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 oldbadger in post #518]

Nobody has to tell you any reason for their beliefs, feelings, opinions.

Reign that horse in oldbadger.

The question was raised in an internet forum, and outside of that normal folk simply don't go around wanting to know what another's position is on the question of GOD.

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.

I am not using the word to describe folk who refer to themselves as 'atheist' and therefore be rude to them.
I am using the word for its meaning [lacks belief in GOD] in describing a human babies position on the question of GOD.
While the use of the word "ignorance" can be used derogatively, it should be obvious to any who are aware of the model I am using, the word isn't being used in that fashion in this case.

If your model is not short, sweet, clear and understandable for all, then it is dead.

My model [imaged further on in this post] is alive then, as it ticks all those boxes and even allows for atheism to be a thing.

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."

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.

I remind you and your wife that this is an internet debate forum, not a BBQ in the backyard.

If the day ever comes when someone tells me at the BBQ et al, that they are an atheist, I will politely point out what an actual atheist is and that if they meant that they do not believe in GOD, then they are a nontheist as they are no longer baby-ignorant re the question of GOD.

When someone hereabouts uses the word 'atheist' it is an easy enough process to work out that they do not mean they are an ignorant human baby, but rather that they mean they are not a theist and so it is a matter of examining their expression to do with that, to work out for myself whether they are nontheist or neither theist or nontheist...if indeed their telling me what the position they hold, is even relevant to whatever topic is under discussion.
_______________________________________________
An example;

Kylie: I consider myself an atheist...

William: Even so, by the sounds of it, what your position really is, is that of non-theist.

The confusion appears to derive from the belief that atheism covers two positions which then allows for those who have not made a decision of the question of GOD to be referred to as 'atheists', even though their position is neither theist or non-theist.

If we go along with the definition that atheism is the lack of belief in GODs, this occurs for everyone from the go-get as it pertains to notion that all human babies lack belief in everything and develop belief or non-belief at a later stage of their individual journeys where they acquire knowledge...in this case - knowledge of GOD/theism et al.

As the knowledge increases, the individual can make decisions on the question of GOD and from that, take up positions on the matter.

In that, there are three distinct positions;

1. Non-Theisism [D]

2. Other [E] [neither theism or nontheism]

3. Theism [F]

My position is currently other than nontheist and theist.


Points along the path of a lifetime
A = Birth
B = Atheism
C = knowledge gained and position chosen

The three simple positions.

D = Non-Theism
E = Other [neither theism or nontheism]
F = Theism

G = Death

On The Question of GOD;
I consider myself an "Other"...

Using Kylies model, I would be regarded as either a nontheist or a theist - or as some might put it "an agnostic atheist" or "an agnostic theist" - neither of which apply to my actual position and so are considered by me to being incorrect for the logical reasons I have given.

Folk are free to move from position to position, but all our days of being 'atheists' are over.
_____________________________

[oldbadger]

Reign that horse in oldbadger.

What's wrong with a morning canter through DC?

The question was raised in an internet forum, and outside of that normal folk simply don't go around wanting to know what another's position is on the question of GOD.

Wrong again!
At a neighbour's for a rare morning-coffee meet, the Christian daughter of another neighbour-guest confronted both my wife and self, she challenged me because she once saw me at the (Christian) 'Riverside' cafe having tea and announced to all that 'He's not a Christian, you know!' and she then asked my wife if she was/is a Christian. What gets raised on forums tends to get raised in the big bad world, I think.
That's a thread, actually.....

I am not using the word to describe folk who refer to themselves as 'atheist' and therefore be rude to them.
I am using the word for its meaning [lacks belief in GOD] in describing a human babies position on the question of GOD.
While the use of the word "ignorance" can be used derogatively, it should be obvious to any who are aware of the model I am using, the word isn't being used in that fashion in this case.

William!..... that suggests some inability to communicate out there in the world. You cannot hand out your favoured dictionary to a group before you speak with them; it's much better to be able to communicate without using language that can fuel fires. So why would anybody use the words 'atheist' and 'ignorance/ignorant' in the same sentence? Why?

My model [imaged further on in this post] is alive then, as it ticks all those boxes and even allows for atheism to be a thing.

.........allows atheism?
How about ........ recognises atheism? I often 'acknowledge' other opinions...... but to say that they are allowed is going to raise hackles.

I remind you and your wife that this is an internet debate forum, not a BBQ in the backyard.

Garden, William.... Chats in the garden are much more free and easy than on good forums. @Tcg can't lean over the fence and tell me off.

If the day ever comes when someone tells me at the BBQ et al, that they are an atheist, I will politely point out what an actual atheist is and that if they meant that they do not believe in GOD, then they are a nontheist as they are no longer baby-ignorant re the question of GOD.

No you won't, William, you won't....imo you've already told me that in reality you would not introduce the word 'ignorant' in to a BBQ conversation.
And please, please don't ever mention 'baby-ignorant' in conversation, because the listener might not have an A-level in English Language and might interpret your message differently.

When someone hereabouts uses the word 'atheist' it is an easy enough process to work out that they do not mean they are an ignorant human baby, but rather that they mean they are not a theist and so it is a matter of examining their expression to do with that, to work out for myself whether they are nontheist or neither theist or nontheist...if indeed their telling me what the position they hold, is even relevant to whatever topic is under discussion.

It's a lot easier to work out that a person describing themselves as 'atheist' just doesn't believe in Gods.

------------------------------------

In that, there are three distinct positions;

1. Non-Theisism [D]

2. Other [E] [neither theism or nontheism]

3. Theism [F]

Points along the path of a lifetime
A = Birth
B = Atheism
C = knowledge gained and position chosen

Folk are free to move from position to position, but all our days of being 'atheists' are over.

Again....... HJ researchers have left Christianity to become atheists. So your model is bust.
And babies aren't atheists, they just have not chosen such opinions.

I think you are a deep thinking high IQ intellectual......... am I correct? In the past I've known such amazing minds but they tended not to do BBQs with the neighbours....... am I right?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #522]

You are doing very well, and I just wonder why the use of the name 'atheist' rather than non -theist, with the insistence that atheism is anything else than it actually is, is such a sticking -point for him that he spends so much effort in trying to make stick what isn't sticky.

[oldbadger]

You are doing very well, and I just wonder why the use of the name 'atheist' rather than non -theist, with the insistence that atheism is anything else than it actually is, is such a sticking -point for him that he spends so much effort in trying to make stick what isn't sticky.

That's for you to ask the member.

I've debated on forums for a long time, and I've often found that very very deep thinking folks with high IQs can sometimes get so muddled up with cascading ideas that they are lost. So it's lucky for me that I'm not so sharp as they....

The dictionary publishers are mostly to blame for the lack of clarity and definition...of words.

For instance..... I have been a deist for decades, believing that everything all together makes a wholeness, not knowing how it got to be but simply believing that it is... a wholeness that's totally unaware of us or even this universe, disinterested and uninvolved, just like we are with individual cells in our own bodies. And then along comes a blooming dictionary and marries deism to theism! May they all go bankrupt. And so atheist extremists can link deism to theism to (say) Abrahamic religions and start spitting in deism's direction. Which is why I quite like Tcg's introduction of Ignosticism to me, because deists surely don't give a hoot for Gods at all.....

[TRANSPONDER]

You are doing very well, and I just wonder why the use of the name 'atheist' rather than non -theist, with the insistence that atheism is anything else than it actually is, is such a sticking -point for him that he spends so much effort in trying to make stick what isn't sticky.

That's for you to ask the member.

I've debated on forums for a long time, and I've often found that very very deep thinking folks with high IQs can sometimes get so muddled up with cascading ideas that they are lost. So it's lucky for me that I'm not so sharp as they....

The dictionary publishers are mostly to blame for the lack of clarity and definition...of words.

For instance..... I have been a deist for decades, believing that everything all together makes a wholeness, not knowing how it got to be but simply believing that it is... a wholeness that's totally unaware of us or even this universe, disinterested and uninvolved, just like we are with individual cells in our own bodies. And then along comes a blooming dictionary and marries deism to theism! May they all go bankrupt. And so atheist extremists can link deism to theism to (say) Abrahamic religions and start spitting in deism's direction. Which is why I quite like Tcg's introduction of Ignosticism to me, because deists surely don't give a hoot for Gods at all.....

Ah, well, it is what it is. Deism is a form of theism, crediting that an Intelligence is doing it all. it is, effectively, non -religious theism. Deism without crediting, at least, a cosmic mind is atheism.

Notwithstanding what our pal William maintains, one either buys into the god (or some sorta -god) claim or one doesn't.

[William]

[oldbadger]

OK.

[TRANSPONDER]

One (Whomsoever may apply) either believes in a god or does not. We -all incidentally do not know whether there is a god or not, even though we may be convinced (with or without good reason) that we do.

The knowledge and belief positions are what they are, and fiddling around with labels doesn't alter it. There seems to be this too -common human idea that you can change what people are or what they think just by rewriting the label around their neck. Obviously it doesn't work like that, but theist apologists love to tinker about with those definition - based sorts of ploys and gambits.

I may have mentioned the Humpty fallacy 'Words mean what I want them to mean' and why it is a fallacy. It does get used at times, but more by those who just want to jab at atheists rather than make a valid apologetic.

[William]

Nontheist: Theist and non -theist will do. I'm just sorta attached to the name Atheist'. I would rather amend what atheist means (at one time it meant Christians, because they did not believe in the Emperor -cult) than shun the term as though (accepting the accusations) I was ashamed of it. .

There is a hint of the paranoid in the above.


"Save the label!" as if the label had the power to describe something accurately while remaining easily understood.

It doesn't.

The label "Nontheist" say's everything that needs to be said without the confusion. It also allows for the non-decided, the power of their own position rather than being subject to non-theist/theist dictations.

Nontheist: This is just a personal thing, but "Weak Atheist" which I suppose could be applied to me, sounds like I'm on the verge of becoming a theist. Like any minute I'm going to confess, "Okay, I believe in God again." I'm about a million miles from that.

I use the word atheist to describe myself because I want to show that we all aren't baby eaters or something.

Folk want to tie themselves to a label using nonsense reasons which appear to be a form of emotionally pleading, as if a great thing would be lost in dropping the label and taking on a more practical label.

Folk will understand that you don't believe in God again, if you call yourself a Nontheist. Calling oneself a "weak atheist" doesn't help clear the air of any confusion.

What is it describing? A weak Nontheist?

What is that, but something which is neither a theist nor a nontheist.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

There is a hint of dishonesty in that you try to detect paranoia in my post and then talking nonsense about it.

I have done nothing to say that non theist is not a valid term. I just happen to like atheist because of the traditional baggage and history about it. It isn't saying that one is more valid than the other.

And the nonsense is saying - repeating - that you are none of the above, despite me saying that you can call yourself whatever you choose, or refuse to use existing meanings as descriptors, but it makes no case for you, no more than presenting a wrong claim as a diagram makes it any less wrong; so repetition of a debunked case rather shows, not paranoia, but some other obsession.

P.s look - I get it. 't's a common idea that I had myself. Theism is a 'strong' god belief. Atheism is a 'strong' god - denial. 'Agnosticism' is a more reasonable 'well I really don't know...' Yep, we a ll get it, but as a logical proposition it doesn't work, and a logical proposition is what atheism has to be based on or theism will attack it as illogical. We cannot be 'strong denialist' but have to be 'not sureist' but not believing until the evidence is compelling. Which makes the Theists also not knowing (even if they are sure) but believing they do know either on evidence (as presented to them by the McDowells and Strobels) or on faith and probably both th ones who are illogical and have the burden of proof.

Atheists preferring that isn't paranoia, but liking it that logic supports us.

This does not leave much room for the supposed agnostics between belief and non belief. Sure, there are degrees of conviction but a narrow click - over between belief and non -belief. I'm adding this in the vain hope that you are just mistaken and not doing (at best) a wind up of atheism..

At worst of course it is (see OP) an effort to put atheism into a tricky position, denying atheists agnosticism and forcing the burden of proof on them. So while it is no more important than Kalam (first cause) we have to fight even academic pushing of it as it is open to misuse by theists, or by politically motivated supporters of theism.