"Is that a personal idiosyncrasy, or do you think it's how language works?"wiploc wrote:Is that a personal idiosyncrasy, or do you think it's how language works?TheBeardedDude wrote: If I lack a belief in something, then I also believe it doesn't exist.
If I say "I don't believe X," I could be using a figure of speech, litotes, to mean "I believe not-X." Or I could be speaking literally, in which case you have no information about what I do believe. The listener gets to judge by context, and sometimes that can be hard.
Since "I don't believe X" can be ambiguous--specifically for that reason--the "I lack a belief" phrasing has come into use. The listener cannot hear "I lack a belief in X" and think she has heard "I have a belief in not-X."
The point and purpose of that phrasing is to avoid the confusion that you seem to be promoting.
No. You're just making things up. The category "People who believe that gods do not exist" includes some of those you describe, but it also includes every other person who believes gods do not exist. And the category does not include everybody you describe. I met a guy in Texas who claimed that science had proved gods don't exist. He wasn't an atheist because of any "paucity of evidence"; he believed gods' nonexistence was proven.The caveat here is that the latter statement ("I believe god does not exist") is really nothing more than a shortened and oversimplified version of: "I lack a belief in gods because of the paucity of evidence for them. As a consequence of this I do not believe gods are possible in our universe."
The category of "People who believes that gods do not exist," includes some people you have excluded, and doesn't include everybody you included.
That is how definitions and the colloquial use of language work.
"If I say "I don't believe X," I could be using a figure of speech, litotes, to mean "I believe not-X." Or I could be speaking literally, in which case you have no information about what I do believe. The listener gets to judge by context, and sometimes that can be hard.
Since "I don't believe X" can be ambiguous--specifically for that reason--the "I lack a belief" phrasing has come into use. The listener cannot hear "I lack a belief in X" and think she has heard "I have a belief in not-X."
The point and purpose of that phrasing is to avoid the confusion that you seem to be promoting. "
And, as I said, people often oversimplify and shorten what they mean into simpler statements that don't accurately reflect their views/opinions/beliefs. Sometimes people do it to try and be more concise, sometimes they do it because they don't really want to discuss it, and sometimes they do it because a longer explanation would result in a argument of semantics (like this one).
I am not promoting confusion, please don't accuse me of such absurdities. I am trying to explain how one phrase ("I don't believe in god") is a derivation of a more complex and more accurate phrase ("I lack a belief in any and all gods because of the paucity of evidence for them as well as the logical contradictions their existence would imply with respect to what we know about how the universe works.")
"No. You're just making things up. The category "People who believe that gods do not exist" includes some of those you describe, but it also includes every other person who believes gods do not exist. And the category does not include everybody you describe. I met a guy in Texas who claimed that science had proved gods don't exist. He wasn't an atheist because of any "paucity of evidence"; he believed gods' nonexistence was proven.
The category of "People who believes that gods do not exist," includes some people you have excluded, and doesn't include everybody you included."
You should refrain from making blanket generalizations and accusations. These poorly flung attempts at insult don't make me want to converse with you and only serve to make me have little to no respect for you.
I am not making things up. I am explaining what some of us who don't believe in a god ascribe to and what we mean when we say certain things. At no point have I said or implied that I speak for all atheists and that all atheists agree with me. What I am saying is that people have VERY often misunderstood and misinterpreted what I have said when explaining myself. For instance, you are doing a great job of misunderstanding and misinterpreting.
As for the "Texas guy," I don't know his reasons and I don't particularly care. Why? There are two possibilities:
1) what you say about him is an accurate assessment of his beliefs and views on science and god. If this is correct then I'd be very likely to disagree with him because science doesn't and can't provide evidence of nonexistence, all it can show is a paucity of evidence and the contradictions that would be created.
2) you misunderstand what I have written here which means that the probability is high that you are misinterpreting him and his views. As a consequence of this, it is pointless to speculate on his reasoning and his evidence because it is (at best) a second-hand account from you.
