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]

I will ask this question again;

Q: Why do nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism?

[Miles]

I will ask this question again;

Q: Why do nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism?

First of all, not all nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism. Most of us simply don't care how anyone regards agnosticism, including agnostics. I've always held that atheism centers around the subject of belief: we lack any belief in the existence of god, whereas agnosticism centers around knowledge: agnostics saying it's impossible to know god exists---most atheists leave such window open to evidence, which has yet to materialize.

Here's what the APA thinks in part (it's quite a long article).

From an American Psychological Association website on "What do you believe."

Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.

And just to be clear, while some atheists claim god does not exist, the majority simply lack any belief in his existence.

.

[William]

I will ask this question again;

Q: Why do nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism?

First of all, not all nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism.

I was referring only to those who do, and are content with labelling agnosticism as a sub-group rather than as an independent position.

Most of us simply don't care how anyone regards agnosticism, including agnostics.

Most not caring does not make the practice a truthful one.

I've always held that nontheism centers around the subject of belief: we lack any belief in the existence of god, whereas agnosticism centers around knowledge: agnostics saying it's impossible to know god exists---most nontheists leave such window open to evidence, which has yet to materialize.

Agnostics do not all say "it is impossible to know GOD exists."

And just to be clear, while some atheists claim god does not exist, the majority simply lack any belief in his existence.

Which is part of why the confusion re use of the word exists - because it allows for two differing attitudes re the question of GOD, to be called by the same name.

My model is better as it refers to Atheism as the position of those who simply lack any belief in GODs existence, allowing this to be the default position of the human condition prior to gaining knowledge re the question.

Once knowledge is acquired and decisions made, we all shift from Atheism to one of the three possible positions and those who claim GOD does not exist are nontheists just as those who claim that GOD exists are theists and those who - for whatever reasons to do with the knowledge being obtained, choose not to be either, so - with my model - are given their rightful position independent of the other two positions.

[Miles]

I will ask this question again;

Q: Why do nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism?

First of all, not all nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism.

I was referring only to those who do, and are content with labelling agnosticism as a sub-group rather than as an independent position.

I assume such a sub-group would be comprised of agnostic atheists who don't believe in god's existence but also don’t believe we can ever know if god exists. Correct?

Just to be clear, is this how you see the three laid out?

I Theists: those who assert god exists
...a those who believe god exists
...b those who know god exists

II Atheists: those who do not assert god exists
...a those who know god does not exist
...b those who don't believe god exists, although there could be convincing evidence that he does
...c those who don't believe god exists, and don’t believe it’s possible to know that he does.


III Agnostics: (how shall we describe them?)
...a see IIc above.
...b ____?______ .

In a very real sense here, agnostics do comprise a sub-group of those who don't believe god exists; the atheists, unless, that is, you see something amiss.

I've always held that nontheism centers around the subject of belief: we lack any belief in the existence of god, whereas agnosticism centers around knowledge: agnostics saying it's impossible to know god exists---most nontheists leave such window open to evidence, which has yet to materialize.

Agnostics do not all say "it is impossible to know GOD exists."

What do other agnostics say, then?

And just to be clear, while some atheists claim god does not exist, the majority simply lack any belief in his existence.

Which is part of why the confusion re use of the word exists - because it allows for two differing attitudes re the question of GOD, to be called by the same name.

Would calling god by some other name, "dog" for instance, change anything? If so, what? All "atheism" does is embrace two differing concepts; belief ( II b and IIc,) and knowledge (IIa), as do many, many other words in our vocabulary.

My model is better as it refers to Atheism as the position of those who simply lack any belief in GODs existence, allowing this to be the default position of the human condition prior to gaining knowledge re the question.

Then what do you call those non-theists who deny god's existence? (IIa)

Once knowledge is acquired and decisions made, we all shift from Atheism to one of the three possible positions and those who claim GOD does not exist are nontheists just as those who claim that GOD exists are theists and those who - for whatever reasons to do with the knowledge being obtained, choose not to be either, so - with my model - are given their rightful position independent of the other two positions.

So please describe this alternative that is neither believing nor not believing. (Also, please put it in IIIb above, if you can)

.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #534]

First of all, not all nontheists calling themselves "atheists" have a problem with Agnosticism having its own position, independent from Theism and Nontheism.

I was referring only to those who do, and are content with labelling agnosticism as a sub-group rather than as an independent position.

I assume such a sub-group would be comprised of agnostic atheists who don't believe in god's existence but also don’t believe we can ever know if god exists. Correct?

Using my model, such a group of people would not be able to label agnosticism as a position within the other two positions, so incorrect in that regard, as my model has no such position as "agnostic atheists" or "agnostic theists."

Just to be clear, is this how you see the three laid out?

I Theists: those who assert god exists
...a those who believe god exists
...b those who know god exists

My model does not consider "those who know god exists" as real people. If they existed, the question of GOD existing would be solved. So theism only consists of those who believe that God exists.

II Atheists: those who do not assert god exists
...a those who know god does not exist
...b those who don't believe god exists, although there could be convincing evidence that he does
...c those who don't believe god exists, and don’t believe it’s possible to know that he does.

In my model, Atheism only consists of those who do not assert GOD exists or does not exist, as they are not yet aware of the question of GOD.
Atheism is the default position that all human start out as, as I explained in my last post.

My model, does not consider 'those who know *GOD does not exist" as real people. If they existed, the question of GOD existing would be solved. So Nontheism only consists of those who believe that GOD does not exist.

Those who don't believe GOD exists, but are "open to there being be convincing evidence that GOD does exist", are nontheists while that evidence remains for them, simply a thing hoped for rather than something which evidently exists - according to whatever such nontheists regard as "evidence for GOD existing"

Those who don't believe GOD exists, and don’t believe it’s possible to know that GOD exists, are nontheists, using my model and would simple be those nontheists who have no hope any such evidence exists according to whatever such nontheists regard as "evidence for GOD existing" might be.

Obviously the issue of what such evidence might consist of for GOD existing, is a nontheist issue.

III Agnostics: (how shall we describe them?)
...a see IIc above.
...b ____?______ .

They and all others who are neither theists or nontheists.

These would be those who range between "have no opinion or care about the question of GOD" right through to those who understand that the question of GOD cannot begin to be answered until the question as to whether we exist within a creation or not, is first answered, and would include agnostics or could even be referred to as agnostics and the position as Agnosticism, if indeed that is the appropriate label.

Otherwise, the position can simply be referred to as "Neither" or "Other Than", which is adequate re the other two positions.
Remember, in my model;

Once knowledge is acquired and decisions made, we all shift from Atheism to one of the three possible positions and those who claim GOD does not exist are nontheists just as those who claim that GOD exists are theists and those who - for whatever reasons to do with the knowledge being obtained, choose not to be either, so - with my model - are given their rightful position independent of the other two positions.

In a very real sense here, agnostics do comprise a sub-group of those who don't believe god exists; the atheists, unless, that is, you see something amiss.

I have already pointed out what is amiss there.
In the faulty model you - and many nontheists calling themselves "atheists" are using - are allowing for the idea that some nontheists can claim GOD does not exist, even that the majority of nontheists simply lack any belief in GODs existence.

My model would place that majority who simply lack any belief in GODs existence, as "neither theists or nontheists"

Thus the Nontheism position is a direct opposing reflection of the Theism position, which consists of those who believe GOD exists.

The nontheist does not believe GOD exists. They are not interested in evidence of any kind which might point to even hinting that we exist within a creation or implying GOD exists.

Re that, using my model, Nontheists are quiet rare. I don't even know that I have met even one such personality.

Using the faulty model you appear to be arguing for, nontheists are numerous as long as they are referred to as 'atheists'.

The main reason I continue to argue for my model is that it deals with any confusion in a fair-handed manner and allows for my position as neither theist or nontheist - to have the recognition
it deserves - of being independent from the other two positions on the question of GOD existing.

Because in real-life, the position I hold, actually exists.




* I use the word GOD in caps so as not to confuse the subject of GOD with the name (God) the Christian religion gives to their idea of GOD .

[TRANSPONDER]

Then you have your own definition of what atheism means, and didn't you say yourself that those atheists who know that tht a god does not exist, do not exist? Technically nobody knows, so that's irrelevant. In fact there are those (include me) who see the evidence so much against that they put the possibility of a god as very small, but the standard model of atheism is still correct. Finally your separation out of atheists who haven't considered the matter is surely wrong, because that is a sliding scale from those who haven't thought about it at all through those who have given it a bit of thought, those who have given it a lot of thought and up to those who post here. You cannot in practice separate out the non -thinking atheists from the thinking and if so babies, animals and rocks, socks and clocks are also a-theist (or non -theist) if thy are not atheists.

This means that your model fails, and confuses a supposed middle ground of belief with the underlying knowledge position that all theism and non -theism is based on and logically must be.

You can use whatever words and definitions that you like, but you cannot argue that they are correct or valid and try to pretend that mainstream atheism has it wrong. The 'Humpty fallacy' "Words mean what I want them to mean".

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #536]

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #537]

It is not a reply or a response. It is ignoring everything I posted and just reciting what you had said several times before.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #537]

It is not a reply or a response. It is ignoring everything I posted and just reciting what you had said several times before.

Your own posts are not a reply or a response to the points I have made. They are ignoring everything I posted and just reciting what you had said several times before.

My response to your posts are reasonable - I am not an "atheist" or a "theist" nor is my position a subset of either of those positions posited in the model you are using.

Therefore, I can and do regard the model you are using as faulty.

Rather than argue the points I am making, you skirt around those as if they are somehow beside the point.

Therefore, there is no other intelligent response I can make succinctly to remind the reader of my real position as opposed to the false positions, when opportunity afford itself for me to do so.

You and I are not having a discussion and it would be a waste of intelligent resource to pretend otherwise.

I am totally satisfied that my model is far more honest and will therefore continued going with that, rather than maintaining support for false models.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is clearly not the case. I have responded to and rfuted the main points of your argument, such as it is, much of it being irrelevant digression.

.No god - belief is a simple and valid description.
Agnosticism is a knowledge position, not a mythical on -off wabble between belief and non -belief.
You can call yourself whatever you like and claim to be whatever you like; that does not alter the actual position, the correct designations and logical mandate of not knowing whether there is a god or not.

Your responses are no more than denial, and your reiteration of your claimed self -designation the mere repetition of that.


Have a nice weekend.