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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #293]

All arguments need to be cognizant of the potential for contradictions, the whole basis of logic is to create arguments that are at least valid.

You continue to miss a very simple and fundamental point as you twist words and logic to try and make a very invalid point (ie. that the definition of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in the existence of gods is somehow wrong and illogical). It is not logical to believe that gods exist without any evidence (to the person identifying as an atheist) that they do.

I'll ask again (and you've never answered this inquiry across many prior posts in various threads) ... how many of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia do you believe actually existed, or exist now? Are you an atheist when it comes to Thor (ie. you don't believe Thor was a real, existing god)? If so, why?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #298]

"Apparently, I'm an ignostic atheist."

Atheism - a gathering place for all number of differing personalities whom - to various degree - are against theism.

[historia]

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.

I'd say it works for everyone, but many of those people just don't care to use it. That doesn't mean that it can't be used to describe everyone's position.

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.

True, but that's why I laid out exactly what I meant by the terms when I brought it up.

Sure, my critique is not that the scheme is unintelligible, but rather that its lack of adoption and its non-standard terminology make it less useful.

But to the person who claims to know, they will hold that they KNOW that God exists in just the same way they KNOW that the corners of a square are 90 degrees. They have their logical reasoning for God which they view as just as valid as the logical reasoning that the square's corners are each 90 degrees. When viewed in this way, that it's a description of the position the person holds, it is entirely plausible that a person can indeed hold the position that they KNOW that God exists.

But this seems to be nearly the opposite of what you wrote in your earlier post:

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."

Perhaps you can clarify. By "knowledge" do you just mean feeling certain that your belief is true?

I agree that it is all just a belief.

Then it seems to me that you ought to abandon this scheme, as the scheme purports to plot people's positions on two axis: 'belief' and 'knowledge'. If, on the other hand, we both agree that what we are dealing with across the board here are beliefs, then there is really only one axis on which to plot these positions.

Perhaps we want to measure the relative level of certainty people express with regard to the proposition of God's existence, as you suggested. But, in that case, it's not clear why there should be four positions instead of, say, three or even seven, as we saw in Dawkin's scheme from earlier in the thread.

[Kylie]

Sure, my critique is not that the scheme is unintelligible, but rather that its lack of adoption and its non-standard terminology make it less useful.

Hopefully it will become more widespread.

But to the person who claims to know, they will hold that they KNOW that God exists in just the same way they KNOW that the corners of a square are 90 degrees. They have their logical reasoning for God which they view as just as valid as the logical reasoning that the square's corners are each 90 degrees. When viewed in this way, that it's a description of the position the person holds, it is entirely plausible that a person can indeed hold the position that they KNOW that God exists.

But this seems to be nearly the opposite of what you wrote in your earlier post:

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."

Perhaps you can clarify. By "knowledge" do you just mean feeling certain that your belief is true?

A believer who claims to know that God definitely exists holds that they KNOW that God exists in the same way they KNOW the corners of a square are 90 degrees. The terms are a reflection on the person's reported position, that's all. And if they report to KNOW that God exists, then that is there position, even if it is one that we don't agree with.

I agree that it is all just a belief.

Then it seems to me that you ought to abandon this scheme, as the scheme purports to plot people's positions on two axis: 'belief' and 'knowledge'. If, on the other hand, we both agree that what we are dealing with across the board here are beliefs, then there is really only one axis on which to plot these positions.

Perhaps we want to measure the relative level of certainty people express with regard to the proposition of God's existence, as you suggested. But, in that case, it's not clear why there should be four positions instead of, say, three or even seven, as we saw in Dawkin's scheme from earlier in the thread.

Again, the fact that I consider it to be belief, not knowledge doesn't mean that someone else can consider it knowledge. And this isn't a system meant to objectively specify a person's attitude, it's a system by which a person can describe their subjective point of view.

True, a system with more positions may be clearer, but then, how would you describe it? "I'm a level three atheist"? Makes it sound kooky. And having smaller gaps between the different positions can lead to confusion about where exactly those gasps should be. When the division is clear, the confusion goes away.

[brunumb]

A believer who claims to know that God definitely exists holds that they KNOW that God exists in the same way they KNOW the corners of a square are 90 degrees.

But is that correct? The angles in squares have been thoroughly tested and applied without failure. In what way can anyone say the same for the existence of God? It would be unreasonable in the extreme to doubt that the angles in a square are 90 degrees so that we can confidently state that we know that it's true. I can't see that as being applicable to anyone who says that they know God exists.

[Kylie]

A believer who claims to know that God definitely exists holds that they KNOW that God exists in the same way they KNOW the corners of a square are 90 degrees.

But is that correct? The angles in squares have been thoroughly tested and applied without failure. In what way can anyone say the same for the existence of God? It would be unreasonable in the extreme to doubt that the angles in a square are 90 degrees so that we can confidently state that we know that it's true. I can't see that as being applicable to anyone who says that they know God exists.

Remember, this isn't about determining whether it is actually possible to KNOW that God exists. It is about whether the person claims to know.

I completely agree that no one can know a fact that simply isn't true, or even something for which there is no valid scientific evidence. But that's not what this is about. It's simply about asking people if they believe to know that their position is correct. If a person states that they know God exists, then that's all it's measuring. It's not making any claim at all about whether their position can legitimately be called knowledge.

[oldbadger]

Anyone who says they don't believe in any gods is an atheist, can't be helped, by definition. That said, there are alternative terms they can use, such as nontheist, un-theists or even 'I don't do religion' which isn't a descriptor but a sign saying "Not today, thank you (and not tomorrow, either)". And of course Deism is believing in a god but not in any man -made religion. Pantheism is a great term as it can cover atheism and Deism alike. Irreligious Theism (which is what 'agnostic' usually means) falls within humanism (which is social pantheism, so to speak, a gaia of human society) which, like Deism, has all the non - religious in the same camp or laager, because to atheists, "agnostics" and irreligious theists alike, religion, organised and intrusive, evangelical, and interfering religion, is the problem, not some sortagod who may keep comet orbits from getting circular and be doing regular updates of the morality wot it writ upon our harts.

Please can you explain how a Pantheist can deny all gods? Now that might be a real breakthrough for me.

Your good lady would probably never want to attend an atheist meetup, but if the both of you did, you might find yourself agreeing afterwards "Well that wasn't so bad; all evening nobody talked about atheism".

True, she wouldn't want to go to any meetings, but if atheists came doorknocking in the area they would probably end up drinking gusto-cappuccino and eating chocchip biscuits, at least that's what the JWs get. The Mormons used to doorknock around here 40 yrs back but they obviously gave up on us here, all bound for the flames or whatever.

Indeed. Religious credentials count for nothing here, but any candidate for election can win or lose by whether they think pineapple can be put on pizza.

That's outrageous...... what animal would put pineapple on pizza? That's dirty-talk. I thought there was moderation in this place?

It sounds as though it really is a synonym with 'apatheist' which means 'Don't care -ist', Which can cover a believer that doesn't care to a non -believer that doesn't care, so it isn't even a grab term within atheism but it is within irreligion, which puts us all in the same camp again, because, at the end of the day, what affects us is not some remote deist -god, but active, organized, evangelical, pushy, religion, in everyday life, and whether we want it or not.

Yeah.... but my deism didn't actually think of the word 'god', it thought (or wondered) about the whole of everything and how it could ever have become... so 'Whole' or 'Everything', these words have more meaning for me than 'god'. And because I live among humans these people will grab a name and add all manner of stuff to it and then nail it to my mast (that's a metaphor, T, I guard my mast closely).

@Tcg didn't actually sell ignostic to me, I kind of nicked it off his post, shoplifted it really, so if I go back to Pantheism after 40+ years away from it I won't be able to get a refund off Tcg, I'll just have to dump ignostic in a ditch or something.

So I do await your reasoning behind non-theistic Pantheists.

[Tcg]

That's outrageous...... what animal would put pineapple on pizza? That's dirty-talk. I thought there was moderation in this place?

Yeah, we've advanced to the point that we no longer go to war over varying thoughts about god/gods (or at least I'd like to think so.) But pineapple on pizza? Where are those nuclear codes? Dial um up.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #308]

[TRANSPONDER]

Anyone who says they don't believe in any gods is an atheist, can't be helped, by definition. That said, there are alternative terms they can use, such as nontheist, un-theists or even 'I don't do religion' which isn't a descriptor but a sign saying "Not today, thank you (and not tomorrow, either)". And of course Deism is believing in a god but not in any man -made religion. Pantheism is a great term as it can cover atheism and Deism alike. Irreligious Theism (which is what 'agnostic' usually means) falls within humanism (which is social pantheism, so to speak, a gaia of human society) which, like Deism, has all the non - religious in the same camp or laager, because to atheists, "agnostics" and irreligious theists alike, religion, organised and intrusive, evangelical, and interfering religion, is the problem, not some sortagod who may keep comet orbits from getting circular and be doing regular updates of the morality wot it writ upon our harts.

oldbadger Please can you explain how a Pantheist can deny all gods? Now that might be a real breakthrough for me.

Equivocation, old Badge. There are two meanings - one who believes in all (or many) gods. Essentially a polytheists. It can also mean nature worshipper, or a devotee of Gaia which is or could be a non believer (in gods) who reveres nature.

Your good lady would probably never want to attend an atheist meetup, but if the both of you did, you might find yourself agreeing afterwards "Well that wasn't so bad; all evening nobody talked about atheism".

'quote] oldbadger , she wouldn't want to go to any meetings, but if atheists came doorknocking in the area they would probably end up drinking gusto-cappuccino and eating chocchip biscuits, at least that's what the JWs get. The Mormons used to doorknock around here 40 yrs back but they obviously gave up on us here, all bound for the flames or whatever.

I gather the JW's don';t have a heaven and hell doctrine; they have a perfect messiah - ruled earthly life for the Worthy.

Indeed. Religious credentials count for nothing here, but any candidate for election can win or lose by whether they think pineapple can be put on pizza.

oldbadger outrageous...... what animal would put pineapple on pizza? That's dirty-talk. I thought there was moderation in this place?

It gets worse - some put prawns on pizza - not only disgusting, but unkosher.

It sounds as though it really is a synonym with 'apatheist' which means 'Don't care -ist', Which can cover a believer that doesn't care to a non -believer that doesn't care, so it isn't even a grab term within atheism but it is within irreligion, which puts us all in the same camp again, because, at the end of the day, what affects us is not some remote deist -god, but active, organized, evangelical, pushy, religion, in everyday life, and whether we want it or not.

oldbadger .... but my deism didn't actually think of the word 'god', it thought (or wondered) about the whole of everything and how it could ever have become... so 'Whole' or 'Everything', these words have more meaning for me than 'god'. And because I live among humans these people will grab a name and add all manner of stuff to it and then nail it to my mast (that's a metaphor, T, I guard my mast closely).

@Tcg didn't actually sell ignostic to me, I kind of nicked it off his post, shoplifted it really, so if I go back to Pantheism after 40+ years away from it I won't be able to get a refund off Tcg, I'll just have to dump ignostic in a ditch or something.

So I do await your reasoning behind non-theistic Pantheists.

I touched on Pantheism as a sort of non theist reverence for nature (on earth, as it is in heaven ) But one can either just adore and worship or be curious and want the answers. The 'God' of Einstein (so often misrepresented and quotemined by Believers) was the physical workings of the universe, which he believed (even had Faith in) were ordered, reliable and predictable. Which is why he wouldn't credit Quantum: "God does not play dice".

It was his fail, yet I suppose it had to be done to falsify quantum. But I have enough Faith in science to credit that there is an answer that makes scientific sense. Indeed, indeterminacy and the crazy idea that reality is what the observer sees, is not so much a straight line (through a slit) but expanding ripples which are all true, and the observer just sees one point of this at the time, so is observing reality, not creating it - as some Theist apologists had tried to argue, since it would suggest that the results of science are invented by the scientists.

Anyway, it comes down to whether you have a scientific or tree hugging reverence for nature (earth and cosmos) what kind of (atheist) pantheist you may be. Of course, you will have to live with the the burden of being misunderstood by those who assume you are either a polytheist or a Satanist. We unbelievers have our cross to bear, too. The band of atheist martyrs can always use a new member. Join now and get a reduction.