Adrianime Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 OK, so this used to bug me, then I was ok with it, now it is bugging me again. I don't believe there is a god. VS I believe there is no god. First I could NOT see a difference. Then I could see the difference. Now I can see the difference, but I think it's insignificant and slightly dishonest if you argue the difference. What do you all think? Through searching online, I found somebody who said something that made alot of sense to me: "There is clearly a difference between "I don't believe a god exists" and "I do believe that no god exists". One is a positive statement of a negative while the other is a negative statement of a positive. The net result is the same." source: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179980 I agree with this, I think it is word play to try to act like they mean different things. If you would prefer to say, "I don't know enough to decide" then most people will let that slide. But I think through self examination, you would realize that your actual belief is polarized one way or another. Just an assumption on my part though .
midniterider Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 My take on it: 1. Anti-theism... I don't believe there is a god... My opinion is god does not exist. 2. Anti-theism... I believe there is no god... My opinion is god does not exist.
Adrianime Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 My take on it: 1. Anti-theism... I don't believe there is a god... My opinion is god does not exist. 2. Anti-theism... I believe there is no god... My opinion is god does not exist. I don't understand your post, I'm sorry. Why are you mentioning antitheism?
SquareOne Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Adrianme, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong. You're a smart guy though, and if you cannot see why you are wrong, then I doubt that I will be able to explain to you the difference. But I'll try a little. This negative and positive business is a total red herring. Your two statements are incomplete, and fail to include anti-theism. They should read like this: Anti-theism: "I believe there is no God." VS Atheism: "I do not believe there is a God, and I do not believe there is no God." VS Theism: "I believe there is a God." Essentially, atheism sits in the middle, and says that it has no belief one way other the other. 1
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 I'm having a hard time understanding how somebody can say "I don't believe X exists" without also holding the position. "I believe X does not exist" Unless they really mean to say "I have not yet come to a conclusion on X, so I cannot say what I believe or don't believe." X can be anything, like the color red existing. I don't believe the color red exists. I believe the color red does not exist. How are those two sentences not communicating the same thing?
florduh Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't believe that X exists. I believe that X does not exist. If you don't believe a thing exists, then the only possibility is that you have concluded it doesn't exist. Mystery solved.
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 Adrianme, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong. You're a smart guy though, and if you cannot see why you are wrong, then I doubt that I will be able to explain to you the difference. But I'll try a little. This negative and positive business is a total red herring. Your two statements are incomplete, and fail to include anti-theism. They should read like this: Anti-theism: "I believe there is no God." VS Atheism: "I do not believe there is a God, and I do not believe there is no God." VS Theism: "I believe there is a God." Essentially, atheism sits in the middle, and says that it has no belief one way other the other. Let's not turn this into a "what is the definition of atheism" thread as there are already many of those (and I don't agree with your definition, but I don't want that to become the topic here). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but anti-theism is the stance of being opposed to theism (as in you want to actually kill off theism). It isn't lack of theism which is atheism. Anti-theism really shouldn't be part of this topic.
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 I don't believe that X exists. I believe that X does not exist. If you don't believe a thing exists, then the only possibility is that you have concluded it doesn't exist. Mystery solved. Yes, that is how I'm seeing it. But few seem to agree haha. 1
ExCBooster Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 The word believe is pivotal here. As mentioned above, there are lots of different flavours of atheism, and the implication usually here is that you're the sceptical, rationalist kind. A thought experiment: suppose there was a very woo person who tossed a coin with heads being there is NO god, and tails being there IS a god. It came up heads, for NO god. They then believe that the Universe has spoken (through this random event) and said that there is NO GOD. Here, you have a very hard atheist, in the strictest sense, who believes, as a matter of faith, not reason, that there is NO GOD. A sceptical, rational approach, however, is founded on one axiom in particular: nothing is to be held as true, without direct, independent evidence of some kind, and if no evidence is found, the premise is assumed false. This kind of hard atheist finds no evidence FOR a god, and so the existence of God must be presumed false. Equally hard atheists, but totally different approaches. And that doesn't even go into ignosticism, which asks "what exactly do you mean by GOD, anyway?" and concludes that nothing can exist that would be considered divinity, in that sense, no matter how powerful. I side with the first statement, "I do not believe there is a God" because I don't like to just "believe" anything. I like my proof. And I don't like axioms...
kolaida Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't believe that X exists. I believe that X does not exist. If you don't believe a thing exists, then the only possibility is that you have concluded it doesn't exist. Mystery solved. Yes, that is how I'm seeing it. But few seem to agree haha. The word believe is pivotal here. As mentioned above, there are lots of different flavours of atheism, and the implication usually here is that you're the sceptical, rationalist kind. A thought experiment: suppose there was a very woo person who tossed a coin with heads being there is NO god, and tails being there IS a god. It came up heads, for NO god. They then believe that the Universe has spoken (through this random event) and said that there is NO GOD. Here, you have a very hard atheist, in the strictest sense, who believes, as a matter of faith, not reason, that there is NO GOD. A sceptical, rational approach, however, is founded on one axiom in particular: nothing is to be held as true, without direct, independent evidence of some kind, and if no evidence is found, the premise is assumed false. This kind of hard atheist finds no evidence FOR a god, and so the existence of God must be presumed false. Equally hard atheists, but totally different approaches. And that doesn't even go into ignosticism, which asks "what exactly do you mean by GOD, anyway?" and concludes that nothing can exist that would be considered divinity, in that sense, no matter how powerful. I side with the first statement, "I do not believe there is a God" because I don't like to just "believe" anything. I like my proof. And I don't like axioms... I agree with these posts (almost) completely. One of the most valuable things I was taught as a Christian was how great faith was and how people that keep their faith despite hard times would really be honored by God. That those who chose not to believe had no faith. That those who rejected God lost their faith. If someone was a Christian and say converted to Islam, their faith had become misguided and they had lost their faith in the "true" God. To say that someone who does not hold any beliefs in any god based on not only subjective feelings (such as what a person has gone through in life), but studies as well (studying science such as evolution, big bang and history related to biblical events) just seems strange to me. The atheist lacks faith that a Christian has in an unseeing God, that's WHY they are an atheist in the first place. edited: highlighted the parts in red of ExCBooster, I agree with. Don't quite agree with the conclusion but liked what was said there. I liked the coin toss, lol!
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 I'll try not to respond much (starting NOW), because I'm fairly certain that I won't be able to accept anybody's answer without some very convincing examples. But ExCBooster how can you hold the position of "I do not believe there is a god" unless you have concluded "I believe there is no god"? How can you not believe something exists if you don't actively believe it does not exist?
JadedAtheist Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 The only difference is the fact that one uses an indefinite article, and the other implies a definite one. Semantically, one could argue that one statement dispels belief in any deity whilst the other dispels the belief in a particular deity (as in when the person states god, he presumes they're talking about the same particular concept or entity as opposed to the class in which the entity belongs to) but personally, I think this is probably one of the most humorous things one can argue over. Worse than the whole glass half full/half empty debate. I actually laughed at the fact that there's a discussion over this.
Galien Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Worse than the whole glass half full/half empty debate. I actually laughed at the fact that there's a discussion over this. Me too And I thought women could talk shit.
ExCBooster Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I'll try not to respond much (starting NOW), because I'm fairly certain that I won't be able to accept anybody's answer without some very convincing examples. But ExCBooster how can you hold the position of "I do not believe there is a god" unless you have concluded "I believe there is no god"? How can you not believe something exists if you don't actively believe it does not exist? Whoa, nelly, this is going to be long. Philosophical blathering ahoy! It's not possible to utterly PROVE a negative, even in the face of a lot of evidence. If every swan you ever saw were white, you might positively state, as Europeans did before the 19th Century: All Swans Are White. Therefore, there are No Black Swans. ...Then they went to the antipodes. There are Black Swans (Cygnus atratus), just not anywhere Europeans could find them. In the sense that science uses a best working answer, based on predictive power (which can be pretty darn accurately predictive. Five-sigma is hard to beat.) rather than an absolute TRUTH, I think it's too simplistic to view things in a true/untrue kind of way. I don't flip coins, like the woo atheist. I differ from that second kind of hard atheist, in that I find it difficult to make the logical leap (in my opinion, unsupported) and consider the absence proven in the purest sense by absence of evidence. I'm taking that "I believe there is no god" statement in the strictest possible way. That being said, I'm on the extreme hard end of that first statement "I do not believe there is a god," purely because I don't think it's honest to say anything is PROVEN in the absolute. Again, I dislike belief, or faith, of any kind at all. I CAN say something is pretty darn improbable, for sure. Predictive power is what it's all about. I'm more sure of there being no Judeo-Christian God in the sense that they mean it, than I am of not falling through my floor due to quantum tunnelling. Both are absurdly improbable, so I'm not going to worry about it. (The best, most powerful, part about science is that, when the black swans are found, science doesn't deny they exist, call them the work of the Devil, or ban all information about them. Science makes a better, more informed, guess as to what colour swans are. So far, swans are white and black (often both at once).) Edit: the Black Swan was described formally in 1790. Ten years short of the 19th Century. Sorry.
RipVanWinkle Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't mean to be rude, but who gives a shit? bill 1
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 I'll try not to respond much (starting NOW), because I'm fairly certain that I won't be able to accept anybody's answer without some very convincing examples. But ExCBooster how can you hold the position of "I do not believe there is a god" unless you have concluded "I believe there is no god"? How can you not believe something exists if you don't actively believe it does not exist? Whoa, nelly, this is going to be long. Philosophical blathering ahoy! It's not possible to utterly PROVE a negative, even in the face of a lot of evidence. If every swan you ever saw were white, you might positively state, as Europeans did before the 19th Century: All Swans Are White. Therefore, there are No Black Swans. ...Then they went to the antipodes. There are Black Swans (Cygnus atratus), just not anywhere Europeans could find them. In the sense that science uses a best working answer, based on predictive power (which can be pretty darn accurately predictive. Five-sigma is hard to beat.) rather than an absolute TRUTH, I think it's too simplistic to view things in a true/untrue kind of way. I don't flip coins, like the woo atheist. I differ from that second kind of hard atheist, in that I find it difficult to make the logical leap (in my opinion, unsupported) and consider the absence proven in the purest sense by absence of evidence. I'm taking that "I believe there is no god" statement in the strictest possible way. That being said, I'm on the extreme hard end of that first statement "I do not believe there is a god," purely because I don't think it's honest to say anything is PROVEN in the absolute. Again, I dislike belief, or faith, of any kind at all. I CAN say something is pretty darn improbable, for sure. Predictive power is what it's all about. I'm more sure of there being no Judeo-Christian God in the sense that they mean it, than I am of not falling through my floor due to quantum tunnelling. Both are absurdly improbable, so I'm not going to worry about it. (The best, most powerful, part about science is that, when the black swans are found, science doesn't deny they exist, call them the work of the Devil, or ban all information about them. Science makes a better, more informed, guess as to what colour swans are. So far, swans are white and black (often both at once).) Edit: the Black Swan was described formally in 1790. Ten years short of the 19th Century. Sorry. I completely acknowledge that it is pretty hard (or maybe impossible, but I don't know for sure) to prove a negative. But I'm not talking about proving. There are obvious differences between "I can't prove there is a god" and "I can prove there is no god". I'm talking about believing. And when it comes to believing whether or not something exists, you have two options. You believe it does not exist, or you believe it exists. Unless you want to insert agnostic third option in which you state you do not have sufficient evidence/information to conclude whether it exists or not (although I think most people have an opinion on which one they believe is more likely). So I feel if you can actually say "I don't believe god exists" then you are equivalently declaring "I believe god does not exist". If you aren't sure of your belief, then I think it would be much more appropriate to say, "I do not have enough information on the subject to reach a conclusive belief." Rather than declaring that you DON'T Believe. Or you can tweak the original statement to "I don't believe there is evidence that suggest a god exists." Then you aren't making a claim about your belief of the existence of a god. In saying "I don't believe there is a god" you ARE making a statement about what you believe about the existence of a god.
Adrianime Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 Worse than the whole glass half full/half empty debate. I actually laughed at the fact that there's a discussion over this. Me too And I thought women could talk shit. I don't mean to be rude, but who gives a shit? bill I appreciate that you guys are taking the time to write in this thread, but I would also love to know your views on the question, instead of just your opinion that the question itself is stupid. It's obviously something that people can't seem to agree on, so I want to hear more about why people think the ways they do. I'm sure (or at least I hope) that others find this topic interesting or even possibly useful.
Galien Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 It is not possible for me to know if there is a god or not. I don't need a label that describes me or an argument about it that ties my brain in knots. I believed there was a god for almost four decades, lack of evidence has made me think otherwise, but I don't know for sure. More importantly, I have stopped caring. 1
SquareOne Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Adrianme this is a linguistic issue, and you're clearly not capable of comprehending the difference, so respectfully I have nothing more to add to this topic.
kolaida Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I think it's an interesting topic, but I've always liked linguistics. Moreso because of books like that "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." I've never really understood that title. But I think there is a difference in the words faith and belief. I guess if you say you don't believe in a god, you are still essentially saying that you have no faith in one. I know this topic was probably started due to the one that asks about atheism being a religion. I think faith would be more important to religion than beliefs. But I guess that raises another question since people in general seem to think beliefs= religion. I was always taught that faith=religion because we had faith in our beliefs. But as an atheist, you don't really need faith to believe things you see all around and that are backed with studies. Unless you are solely an atheist based on a coin toss or some decision equally random as ExCBooster pointed out- then it would be a belief based on faith. It's weird, though, because when I was a Christian, atheists always told me they were atheists based on their lack of belief or unbelief, but I guess I wouldn't have known about any linguistic arguments at the time.
Ravenstar Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 semantics... but ones the christians love to grab onto. 'Belief' is an odd word... I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has every day of my life and I understand the mechanics of why it does.. I also understand that it NOT rising would be almost impossible and very bad news. I don't know if 'belief' actually applies to the above statement... it's assurance through experience and knowledge, and logic. It might be more accurate to state that I KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow, even if that knowledge is not absolute. Belief and faith are intrinsically intertwined... you could say I have faith that the sun will rise - this is still based on the above reasons. So it isn't 'faith' in something that has no evidence. The problem comes with the misunderstanding between 'belief' and 'knowledge', and 'opinion'... these are very different qualities and states... but they are connected in a lot of people's minds. That aside, It also has to do with... 'voice' in the english language... I don't believe there is a god - reads like an opinion, it's passive. I believe there is no god. - reads like a statement, it's active. This is a stronger statement even though it avers the same message. We are subtly sensitive to how things are stated even if we don't know why. I posit that most people's grasp of English is not deep enough to analyze why any statement sounds a certain way they just react to it. In this case it's because one is passive and one is active.
florduh Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I think plain English is being muddied with theistic coloration. "I believe" simply means that I think or have concluded. It doesn't address issues of faith, the idea that some things are unknowable, or asserting the ability to prove a negative. It is not a theological discussion in any sense other than the subject is a god rather than a unicorn. Certainly, if you believe (for whatever reason) there are no unicorns, you must also be able to state it as you don't believe there are unicorns. Both versions convey the same sentiment. Basically, I think unicorns don't exist so therefore I think there aren't any of them frolicking about.
SquareOne Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 "I believe" simply means that I think or have concluded. Exactly. So I believe God does not exist = I have concluded that God does not exist. Whereas: I do not believe that God exists = I have not concluded that God exists (but have not ruled it out).
Recommended Posts