Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

I find all those formulations to be largely synonymous in everyday language; I would use them interchangably.

I don't think everyday language is the right basis here, though. We're trying to be accurate. For example, in everyday speech, I rarely use the word "whom", but when I write and I'm trying to be accurate, I use it when appropriate.

Those sentences are not synonymous. Saying "I don't believe God exists" isn't the same as saying "I believe God doesn't exist". The difference between them generally isn't important in everyday speech, but it becomes important in discussions like this.

I have a hard time, actually, keeping it straight in the atheist definition debate which implies belief and which doesn't, since they all really mean the same thing to me. Two of those formulations imply lack of belief; two imply presence of a negative belief.

As you say, the difference is one implies lack of belief while the other implies presence of a negative belief. When you say "I don't believe...", it's the same as saying "I don't hold the belief...". Basically when "don't" comes before "believe", it indicates the lack of a belief, not necessarily the presence of a different belief.

If the options are mutually exclusive, (ie, Kilgore can either be wearing a blue shirt, or he can not be wearing a blue shirt; there is no other option), and you don't believe he is wearing a blue shirt, by default, you also believe that he is not wearing a blue shirt.

That's not true. I don't believe he's wearing a blue shirt. I also don't believe he's not wearing a blue shirt. I don't know what color shirt he's wearing or even whether he's wearing a shirt at all.

 

[Falvlun]

OK, but it is the place of lexicographers to worry about usage vs subjective impressions of usage, is it not? When you open a dictionary, you do not expect to see definitions that are the result of political compromise. You expect to see definitions that reflect the way people actually use the word. Right?

But language does evolve, and some people are obviously intending the word "atheist" to mean "lack of belief in gods".

Also, since the whole thing is so subjective, it really does come down to personal definitions. I mean, would you tell a Christian his definition of Christianity was incorrect? Certainly, there is a set concept of what Christianity entails, but that does not stop people from formulating their own concept of Christianity, and practicing it as such.

What about the case where you know that he is not wearing a blue shirt? In that case, you lack a belief that he is wearing a blue shirt, but you also have a belief that he is not wearing one. based on your personal experience.

I covered that one: If you know something, then it is not a belief, and you can truly be said to "lack a belief". Does anyone truly know that god does not exist? I am an agnostic atheist, so naturally, my answer would be no.

If you genuinely do not know whether he is even wearing a shirt, then you can lack a belief that he is wearing a shirt. Whether or not the shirt he is not wearing is blue is moot. He could, in fact, be wearing no shirt at all.

I'm not sure of your point here. Regardless of what else you don't know, if you don't believe he is wearing a blue shirt, you also believe that he is not wearing a blue shirt. This belief might be founded upon the belief that you don't believe he is wearing any shirt, but that doesn't negate the existence of the "no blue shirt" belief either.

 

[Falvlun]

Those sentences are not synonymous. Saying "I don't believe God exists" isn't the same as saying "I believe God doesn't exist". The difference between them generally isn't important in everyday speech, but it becomes important in discussions like this.

The distinction truly seems to me just playing with words and grammar rather than any substantial difference.

As you say, the difference is one implies lack of belief while the other implies presence of a negative belief. When you say "I don't believe...", it's the same as saying "I don't hold the belief...". Basically when "don't" comes before "believe", it indicates the lack of a belief, not necessarily the presence of a different belief.

If you don't hold a belief of a mutually exclusive thing, then by default, you hold the negative belief (assuming, as before mentioned, that you don't hold the belief because a) you know, don't believe and b) you have never heard of the concept.)

That's not true. I don't believe he's wearing a blue shirt. I also don't believe he's not wearing a blue shirt. I don't know what color shirt he's wearing or even whether he's wearing a shirt at all.

Then you have no opinion. But that is not the case regarding the question of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure of your point here. Regardless of what else you don't know, if you don't believe he is wearing a blue shirt, you also believe that he is not wearing a blue shirt. This belief might be founded upon the belief that you don't believe he is wearing any shirt, but that doesn't negate the existence of the "no blue shirt" belief either.

So... if you don't believe an assertion, you necessarily believe its opposite?

For instance, if you don't believe "Penguin has a pet fish", this means you believe "Penguin doesn't have a pet fish"?

Why do you believe that I don't have a pet fish?

Penguin is now trying to maintain that people don't call babies atheists just because the topic never comes up in conversation. In other words, if it did, they would supposedly judge that babies really are atheists.

You're misrepresenting my argument. My point was that the lack of mention of babies as atheists or not gives us no information about whether they believe that atheists are babies or not... and that's it. I was simply refuting a point in your argument, not trying to advance an argument of my own.

 

[Falvlun]

The word "shirt" is an actual, existing thing, with a fixed and universally understood definition. The word "god" represents a purely subjective concept that could mean practically anything. Therefore it is LESS rational (by a country mile) to insist "a lack of belief in god" = "the belief that god does not exist" than it is to insist your lack of belief "KT is wearing a blue shirt" = the belief that he is not.

Are you trying to claim that you don't have a concept or concepts in mind when you say "I don't believe that god exists?" Because, if that's so, then your statement is meaningless.

So you're guessing.

The "also" in there might have made my meaning ambiguous. I was simply showing four ways in which I would and could naturally state the concept that "No, I do not believe Kilgore is wearing a blue shirt."

 

[Magic Man]

The distinction truly seems to me just playing with words and grammar rather than any substantial difference.

Whatever way it seems to you, it's an important distinction in some conversations, like this one.

If you don't hold a belief of a mutually exclusive thing, then by default, you hold the negative belief (assuming, as before mentioned, that you don't hold the belief because a) you know, don't believe and b) you have never heard of the concept.)

Again, that's not true. There is the belief "God exists". There is another belief "God does not exist". It is possible to lack both of those beliefs.

Then you have no opinion. But that is not the case regarding the question of god.

We're not necessarily talking about me here. I do indeed reject some common concepts of God. What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue here. The issue is that one can lack both beliefs "God exists" and "God doesn't exist", and if one does, one is an atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

So... if you don't believe an assertion, you necessarily believe its opposite?

For instance, if you don't believe "Penguin has a pet fish", this means you believe "Penguin doesn't have a pet fish"?

Why do you believe that I don't have a pet fish?

Um... because I don't believe you have a pet fish?

If I wanted to avoid the necessary negative belief, I could say "I have no opinion whether Penguin has a pet fish or not." But once you commit to "I don't believe Penguin has a fish", you also commit to "I believe Penguin does not have a pet fish."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't hold a belief of a mutually exclusive thing, then by default, you hold the negative belief (assuming, as before mentioned, that you don't hold the belief because a) you know, don't believe and b) you have never heard of the concept.)

Hypothetical scenario:

I tell you that I had breakfast this morning. You believe me.

You also know that I have a number of breakfast foods available to me:

- eggs and toast
- cereal
- leftover pizza

For simplicity's sake, let's say that you know that these are all the options I have. Outside of this, you don't have any knowledge of what I actually had.

Now... do you believe that I had eggs and toast for breakfast? You have no information to suggest it, so no. Do you think I had cereal? No, by the same process. Therefore, by process of elimination, you believe that I had leftover pizza for breakfast.

Correct?

However... let's go back a bit and re-ask those questions, but in a different order: do you believe I had leftover pizza? No information to suggest it, so no. Cereal? Same reasoning: no. Therefore, by process of elimination, you believe that I had eggs and toast for breakfast.

Do your beliefs really depend on the order in which people ask you about them? Because it seems to me that your argument suggests they do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um... because I don't believe you have a pet fish?

If I wanted to avoid the necessary negative belief, I could say "I have no opinion whether Penguin has a pet fish or not." But once you commit to "I don't believe Penguin has a fish", you also commit to "I believe Penguin does not have a pet fish."

Does "I have no opinion whether Penguin has a pet fish or not" allow for you to have a belief that I have a pet fish?

If it doesn't, then when you say "I have no opinion...", this implies that "Falvlun doesn't believe Penguin has a fish" is true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is my belief that you are not wearing a blue shirt. I also do not believe that you are wearing a blue shirt. I also do not hold the belief that you are wearing a blue shirt. I believe that you are not wearing a blue shirt.

I suppose that's the difference then between you and I. I have no rational basis for believing you are not wearing a blue shirt, so I would not hold that belief.

If you come from a strictly rational basis, then I have no reason to believe that you are wearing a blue shirt, nor a reason to believe that you are not wearing a blue shirt.

Let me ask you, on what basis did you decide to believe that I am not wearing a blue shirt?

 

[Falvlun]

"I don't believe he's wearing a blue shirt" is synonymous with "I believe he's not wearing a blue shirt" where some information about the shirt's colour is available.

"I don't believe he's wearing a blue shirt" is synonymous with "I have no belief one way or another" where no information about the shirt or its colour is available.

That's the ambiguity.

Hm. I would never equate "I don't believe..." with "I have no belief one way or the other." I'm also not sure why information or the lack there of matters. Some people believe things based on no information. I also see a negative result-- ie, the null hypothesis, lack of evidence-- to be information as well.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually the definition goes a bit further -- it is not mere 'lack of belief' or mere 'lack of belief in God'. It is actually lack of belief in existence of something that each atheist has come to define as god. This is not empty of a belief of god.

I think that's a good point. Whatever the conception of god in the "I don't believe god exists" is the same conception of god in play in the "I believe god doesn't exist."

 

[Falvlun]

I suppose that's the difference then between you and I. I have no rational basis for believing you are not wearing a blue shirt, so I would not hold that belief.

If you come from a strictly rational basis, then I have no reason to believe that you are wearing a blue shirt, nor a reason to believe that you are not wearing a blue shirt.

Let me ask you, on what basis did you decide to believe that I am not wearing a blue shirt?

My apologies. I thought I had to choose a stance "to play along"; I didn't realize you were asking for my true feelings. I chose "not to believe" because a) there are more colors that are not blue than there are that are blue, so it was more probable that you weren't wearing a blue shirt. b) because it fit better with the "I don't believe god exists" formulation.

Yes, the most rational response would be "I have no opinion on whether you are wearing a blue shirt or not since I do not have enough data."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hm. I would never equate "I don't believe..." with "I have no belief one way or the other."

But "I have no beliefs on the matter" necessarily implies "I do not believe position 'A' on the matter", "I do not believe position 'B' on the matter", "I do not believe position 'C' on the matter", etc., for every possible position on the matter in question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, the most rational response would be "I have no opinion on whether you are wearing a blue shirt or not since I do not have enough data."

Indeed, an absence of belief about whether I'm wearing a blue shirt or not.

 

[Falvlun]

We're not necessarily talking about me here. I do indeed reject some common concepts of God. What I believe or don't believe isn't the issue here. The issue is that one can lack both beliefs "God exists" and "God doesn't exist", and if one does, one is an atheist.

I agree. There is certainly a sense of the word "atheist" that covers those who simply have no opinion, or have not taken the positive belief that god exists.

My hang up is that the wording "I don't believe god exists" does not imply such a neutrality, as it's natural analog is "I believe god does not exist." Neutrality would be best conveyed by "I have no opinion regarding whether god exists or does not exist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My hang up is that the wording "I don't believe god exists" does not imply such a neutrality, as it's natural analog is "I believe god does not exist." Neutrality would be best conveyed by "I have no opinion regarding whether god exists or does not exist."

Isn't neutrality also conveyed by "I have no belief regarding whether god exists or does not exist"?

 

[Mellonhead]

This is ridiculous.

It's really quite simple.

I do not believe in God, because God has no proof of existence.

Now, if me not believing in invisible dragons means that I have a set of believes against invisible dragons, then yes I suppose it is a belief.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree. There is certainly a sense of the word "atheist" that covers those who simply have no opinion, or have not taken the positive belief that god exists.

Good, so we're getting somewhere.

My hang up is that the wording "I don't believe god exists" does not imply such a neutrality, as it's natural analog is "I believe god does not exist." Neutrality would be best conveyed by "I have no opinion regarding whether god exists or does not exist."

It says that I don't hold the belief "God exists". It doesn't say that I hold the belief "God doesn't exist". There are times when we use the phrase "I don't believe" to imply we believe the negative. For instance,:

- Is John in today?
- I don't believe so.

However, that's not the context we're talking about here. When we say it in reference to God, we're saying "I don't hold the belief that God exists". From that one piece of information you can't tell whether the person holds the belief "God doesn't exist".

 

[Alceste]

I agree.

By the definition "lack of belief", only stones, and may be babies etc. can be atheists.

Actually the definition goes a bit further -- it is not mere 'lack of belief' or mere 'lack of belief in God'. It is actually lack of belief in existence of something that each atheist has come to define as god. This is not empty of a belief of god.

I don't have any personal definition of "god". I always have to ask what theists mean when they say it, since no two seem to agree with each other what, if anything, it means.