Trying To Understand Atheism

[Milton Platt]

1. There is no God.
2. I do not believe in God.
3. I don't know.

1 and 2 are atheists. 3 is an agnostic.

So did you find your answers in the 400-odd replies?????

 

[Cephus]

1. There is no God.
2. I do not believe in God.
3. I don't know.

1 and 2 are atheists. 3 is an agnostic.

2 and 3 are identical. You cannot believe in something that you are not convinced exists.

 

[ArtieE]

2 and 3 are identical. You cannot believe in something that you are not convinced exists.

1. There is no God.
2. I do not believe in God.
3. I don't know.

Of course 2 and 3 aren't identical since you can perfectly well say "I don't know but I believe God exists".

 

[Willamena]

1. There is no God.
2. I do not believe in God.
3. I don't know.

Of course 2 and 3 aren't identical since you can perfectly well say "I don't know but I believe God exists".

You cannot believe in something that you are not convinced exists.

 

[ArtieE]

You cannot believe in something that you are not convinced exists.

If you are convinced that it exists you are certain, you know that it exists. You can believe it exists without being certain. That's the whole point.

 

[Willamena]

If you are convinced that it exists you are certain, you know that it exists.

No, you just believe.

You can believe it exists without being certain. That's the whole point.

'Belief' is certainty.

'Knowing' is its being true.

 

[Cephus]

1. There is no God.
2. I do not believe in God.
3. I don't know.

Of course 2 and 3 aren't identical since you can perfectly well say "I don't know but I believe God exists".

First off, nobody knows because there is no basis for making a claim of knowledge. But I took the statement, not as "I don't know if gods exist", but "I don't know what to believe" and if the second is the case, then you do not believe that gods exist, hence 2 and 3 are identical.

 

[ArtieE]

'Belief' is certainty.

Nonsense. You may notice that there are two different words there meaning two different things. Saying "I believe" obviously isn't the same as saying "I am certain".

'Knowing' is its being true.

Nonsense again. If a person says "I know God exists" that has no bearing on whether God actually exists or not. He might just have had some personal experience making him 100% certain that God exists.

 

[ArtieE]

First off, nobody knows because there is no basis for making a claim of knowledge.

A person can perfectly well claim he knows God exists based on some personal experience.

But I took the statement, not as "I don't know if gods exist", but "I don't know what to believe"

There are two simple statements. "I do not believe in God" and "I don't know". None of them says "I don't know what to believe".

 

[Willamena]

Nonsense. You may notice that there are two different words there meaning two different things. Saying "I believe" obviously isn't the same as saying "I am certain".

Do you honestly believe that? Are you certain?

Nonsense again. If a person says "I know God exists" that has no bearing on whether God actually exists or not. He might just have had some personal experience making him 100% certain that God exists.

Then that personal experience has informed his belief. If I say, "There is a tower in France called Eiffel," the integrity of what I have said is only supported by their being an actual tower in France. That I think that it's true is belief, but that it is true is knowledge.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you honestly believe that? Are you certain?

See? Two different words with different meanings.

Then that personal experience has informed his belief.

No, he has gone from saying "I believe" to "I know".

If I say, "There is a tower in France called Eiffel," the integrity of what I have said is only supported by their being an actual tower in France. That I think that it's true is belief, but that it is true is knowledge.

That you think it's true is belief, that you know it's true is knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

...that you know it's true is knowledge.

That's not good definition. A word shouldn't self-reference to define itself.

 

[Milton Platt]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

I do believe that the more likely outcome is that there are no gods. That is not the same as saying that there are no gods. I cannot visit the entire universe looking for one that may be hiding. Neither can I cannot study one that according to many Christians "exists outside of space and time" because I have no way of looking outside of space and time (where would that be???)

I believe no gods exist. With the same confidence that I believe that there isn't a little teapot orbiting Jupiter. But I can't KNOW either of these things. There may be a god or gods. There may be a teapot orbiting Jupiter. When I have evidence for the teapot, I will believe it;. Same for the god(s)

 

[Willamena]

I do believe that the more likely outcome is that there are no gods. That is not the same as saying that there are no gods. I cannot visit the entire universe looking for one that may be hiding. Neither can I cannot study one that according to many Christians "exists outside of space and time" because I have no way of looking outside of space and time (where would that be???)

I believe no gods exist. With the same confidence that I believe that there isn't a little teapot orbiting Jupiter. But I can't KNOW either of these things. There may be a god or gods. There may be a teapot orbiting Jupiter. When I have evidence for the teapot, I will believe it;. Same for the god(s)

If I say, "I don't believe in Santa Claus," it means that I believe that he doesn't exist. I don't have to search the whole universe for him in order to not believe in him. It's no different for "god." That I don't believe in god is strong atheism--"knowing" it isn't relevant.

 

[ArtieE]

If I say, "I don't believe in Santa Claus," it means that I believe that he doesn't exist. I don't have to search the whole universe for him in order to not believe in him. It's no different for "god." That I don't believe in god is strong atheism--"knowing" it isn't relevant.

That you don't believe in god is weak atheism. Believing god doesn't exist is strong atheism. The first is an absence of belief the second is a presence of belief. You can of course have an absence of the belief that god exists and an absence of the belief that god doesn't exist and simply sit on the fence. In Willaworld however not jumping down on one side of the fence = jumping down on the other.

 

[dianaiad]

For most atheists, I think the don't believe/believe don't difference is more grammatical than cognitive.

Nope, there is a real cognitive difference there. I don't know how many atheists actually dwell on it, but danged if I don't run into the difference all the time.

"Don't believe" in a god or gods because there's not enough convincing evidence? That's a position of objectivity...a possible willingness to listen/examine/whatever evidence, should any come to light.

"Believe that there isn't" a god or gods? That's a very positive, subjective and set in stone belief system; a statement of faith, a declaration of doctrine: there ain't any such thing as a deity, folks, and nothing you can come up with will convince me otherwise.

Shoot, I've had atheists (more than one, actually) flat out tell me that if God Himself came down and showed Himself to them as proof of His existence, they would refuse to accept it, and attribute the appearance to something else; 'more gravy than grave' about it. Why? Because there is no God, therefore none can appear.

THAT is a substantive, cognitive, difference. It is from these folks that one finds those who advocate the outlawing of religion and religious observances/belief systems, under the weird idea that they are acting any differently from the Muslims who want to shoot all the Christians, the Catholics who burned the Protestants or the Protestants who hanged the Catholics.

(shrug) Whatever. There is a very real difference, though, between those who believe that no deity exists, and those who simply don't believe in any deity they've been presented with so far.

 

[Milton Platt]

If I say, "I don't believe in Santa Claus," it means that I believe that he doesn't exist. I don't have to search the whole universe for him in order to not believe in him. It's no different for "god." That I don't believe in god is strong atheism--"knowing" it isn't relevant.

We are essentially on the same page. I was just meaning that absolute certanty is not needed..

 

[Augustus]

"Don't believe" in a god or gods because there's not enough convincing evidence? That's a position of objectivity...a possible willingness to listen/examine/whatever evidence, should any come to light.

"Believe that there isn't" a god or gods? That's a very positive, subjective and set in stone belief system; a statement of faith, a declaration of doctrine: there ain't any such thing as a deity, folks, and nothing you can come up with will convince me otherwise.

You are misrepresenting "believe there isn't". I believe no gods exist, I might well be wrong though. I believe there is a small chance gods could exist, it's just I find it highly implausible. It's just belief, not knowledge, and belief is subject to change.

 

[SkepticX]

Nope, there is a real cognitive difference there. I don't know how many atheists actually dwell on it, but danged if I don't run into the difference all the time.

"Don't believe" in a god or gods because there's not enough convincing evidence? That's a position of objectivity...a possible willingness to listen/examine/whatever evidence, should any come to light.

"Believe that there isn't" a god or gods? That's a very positive, subjective and set in stone belief system; a statement of faith, a declaration of doctrine: there ain't any such thing as a deity, folks, and nothing you can come up with will convince me otherwise.

You're thinking of language as if it were universally perceived and used the same. It's not. If you see language as if it somehow overrides what the speaker intends, then you're going to frequently misunderstand people. Trying to force them into a framework of precisely and critically used and understood language will often force the words they use to speak falsely regarding the ideas the speaker's are trying to communicate. This is the nature of language. This is why you have to investigate in many cases to find out what the speaker is actually trying to say if that's really what you're interested in, rather than trying to impose your own take on the words used as if that represented the speaker better--doesn't matter if you're technically correct about those words. They're just representations of ideas. If words are used inaccurately that doesn't change the ideas behind them.

Shoot, I've had atheists (more than one, actually) flat out tell me that if God Himself came down and showed Himself to them as proof of His existence, they would refuse to accept it, and attribute the appearance to something else; 'more gravy than grave' about it. Why? Because there is no God, therefore none can appear

That's the weak answer anyway. The stronger and in my experience far more common answer is because we know human brain owners are prone to some potentially serious perceptual flaws, like hallucinations and delusions, and in many case apparently hallucinations and delusion that seem absolutely real to those who experience them. And those who have the healthy level of humility accept that these problems with human brain ownership also apply to their own human brains, so they realize (in their non-delusional state at least) that they'd have to doubt their own perceptions of highly extraordinary and inexplicable experiences just as they would anyone else's.

This uncertainty is the nature of human existence. Some can face that and accept it as it is, most apparently can't ... or rather don't.

 

[Willamena]

That you don't believe in god is weak atheism. Believing god doesn't exist is strong atheism. The first is an absence of belief the second is a presence of belief. You can of course have an absence of the belief that god exists and an absence of the belief that god doesn't exist and simply sit on the fence. In Willaworld however not jumping down on one side of the fence = jumping down on the other.

Believing god doesn't exist is not believing in god. Same for Sasquatch.

Your tongue tying is not needed for me to be a strong atheist.