Darias wrote:
I've heard it said here that Atheism does not equal a belief that there is no god(s),
"Disbelief" can mean not having the belief, or it can mean having the opposite belief. Dictionaries define it both ways. The world is inherently ambiguous. Therefore, it is a terrible word to introduce into a discussion where you are trying to get rid of an ambiguity.
rather it simply indicates a disbelief in any and all gods which are believed to exist by others.
"Believed to exist by others" is no part of this. Theists believe in gods; atheists don't. We don't have a belief in any gods,
regardless of whether they are believed in by others.
I know that the distinction is stressed so that a Theist can't attribute unprovable belief to a Non-Theist.
All non-theists are atheists. That has nothing to do with attributing unprovable beliefs.
It is also stressed because a number of Non-theists don't want to be associated with the word "belief."
It is stressed because many theists only want to classify strong atheists (those who believe that gods do not exist) under the label "atheist." Many atheists are strong atheists. We're happy to be associated with our belief that gods don't exist. All atheists have beliefs. Most of us believe that the sun will rise in the morning.
So we aren't shy of the word "belief." We just want all of us to be counted: Everyone who isn't a theist is an atheist.
But literally speaking, if I say: "I do not believe in the existence of any god(s)"
Does it not logically follow that because "I do not believe in the existence of any god(s)" that "in my opinion(AKA I believe) there is no god(s)"
No. No, it does not. You are being confused by a figure of speech.
You may not be familiar with the word
Litotes, but you use the figure frequently, naturally, unconsciously. Litotes is where you understate for effect. You achieve an extreme effect by understating in the opposite direction.
I know that doesn't make sense yet, but examples will help. If you want to say someone is very stupid, you might say, "He isn't the sharpest pencil in the box." That means he's really really dull, right?
Eliminating the metaphor, you could call somebody dumb by saying, "He's not the smartest person."
That means he's really very dumb? It does if you are using the figure of speech called litotes. But what if you're not? What if you're being literal?
If you are being literal, then, "He's not the smartest person," only means exactly what it says. He could be really smart; he could be the second-smartest person.
So the meaning of "I don't believe in god" depends on whether it is literal or a figure of speech. If it is a figure of speech, it means, "I believe that god does not exist." If it is literal, it only means that you don't happen to have the belief that god does exist.
You have to judge by context, and context may not help. What's more, we use litotes so naturally and unconsciously that you could ask the speaker, and the speaker often won't know which she meant.
So the answer to your question is that, "I do not believe in the existence of any god(s)" may mean that you believe gods don't exist, but it also may just mean that you don't believe in gods.
Consider these three positions:
A. Those who believe that gods do exist.
B. Those who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Those (everybody else) who don't believe either way.
Many people are in category C. They don't believe in gods, but they also don't believe that gods don't exist.
Saying that you don't believe in gods doesn't necessarily put you in category B.
Does not the former ultimately lead to the latter?
No, not necessarily. People in category C also don't believe in gods.
I understand that one is phrased in a way that places the burden of proof on those who believe in gods, and the other is phrased in a way that makes it out to be a positive assertion; so I understand the debate-significance of the distinction.
That's not the point at all. The point is that even if you lack the belief that gods don't exist, you are still an atheist so long as you also lack the belief that gods do exist.
Those of us who are strong atheists (category B) are happy to have the burden of proof in debate. What we're not happy about is being told that "atheist" doesn't include weak atheists.
However, it is hard for me to separate the two
I hope I've straightened that out for you.
- unless the person who states the former is more of an Agnostic Non-Theist...
That's still ambiguous. I'm an agnostic strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist, but I don't know that for a fact.
If you are an Atheist, how can you honestly say one without at least feeling the other?
Now you're calling people in category C dishonest? If so, then right back at you.
Isn't saying "To be an Atheist is to not believe in any gods, Atheism does not assert that gods do not exist."
just like saying "The car is around me, but I am not in the car"?
It's more like saying that being outside of
your car doesn't necessarily mean I'm inside some other car.
You can't really state one position without the other being true as well.
Nonsense. Lots of people don't believe either way. There are probably more weak atheists than strong atheists. Think of babies, who have never had a thought about gods. Think of people who used to be strong atheists but are on their way to becoming theists. Think of people who used to be theists but are on their way to becoming strong atheists. Think of strong agnostics (people think theists and strong atheists are all stupid). Think of me as I read Paley's classic watch argument; I was so impressed by the first part that I expected to be a Christian by the end of the essay--but I wasn't a theist yet.
Think of someone who says, "I'm not in Canada." Does that mean he is in Mexico? No, he could be somewhere between. Think of someone who says, "I don't like bland food." Does that mean she wants her food extremely spicy? Not necessarily. She could like medium spicing.
There is nothing illogical or uncommon in lacking both the belief that gods do not exist and also the belief that gods do exist. Millions of people are in that position.
If I didn't believe that gods existed, I would certainly say gods don't exist, even if I couldn't prove it.
What if you didn't believe either way? You wouldn't have the belief that gods do exist, but you also wouldn't have the belief that gods don't exist. So why would you certainly say that gods don't exist?
It makes no sense to say "I don't believe in gods, but that doesn't mean I deny their existence."
Wrong.
Does it?
Yes, you are wrong.
Help me out here seriously.
[/quote]
Not all negative statements are figures of speech. Some are literal. Someone who is "not tall" may be of medium height rather than being short. And someone who doesn't believe in god may also not believe that gods do not exist.
