The Other Michael

Hi James,

The problem is probably largely due to the theists equivocating belief and faith, since that seems to be the way they phrase the questions that Nialler is dealing with.

So we end up going through semantic gymanstics to avoid words that may well be correctly used in a strict philosphical forum, but are incorrectly used in most of real life.

cheers,
Michael

copernicus

The statement

I do not believe that God exists

is ambiguous, and this amiguity has been the subject of a lot of linguistic research. The sentence can be used either to deny that you hold a belief or to assert that you hold a negative belief. Notice that you don't get the same ambiguity with "wish":

I do not wish that God exists.

The previous sentence can be used to deny that you have a wish for God to exist but not to assert that you wish for God's nonexistence. If you are interested in why "believe" and "wish" have these differing properties, then you should study linguistics.

Athiests come in at least two major flavors--those that hold no belief in God and those that believe God does not exist. There is nothing wrong with either interpretation of atheism, although atheists sometimes get bogged down in trying to resolve the ambiguity. But you really have a certain leeway in defining the type of atheist that you are, and it often comes down to how one defines "God".

In my case, I am comfortable with the assertion that God does not exist. I am not troubled by the fact that I have no absolute proof, and I think that one can make a reasonable argument that many gods do not exist, assuming that they are well-defined gods. It is not a case of absolute logic, but of plausibility. Most of our beliefs are more or less plausible, not absolute certainties. So when I say "I do not believe that God exists", I mean it in the sense of "I believe that God's existence is extremely implausible."

thefugitivesaint

As copernicus stated:

These types are often referred to as "Weak" and "Strong" atheists.

They are not really conflicting positions and one can assume both at once.

I am an atheist since i lack a belief in any "God." But, when it comes to specifically defined "Gods", whose attributes are given then one is perfectly entitled to examine and critique these "Gods" on the basis of their defined features. Contradictions in any given "God's" definition is reasonable grounds to dismiss said "God" as "unreasonable","improbable", or, simply put, "false."

Many theists wish to equate the two positions as synonymous but they really are not. One is an absence of belief while the other one is an affirmation of disbelief. This may sound like a confusing semantic game but the distinction is not that difficult to grasp after a very small amount of study.

-theSaint

Synaesthesia

The "absence of belief" approach is, I find, easy to take because it is not very inflamatory. However I very often find that in the content of their knowledge systems, "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" as groups exibit the same of range of systems.

The Messiah

Your protagonist has a point, the semantics of this argument are very important and the atheists position of stating there is no God is a belief.

As James Still pointed out if you state 'I believe that God does not exist' then this mean that I hold that the propostion 'God exists' is false. The statement is unambiguous but the definition of God is not. I think of plenty of definition for Gods that would be consistent with a dictionary definition of God that I could prove exists beyond reasonable doubt. Which means the statement 'there is no God' is not only a belief it is also incorrect, just like Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc.

h

You could also simply reply with the question:
"Well, how do you define God?"
That should stump them; for while the word 'God' is often taken for granted as having some readily identifiable meaning, its use is always subjective. Or, perhaps, you could say something tricky like:
"I am belief."
True, this doesn't make any sense, but that shouldn't bother them too much if they're in the habit of using broadly-applied terms to discuss nothing.
-

joedad

Also, "There are no real gods," or, "I observe no gods," or "I've concluded there are no gods," or "Gods are fiction."

It avoids, correctly, IMHO, the whole "belief" thing.

joe

keith r

The problem with belief in God or non Belief is that the concept of God is undefined. This is very different to the proposition that there is or is not a black hole at the centre of the galaxy.
The most reasonable response for most people is " I do not understand the question". And indeed one needs a lot of clarification before one can answer such a question and the same is true for a lot of questions that are bandied about. Keith r

rebelnerd

This may be of some help, my understanding is:

1. non-belief - A lack of belief in something.

2. dis-belief - This presupposes something exists first in order to dis-believe in it.

It has been my experience that theist's will try to trap you into the second definition, as this supports their claim for a god(s) existence. By doing this, the burden of proof is placed in your court. Don't let them do it!

My two cents.


Filo

Secular Pinoy

I have no problem calling atheism as a belief in the non existence of god. Knowledge itself is defined as properly justified true belief, so all knowledge claims are by definition belief claims. I reserve nontheism (which sounds much more preferrable to weak atheism) as the catch-all term for not having a belief in god's existence.

While I protest when theists claim that atheism is just another belief system (I disagree that it is a full fledged belief system), I must say that it has one (and only one) belief, the non existence of god. The difference between atheism and theism is that atheism is more likely (look at the Secular Web Library) than theism. In fact, I probably would go so far as to say that to profess atheism is to make a knowledge statement.

And that is my two cents.