SteveD

Maybe this example can help highlight the difference.

Do you believe that my car is blue?

Do you believe that my car is not blue?


I would quess that you would say no to both quesitons. You have no belief at all concerining the color of my car.

You see, not believing that my car is blue is not the same as believing that my car is not blue.

Steve

Philosoft

Presumably, both these people are aware of the same evidences. Given that, how would two people who don't believe in God interpret the same evidence differently?

Maybe I can answer my own question. Example: Person A thinks the Argument from Evil is evidence that (a specific) God does not exist. Person B thinks the AfE is flawed (inasmuch as the evidence is not persuasive), but still disbelieves for other reasons. Is this what you have in mind?

Viti

Get rid of the object and the difference is clearer (to me)

I believe
I don't believe (disbelieve, lack belief)

One is positive statement one is negative

PJPSYCO

I prefer the running to the store ananolgy myself.

I will state, "I am not running to the store."
This statement is true. Since, I am not running, I am sitting. The question to be considered is the "to the store part". The truth of the statement does not depend on my movement towards the store (we'll pretend I'm in a car moving towards the store, and not home right now). My movement towards the store does not effect the truth of the statment.

I will state, "I am running not to the store."
Making the same assumptions as before. This statement is false. both because I am not running, and going to the store.

It works the same way. In the end case I ussually just state that I do not beleive that gods are objects (which would make them not exist), but are ideas (more specifically the personification of ones own selfish desires).

Witt

Starling:
Hi all, there's something I'm having trouble working out. If someone does not believe in something, is that the same as believing something is not? Take God for instance. (Gee, what a concept...)

No, they are different.

Starling:
I'm thinking there are two ways not to believe in God. The first is to believe God does not exist. The second is to not believe God exists.

They are not equal concepts.

Some people claim the first is hard-atheism and the second soft-atheism.
For example: babies are soft-atheists, because they cannot yet understand the meaning of 'God exists', ie. they are non-theists.

Hard-atheists understand and deliberately deny 'God exists'.

Starling:
My problem is, logically those two statements seem identical, even though they represent different concepts. I haven't taken a class in logic, just independant reading. (To all logic class takers: ) Could someone with more experience on the subject help clarify? It's just something I'm not quite steady on.
Maybe 'not' doesn't commute across belief, like the way "I'm not totally eating" and "I'm totally not eating" are two different statements. Other than that, I have no idea. Just a hunch that it might help us better define the difference between Agnostic and Atheist if we establish a difference between belief in lack and lack of belief.


Hi Starling,

The issues surround the claim 'God exists'.

1. Theists: those that do believe 'God exists' is true.
2. Non-theists: those that do not believe 'God exists' is true.
3. Atheists: those that do believe 'God exists' is false.
4. Non-atheists: those that do not believe 'God exists' is false.

Non-theists are not Atheists, by the above example of babies.
Non-Atheists are not equal to Theists, by the example of babies.

All atheists are non-theists, but it is false that, all non-theists are atheists.

That is, they cannot be equal!


Agnostics: those that do believe 'God exists' is neither true nor false.
They claim that 'God' is not a sensible concept, i.e. 'God exists' cannot be known true or false.

From Dictionary.com:
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Witt

Goliath

starling,

No, just as holding a belief is not the same thing as not holding a belief.

Sincerely,

Goliath