-
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
I agree with you, there is no difference. If I don't believe there is an invisible fire spitting dragon in my kitchen, then how is that different from believing that there is no invisible fire spitting dragon in my kitchen? Do I feel somehow more compelled to use dragon's fire fighting vests when entering my kitchen in any of the two cases?
This is just useless semantics motivated by the unjustified fear of inheriting the burden of proof. Which is the main weakness in the atheistic movement at the moment, I am afraid. The average atheist feels somehow the need to differentiate between his lack of belief, and his belief that there are not, things that have the same evidence of tooth fairies or Pinocchio. Which is obviously ridiculous and an unwarranted concession to theistic beliefs (and Pinocchio beliefs).
So, let's cut through the chase and keep it simple. There is no God, Pinocchio. blue fairies, and invisible dragons in my kitchen. Period. Anyone who thinks there is... evidence, please.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
catch22
Active Member
I'm not sure there is much practical difference... it might be received differently from different groups of people, but at the end of the day, both are statements of non-belief, even when phrased "I believe there is no god."
The motives behind why you say either one might be interesting to explore, but generally when people make statements like this, they are attempting to express a lack of belief, they aren't necessarily explicitly trying to say "I believe in the supernatural or the divine, I just think your version of it is wrong." Otherwise, you'd roll on agnosticism (either hard or soft, whichever suits you).
I don't personally drop my battle flag on the mountain of "disbelief is still belief" even when phrased in that manner. I can appreciate someone simply trying to communicate they don't believe in the supernatural or divine -- if that is indeed all they were trying to express. There's no point in arguing over wording, only meaning.
The motives behind why you say either one might be interesting to explore, but generally when people make statements like this, they are attempting to express a lack of belief, they aren't necessarily explicitly trying to say "I believe in the supernatural or the divine, I just think your version of it is wrong." Otherwise, you'd roll on agnosticism (either hard or soft, whichever suits you).
I don't personally drop my battle flag on the mountain of "disbelief is still belief" even when phrased in that manner. I can appreciate someone simply trying to communicate they don't believe in the supernatural or divine -- if that is indeed all they were trying to express. There's no point in arguing over wording, only meaning.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Actually they overlap but they arent the same. You can believe in God but not put your trust in Him...not believe in Him or you can not believe that God exist altogether by passing the need to believe in someone that doesnt exist.
catch22
Active Member
In fairness, you should at least modify your statement to be "evidence that I'll readily accept, please."
Otherwise, I'll just say read the Bible and be done with it. But you wouldn't accept it as valid historical testimony (evidence), so we'd be back to square one.
Sounds similar to my argument against god hides and relies on faith to protect free will.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Hmm ... what is difficult to understand? Someone who lacks belief in God is not making any kind of assertion. To them, the evidence is lacking eough to prevent them from taking a position on the subject. On the other hand, there are some that believe actively that God does not exist. They see substantial evidence that the existance of God is impossible or so unlikely that there is no plausible reason to think it possible.
In short, lack of belief shows support for both sides of the argument in that they believe neither side has been properly supported. Active disbelief means that they are making an assertion that God does not exist. Does that clear things up?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Non-belief is a lack of belief. While those that believe that God does not exist make an assertion and hold a specific belief. There is a huge difference.
It all comes down about how certain one is that there is no god, and even more to how much importance one sees in knowing for certain.
Once one realizes (as I recently did) how much wishful thinking it takes to even want to keep any doubts on whether there is any god beyond those created by humans the distinction does indeed become something of an affectation.
Basically, it comes down to how much of a straight face one can muster while saying "I can't tell for certain whether there are any gods".
Not at all, to be honest. Seems like word play rather than reason.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Please explain specifically, as it was certainly a reasoned argument without "wordplay." Seems like a pretty convenient excuse to tell you the truth.
Let's use the lochness monster as an example. I don't believe that the lochness monster exists. I lack this faith. But, I do not have any reason to think it would be impossible for it to exist ... I merely have not been convinced of its existance, so I do not have a position on the subject. Belief in God is a choice, as is believing that God doesn't exist. If you have not made this choice yet, you would fall into the category of lacking belief, but not necessarily believing accurately that God doesn't exist.
Oh, but I never said I would not accept some of the historical claims of the Bible. I am sure Jerusalem and Babylon existed, for instance.
However many things in Homer's Odyssey seem historically correct, as well. Greeks warriors really did exist and had fought against Turkish power.
But for claims like
1) A witch turned Odysseus soldiers into pigs
2) Jesus cast demons onto pigs
Then the only logical conclusion I can draw is that both cultures did not like pigs, for some reason. And no more than that, pending additional extraordinary evidence concerning the possible transformation of humans and demons into pigs
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
They are not really the same thing, but many theistic faiths and societies insist on playing down the distinction.
So much so that it is often found rude to remind people that there is any.
So it's more just a convenient claim to seem open minded while not believing.
If you don't believe in god then you believe ________...
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Oh. That's your problem. You are incorrectly equating two unequal statements. It is the difference between being Agnostic (a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God) and an assertive atheist (a person who claims to know or believe that God is not real).
"I lack belief in God" certainily doesn't equal "I believe that God does not exist." Not sure how you are equating the two. There are plenty of agnostics in the world who could explain this better than I, but it shoud be a pretty clear seperation.
What is your difficulty in understanding this?