It is also useful as a starting point in some contexts, such as when dealing with people that insist that it falls upon atheists to prove that there is no God.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How is not believing in god different than believing there is no god?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
It is also useful as a starting point in some contexts, such as when dealing with people that insist that it falls upon atheists to prove that there is no God.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
A lot of theists have this problem. If you lack belief in something it does not necessarily mean that you believe it impossible for that thing to exist.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
An agnostic would say, "I believe that we don't have enough information or evidence to support belief in either direction."
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It is actually the definition of being "open minded." It is not convenient, as it is usually pretty hard to get people to understand that a choice does not necessarily have to be made.
Imho, it is the most honorable position to have, as it is pretty darn accurate. We do not have the evidence to support either claim, so settling on "we don't know yet" seems most appropriate.
Who knows? God is such a vague concept to begin with. Claiming to either believe or to lack belief in his existence is just about as non-informative as any piece of info might be.
That's not what I asked. I didn't ask what might be possible, I asked you to fill in the blank.
But theological noncognitivism =! atheism.
So you're an agnostic and not an atheist, which means the question is kind of irrelevant to you.
It can be a very subtle distinction, and IMO it should be ignored in most situations.
But if you feel differently, by all means expand on that. I am interested in learning of it.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
It's exactly the same belief, but the former phrasing (non-belief) doesn't draw so much attention to the alternative positive assertion- that everything accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason..
which is a little tough to back up
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I am a Christian. I am pointing out that your logic is faulty. A person who lacks belief in God or that God doesn't exist = agnostic. A person who actively believes that belief in God is illogical and his existence is impossible = atheist. This seperation is the distinction you asked about in your original post, correct? I'm not sure why you would think that it woudn't apply to me, as you never used the word "atheist" or "agnostic" to clarify your claim.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, you think that someone who is undecided as to whether God exists is the same as someone who actively believes God's existence is impossible? How can you "back" that up?
Well theological noncognitivism is much newer to me than other positions so I might be wrong. However, as I understand it, the very position of "I don't believe there is a god" would violate the noncognitivist position by assuming the idea of "god" has any meaning. It could go with agnosticism; "there is no way of understanding what the term 'god' even means, therefore it is impossible to know if something fitting the definition does (not) exist". But with atheism the term " god" or "divine" and so on need to have meaning because they are being rejected. You can't reject a four sides triangle because the very concept is nonsense.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
we all have doubts, but we all know where our money is. don't we?
I think it would be wise to ask the person in question for clarification. That phrase "believe in" can have multiple meanings.
"Believe in" can indicate trust, or faith in something.
"Believe in" can indicate acceptance or support of a cause or thing.
"Believe in" can indicate an ontological position.
There are probably some other possibilities. All in all, we could use with some more precision when communicating our thoughts.
When I hear "not believing in god" I think something more along the lines of the first two. When I hear "believing there is no god" I think something more along the lines of the last option. But without asking that person what they mean, I really have no idea.
"Believe in" can indicate trust, or faith in something.
"Believe in" can indicate acceptance or support of a cause or thing.
"Believe in" can indicate an ontological position.
There are probably some other possibilities. All in all, we could use with some more precision when communicating our thoughts.
When I hear "not believing in god" I think something more along the lines of the first two. When I hear "believing there is no god" I think something more along the lines of the last option. But without asking that person what they mean, I really have no idea.
The difference between a "weak atheist" (not believing in god and this would include agnostics) and a "strong atheist" (believing their is no god) is a substantial philosophical difference, particularly on the question of the nature of knowledge.
"weak atheism" is an umbrella term for agnostics and most present-day atheists and usually a belief associated with liberals who adhere to free thought. the belief in free thought mean that they cannot exclude the possibility that the alternative view is correct. This would include the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who do not assert Atheism as fact merely as close to fact as possible. "weak atheism" can on the one hand range from having no direct personal experience of god, to having strong evidence that god does not exist because science can explain almost everything.
Richard Dawkins says there may not be a difference at all, but I think he's wrong. New Atheists are notorious for dismissing communism as a "pseudo-religion" and therefore have never even engaged intellectually with strong atheism at all, probably out of fear of being tainted by it. They are not wholly wrong as communism is a dogma in many respects, but it is also atheist. I don't know what the attitudes of Dawkins and co are to Nietzsche.
I would argue that the difference is that weak atheists still accept "the god of the gaps" and therefore the possibility of a god hiding somewhere in the depths of our ignorance. "Strong atheists" do not and would reject the "god of the gaps" as an illusion arising from mistaking "not knowing" something with saying something is "unknowable" and therefore impossible to dismiss.
there are very few present day examples of "strong atheism" because Liberalism is so dominant that we would feel uncomfortable excluding the possibility that god exists as it would contradict free thought and most conventional definitions of scientific inquiry. The best source for strong atheism is probably Ludwig Feuerbach who asserted in The Essence of Christianity that god did not exist because god was a projection of man. Therefore all 'proof' of god was in fact an illusion.
Feuerbach's ideas had a different influence on Karl Marx (and therefore on the State Atheism of Communism) and may also have had an influence on Fredrick Nietzsche (who described himself as the 'anti-Christ'). Consequently Strong Atheism is tied with revolutionary as opposed to liberal belief systems; Feuerbach was a humanist, Marx a Communist, and Nietzsche in a whole league of his own.
It's possible Freud was a "strong atheist" because he argued that god was a projection of our parental authority figure (the father I think; it depends on whether society is organized as a patriarchy or matriarchy). Hence any "proof" for god would be a rationalization as opposed to 'real' knowledge. But I'm not sure.
Communism would be the best and most instantly recognizable example; it basically claimed atheism was a scientific fact by changing the definition of science to fit it's philosophical preconceptions and exclude both free thought and therefore the possibility of religion being true. Science was therefore inherently atheist in the Soviet definition. However, the complexities of Marxist philosophy mean that even this did not absolutely exclude that religion was false merely that god was an illusion and that atheism was practical; supposedly religion was an illusion of a more primitive exploiting society which had to be fought because it legitimized man's powerlessness before the forces of nature and society. To have a communist system you need to believe you can understand and therefore plan just about everything scientifically; religion, with it's claims of something beyond, behind or above the 'real' world makes this impossible. The league of militant atheists argued that the "struggle against religion is the struggle for socialism" and they were intent on eliminating religion in the USSR entirely.
Whether there is a strong atheist who is both politically liberal and uses a conventional definition of science I'm not sure but the closet example I can think of would be saying religion is a mental disorder which should not be excluded from criteria of mental illness. it's an idea that is circulating but I don't know who came up with it.
"weak atheism" is an umbrella term for agnostics and most present-day atheists and usually a belief associated with liberals who adhere to free thought. the belief in free thought mean that they cannot exclude the possibility that the alternative view is correct. This would include the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who do not assert Atheism as fact merely as close to fact as possible. "weak atheism" can on the one hand range from having no direct personal experience of god, to having strong evidence that god does not exist because science can explain almost everything.
Richard Dawkins says there may not be a difference at all, but I think he's wrong. New Atheists are notorious for dismissing communism as a "pseudo-religion" and therefore have never even engaged intellectually with strong atheism at all, probably out of fear of being tainted by it. They are not wholly wrong as communism is a dogma in many respects, but it is also atheist. I don't know what the attitudes of Dawkins and co are to Nietzsche.
I would argue that the difference is that weak atheists still accept "the god of the gaps" and therefore the possibility of a god hiding somewhere in the depths of our ignorance. "Strong atheists" do not and would reject the "god of the gaps" as an illusion arising from mistaking "not knowing" something with saying something is "unknowable" and therefore impossible to dismiss.
there are very few present day examples of "strong atheism" because Liberalism is so dominant that we would feel uncomfortable excluding the possibility that god exists as it would contradict free thought and most conventional definitions of scientific inquiry. The best source for strong atheism is probably Ludwig Feuerbach who asserted in The Essence of Christianity that god did not exist because god was a projection of man. Therefore all 'proof' of god was in fact an illusion.
Feuerbach's ideas had a different influence on Karl Marx (and therefore on the State Atheism of Communism) and may also have had an influence on Fredrick Nietzsche (who described himself as the 'anti-Christ'). Consequently Strong Atheism is tied with revolutionary as opposed to liberal belief systems; Feuerbach was a humanist, Marx a Communist, and Nietzsche in a whole league of his own.
It's possible Freud was a "strong atheist" because he argued that god was a projection of our parental authority figure (the father I think; it depends on whether society is organized as a patriarchy or matriarchy). Hence any "proof" for god would be a rationalization as opposed to 'real' knowledge. But I'm not sure.
Communism would be the best and most instantly recognizable example; it basically claimed atheism was a scientific fact by changing the definition of science to fit it's philosophical preconceptions and exclude both free thought and therefore the possibility of religion being true. Science was therefore inherently atheist in the Soviet definition. However, the complexities of Marxist philosophy mean that even this did not absolutely exclude that religion was false merely that god was an illusion and that atheism was practical; supposedly religion was an illusion of a more primitive exploiting society which had to be fought because it legitimized man's powerlessness before the forces of nature and society. To have a communist system you need to believe you can understand and therefore plan just about everything scientifically; religion, with it's claims of something beyond, behind or above the 'real' world makes this impossible. The league of militant atheists argued that the "struggle against religion is the struggle for socialism" and they were intent on eliminating religion in the USSR entirely.
Whether there is a strong atheist who is both politically liberal and uses a conventional definition of science I'm not sure but the closet example I can think of would be saying religion is a mental disorder which should not be excluded from criteria of mental illness. it's an idea that is circulating but I don't know who came up with it.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
No, there are some that are undecided, believe it or not (no pun intended). Undecided would be "agnostic," actively believing that God does not exist would be "atheist." That being said, some atheists do consider themselves to be agnostic, but those that actively believe that God does not exist must be classified as "atheist."
Au Contraire. Atheism can and should reject the whole enchillada without taking upon itself the dubious duty of demonstrating that it is even possible to make a clear, unambiguous concept of deity.
It falls upon those who claim that there is a need to accept a concept to show that it can be defined in a meaningful way.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
It's a sliding scale then, not a multi-choice.. where would you put your belief as a %?
- I don't know whether the ghost of Napoleon is sitting besides me checking my post. I am not sure about J. Caesar invisible spirit, either. Maybe he just inspired me to write his name down, who knows? I have to keep an open mind about this possibility.
- I am agnostic about my tooth fairy protecting me from evil. I do not have enough information about her to have an educated guess about her.
- I am not dead sure that there are not evil spirits condemned by God to drive the planets of the solar system in elliptical orbits. Is maybe Newton wrong? We should leave that open in the interest of intellectual honesty and open-mindedness.
Oh, I feel my position is so honorable! I wonder why they look at me funny at cocktail parties
Ciao
- viole
Last edited: