The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

Of course all forums rules apply here, however, I don't mind harmless banter.
If you're going to insult each other be friendly, and if you don't want to be friendly direct it at a bigot.

I wont report it if no one else will

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is a breach of forum, rules. If you want me to clarify - ask.

And no I do not see any meaningful difference between believing God does not exist, and not believing God exists. Because there is no real difference. In practice, in a practical sense, in the real world - they are the same position. Both are positions we would classify as atheist.

A person who does not believe God exists is an atheist. A person who believes God does not exist is also an atheist. Why on earth is this so difficult to grasp?
All I see is a great deal of word play, going nowhere.

Yes, they are both atheists, but they are still different positions. There is a difference between saying "I don't believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God" - it is the same as saying "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean in even" and saying "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd"; or the difference between finding a defendant in the murder case to be "not guilty" rather than finding them "innocent". The definition of atheism encompasses both positions in the same way that the definition of theism encompassed both monotheism and polytheism, but that doesn't mean they are the same position.

The position "I don't believe in a God" is a response to the question "Do you believe there IS a God", whereas the position "I believe there is no God" is a response to the question "Do you believe there IS NOT a God". The positions are, themselves, subdivisions of the whole under the heading of disbelief in God (as both positions would give the same answer to the first question), but answering question one as quoted does not require or preclude the quoted answer to question two. You may not believe the number of grains of sand in the ocean is even, but that doesn't require you to believe the number of grains of sand in the ocean is odd.

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry what? A person who does not believe in God, and person who believes there is no God hold the same position - both are atheist.

The first is a "weak atheist" the other is a "strong atheist". The weak doesn't hold any position, the strong holds the position that God doesn't exist.

Me: "I don't believe God exists"
You: "Then you believe he doesn't".
Me: "No I don't believe that either I don't know what to believe".

 

[Willamena]

Yes, they are both atheists, but they are still different positions. There is a difference between saying "I don't believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God" - it is the same as saying "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean in even" and saying "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd"; or the difference between finding a defendant in the murder case to be "not guilty" rather than finding them "innocent". The definition of atheism encompasses both positions in the same way that the definition of theism encompassed both monotheism and polytheism, but that doesn't mean they are the same position.

The position "I don't believe in a God" is a response to the question "Do you believe there IS a God", whereas the position "I believe there is no God" is a response to the question "Do you believe there IS NOT a God". The positions are, themselves, subdivisions of the whole under the heading of disbelief in God (as both positions would give the same answer to the first question), but answering question one as quoted does not require or preclude the quoted answer to question two. You may not believe the number of grains of sand in the ocean is even, but that doesn't require you to believe the number of grains of sand in the ocean is odd.

Epistemologically speaking, there is no difference between, "I believe there is no god," and, "There is no god." Neither statement is the same as saying the grains of sand are odd, i.e. something that cannot be known.

Both are, as I know it, the hard atheist position.

The agnostic atheist doesn't take a stance about belief. Rather, based on knowing that the answer is inconclusive, she neither believes nor disbelieves.

 

[ArtieE]

Epistemologically speaking, there is no difference between, "I believe there is no god," and, "There is no god." Neither statement is the same as saying the grains of sand are odd, i.e. something that cannot be known.

Both are, as I know it, the hard atheist position.

"I believe there is no god" is the hard atheist position. "There is no god" could mean "I believe there is no god" or "I know there is no god" or "I hope there is no god" or whatever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Epistemologically speaking, there is no difference between, "I believe there is no god," and, "There is no god."

Yes there is. One doesn't assert anything other than a lack of belief, the other asserts a positive claim of nonexistence.

Neither statement is the same as saying the grains of sand are odd, i.e. something that cannot be known.

Whether or not the claim is knowable or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the claim is believed or whether a negative claim is believed.

 

[Willamena]

"I believe there is no god" is the hard atheist position. "There is no god" could mean "I believe there is no god" or "I know there is no god" or "I hope there is no god" or whatever.

If you know it, you believe it, and if you believe it, you think you know it, so the difference between saying that you know it and that you believe it is simply a degree of certainty. Epistemologically, it has nothing to do with whether there is no god.

Let me say that again: the hard atheist position has nothing to do the truth of with whether there is a god.

 

[ArtieE]

If you know it, you believe it, and if you believe it, you think you know it, so the difference between saying that you know it and that you believe it is simply a degree of certainty. Epistemologically, it has nothing to do with whether there is no god.

Seriously? What about a theist who says "I don't know if God exists or not but I believe he does?"

 

[Willamena]

Whether or not the claim is knowable or not is irrelevant.

Not to an agnostic, it's not. It's pretty much all that's relevant agnostically.

Yes there is. One doesn't assert anything other than a lack of belief, the other asserts a positive claim of nonexistence.

There is no "positive claim of non-existence" that can be taken seriously, though, because non-existent things don't exist. Negation doesn't create a vacuum. (And neither does positing.)

Rather, it's a negated claim.

Hard atheists are serious about their position that, "There is no god." They know that non-existent things don't exist.

 

[Willamena]

Seriously? What about a theist who says "I don't know if God exists or not but I believe he does?"

What of it?

Agnostic theists exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not to an agnostic, it's not. It's pretty much all that's relevant agnostically.

Agreed, but we're not talking about agnosticism. We're talking about the difference between claiming a lack of belief and asserting a positive claim of nonexistence.

There is no "positive claim of non-existence" that can be taken seriously, though, because non-existent things don't exist. Negation doesn't create a vacuum.

Rather, it's a negated claim.

A positive claim is a claim which is asserted to be true. In this case, "There is no God" is the claim held to be true.

Hard atheists are serious about their position that, "There is no god." They know that non-existent things don't exist.

Where did I say non-existent things exist?

 

[ArtieE]

Agnostic theists exist.

So why did you say and I quote "If you know it, you believe it, and if you believe it, you think you know it"? That excludes agnostic theists who believe but don't know.

 

[leibowde84]

Nope, this is equally applicable to any grouping of mutually exclusive views. This deals most directly with the op re default position and also with the concept that every possible view falls under a classification in the atheist/theist grouping.

So, what is someone who believes both God exists and God does not exist are true?

Confused.

 

[Willamena]

Where did I say non-existent things exist?

When you make out the hard atheist to be an imbecile who knows that "the grains of sand on the beach are odd."

Atheism is a position of belief, not knowledge.

Agreed, but we're not talking about agnosticism. We're talking about the difference between claiming a lack of belief and asserting a positive claim of nonexistence.

A positive claim is a claim which is asserted to be true. In this case, "There is no God" is the claim held to be true?

A positive claim is a posit, and yes, it's asserted to be true. That's why if you posit the truth of "no god," you are suggesting a picture of the world that contains non-existents (non-existent things).

Non-existents don't exist. Negated things, on the other hand, do exist. To posit a negated thing is to make a statement not about non-existents but about the truth of the state of their counter, the existent thing (i.e. the negated "There is no god," is a statement about god, not about no god.)

 

[leibowde84]

I've seen other's do this before on this forum. Not only do some atheist try to claim me as an atheist, they focus only on half of what I said.
What I said, fully, was I don't know enough to accept belief or disbelief. There are two parts to that, not one.

All that is necessary for atheism is a lack of theis. Those that are undecided lack a belief in god and are, thus, atheist by definition.

 

[Willamena]

So why did you say and I quote "If you know it, you believe it, and if you believe it, you think you know it"? That excludes agnostic theists who believe but don't know.

Knowledge includes belief, though belief doesn't include knowledge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When you make out the hard atheist to be an imbecile who knows that "the grains of sand on the beach are odd."

Er, I didn't say that. I was making a comparison between the difference in asserting a lack of belief and asserting a positive claim.

Atheism is a position of belief, not knowledge.

I agree. Where did I say otherwise?

A positive claim is a posit, and yes, it's asserted to be true. That's why if you posit the truth of "no god," you are suggesting a picture of the world that contains non-existents (non-existent things).

No, you're asserting a world in which a particular thing is absent. You're not asserting that the world "contains" something that is non-existent, that makes no sense.

Non-existents don't exist. Negated things, on the other hand, do exist. To posit a negated thing is to make a statement not about non-existents but about the truth of the state of their counter, the existent thing (i.e. the negated "There is no god," is a statement about god, not about no god.)

This is just word salad.

 

[Willamena]

Er, I didn't say that. I was making a comparison between the difference in asserting a lack of belief and asserting a positive claim.


I agree. Where did I say otherwise?


No, you're asserting a world in which a particular thing is absent. You're not asserting that the world "contains" something that is non-existent, that makes no sense.


This is just word salad.

There is no truth in regards to non-existent things: no truth that can be stated, no truth that can be known, and ideally no truth should be speculated.

To do so is illogical.

"There is no god," is not a statement about a non-existent (absent) thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no truth in regards to non-existent things: no truth that can be stated, no truth that can be known, and ideally no truth should be speculated.

To do so is illogical.

"There is no god," is not a statement about a non-existent (absent) thing.

it is a claim that a particular thing is absent from the Universe.

 

[Willamena]

it is a claim that a particular thing is absent from the Universe.

I don't believe in non-existent things.

Hard atheism isn't about that.