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 TRANSPONDER in post #500]



I am interested in what Kylie may have as an answer...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #500]



I am interested in what Kylie may have as an answer...

So am I - or anyone else. Since the almost holistic confusion about what atheism and agnosticism means. Even Dawkins seems to have got confused about this with his sliding scale of strong to weak atheism really being about reasons to believe or doubt; that is, the knowledge position. So he is talking about the agnostic basis on which the buy in or click out (believe or not) depends.

This seems such a universal misunderstnding (which I shared until on my First board, I had it explained to me with aversion therapy, barbed wire and cattle prods, and I shall carry the marks to the grave) that I am still wondering whether there is something I am missing that will change the whole logical construct.

So yes, i am open to hearing from anyone on the subject. Though we can all do without a repetition of " Theist.....agnostic.....atheist" either in written, schematic, flowchart or pictorial form.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #502]

That has already been explained to you through various methods and you still appear not to get it.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #503]

Sorry, you show no understanding of what has been explained and i ponder only whether you cannot or will not understand the explanations already given, whether you are confused (you seem to try to factor in all the peripherals) or whether you have some anti -atheist agenda in persistently posting obvious misrepresentations, like Theism is defined but atheism isn't. That makes no sense and I just wonder if it's anti atheist swiping; I've seen it often enough before from people claiming to be 'agnostics' and even atheists, so at to attack it from within.

Look, let me try to sort out your confusion, supposing fsoa that you are just muddled:

Agnosticism Knowledge position

(a) Nobody really knows for sure (everyone is Agnostic) but:

(b) scale of 1 - 10 on the basis of the information correct or not, one is persuaded there is a god or there isn't or there probably is not. That's really the debate here though often on the side issue of which (supposed) god.

(c) So on the basis of the information or not having it or caring, one either believes the theism claim or does not.

Agno 101, There is practically no 'not sure' middle ground on that.

What is called a weak or strong atheist is a misnomer and really relates to the reasons (evidence) for opting for belief or not, but the information is the knowledge -position, not the belief - position and Dawkins is confused (great biologist, unsound on the logic of atheism).

Theism buying into god -belief (whichever) can have peripherals like Sunday worship, evangelism, charity work, or just going along Sunday or just on festivals, which denomination, just believing in deistgod and never mind church...all of that is theism.

Atheism or non -theism is a perfectly good synonym that is NOT a better definition but is the same thing, different brand - label. "Brights" would mean the same thing, exactly, though I will personally hunt down and kill any atheist who uses it. Being a 'technical' atheist e.g rocks, squirrels, babies and vegetables, human or otherwise, people who don't care (apatheists) activists, humanists, Woke anti - religionists, whatever - are or may be atheist (humanists and the irreligious can be theist, too) are all in the same camp; irreligion, and doing something about it, frankly. That is not different decrees or definitions of atheism, never mind some being strong or weak atheism. The irreligious theist and the atheist activist are doing the same job, one believes in a god and the other doesn't.

I get the confusion, but I do hope this sorts it out at least for those who are genuinely confused and not just trying to sow confusion.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #504]

Can you draw a picture as your words don't really cut it....

[oldbadger]

Perhaps, Atheism is the condition of not believing that any gods or deities exist, would be better.

Is this a good definition?

Tcg

Yes, but you don't need 'the condition of' in that sentence.
The less words, so the easier it is for such as me.

[oldbadger]

So yes, i am open to hearing from anyone on the subject. Though we can all do without a repetition of " Theist.....agnostic.....atheist" either in written, schematic, flowchart or pictorial form.

That's not such a bad repetition; and it's the right way around, because many people are slipping from Theism towards Atheism, imo.
Whilst there are other definitions within that basic idea, it works, and your intellectuals can over work it into incomprehension, maybe?

[oldbadger]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #504]

Can you draw a picture as your words don't really cut it....

Sorry. I don't see how an animated carrot looking at the text with surprise, or perching on the back of a horse, is going to help you to comprehend the text any better.

[historia]

There are two different issues here: (a) whether your scheme measures if the person's position is objectively true or not, and (b) whether your scheme consistently measures their subjective opinion.

Every time I offer a criticism of (b) you respond by talking about (a). But, clearly, your response about (a) is not relevant to my criticism on (b), since these are two different issues. This is conflating the two issues.

I don't see how my scheme is inconsistent. I am asking where a person stands on the issue of whether God exists or not, and I am asking whether they claim to know if their beliefs are right or not. The only criticisms that I've seen presented are based on what is meant when a person claims they KNOW their position is true, but that onl;y works if we are trying to find out if the person's position is objectively true or not.

I'm afraid this is simply mistaken -- although it explains why you are conflating the two issues.

Perhaps an analogy might help here:

Let's say a thief robbed a grocery store and the police are interviewing 10 witnesses at the scene of the crime. The police ask the witnesses if the thief was tall, and all 10 agree he was.

But this raises a question: What do the witnesses mean by "tall"? It turns out half of the witnesses consider "tall" to mean over 5 feet 8 inches, while the other half consider "tall" to mean over 6 feet.

Now, the police define "tall" as over six feet, so, for their purposes, only half of the witnesses reported that the suspect was tall, the other half reported him being medium height.

Notice the issue here is not whether the thief is objectively tall or not. (In fact, the thief is only 5 feet 7 inches, so is not tall by either definition.) Instead, the issue is simply whether what the witnesses mean by "tall" matches what the police mean by "tall."

So too with my critique. The issue here is not whether people objectively have knowledge as to whether God exists or not. The issue is simply whether what they mean by "knowledge" matches what your scheme means by "knowledge." When they say they "know" that God exists or they say they "know" that God does not exist, do they mean what you mean by "knowing"? Does their definition (broadly) match your definition?

That is properly a critique about (b) not (a). This is why all of your repeated objections on this particular point, including in your most recent reply, have been irrelevant.

I have stated repeatedly, I don't care if their position is objectively true, I only care if they THINK their position is objectively true.

Okay. So, again, let's go back to the person we've been discussing these past few posts: She has a strong belief that God exists. If you ask her if she thinks it's objectively true that God exists, she would say yes. And her reason for thinking that it is objectively true that God exists is because she just feels it must be true.

So would you define her as a "gnostic theist"?

At the moment, I do NOT have sufficient objective evidence to claim there is a 100% chance that there is no elephant in my front yard. I haven't been out to check, after all. I just believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is a elephant in my front yard.

Right, so you believe there is no elephant in your front yard.

You can't be 100% certain of that, of course. But, as Sean Carroll reminded us above, we can never be 100% certain. Everything we believe (outside of logical and mathematical axioms) we hold with less than 100% certainty. Right?

Are you seriously reduced to this now?

Huh? I'm simply noting here what I have now said four or five times above: We don't -- let me say that again, don't -- have to be 100% certain to believe something.

As Sean Carroll noted above, if one thinks that X is very likely, then one believes X. You think it is very likely there are no elephants in your front yard, so therefore you believe there are no elephants in your front yard.

But for some odd reason you are reluctant to admit this. So let me ask you again: Do you believe there are no elephants in your front yard?

Do you know what country you are in?

Yes. I don't have to be 100% certain to know what country I'm in.

You must answer NO because you could just be a brain in a jar that could exist anywhere!

You have this precisely backwards. I'm saying we don't have to be 100% certain to believe something. You're the one reluctant to say you believe something -- in this case about elephants -- because you can't be 100% certain. That position, not mine, eventually forces one to say they can't really believe anything.

Here, as elsewhere in our discussion, you appear to have lost track of the original point you were making, so let me remind you. You said:

There's a person who thinks that the issue of God's existence is inherently unknowable. They claim to KNOW that God's existence is always going to be unknowable. There's another person who, similarly, can't say if God exists or not, but they do NOT think that God's existence is inherently unknowable.

And then offered this claim:

And your system does not actual describe the difference between the two people I spoke of, it just lumps them together under the same umbrella, despite the fact that the difference between their positions is, I'd say, fairly important. Yet my system describes this easily.

So, again, on the old scheme, both positions are described as "agnostic," but people have historically extended the scheme to use the labels "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic" to distinguish between these two position.

Now, you think your scheme describes these two positions better because we can refer to them as "0,0" and "0,50" or some such thing. But would anyone in their right mind think that is better than "soft agnostic" and "hard agnostic," or even just "agnostic"? Have you ever met someone who describes themselves as "0,0"?

The entire point of a scheme -- the very reason it exists -- is to assign labels to positions. If a scheme has no label for a position that is a deficiency in the scheme.

We can, of course, put down some kind of numerical spectrum on any scheme, assigning numbers to positions. We can do that with my scheme or Dawkin's scheme -- it's not like this is somehow unique to your scheme. But assigning numbers instead of labels is, to use your own words, "kooky."

It doesn't matter if I have met someone like that or not. My personal experience is completely irrelevant when it comes to recording the different position of people with regards to the existence of God.

What we are discussing here, broadly, is the utility of each of these schemes. If no one is using numbers to describe their beliefs that's a clear indication such a scheme is just not useful.

Consider how you yourself initially introduced this scheme. You explained it and then called yourself an "agnostic atheist." You didn't call yourself a "-9,80" or whatever. In fact, at no point have you given us your number. But now you want us to believe using numbers is somehow better?

I can show anyone a chart with the axes labelled and say that such-and-such-a-person holds some particular position, and they can immediately pinpoint them on the diagram and understand where they fit. But if someone says that they are a hard agnostic, or a soft agnostic, there's no specific meaning included.

If someone tells me they are a "hard agnostic" I already know what they mean. And, if you don't, just Google it. You'll find multiple encyclopedia entries explaining the position.

If someone tells me they are "0,0" I have no idea what they are talking about, and have no way to look it up.

Telling me that if you sit down with me with a chart and explain your whole scheme I'll be able to understand what you mean by "0,0" is not an argument in favor of using numbers. In fact, it shows how cumbersome it is, because you have to do this just so people know what the heck you're talking about.