Difference Between Negative Belief and Lack of Belief

[jgh7]

For this debate, it is assumed that the person has a reasonable or even basic understanding of the targeted subject in question for belief. For example, with Zeus, it is assumed that the person knows the basic story of Zeus. Therefore, if they do lack belief, it is not because they are completely ignorant of Zeus (What's a Zeus?? Is that a Dr. Seuss character?). With this in mind:

1) I lack belief in Zeus.
2) I believe Zeus does not exist.

What is the difference between these two?

-----
This is how it plays out in my mind when someone says they lack belief in this regard:

Lonny: I lack belief in Zeus in that I lack belief that he exists.
Ronny: Do you believe he doesn't exist?
Lonny: No, I can't rule out the tiny little spec of a chance he exists.
Ronny: So 99% of you leans on the side of him not existing, and 1% of you leaves open the wild crazy possibility that he might exist. And yet you don't want to label yourself as believing he doesn't exist. You choose to say you lack belief in his existence?
Lonny: That's correct, u mad bro?

[wiploc]

1) I lack belief in Zeus.
2) I believe Zeus does not exist.

What is the difference between these two?

Group A: People who believe that Zeus does exist.
Group B: People who believe that Zeus does not exist.
Group C: People (everybody else) who don't believe either way.

Groups B and C lack belief in Zeus.
Group C believes Zeus doesn't exist.

This is how it plays out in my mind when someone says they lack belief in this regard:

Lonny: I lack belief in Zeus in that I lack belief that he exists.

So Lonny may be in either group B or group C. He hasn't specified.

Ronny: Do you believe he doesn't exist?
Lonny: No, I can't rule out the tiny little spec of a chance he exists.

That doesn't make sense. We believe many things on less than 100% certainty.

Ronny: So 99% of you leans on the side of him not existing, and 1% of you leaves open the wild crazy possibility that he might exist.

Most of us, on most topics, will form an opinion with less than 99% confidence. With 99% confidence, Lonnie would probably say he believes Zeus doesn't exist. He isn't certain, but he believes it.

And yet you don't want to label yourself as believing he doesn't exist. You choose to say you lack belief in his existence?

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that gods do not exist. Strong atheism is a subset of atheism. I'm happy to identify either way, but I usually just call myself an atheist.

Don't assume that all atheists are strong atheists who don't wish to be identified as such. Many of us aren't strong atheists. Most of the rest of us are happy to be identified as believing that gods do not exist.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 2 by wiploc]

Group A: People who believe that Zeus does exist.
Group B: People who believe that Zeus does not exist.
Group C: People (everybody else) who don't believe either way.

Groups B and C lack belief in Zeus.
Group C believes Zeus doesn't exist.

I get what you are saying, but I believe you meant at the end to say group B believes Zeus doesn't exist.

My question is about group C. Do they fall under the category of "I don't know". Is this what lacking belief means for them? Is there any further distinctions for them? Wouldn't they be better off being labelled agnostics?

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by jgh7]

1) I lack belief in Zeus.
2) I believe Zeus does not exist.

The difference is that #1 requires no belief while #2 requires belief.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 2 by wiploc]

Group A: People who believe that Zeus does exist.
Group B: People who believe that Zeus does not exist.
Group C: People (everybody else) who don't believe either way.

Groups B and C lack belief in Zeus.
Group C believes Zeus doesn't exist.

I get what you are saying, but I believe you meant at the end to say group B believes Zeus doesn't exist.

Yes. Thanks for clarifying that.

My question is about group C. Do they fall under the category of "I don't know".

"I don't know" is agnosticism. "I don't believe either way" is weak atheism (category C).

Is this what lacking belief means for them?

"Lacking belief that gods exist" describes both B and C.

Is there any further distinctions for them?

?

Wouldn't they be better off being labelled agnostics?

More than one thing can be true. I can call myself a Kansan, an agnostic, and atheist, a strong atheist, and many other things. In this kind of conversation, I usually call myself an atheist, a non-theist. I think of theists as one group and everybody else as another, and I'm happy to be in the everybody-else group. They're my people.

Agnostics include many (most?) theists and most atheists. We don't know for sure whether gods exist. My mother believed that the Christian gods exist, but she didn't know for sure; she struggled with her faith every day. I believe that no gods exist, but--though no struggle is involved--don't know for sure. She's Christian; I'm atheist; we're agnostic.

We are agnostics. I don't know of any sense in which we would be better off being labeled agnostics.

[jgh7]

"I don't know" is agnosticism. "I don't believe either way" is weak atheism (category C).

What is the difference between an agnostic and weak atheist? What is the difference between "I don't know" and "I don't believe either way"?

Wouldn't they be better off being labelled agnostics?

More than one thing can be true. I can call myself a Kansan, an agnostic, and atheist, a strong atheist, and many other things. In this kind of conversation, I usually call myself an atheist, a non-theist. I think of theists as one group and everybody else as another, and I'm happy to be in the everybody-else group. They're my people.

Agnostics include many (most?) theists and most atheists. We don't know for sure whether gods exist. My mother believed that the Christian gods exist, but she didn't know for sure; she struggled with her faith every day. I believe that no gods exist, but--though no struggle is involved--don't know for sure. She's Christian; I'm atheist; we're agnostic.

We are agnostics. I don't know of any sense in which we would be better off being labeled agnostics.

Perhaps something is wrong with your definition of agnostic when most atheists and theists fall into that category. To me an agnostic is someone who is genuinely unsure to where they can't put belief either in God(s) existing or not existing. Theists put belief in God(s) existing and atheists put belief in God(s) not existing. Why complicate matters further than that?

[wiploc]

What is the difference between an agnostic and weak atheist? What is the difference between "I don't know" and "I don't believe either way"?

If you know something, you are 100% certain. You know it for a fact.

Otherwise, you don't know it.

You believe many things on less than 100% certainty. When you leave work and walk to where you left your car, you believe it will be there. It may have been stolen, or hit by a meteorite, but you don't really worry about such possibilities. You believe your car will still be there. You don't know, but you still believe.

It's not logically possible to not believe something while knowing it, but you can believe something while not knowing it.

So, you can believe and know.
You can believe without knowing.
You can neither believe nor know.

Agnostics don't know. Weak atheists don't believe either way.

I met a gnostic strong atheist in Huston in the 70s. He insisted that science had proved that gods don't exist (though, when questioned, he could repeat the claim but couldn't justify it).

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. I believe that no gods exist, but I don't know that for sure.

A weak atheist doesn't believe that gods exist and also doesn't believe that gods don't exist. (Such people are also agnostic; if they knew whether gods exist, then they would believe one way or the other.)

An agnostic theist believes god(s) exist, but doesn't know it.

A gnostic theist knows that god(s) exist, and also believes it.

Wouldn't they be better off being labelled agnostics?

Perhaps something is wrong with your definition of agnostic when most atheists and theists fall into that category.

That's a point of view, I guess.

Does the fact that all nuns are women give you a problem with the definitions of "women" and "nuns"?

To me an agnostic is someone who is genuinely unsure to where they can't put belief either in God(s) existing or not existing. Theists put belief in God(s) existing and atheists put belief in God(s) not existing. Why complicate matters further than that?

That seems to me confused, and less than useful. Both major systems of nomenclature use "agnostic" to describe those who don't know whether gods exist. Your system also uses that word to describe those who don't believe either way. It's endlessly confusing to have one word apply to two different categories.

The better (in my opinion) system still uses "agnostic" to refer to those who don't know, but uses "weak atheist" to refer to those who don't believe either way. This allows for easy clarity. Thus, it doesn't complicate matters but rather uncomplicates them.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 7 by wiploc]

As far as I can tell, the difference in our opinion comes from how we define "I don't know".

I look at it from a colloquial sense. When you ask someone a question and they say "I don't know", it typically means they're stumped and/or with no strong opinions one way or the other. It seems that you look at it from a strict literal sense. If someone doesn't know, then it means they aren't 100% sure. They could be 95% sure and still fall under the category of "I don't know".

Just to be clear, is a weak atheist someone who colloquially doesn't know? They have no strong opinions believing God(s) to exist or to not exist?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 7 by wiploc]

As far as I can tell, the difference in our opinion comes from how we define "I don't know".

I look at it from a colloquial sense. When you ask someone a question and they say "I don't know", it typically means they're stumped and/or with no strong opinions one way or the other. It seems that you look at it from a strict literal sense. If someone doesn't know, then it means they aren't 100% sure. They could be 95% sure and still fall under the category of "I don't know".

I think that "95% sure" is an oxymoron, but we may not have much real disagreement here.

Here are three categories of belief:

A. People who believe that gods do exist.
B. People who believe that gods do not exist.
C. People (everybody else) who don't believe either way.

And here are two categories of knowledge:

X. People who know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
Y. People (everybody else) who don't know whether gods exist.

Just to be clear, is a weak atheist someone who colloquially doesn't know? They have no strong opinions believing God(s) to exist or to not exist?

You might be amazed at how opinionated some weak atheists are. And some agnostics too. You'll find people who say things like, "I don't know whether gods exist, and neither do you. Nobody knows. We shouldn't believe things we don't know. So theism and strong atheism are both totally unjustifiable, just stupid. Weak atheism is the only reasonable position!"

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 9 by wiploc]

I think that clears it up enough for me. Although my colloquial use of "I don't know" naturally makes more sense to me, I think your naming conventions and categorizations are better for proper debate. Thank you for explaining.