As I'm sure you are aware, to say "atheism is the belief that God/gods do not exist" one can ask about the epistemology. 'What reason or evidence do you have that a god or gods do not exist?' "Well the Bible is wrong, and there is no good evidence for any god."

"Ok, supposing that's so, it doesn't prove there aren't any, just that you haven't seen any convincing evidence for them." .."Well, they are less likely."

"But you can't be %100 sure there aren't any." .."Well, when you put it that way..."

"So you can't logically believe there are no gods, only...."

"Not believe the claims that there are any."

That, chum is the reason why we have to use that definition, because it is logical and accurate and does not make a logical misstep. Even if a claim of non existence of gods was the definition of atheism, logical argument would have forced us to the definition it now holds. It is also handy that it prevents Theism from claiming Babies for God even before they've been told about it. And there's no shame in sharing our non - theism with rocks, socks and clocks. We have never believed that we yumung beans were specially created as the summit of Creation; We had to pass a few exams first.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #512

Post by William »

oldbadger wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 1:49 am
William wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:57 pm
Atheism = not yet sufficiently clearly defined and thus agreed upon.
Theism = Defined and agreed upon
Nontheism = Defined and agreed upon [but as yet not a real dictionary word].

Other = defined as neither theism or nontheism and could be called "agnosticism" if only agnosticism was allowed to have its own place on the scale...currently looking like a Zero on Kylies model.
__________
I am all for charting the thought experiments of the subject matter if doing so can assist clearly up the current messy flock of definitions of Atheism.

In my model, the definition I use, makes the most sense as it includes all things which lack belief in GODs [rocks and babies et al] re pure ignorance - the default setting.
The label is eventually inevitably exchanged, as knowledge increases.
Oh dear....... there's a problem......
Thing is, people are going to plonk others on to this spectrum-scale and it's going to become a mess.
I know folks who are religious but atheist..... A Hindu from Northern India who writes on other forums, and many Buddhists, and I expect there are many other examples.

Now these folks might tick a minus number on the scale, and could even be counted with extreme nihilist mythers that do lurk out there. And so followers of religion can get bundled out of recognition from their actual followings. That's weird, because religion can be all over the minus spectrum.

A muddle.
I agree that the spectrum scale is messy, but you will have to take that up with Kylie.

As to "religious people who are atheist" - with my model they are either non-theist or neither theist or nontheist because atheism is the default position of ignorance re the question of GOD - of which we all move from as our knowledge increases and our choices are made.

We can change our minds and shift from non-theism, theism or neither, but we cannot go back to being atheist, because we are no longer ignorant about the question.

Also with my model, one cannot use the argument Kylie is using with Historia. This silliness about being 'agnostic nontheist' or 'agnostic theist' doesn't arise as - clearly - if one hasn't made up their mind about being theist or non theist, one is neither.
This means that one can lack belief in GODs and not be a nontheist on account of that lack of belief.

{If one is uncomfortable about being neither theist or nontheist, then one had best make up ones mind, rather than have these messy in-between placeholders...]

When someone tells me they are an 'atheist' because they actively lack belief in gods, I can say "Nope, because you have made a conscious choice re the question of GOD, just like we all have and depending on your choice, you are either nontheist or you are not."

One can lack belief in gods and not be a nontheist...it is a real-world thing.

Image

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 #513

Post by Kylie »

oldbadger wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:54 am
Kylie wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:36 pm
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.... :)
Yes. Funnily enough, I think you know your beliefs better than I know your beliefs.

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 #514

Post by Kylie »

William wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:33 am
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:13 pm
.................................................. 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.

It's ZERO.

Please feel free to substitute any other label you feel is more appropriate.

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 #515

Post by Kylie »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:11 am
William wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:33 am
Kylie wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:13 pm
.................................................. 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?
:D 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.
The only problem is, if you'd actually read what my model is, that there is another axis labelled GNOSTIC to AGNOSTIC.

Image

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #516

Post by William »

Why is there no placename for position ZERO?

[Replying to Kylie in post #514]
There is.

It's ZERO.
Except it communicates nothing.

William: "Oh, hi, Kylie. Say, how would you describe your beliefs on the question of God?"

Kylie: "My position on the matter is ZERO"

Doesn't give me any useful information.
Please feel free to substitute any other label you feel is more appropriate.
I have already...but here 'tis again;

Image

As one can see, I took your model, turned it 90°, replaced "Atheist" with "Nontheist" and the "ZERO" with "Neither" so then, the conversation would go;

Kylie: "Oh, hi, William. Say, how would you describe your beliefs on the question of God?"

William: "My position on the matter is neither theist or nontheist."
Last edited by William on Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #517

Post by William »

[Replying to Kylie in post #515]

In reality, there is no need to refer to nontheists as "atheists" or "agnostics". Nor is there need to refer to theists as "agnostics".

Agnostics are neither theists or nontheists and a lot of confusion would cease to exist, if folk stopped trying to make agnosticism a subset of either theism or nontheism and refer to nontheism as "atheism"

Atheism is - and always shall be - only the default position of a completely ignorant human being, who has yet to make a shift to any other position re the question of GOD.
____________________________

An accurate and easily understood definition of Atheism would have to be, that

Image

Once knowledge about the question of GOD dispels the ignorance, the Atheist becomes either nontheist, theist or neither nontheist or theist but is never again an actual atheist.

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 223 times

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

Post #518

Post by oldbadger »

William wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 12:51 pm
As to "religious people who are atheist" - with my model they are either non-theist or neither theist or nontheist because atheism is the default position of ignorance re the question of GOD - of which we all move from as our knowledge increases and our choices are made.
Just for conversation's sake...ok?.....

Dreadful idea, that. To propose that 'atheism is the default position of ignorance re question of God' is just horrid nonsense.
However you managed to tie the words Atheism and Ignorance together, whatever the intention, that cannot be acceptable, in my opinion.
We can change our minds and shift from non-theism, theism or neither, but we cannot go back to being atheist, because we are no longer ignorant about the question.
And you got that wrong, as well. The students, scholars and professors of Historical Jesus that began their journeys as theists (mostly Christians) and who deserted to atheism as their investigative journeys continued, show that the above is quite wrong.
There are no rules about how a person can change mind, even reverting to a previous mindset later on.
Also with my model, one cannot use the argument Kylie is using with Historia. This silliness about being 'agnostic nontheist' or 'agnostic theist' doesn't arise as - clearly - if one hasn't made up their mind about being theist or non theist, one is neither.
This means that one can lack belief in GODs and not be a nontheist on account of that lack of belief.
If your model is not short, sweet, clear and understandable for all, then it is dead.
Imagine taking a survey in your local shopping centre. If you end up lecturing the public on how to answer then you know you've got it sooooo wrong.
When someone tells me they are an 'atheist' because they actively lack belief in gods, I can say "Nope, because you have made a conscious choice re the question of GOD, just like we all have and depending on your choice, you are either nontheist or you are not."
Another bad idea...... You can't.
It's a bad scenario anyway. My wife would tell you 'I don't believe in Gods' and the person who demands to hear a reason for that would not be answered, if she was being polite at the time. Nobody has to tell you any reason for their beliefs, feelings, opinions.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

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

Post #519

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to William in post #512]

Nope. You still seem to be changing ideas and labels about, like nontheism is a new name for 'thinking atheist' and an atheist is something else. Apparently a default position of ignorance, which is the same way of saying the logically mandated belief - position based on agnosticism, which is what I or we have been saying all along. Why not accept the simple, logically sound, definition and model of agnostic - based atheism and so you won't have to waste your time and ours redesigning reality to try to justify a non -belief that isn't called 'atheism' as a logical default.

Isn't that what's it's all about? You needn't be ashamed of admitting it, it's a condition that is well known and understood.

[Replying to oldbadger in post #518].

Very good. I suspect our pal prefers to debate with you rather than me as he suspects that you might be easier to bamboozle with waffle. Clearly he was wrong. You are less tolerant of hogwash even than I am.particularly I like this:

in reply to "We can change our minds and shift from non-theism, theism or neither, but we cannot go back to being atheist, because we are no longer ignorant about the question."

You wrote:
And you got that wrong, as well. The students, scholars and professors of Historical Jesus that began their journeys as theists (mostly Christians) and who deserted to atheism as their investigative journeys continued, show that the above is quite wrong. There are no rules about how a person can change mind, even reverting to a previous mindset later on.
Given that people can convert and deconvert, I do not find much of "Thinking" atheists who reconvert back to religion. not once they know both sides of the argument. Sure, 'tabula rasa' (which is not a perverted abuse across a table, but means 'clean slate') or unprepared atheists can be bamboozled with One side of the argument (1). True, Anthony Flew was persuaded to Theism by the 'evidence' - which turned out to be garbage, but Flew jumped too soon. A lesson well learned when the theist side tried the same swindle with NDE's.

And a forum colleague was persuaded by First cause. I don't see the other high profile 'conversions of atheists' as valid, even if true (there was one who was filmed making a rather odd speech at an atheist conference and then declared being converted shortly afterwards) and Peter Hitchens (Brother of the Hitch) converted because he hated communism and then terrified himself into Christianity with thoughts of hellfire. I am Not impressed. There was the son of O' Hair who converted, apparently because he disliked his mother and was impressed by how nice Christians looked. Still haven't heard any good evidence for it.

Now our poster girl is Rachel Slick (d. of Matt) who deconverted because when she went to college, she tried to convert atheists and had to make the Bible stand up to atheist disbelief. She realised that it didn't. Sure, believers have come up with excuses for themselves and their Faith, but they are tissue thin to atheists or indeed to anyone not already brainwashed into Faith. I promise you, friends, Godfaith as a given and Basic Faith is the explanation of the whole theist apologetics thing, and explains all those odd and puzzling actions by theists, their back to front logic, and fallacy- based arguments. God -faith as a given is the basis and the explanation of it all. Once that is gone, there is no way back to theism.

Thank you for your attention...now I'll take questions...Yes? Why do we-all atheists eat babies?...."

(1) aside from the Strobel syndrome (assuming it's true as he relates it) there was a poster on my previous board who posted a religious propaganda video which was the dismally familiar - "I used to be an atheist, like you, until...." and the usual wretched theistic arguments which showed that he had never heard the atheist rebuttals. Now, either he is an ex - atheist who had never heard the arguments both sides or he was a longtime theist who was posing as a deconverted atheist so as to try to pull the vile and infantile gambit of ''I was persuaded by the evidence for Christianity, so maybe you should be, too". But to those who have seen all the theist apologetics shot down in flames, this is a hoot. Arq atheist axiom no....11, possibly "Once you have seen through a trick, you won't be fooled by it again."

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 223 times

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

Post #520

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:26 am
Very good. I suspect our pal prefers to debate with you rather than me as he suspects that you might be easier to bamboozle with waffle. Clearly he was wrong. You are less tolerant of hogwash even than I am.particularly I like this:
You wrote:
And you got that wrong, as well. The students, scholars and professors of Historical Jesus that began their journeys as theists (mostly Christians) and who deserted to atheism as their investigative journeys continued, show that the above is quite wrong. There are no rules about how a person can change mind, even reverting to a previous mindset later on.
Thank you for your kind words. :)

A majority of the people have average intelligence quotients, and where they (and self) would need to be subjected to a course before we could fill out a blooming questionnaire about what we think and believe, then course, question paper and possibly tutors could end up in the ditch. (Quite unharmed, but somewhat soggy).

Where high intelligence can fail, simple common sense may well prevail, and the simplest definitions for atheism, theism and agnosticism need to be there for easy, clear comprehension. While we're at it, agnosticism could benefit from a more commonly understood term........ but what?

Post Reply