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

[Tcg]

Look, this is the last time I'm going to bother with these pointless assertions, which (in view of the topic) do not help in a definition, which we surely now have Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

You sent the above to another member, I just clicked on it to ask a question.

Some of this debate seems to have been about whether atheists 'believe in absence' or 'fail to believe' or 'know of absence', etc....

Question:- If you were conducting a survey about atheism in a town centre, asking the question 'do you believe in any gods at all?' and a % of passing answers sounded like (in the local vernacular) 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so', would you tick your 'No belief' box or your 'No opinion' box against those answers?

Obviously, I'm not TRANSPONDER and TRANSPONDER may answer differently, but any answer that is something other than yes, reveals that the person is an atheist. Both 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so' are not yes. They have no belief. The fuzzy areas I see, and if I understand your position correctly, you may fit in. Not trying to assign a label to you, but if one is a deist or a pantheist or something similar, are they a theist? They have some concept of a god, but not a personal god. They aren't an atheist, but are they a theist? I don't know.

Question:- I ask because I have noticed mention of 'IMO' responses here...does this mean that moderate and careless answers about atheism do not qualify for the title 'atheist'?

I don't know specifically what you have in mind here, but the only answer that would disqualify one from the title atheist would be - yes, I believe in god/gods. Of course, some balk at the title 'atheist' perhaps because of its societal baggage and would prefer 'nontheist.'


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

I needn't go into the rhetorical swindle of inviting atheists to regard 'do not believe' and 'believe there is not' as the same thing, and if they did so, the theist side would leap on them with 'you cannot know for sure so gocha, atheism' only to say that ploy don't work.

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

Maybe you could help clear up the confusion.

What do you mean by "believe"?

Is it the same thing that theists mean?

This is actually a really good question that I think cuts straight into the heart of the whole issue.

For a theist, believe might mean more a truth of the heart, that they think guides to external truth. It's something that other premises stand upon, not something that other premises prove.

For someone else, believe might be something they think because of evidence they have or things they have seen.

Maybe it doesn't cut quite on the angle I've seen, but some other break. Still, really, really good question.

[TRANSPONDER]

Look, this is the last time I'm going to bother with these pointless assertions, which (in view of the topic) do not help in a definition, which we surely now have Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

You sent the above to another member, I just clicked on it to ask a question.

Some of this debate seems to have been about whether atheists 'believe in absence' or 'fail to believe' or 'know of absence', etc....

Question:- If you were conducting a survey about atheism in a town centre, asking the question 'do you believe in any gods at all?' and a % of passing answers sounded like (in the local vernacular) 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so', would you tick your 'No belief' box or your 'No opinion' box against those answers?

Obviously, I'm not TRANSPONDER and TRANSPONDER may answer differently, but any answer that is something other than yes, reveals that the person is an atheist. Both 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so' are not yes. They have no belief. The fuzzy areas I see, and if I understand your position correctly, you may fit in. Not trying to assign a label to you, but if one is a deist or a pantheist or something similar, are they a theist? They have some concept of a god, but not a personal god. They aren't an atheist, but are they a theist? I don't know.

Question:- I ask because I have noticed mention of 'IMO' responses here...does this mean that moderate and careless answers about atheism do not qualify for the title 'atheist'?

I don't know specifically what you have in mind here, but the only answer that would disqualify one from the title atheist would be - yes, I believe in god/gods. Of course, some balk at the title 'atheist' perhaps because of its societal baggage and would prefer 'nontheist.'


Tcg

I'd swing with that. Anything but 'Yes I believe in God'. (whichever) and everything else is in the 'atheist' camp, whatever they prefer to call themselves.

"Hell no! Ah ain't no ay -theeist! Ah jes don't berlieve in no gods, that's all."

[Tcg]

I needn't go into the rhetorical swindle of inviting atheists to regard 'do not believe' and 'believe there is not' as the same thing, and if they did so, the theist side would leap on them with 'you cannot know for sure so gocha, atheism' only to say that ploy don't work.

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

Maybe you could help clear up the confusion.

What do you mean by "believe"?

Is it the same thing that theists mean?

This is actually a really good question that I think cuts straight into the heart of the whole issue.

For a theist, believe might mean more a truth of the heart, that they think guides to external truth. It's something that other premises stand upon, not something that other premises prove.

For someone else, believe might be something they think because of evidence they have or things they have seen.

Maybe it doesn't cut quite on the angle I've seen, but some other break. Still, really, really good question.

I don't know that it is a really, really, good question. Sounds like a set up to me. Why should an atheist have to explain what theists mean by "believe?" That's the job of theists. If those theists assert that god/gods exist, it is also their duty to support that claim. Ain't much of that happening here or anywhere else for that matter. We atheists simply don't buy the claims of theists when it comes to the existence of god/gods. They believe their own claims but that's not much of an achievement now, is it? Their job is to explain what they believe in and provide evidence to support that belief. Don't hold your breath expecting that unless you're Jonah or something. In that case you got three days.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

I needn't go into the rhetorical swindle of inviting atheists to regard 'do not believe' and 'believe there is not' as the same thing, and if they did so, the theist side would leap on them with 'you cannot know for sure so gocha, atheism' only to say that ploy don't work.

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

It is basic to their Faithbased apologetic. Nonbeliever is a valid alternative to atheist, yet I sorta like atheist. It does Identify a Group (for the purposes of playing the victim ) rather than just saying they don't believe. But not believe in what they do. And many are virtually 'believe there is not' including myself, but as you say, can't be sure so disbelief in logically fine, but definite assertion of non existence is untenable. That's the Gocha. If theists can force a positive assertion that no god exists on us, they can wrongfoot us - 'you can't be certain' let alone they shifted the burden of proof to us.

I needn't go into the rhetorical swindle of inviting atheists to regard 'do not believe' and 'believe there is not' as the same thing, and if they did so, the theist side would leap on them with 'you cannot know for sure so gocha, atheism' only to say that ploy don't work.

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

Maybe you could help clear up the confusion.

What do you mean by "believe"?

Is it the same thing that theists mean?

This is actually a really good question that I think cuts straight into the heart of the whole issue.

For a theist, believe might mean more a truth of the heart, that they think guides to external truth. It's something that other premises stand upon, not something that other premises prove.

For someone else, believe might be something they think because of evidence they have or things they have seen.

Maybe it doesn't cut quite on the angle I've seen, but some other break. Still, really, really good question.

I don't know that it is a really, really, good question. Sounds like a set up to me. Why should an atheist have to explain what theists mean by "believe?" That's the job of theists. If those theists assert that god/gods exist, it is also their duty to support that claim. Ain't much of that happening here or anywhere else for that matter. We atheists simply don't buy the claims of theists when it comes to the existence of god/gods. They believe their own claims but that's not much of an achievement now, is it? Their job is to explain what they believe in and provide evidence to support that belief. Don't hold your breath expecting that unless you're Jonah or something. In that case you got three days.


Tcg

I think it is a matter to consider. What do we actually mentally do when we believe something? We buy into a claim or assertion, as distinct from not doing so. And we may have some doubts or be may be utterly convinced which is why some with doubts could be called 'agnostic' and those who are confident can say 'there are' or 'there are no'. This is Dawkins' sliding scale of atheism, though it is actually a sliding scale of knowing. On the basis of which we believe or do not. That's aside from faithbased beliefs where the evidence doesn't even come into it. And that's without getting into what we can just accept and what is dubious.

[TRANSPONDER]

I needn't go into the rhetorical swindle of inviting atheists to regard 'do not believe' and 'believe there is not' as the same thing, and if they did so, the theist side would leap on them with 'you cannot know for sure so gocha, atheism' only to say that ploy don't work.

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

If you go by what I posted in post 215, then you would be an agnostic atheist. Atheist because you lack belief in God, agnostic because you don't claim to know for a fact you are correct.

Correct. I identify as an agnostic atheist as distinct from a theist agnostic. Because in fact everyone is agnostic because nobody knows, even if a lot of people are sure they do. So long as 'agnostic' is not misused to denote a belief position (as it is a knowledge position) we are doing it right.

[TRANSPONDER]

Help! I do not believe in any gods. I believe that there are no gods, but I do not assert that there are no gods because I am not in a position to know that for sure. If atheist/atheism does not apply, then what term does? How can theists claim a 'gotcha' regarding my position? I'm confused by all the word play that has gone on in this thread.

I'm confused by it as well, but I guess I should have expected it. For some reason just mentioning atheism seems to attract some who for unknown reasons don't like it when we attempt to present an accurate definition. I get the impression some think it's some kind of a sleight of hand trick. I have no hidden agendas. My reason for creating this thread was simply that I heard an interesting definition and wondered if it was accurate and easy to understand.

My partner is a theist with Christian leanings. I sometimes run these ideas by her, and I can understand that it can be hard for a theist to understand what it means to be an atheist at least some of the finer nuances. However, I sometimes get the feeling that some actively try to not understand and deliberately try to add confusion. Oh well, I guess that's the result of joining what may be the least trusted demographic in the western world. Of course, I had no choice in the matter. I couldn't continue to believe something I didn't find believable.


Tcg

I think so, too. I don't know what is in a theist head but I know what comes out. And I hear Godfaith and Biblefaith making smart people say dumb things and good people say bad things, just so they can cling to faith (1....gotta make it a footnote..). And the mindset is different. The atheist mindset is 'scientific'
We want to know the truth, even if we have to change our minds (though individuals may still do instinctive thinking) while Theist thinking is to maintain the Faith however it needs and evidence is only to be used to do that. So atheist rationalism respects the evidence while Theist apologetics is fine with fiddling it. Totally different mindset and yet both suppose the others are doing it the same way as themselves.

(1) and like i say, if they can retreat without admitting being wrong about anything dogmatic (because - I have a theory - they believe that Faith is allowing God to transmit Truth into their heads...which explains why they can damn' each other as not real Christians if they disagree) they can call that a win, even if they failed in the debate.

[TRANSPONDER]

Look, this is the last time I'm going to bother with these pointless assertions, which (in view of the topic) do not help in a definition, which we surely now have Yes, it could be said that atheism is a consequence of not believing in a god.

You sent the above to another member, I just clicked on it to ask a question.

Some of this debate seems to have been about whether atheists 'believe in absence' or 'fail to believe' or 'know of absence', etc....

Question:- If you were conducting a survey about atheism in a town centre, asking the question 'do you believe in any gods at all?' and a % of passing answers sounded like (in the local vernacular) 'Nah mate!' or 'Don't think so', would you tick your 'No belief' box or your 'No opinion' box against those answers?

Question:- I ask because I have noticed mention of 'IMO' responses here...does this mean that moderate and careless answers about atheism do not qualify for the title 'atheist'?

Ok. For me, you can respond to anything I post to anyone. If I conducted a survey, I'd have 3 options - Believe, not believe and no opinion (plus where I live 'are you capable of understanding the questions?') 'Yea, I believe with all my heart and soul!', 'Nah, don't believe in all that stuff', and 'I'm not interested'.

IMO is a safety net. To not do something like that makes one into posting a claim of expertise and certainly, and while it is fair to ask why they think what they posted, they don't get demands to post what masters' degrees they have in the subject.

[historia]

In terms of agnosticism's relationship with atheism, I would say that theists and atheists can be either gnostic or agnostic. Thus, a gnostic would claim to KNOW their viewpoint was true, and an agnostic would claim that they could not KNOW FOR SURE that their viewpoint was true.

In this system, I am an agnostic atheist. I lack belief in God, but I do not claim to KNOW that God does not exist.

A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, would say, "I KNOW that God doesn't exist."

And likewise, a gnostic theist would say, "I KNOW that God exists, and an agnostic theist would say, "I believe that God exists, but I can't KNOW it."

Bear in mind, I'm speaking of knowing in the sense that one can KNOW that all corners of a square are 90 degrees. Not the way many people use "know" to mean, "Be really sure of because they feel that it just must be true."

This scheme has become popular among some atheists in recent years, but I don't think it has the requisite adoption or explanatory power to be particularly useful in our discussions.

First, every single person I've ever seen advocate for this scheme describes themselves as an "agnostic atheist." I've never once seen anyone describe themselves as a "gnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist," or what have you. When people only identify with one quadrant of the scheme, that suggests a problem with the scheme.

Second, and perhaps as an explanation for the first, it's not clear in what sense people can claim to have "knowledge" that God exists or does not exist. To be sure, some people express certainty on this question, but is feeling certain the same as having "knowledge"? Does even the most devout believer or the most hardened skeptic "know" that God exists or doesn't exist in the same way that they know all the corners of a square are 90 degrees?

It seems to me that what we are describing across the board here are people's opinions and attitudes toward the proposition of God's existence -- which is to say, their beliefs. Half the scheme doesn't make sense, then.

Finally, the term 'Gnostic' already has a well-established meaning that this scheme, given its low adoption, is unlikely to supplement, and so talking about "gnostic theists" is confusing.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #248]

I mean do atheists know that they believe things or just believe that they believe them?

They can not believe in something that has no convincing evidence (to them) to justify belief in that something. That is a rational default position to take, with a change in position requiring convincing evidence (to them). I know that I believe that the probability of gods existing is very small, and I have reasons for believing that which make sense to me. So the answer to the question is yes.

You're conflating.

I never said anyone should believe in anything without evidence or reasons, we do not disagree on this point, so why are you speaking as if we do?

Any position can serve as a "rational default" so long as it doesn't lead to logical contradictions, so long as consistency is maintained, that is all that matters.

If you want to argue for some other, further meaning to "rational default" then you cannot do that without bringing in further assumptions, assumptions that others may not share.

Mathematicians do this routinely, they choose some "rational default" position unless and until it leads to a contradiction, this is something more atheists need to consider.