Splitting atheist hairs

[manifold]

Which is a more accurate statement?

1. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.

2. An atheist is a person that believes in the non-existence of God.

 

[jillian]

Which is a more accurate statement?

1. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.

2. An atheist is a person that believes in the non-existence of God.

According to the atheists I know, atheism is a LACK of belief.

 

[manifold]

According to the atheists I know, atheism is a LACK of belief.

So what does that make a guy like Shogun? It's pretty clear that he adamantly believes that God does not exist.

 

[jillian]

So what does that make a guy like Shogun? It's pretty clear that he adamantly believes that God does not exist.

I have no issues with people who are non-believers. My understanding fails, though, when non-believers hate belief. Most atheists I know couldn't care less what others believe and only concern themselves with their own hearts.

Ah well...

 

[Diuretic]

Is it possible to believe in a negative?

 

[manifold]

Is it possible to believe in a negative?

Why not?

 

[Abelian Sea]

At one time I thought that "agnostics" were in doubt about both God's existence and non-existence, and that "atheists" believed that there is definitely no God. I have been corrected in both directions before and eventually lost interest in the labels.

Is it possible to believe in a negative?

Yes, in that it is possible to believe in the non-existence of something.

I have known people, for example, who feel quite positive that there is no such thing as ghosts.

And my father was an atheist of the second variety described in the original post. He never expressed any doubt as to whether or not God exists; he was quite adamant that He doesn't. As a child, I was as quietly perplexed by his faith as I was by the faith of my Christian best friend. I suppose I am an atheist of the first variety described above.

 

[Diuretic]

Why not?

I just asked a question - is it possible to believe in a negative? Is it?

 

[Diuretic]

At one time I thought that "agnostics" were in doubt about both God's existence and non-existence, and that "atheists" believed that there is definitely no God. I have been corrected in both directions before and eventually lost interest in the labels.



Yes, in that it is possible to believe in the non-existence of something.

I have known people, for example, who feel quite positive that there is no such thing as ghosts.

And my father was an atheist of the second variety described in the original post. He never expressed any doubt as to whether or not God exists; he was quite adamant that He doesn't. As a child, I was as quietly perplexed by his faith as I was by the faith of my Christian best friend. I suppose I am an atheist of the first variety described above.

I know what you mean about the labels - it always ends up in semantics.

I like your example about ghosts. So the formulation might be, "I don't believe in the existence of ghosts". Is that more or less correct or am I misinterpreting or just plain wrong? (I can handle it if I'm wrong by the way )

On edit: I need to clarify (without getting in the semantics basement). I was thinking of different ways of looking at your example.

"I don't believe in the existence of ghosts". Or expressed another way, "I don't believe in A, A being the existence of ghosts". So isn't it a non-belief in a positive rather than a belief in a negative, when it's expressed that way?

"Ghosts don't exist", a positive statement or a negative statement?

 

[Shogun]

I have no issues with people who are non-believers. My understanding fails, though, when non-believers hate belief. Most atheists I know couldn't care less what others believe and only concern themselves with their own hearts.

Ah well...

It's not merely the belief I hate, Jill. It's the baggage that comes with it. I've defended the rights of christians many times, today in a thread even. But living and let live is not the nature of most dogma junkies on this board and off, is it Jill? You'll find more christians out purposefully thwarting non-believers than you'll ever find on my itinerary list anyday. For those who can't handle theologic debate on sociological and cultural issues? Well, so much for that armor of god, eh? I'd have thought that real believers could handle themselves in this thing we call the real world.. you know, where a uniform spirituality is not a prerequisite for concepts and Ideas? But, I guess having the knowledge to back up the fashionable faith is not on the menu these days.

and to answer the question, nomenclature is probably not as significant as the individual belief. Do christians all believe in the trinity? baptism by submersion? If not, then similarly, defining atheism is probably as useless as saving time in a bottle.

 

[Paulie]

Which is a more accurate statement?

1. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.

2. An atheist is a person that believes in the non-existence of God.

#1 is an atheist. #2 more accurately describes agnostics. Agnostics are indifferent about whether a god exists or not.

 

[Abelian Sea]

"I don't believe in the existence of ghosts". Or expressed another way, "I don't believe in A, A being the existence of ghosts". So isn't it a non-belief in a positive rather than a belief in a negative, when it's expressed that way?

"Ghosts don't exist", a positive statement or a negative statement?

I don't think I really know the difference between a "positive" statement and a "negative" statement in this context.

"I don't believe that A" is a little vague with respect to the hair we're splitting here. Does it mean "I believe that not-A," or just "I am not sure that A" (leaving open the possibilty that the statement-maker is also unsure of not-A)?

I think that's the distinction that Manifold is asking about.

"I'm not sure whether or not God exists."

versus

"I'm sure that God does not exist."

Either of these viewpoints might be meant by someone saying "I don't believe in God," but they are not identical.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think I really know the difference between a "positive" statement and a "negative" statement in this context.

"I don't believe that A" is a little vague with respect to the hair we're splitting here. Does it mean "I believe that not-A," or just "I am not sure that A" (leaving open the possibilty that the statement-maker is also unsure of not-A)?

I think that's the distinction that Manifold is asking about.

"I'm not sure whether or not God exists."

versus

"I'm sure that God does not exist."

Either of these viewpoints might be meant by someone saying "I don't believe in God," but they are not identical.

We're definitely hair-splitting and it seems to be in keeping with the intent of the thread (re the title I mean). But good points:

Which is a more accurate statement?

1. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.

2. An atheist is a person that believes in the non-existence of God.

I don't know if one is more accurate than the other but the phrasing in 1. is more straightforward.

 

[Abelian Sea]

I don't know if one is more accurate than the other but the phrasing in 1. is more straightforward.

Heheh, and here I thought that 2 was more straightforward.

Here's what I thought the statements meant:

1. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.
An atheist is a person that lacks faith that God exists.

Under this interpetation, statement 1 sheds no light on whether an atheist thinks that God might exist; it only says that an atheist isn't positive that God does exist.

2. An atheist is a person that believes in the non-existence of God.
An atheist is a person that believes that God does not exist.

Under this interpetation, statement 2 is stronger than statement 1, saying not only that an atheist lacks a belief in the existence of God, but that (s)he in fact believes that God does not exist.


In other words, here's my version of the original question:

Which statement is more accurate?

1. An atheist would say that God might or might not exist.

2. An atheist would say that God does not exist.


As I originally understood the term "atheist," my answer to this question would be "2."

 

[Diuretic]

In that formulation, yes, it's 2.

Just reflecting though. An atheist is someone who has a personal conviction that God doesn't exist. That's about all they can have I think, they can't "know" God doesn't exist because I think they would have to show why they "know".

An agnostic isn't sure if God exists or not, there's doubt of such existence but the agnostic doesn't have a personal conviction that God doesn't exist.

 

[midcan5]

Atheism is confusing because the word has come to mean denial, a positive rather than being neutral.

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

http://www.the-brights.net/

 

[Truthmatters]

A= without

theism= a belief in god

It merely means a without a belief in god.

That is all it is.

 

[manifold]

A= without

theism= a belief in god

It merely means a without a belief in god.

That is all it is.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. The meanings of words never ever evolve over time.

But thanks for the lesson on the word's origins, I'm sure that was enlightening to many.

 

[Diuretic]

A= without

theism= a belief in god

It merely means a without a belief in god.

That is all it is.

Without a belief in God - that makes it clearer again.