# Atheist (definition)



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Hi, 
After reading the thread not (posted by VikNikSor earlier today), I got to wondering: 
Which definition would you prefer? 
"An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." or
"An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist." 
I can't help feeling there's a subtle difference; I lean towards the latter, as the former might (possibly) describe an agnostic, although etymologically an agnostic is someone who thinks they cannot know either way, who isn't convinced of the existence or non-existence of God.


----------



## The Newt

To say that someone "believes that God does not exist" is slightly more of a positive statement than saying that someone "doesn't believe that God exists," but in practice the difference is mostly one of emphasis. In any case, it's nothing to do with being an agnostic; an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.


----------



## pob14

Perhaps surprisingly, this is a matter that is argued about quite often on both atheist and religious websites.  Some atheists use the term "strong atheism" for the second sentence, and "weak atheism" for the first.

"Agnostic" is sometimes used for the first, although many people would limit it to its etymological meaning: one who does not think anyone can know for sure whether any god exists.  Therefore one could be an agnostic atheist (does not believe in God, but also does not believe one can know with certainty) or an agnostic theist.

If you are literally asking which definition _I_ prefer, it's the first one.

Crossposted with The Newt.


----------



## Myridon

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." or
> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."


Both these definitions suggest that the speaker believes in a particular "God" and would consider a multi-theist or someone whose god is not "God" to be an atheist.


----------



## Parla

Myridon has a point: "God" is the name of the Judeo-Christian deity. _Theism_ and _atheism_ include deities of all groups, both mono- and polytheistic.


----------



## PaulQ

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." or
> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."


I would prefer, "An atheist is someone who does not accept the existence of deities." That said, in definitions of negative concepts it seems to me to be better to negate the verb rather than the object.

"A naturist is someone who does not approve of wearing clothes." seems to have more breadth than "A naturist is someone who approves of wearing no clothes." - which would not be the case if the naturist were operating, say, a deep-fat fryer.


----------



## grassy

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."


I am an atheist and I wouldn't say about myself that I believe in god's non-existence. I just don't believe in any god.


----------



## JamesM

I think it would be an ironic definition to say "An atheist is someone who _believes_ God does not exist."  I think the first definition is the better of the two.

I think it might be better to say "An atheist is someone who sees no evidence of the existence of gods."


----------



## Englishmypassion

Like grassy, I am also an atheist and my definition of a true atheist is "a person who does not blame an imaginary power called God for the failures/problems in his/her life".


----------



## JamesM

Englishmypassion said:


> Like grassy, I am also an atheist and my definition of a true atheist is "a person who does not blame an imaginary power called God for the failures/problems in his/her life".



There are some believers in some dieties who don't do this, either.   I don't think this is a good working definition.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I believe those who ask God for favours must be blaming him for failures, especially frustrating ones, or tragedies even if not expressly. I have seen several staunch theists turn 'atheists' or anti-God when tragedies befell them.

Edit: It may not apply to all, though.


----------



## JamesM

Englishmypassion said:


> I believe those who ask God for favours must be blaming him for failures, especially frustrating ones, or tragedies even if not expressly. I have seen several staunch theists turn 'atheists' or anti-God when tragedies befell them.



By that logic, the theists were theists _until_ there were failures or problems in their lives, so defining theists as those who blame God is contradictory to your explanation.  It may work as a personal definition for you but I wouldn't recommend it as a general definition.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Yes, James, that's my personal definition and it may not apply to all. Sorry for posting that here.


----------



## grassy

JamesM said:


> I think it would be an ironic definition to say "An atheist is someone who _believes_ God does not exist." I think the first definition is the better of the two.



I agree. It also seems to be an intellectually dishonest definition, because it seems to suggest that a belief is tantamount to disbelief, which in my opinion is not true.


----------



## JamesM

Englishmypassion said:


> Yes, James, that's my personal definition and it may not apply to all. Sorry for posting that here.



There's no problem with posting it.   I just assumed that the original poster was looking for a good general definition of the term, so I was saying that I didn't think your particular definition would work in a general sense.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Wow, what a lot of replies! Thank you, one and all! @Myridon, how about "...*a *God/god"? @PaulQ, would the stronger "*refuses to* accept" sound better to you (it sounds more like my second sentence, I think)? @JamesM, your first post sounds more like the definition of an agnostic to me: someone who isn't convinced that there's sufficient evidence to prove that [a] God exists or not.


----------



## JamesM

I think there is a difference between "isn't convinced there's _sufficient _evidence" and "sees no evidence".   The first allows for the possibility that there is some evidence but it is either conflicting or cannot be reliably reproduced.  The second simply states that there is no evidence.


----------



## bennymix

A popular definition among atheists that it's one "with no belief as to the existence of God/gods)."

This is 'weaker' but avoids problems such as "If you believe there is no God, you believe in something."

This also avoids problem in some formulations above:  "...one who holds (believes) that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that God/gods exst."

I believe Myridon alluded to this issue.   There are any number of entities and Gods and I simply do NOT wish to populate my mind, say, with any 'belief' about the lack of sufficient evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Man in the Moon or Astarte.


----------



## PaulQ

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> @PaulQ, would the stronger "*refuses to* accept" sound better to you


No, it would not. That would be akin to saying "I refuse to accept that beer is alcoholic.": it indicates that the atheist is willfully denying there are gods in the face of evidence.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

So how about "An atheist is someone who does not (believe in/accept...) the existence of a....God/First Principle/Creator/Prime Mover/Deity/Supreme Being (or something else; you might even hear "Intelligent Designer" in the US nowadays)."? [With or without capitals.] - I think "isn't convinced of" may be more like an agnostic's point of view; in the absence of proof, he withholds belief.


----------



## JamesM

I think you're still in the realm of "does not accept the existence", which sounds like something exists and the atheist does not accept that it/he/she exists.

It might be a little better to say "An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist."


----------



## PaulQ

atf said:
			
		

> So how about "An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a....God/Creator/First Principle/Prime Mover/Deity/Supreme Being (or something else)."? [With or without capitals.]


(i) Too many options.
(ii) *believe *carries baggage - the religious of all shades often classify themselves as "believers."

The etymology provides one of the better clues to a good definition "without gods" as in aseptic or amoral.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Very good, JamesM! But why "gods" and not "a god"?


----------



## PaulQ

An atheist may live in a society with a plurality of gods, such as those in the Hindu pantheon.


----------



## sorry66

JamesM said:


> "An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist."


This one is good! 
I'd make some minor changes: "An atheist is someone who rejects the premise that the existence of deities is possible."


----------



## PaulQ

Fair, but I prefer James's. Your "is possible" is pleonastic if the very existence is rejected.


----------



## JamesM

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Very good, JamesM! But why "gods" and not "a god"?



To assume "a god" is to place it more in the realm of monotheism, in my opinion.  An atheist doesn't accept the premise that any gods exist: Allah, the Judeo-Christian God, the Hindu deities, the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, the Greek gods, the Polynesian gods and all others.

To an atheist all the gods being promoted around the world fall into the same category: non-existent.


----------



## CH3353C@K3

"An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists."
"An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."

The two sentences sound the same to me. The example above is a lot like saying:

"I do not believe that God exists."
"I believe that God does not exist." 

Either way, there is a single negation. If there are double negatives, then that makes a positive. 

"I don't believe that God doesn't exist."

My opinion is that that sounds like an expression of monotheistic atheism, as the atheism is the philosophical stance against the existence of god in a monotheistic context. Of course, that's not realistic. Many atheists really just don't worship any god at all and live their lives as if there is no supernatural presence in the environment, thereby combining atheism with naturalism and rationalism.


----------



## PaulQ

*Atheist *has moved past any historical reference to only the Judeo-Christian deity. I doubt that "monotheistic atheism" is possible, as to accept the premise of _more_ than one god necessitates accepting the premise of the first god of your pantheon.


----------



## MattiasNYC

As an atheist this is my view on it:

* Since one or more gods have not been proven it's really most reasonable to consider them "propositions", or "premises". An atheist is one who does not subscribe to such a proposition or premise, regardless of whether it contains one or many gods.

* The above allows for an atheist to be either one who simply doesn't subscribe to the proposition, like a person belonging to a tribe somewhere that has never been in contact with the west and doesn't even know of the proposition in the first place (to give an extreme example), or one who has thought about the proposition and not only rejects it but actually believes no god(s) exist(s).

* Most atheists I've conversed with acknowledge that they don't actually _know_ if there is a god, regardless of which type of atheist they are, and therefore they also define themselves as agnostic.

* I really don't like the use of words like "accept" or "refuse", because it to me implies that the proposition is factually correct (true) and the atheist is basically either ignorant or indoctrinated or whatever. I therefore think the definition needs to be more "neutral".


----------



## MattiasNYC

CH3353C@K3 said:


> "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists."
> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."
> 
> The two sentences sound the same to me. The example above is a lot like saying:
> 
> "I do not believe that God exists."
> "I believe that God does not exist."



But suppose I make a proposition. Before you are aware of that proposition you are effectively an "atheist" with regards to it. That's different from rejecting it or proposing its opposition. And then once you're aware of it, it could very well be that you feel you're lacking sufficient information to form an opinion either way. Suppose my proposition is that lowering taxes X% leads to Y% increase in GDP. If I ask you about it before you've made up your mind you'd be an "atheist" in regards to it. It would make sense for you to say "I do not believe that [proposition]".

But after you've reviewed my proposition and you've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong it'd make sense to instead say "I believe that [proposition] is wrong / does not work". The latter seems more specific.


----------



## JulianStuart

The use of the word "believe" is consistent with the acceptance of the existence of (a) God(s) being an act of faith.  Thus "accept" and "refuse" the proposition are inappropriate concepts.  However, if someone could "prove" the existence of God, then faith would not be required and the "belief" issue would evaporate.  Then we would have the possibility of acceptance /refusal (of the basis of the proof). Until you believe, there is no god for you.  So we could reduce it to "I have faith that (my) god exists" or "I do not have faith in (anyone's) god"  This avoids the (seemingly solely linguistic) issue of word order in the OP.  On the other hand, we raise the issue of "I have faith that god does not exist" versus "I do not have faith that god exists"  After all that, I agree with post #2


----------



## sorry66

PaulQ said:


> Your "is possible" is pleonastic if the very existence is rejected.


Well, if the 'very existence' of God is being questioned then that means the possibility of God's existence is being questioned too! In fact, you've, unwittingly helped me to make my version more elegant:

'An atheist is a person who denies the very premise that a god could exist (or ever did)'.
OR
‘An atheist is a person who believes gods cannot exist as (in his eyes) there is no proof of it’

*It's not a pleonasm* when you want to emphasise that you refuse to entertain the 'very existence' of a God that theists are foistering on you.
Something either exists or it doesn't - as a person you can entertain the possibility of it existing (like an agnostic) or not - my definition rules out the agnostic option.

An atheist wants to emphasise his ‘absence of belief’ (he doesn’t care to reject or accept the existence of God, the concept doesn’t touch his life).
All definitions put an atheist in opposition with theists – in fact, he is being defined by theists.
In a world that was predominantly atheist, a theist might be described like this:  ‘A theist is a person who believes (and does not feel the need to provide any ‘proof’ – he calls it ‘faith’) in an omniscient being with supernatural powers, who controls the lives and destinies of people.’
An atheist might review his position if (what he considers to be) incontrovertible proof could be provided of divine intervention in the lives of ordinary people. Otherwise, he is someone who believes that all gods are false gods.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> The use of the word "believe" is consistent with the acceptance of the existence of (a) God(s) being an act of faith.  Thus "accept" and "refuse" the proposition are inappropriate concepts.  However, if someone could "prove" the existence of God, then faith would not be required and the "belief" issue would evaporate.  Then we would have the possibility of acceptance /refusal (of the basis of the proof). Until you believe, there is no god for you.  So we could reduce it to "I have faith that (my) god exists" or "I do not have faith in (anyone's) god"  This avoids the (seemingly solely linguistic) issue of word order in the OP.  On the other hand, we raise the issue of "I have faith that god does not exist" versus "I do not have faith that god exists"



See, I don't agree that that's an issue. It seems to me that the word "faith" in the latter actually simply means having an opinion, regardless of what it is founded on, whereas the former was clearly religious faith which is inherently different. To me the former, religious faith, is essentially based on arguments that have little if any focus on actual proof. So to me the meaning of the word "faith" changes in those two sentences and therefore there is no issue really, only the one "we make"...


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> Well, if the 'very existence' of God is being questioned then that means the possibility of God's existence is being questioned too!



That's not entirely logical. In order for god to exist obviously his/her existence must be possible. But the existence being possible doesn't equal existence. Therefore it is in fact possible to say that one can question god's existence while acknowledging the possibility. That's what atheism+agnosticism gives you.



sorry66 said:


> In fact, you've, unwittingly helped me to make my version more elegant:
> 
> 'An atheist is a person who denies the very premise that a god could exist (or ever did)'.
> OR
> ‘An atheist is a person who believes gods cannot exist as (in his eyes) there is no proof of it’




The two appear to be saying the same thing as they both relate to the possibility of existence. Knowledge and possibility really relates more to gnosticism than theism as far as describing an opinion or "stance" is concerned.



sorry66 said:


> Something either exists or it doesn't - as a person you can entertain the possibility of it existing (like an agnostic) or not - my definition rules out the agnostic option.



I don't think it rules it out actually. When you state that an atheist claims god cannot exist you have stated that the atheist makes a claim relating to absolute knowledge. Neither version allows for atheists who say they don't or can't know for sure if god(s) exist (i.e. they acknowledge the possibility), regardless of whether they also simply "don't have religious faith" or believe god doesn't exist, the latter which could be and is thought of by many atheists as a matter of probability.

Probability versus possibility. Theism versus gnosticism.


----------



## sorry66

MattiasNYC said:


> In order for god to exist obviously his/her existence must be possible. But the existence being possible doesn't equal existence.


But I'm saying he doesn't exist. I'm dismissing the possibility out of hand and I would like that to be a feature of the definition. I was questioning God's 'very existence', saying that was equivalent to questioning the possibility that God could exist.


MattiasNYC said:


> The two appear to be saying the same thing as they both relate to the possibility of existence. Knowledge and possibility really relates more to gnosticism than theism as far as describing an opinion or "stance" is concerned.


What's your point? Yes, the definitions are the same. They're dismissing the 'possibility of God's existence' and thus refusing the agnostic position.


MattiasNYC said:


> I don't think it rules it out actually. When you state that an atheist claims god cannot exist you have stated that the atheist makes a claim relating to absolute knowledge.


In a way, I am! In the same way that I might claim with absolute assurance that fairies don't exist.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> But I'm saying he doesn't exist. I'm dismissing the possibility out of hand and I would like that to be a feature of the definition.
> 
> What's your point? Yes, the definitions are the same. They're dismissing the 'possibility of God's existence' and thus refusing the agnostic position.



But you defining your own stance is one thing and defining that of others a different one. There are so many atheists that claim to be agnostic that you can't ignore that when defining atheism. The simplest solution here is to define atheism in and by itself and agnosticism separately. After all, they are different terms because they have different meanings. Once you start incorporating the possibility that an atheist is also _not_ an agnostic you're just starting to add more and more to the definition, and needlessly so. One need only define one's stance as "Agnostic Atheist" to cover both bases... or "Gnostic Atheist" or whatever.



sorry66 said:


> In a way, I am! In the same way that I might claim with absolute assurance that fairies don't exist.



You may make that claim, but it only leads to either a meta-discussion on whether or not you can have such knowledge in the first place or a discussion - again - on whether or not the definition of atheist should be based on solely your views or that of all atheists. The former is, I'm guessing, inappropriate or off-topic for this forum, and the latter I think my views are clear on already.


----------



## sorry66

@MattiasNYC For me, an atheist is not an agnostic and should not encompass the agnostic stance ( as defined in modern terms) in its definition. 


MattiasNYC said:


> There are so many atheists that claim to be agnostic that you can't ignore that when defining atheism.


Really? I've not met many (if any) and if they claim to be agnostics that's what they are! and they should not mess with the word 'atheism'.


MattiasNYC said:


> the definition of atheist should be based on solely your views or that of all atheists


 The people you have described are not atheists (they're claimed to be agnostics!) and you can't speak for all atheists, either!

If you want a 'neutral' definition you have two of them in the OP. At root, semantically , they're the same but one reads emphasis into them as people, here on the thread, have done.
It's like with the Black Civil Rights' Movement - they rejected well-meaning claims that 'black people were as good as white people'. Why? They felt it presupposed that they weren't good enough to begin with. People on this thread have done the same with the OP sentences and I understand that.
'Atheism' is an emotive subject and the people who are dubbed atheists would like to define themselves and not have to get the approval of theists. That definition may assert with vigour (and tautology, if it helps get the point across) that they do not countenance ever accepting the possibility of a God existing. The atheist stance is not a wishy-washy stance. Leave that to the agnostics.


----------



## JulianStuart

MattiasNYC said:


> See, I don't agree that that's an issue. It seems to me that the word "faith" in the latter actually simply means having an opinion, regardless of what it is founded on, whereas the former was clearly religious faith which is inherently different. To me the former, religious faith, is essentially based on arguments that have little if any focus on actual proof. So to me the meaning of the word "faith" changes in those two sentences and therefore there is no issue really, only the one "we make"...


From the WRF dictionary under faith:


> 1. belief that is not based on proof:_He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact._
> 2. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:_the firm faith of the Pilgrims_.
> 3. a system of religious belief:the _Christian faith; the Jewish faith._


I quote these only to illustrate my use of the same concept in both.   2. and 3., it seems to me, are based on belief in a god as described in 1 and use the word that way.  No-one can prove god exists and no-one can prove the opposite, so either position is a matter of belief/faith.

Does god exist?
Believer (someone with faith) ; Yes
Atheist: No*
Agnostic : Not possible to know
Undecided: May or may not , I don't know.

I think a lot of people call themselves "agnostics" but understand the term as "undecided" because they are not aware of the _specific_ meaning above.  

*This is the one word answer given by either speaker in the OP's two version of thr word order.


----------



## DerFrosch

sorry66 said:


> @MattiasNYC For me, an atheist is not an agnostic and should not encompass the agnostic stance ( as defined in modern terms) in its definition.



It's very much possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. It's simple, really:

A) You don't claim to *know* that there are no such things as gods,

B) but you don't *believe* there are.

In fact, in my opinion it makes no sense to claim to be an atheist but *not* an agnostic. Practically, you're saying that you know that gods do not exist. Which, of course, you can't know for sure, no matter how unlikely you think it is.

However, you can also find definitions of "agnostic" as "someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God". Such a definition would of course make my reasoning invalid.
But if we consider that agnostic has the (approximate) etymological meaning "not knowing", I don't think that's a good definition.

As for a definition of "atheist", I quite like this one:

An atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists".


----------



## JamesM

DerFrosch said:


> However, you can also find definitions of "agnostic" as "someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God". Such a definition would of course make my reasoning invalid.



That's my understanding of the general definition of agnostic, with the added qualification that it is something that is not knowable, in their estimation.

An atheist, on the other hand, sees no evidence for the existence of God.  It's not a matter of belief.  It's a matter of observation of facts, or rather, observation of a lack of facts.

If someone said "The government has anti-gravity machines and is using them to create earthquakes", the agnostic reply would be "That might be true and it might not,.  I know some people believe they exist, but I have no evidence either way."  The atheist reply would be "There is no objective evidence that anti-gravity machines exist, much less that the government is using them to create earthquakes.  If you believe they exist, show me some irrefutable, objective, verifiable proof that they do. Absent that, it's just a story that has been made up to explain earthquakes."

That is my understanding of the difference.


----------



## sorry66

It's not possible to know anything for sure, yet, people believe in God on the flimsiest of evidence. They have the right to say they firmly believe it and even that they know it at some gut level. Atheists can claim that right, too.


JulianStuart said:


> Does god exist?
> Believer (someone with faith) ; Yes
> Atheist: No*
> Agnostic : Not possible to know
> Undecided: May or may not , I don't know.
> 
> I think a lot of people call themselves "agnostics" but understand the term as "undecided" because they are not aware of the _specific_ meaning above.


With JulianStuart's definition we are all agnostics (believers and non-believers) - because it seems impossible for anyone to know one way or the other.
  Your definition of an atheist @DerFrosch


DerFrosch said:


> It's very much possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. It's simple, really:
> 
> A) You don't claim to *know* that there are no such things as gods,
> 
> B) but you don't *believe* there are.



This is not an agnostic view as I understand it (or understood it, now that we have Julian Stuart's definition). An agnostic is somebody who would like more information or proof before he makes up his mind - he's not sure. An atheist doesn't believe in gods. No, he can't claim to know they don't exist with absolute certitude but I cannot claim with absolute certitude that the sun will rise tomorrow, either.

Edit:


DerFrosch said:


> However, you can also find definitions of "agnostic" as "someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God". Such a definition would of course make my reasoning invalid.
> But if we consider that agnostic has the (approximate) etymological meaning "not knowing", I don't think that's a good definition.


I see that you've added this. So are you now agreeing that agnostics and atheists are different creatures?


----------



## sorry66

JamesM said:


> An atheist, on the other hand, sees no evidence for the existence of God. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of observation of facts, or rather, observation of a lack of facts.


I said earlier that an atheist's position was sustained by a 'lack of belief' or an 'absence of belief' so I'll go along with this comment.


----------



## DerFrosch

sorry66 said:


> An agnostic is somebody who would like more information or proof before he makes up his mind - he's not sure.



It's not a question of being "sure". No one will ever be able to proof that no gods exist. An agnostic is someone who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of gods.


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> That's my understanding of the general definition of agnostic, with the added qualification that it is something that is not knowable, in their estimation.
> 
> An atheist, on the other hand, sees no evidence for the existence of God.  It's not a matter of belief.  It's a matter of observation of facts, or rather, observation of a lack of facts.
> 
> If someone said "The government has anti-gravity machines and are using them to create earthquakes", the agnostic reply would be "That might be true and it might not,.  I know some people believe they exist, but I have no evidence either way."  The atheist reply would be "Anti-gravity machines do not exist.  If you believe they do, show me some irrefutable, objective, verifiable proof that they do. Absent that, it's just a story that has been made up to explain earthquakes."
> 
> That is my understanding of the difference.


I like that analogy 

The "irrefutable, objective, verifiable proof " aspect is the one that would remove the need for "faith".  On the other hand, in all my roles as teacher in my scientific career, I always stressed the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in scientific research. 

While you can't formally prove that anti-gravity machines do not exist, their existence would be completely incompatible with your knowledge and understanding of the world, and when you combine that with lack of evidence, you end up with as strong an opinion/belief that they don't exist, as the belief of someone who believes in god.  The atheist is_ as certain_ that god does not exist as the believer is certain that god does exist.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> @MattiasNYC For me, an atheist is not an agnostic and should not encompass the agnostic stance ( as defined in modern terms) in its definition.



I think you're just wrong. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.

Theism pertains to belief. Atheism is the lack of subscribing to a particular belief (theism).

The two are absolutely logically compatible but should be separated since they aren't the same. Just go on Wikipedia and search for "Agnosticism" and "Atheism" and see for yourself.



sorry66 said:


> [U]you[/U] can't speak for all atheists, either!




Of course I can't, I'm merely pointing out that you are a subset of atheists. It makes no sense to argue that an atheist is only what you yourself define your views as, and nothing else. We can't really get out of this without resorting to a meta-discussion that is sort of philosophical; I think we'd really have to actually discuss whether it is possible to know if god exists.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JulianStuart said:


> From the WRF dictionary under faith:
> 
> I quote these only to illustrate my use of the same concept in both.   2. and 3., it seems to me, are based on belief in a god as described in 1 and use the word that way.  No-one can prove god exists and no-one can prove the opposite, so either position is a matter of belief/faith.



I simply thought you pointed out an issue where definition 1 was conflated with 2 and three. This is often the case in debates on religion and god where the people of faith essentially jump on the occasion to equate "believe" with "faith" in the 1st sense, thereby hoping to void any argument based on more than just "feeling" or "opinion". So if an atheist for example uses evidence to show the unlikelihood of god's existence the religious person counters with "But you have _belief/faith_ in science, right?", meaning that science at its very core is founded on the same lack of proof.

That's the issue I thought you were pointing to, and as I said, I think it's not really an issue of fact as much as it is sloppy intellectual exercise.... for lack of better terminology.


----------



## MattiasNYC

DerFrosch said:


> It's very much possible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. It's simple, really:
> 
> A) You don't claim to *know* that there are no such things as gods,
> 
> B) but you don't *believe* there are.
> 
> In fact, in my opinion it makes no sense to claim to be an atheist but *not* an agnostic. Practically, you're saying that you know that gods do not exist. Which, of course, you can't know for sure, no matter how unlikely you think it is.
> 
> However, you can also find definitions of "agnostic" as "someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God". Such a definition would of course make my reasoning invalid.
> But if we consider that agnostic has the (approximate) etymological meaning "not knowing", I don't think that's a good definition.
> 
> As for a definition of "atheist", I quite like this one:
> 
> An atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists".



I agree with all of that strongly, with the exception of the alternative definition of "agnostic", which to me just seems plain wrong. I mean, I suppose we're now ending up with a discussion of whether the definition of a term comes from logic or just usage..... but to me, "agnostic" doesn't mean simply "undecided".


----------



## MattiasNYC

JamesM said:


> An atheist, on the other hand, sees no evidence for the existence of God.  It's not a matter of belief.  It's a matter of observation of facts, or rather, observation of a lack of facts.



In one sense, and I'm paraphrasing from known atheists now, a religious person believing a single god is almost exactly as atheist as I am, my atheism just extends to one more god.

It's worth pointing that out to illustrate what I think is a difference conceptually. Your average Christian, Muslim or Jew doesn't have an opinion on the god Izanagi, because they've never heard of him. Despite that they do not subscribe to that proposition, that Izanagi exists. So they are atheists with regards to that specific religion. 

So an atheist doesn't actually have to be a person who looks at facts and comes to a specific conclusion, it could simply be that some just go through life and don't really care about god and doesn't think he/she/they exist.


----------



## DerFrosch

MattiasNYC said:


> So an atheist doesn't actually have to be a person who looks at facts and comes to a specific conclusion, it could simply be that some just go through life and don't really care about god and doesn't think he/she/they exist.



Agreed. As I see it, we're all atheists when we're born, as we can't possible be aware of the concept of gods at that moment, and thus can't believe in them. A theist is something you become.


----------



## sorry66

Eek. Things are being posted thick and fast and altered before I get a chance to see them here! For example this:


DerFrosch said:


> It's not a question of being "sure". No one will ever be able to proof that no gods exist. An agnostic is someone who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of gods.


If you wish to call me an agnostic, go ahead and call me one! I will continue to say I'm an atheist. 
"No one will ever be able to proof that no gods exist. " And nobody will be able to prove that Father Christmas, the tooth fairy or goblins don't exist.
"Nothing can be known of the existence of gods" ?  as for that I'll quote Julian Stuart:


JulianStuart said:


> their existence would be completely incompatible with your knowledge and understanding of the world, and when you combine that with lack of evidence, you end up with as strong an opinion/belief that they don't exist,


It is my strong belief that God doesn't exist.



MattiasNYC said:


> So an atheist doesn't actually have to be a person who looks at facts and comes to a specific conclusion, it could simply be that some just go through life and don't really care about god and doesn't think he/she/they exist.


 That's not an unreasonable view -  I couldn't care less most of the time.


MattiasNYC said:


> Of course I can't, I'm merely pointing out that you are a subset of atheists. It makes no sense to argue that an atheist is only what you yourself define your views as, and nothing else. We can't really get out of this without resorting to a meta-discussion that is sort of philosophical; I think we'd really have to actually discuss whether it is possible to know if god exists.


You keep saying it's my definition; it's a standard one to say that 'atheists don't believe in the existence of any god'. We could get into metaphysics and epistemology etc but I don't really want to - the discussion will go on for ever. An atheist has no absolute proof (that would be convincing to a believer, in any case) but expresses the strong certitude that godlike creatures do not exist.


----------



## DerFrosch

sorry66 said:


> "Nothing can be known of the existence of gods" ? as for that I'll quote Julian Stuart:



What is your point here? Are you denying that propositition?

I too strongly believe that God doesn't exist. I think the probability is tremendously, tremendously small. Yet I cannot proof it, which is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Naturally you're free to call yourself whatever you want. We define "atheist" and "agnostic" in different ways, that's all.


----------



## Cenzontle

The problem with "atheist" is that it's a, frankly, derogatory term invented by people with faith in the existence of a god to describe people who disagree with them.  
As sorry66 (#33) said, "he is being defined by theists".  It's negative.  It describes someone who is lacking something "normal".  
It belongs with "outsider" and "second-class citizen".  
My question for those of you who comfortably call yourselves atheists is, why do you accept a term that was designed to put you down?  
Why agree to "define" yourself by focusing on that aspect of your worldview?  
If you eat only from the plant kingdom, you call yourself a vegetarian—the term focuses on the positive value of vegetal nourishment.  
You don't concede that meat-eating is the norm and then call yourself a "non-carnivore".  
Why embrace the negative term "atheist"?  Why not use affirmative terms related to ethics, humanism, naturalism, rationality, curiosity, etc.?  
Let me quote sorry66 again (#38): "If you want a 'neutral' definition..." and then add—to continue with the racial analogy of that post—
it would be like trying to find a "neutral" definition of the N-word: It's not a neutral word, and it's futile to look for a neutral definition.


----------



## sorry66

@Cenzontle I agree with you! The word 'atheist' has been imposed upon us and we have to live with it! I don't really accept the term as defining me, but in discussions about gods, I have to take that position.
@DerFrosch
You're an atheist! Or a strongly sceptical agnostic! Why do you feel the need to conflate the terms and muddy the waters?

Suppose, some people claimed that they believed in something called Ugawaga. Would the anti-Ugawaga people (known as aUgawagas) have to constantly acknowledge that "Nothing can be known of the existence of  Ugawaga"?  Would you accept a new term agiUgawaga for this category (equivalent to agnostic) ? And would you then say that you were a 'agiUgawaga aUgawaga'?

We could go on inventing terms for all sorts of made-up things and then say we can't prove that they don't exist. Why do theists have to be given special consideration and not be considered ridiculous?


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> You keep saying it's my definition; it's a standard one to say that 'atheists *don't believe in the existence of* any god'.



Yes, but then you go on to say:



sorry66 said:


> *An atheist *has no absolute proof (that would be convincing to a believer, in any case) but *expresses the strong certitude that godlike creatures do not exist.*



Those are two different views. Again, if I proposed to someone else that I had 11 fingers, and that person believed me, you wouldn't share that view because you were unaware of it. Thus, you "don't believe in the existence of" an 11th finger. However, if I told you the same proposition I'm guessing you would not only not believe it, you would think it was wrong. The meaning changes at that point.

That's the distinction some of us are trying to drive home. Before 2011, did I believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs? No, I didn't. I didn't think about it. It is a proposition I didn't subscribe to. After a while, in 2003, did I _then_ subscribe to the proposition? No, I did not, after having studied the facts of the matter. At that point not only did I not subscribe to the proposition, but my opinion formed and it was one which opposed the proposition rather than just dismissed it; I thought he had no WMDs.

There's a difference between not believing in something and believing that something doesn't exist.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Cenzontle said:


> The problem with "atheist" is that it's a, frankly, derogatory term invented by people with faith in the existence of a god to describe people who disagree with them.
> As sorry66 (#33) said, "he is being defined by theists".  It's negative.  It describes someone who is lacking something "normal".
> It belongs with "outsider" and "second-class citizen".
> My question for those of you who comfortably call yourselves atheists is, why do you accept a term that was designed to put you down?
> Why agree to "define" yourself by focusing on that aspect of your worldview?
> If you eat only from the plant kingdom, you call yourself a vegetarian—the term focuses on the positive value of vegetal nourishment.
> You don't concede that meat-eating is the norm and then call yourself a "non-carnivore".
> Why embrace the negative term "atheist"?  Why not use affirmative terms related to ethics, humanism, naturalism, rationality, curiosity, etc.?
> Let me quote sorry66 again (#38): "If you want a 'neutral' definition..." and then add—to continue with the racial analogy of that post—
> it would be like trying to find a "neutral" definition of the N-word: It's not a neutral word, and it's futile to look for a neutral definition.



I honestly find the above to be pretty nonsensical. I mean, I understand it, but it isn't logical in my opinion.

First of all I don't define myself merely as an atheist. It's a false dichotomy to imply that I'm either viewing myself as an atheist OR using the terms you listed.

Secondly, if "atheist" is viewed negatively then that in my opinion says something about the people viewing it negatively, and says nothing about atheists. It is what it is. I struggle to find a more suitable term to use instead of "atheist". If there is such a term by all means propose it.

Lastly, it has very little to do with the racial analogy. That analogy is very poor.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> You're an atheist! Or a strongly sceptical agnostic! Why do you feel the need to conflate the terms and muddy the waters?



He isn't conflating the two. He's being very clear.



sorry66 said:


> Suppose, some people claimed that they believed in something called Ugawaga. Would the anti-Ugawaga people (known as aUgawagas) have to constantly acknowledge that "Nothing can be known of the existence of  Ugawaga"?



But it isn't "_anti-_theist", it's "_a_theist". Some people indeed define themselves as anti-theists, but that's not what we're discussing.



sorry66 said:


> We could go on inventing terms for all sorts of made-up things and then say we can't prove that they don't exist. Why do theists have to be given special consideration and not be considered ridiculous?



But you don't have to use the term "agnostic" if you don't want to. I honestly don't see the problem here.

If you don't subscribe to the proposition of a god then call yourself an atheist.
If you don't subscribe to the proposition of a god and think a god doesn't exist but don't know for sure, then call yourself an atheist.
If you don't subscribe to the proposition of a god and "know" a god doesn't exist, then call yourself an atheist.

You don't have to involve "agnostic" if you don't want to. All it does is add information, but it's optional. What you seemed to do on the other hand is try to incorporate the issue of absolute knowledge, of agnosticism, into the concept of atheism. _That_ is conflating the terms.


----------



## sorry66

@MattiasNYC
You've said a lot of things over a short space of time; to be honest, I'm not sure I follow you anymore.



MattiasNYC said:


> If you don't subscribe to the proposition of a god and think a god doesn't exist but don't know for sure, then call yourself an atheist.


The 'don't know for sure' places this person in the 'agnostic' category (in my humble opinion).



MattiasNYC said:


> What you seemed to do on the other hand is try to incorporate the issue of absolute knowledge, of agnosticism, into the concept of atheism.


Sorry? I don't want agnosticism in the definition  - I think I've said that enough times. I want agnosticism to be clearly defined, separately from atheism.
'Absolute certitude' is more how I would put it (not absolute knowledge)



MattiasNYC said:


> _That_ is conflating the terms.


No, it's not conflating the terms but you are certainly confusing the issue.


----------



## sorry66

MattiasNYC said:


> But it isn't "_anti-_theist", it's "_a_theist".Some people indeed define themselves as anti-theists, but that's not what we're discussing.


I was talking about Ugawagas! and what would be the equivalent of an atheist. I did NOT mention 'anti-theists'!

post # 55 - yet another one I didn't see!
@MattiasNYC
It makes little difference to me if I dismiss a proposition because I find it patently ridiculous or if I examine the proposition and then decide it's patently ridiculous: the fact is I am against that proposition. In the second case I've just added to my certitude. Here again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Sorry, if you don't mind, I think I'm going bow out of this thread for this evening because I need a break from taking about things that don't exist.


----------



## PaulQ

MattiasNYC said:


> So an atheist doesn't actually have to be a person who looks at facts and comes to a specific conclusion, it could simply be that some just go through life and don't really care about god and doesn't think he/she/they exist.


 The problem with gods is that they offer no proof of their existence: this might be because they are not there or because they want people to have faith that is, as Julian says, "without proof" - loyalty without certainty of reward.

However 





MattiasNYC said:


> it could simply be that some just go through life and don't really care about god and doesn't think he/she/they exist.


describes the position of an apnostic atheist. I note that once you start giving reasons for not accepting gods (or anything else) adjectives have to appear by way of qualification.

There is an interesting list of definitions of flavours of atheism, agnosticism, theism and deism at "Why Won't God Heal Amputees" -> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,833.0.html

All in all though, I think that, as far as basic atheism is concerned, it will be difficult to improve upon James's version at #21 but, if it is, it will have to be long...


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> It might be a little better to say "An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist."


I'm fine with that concept, as James said in #21 but it does not address the "word order question" in the OP

An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist.

An atheist is someone who accepts the_ premise_ that gods do not exist.

Are those two closer than the original pair?


----------



## truepurple

Theism is the belief in religion, atheism is the lack of that belief.

If you categorize atheism as absolutely knowing that there is no God, rather than lacking a belief in God, almost no one can be called a atheist.

Christian religion often portrays atheists as out to get them, and as rejecting god, rather than not believing in a god in the first place to reject.

You could say atheists feel more certain there is no god while agnostics lack a opinion one way or another, and it could be true from certain perspectives, and false from others where these words lack any real distinction.



ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." or
> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."



There is a difference. First sentence is a lack of belief, correct. Second one is a specific belief against, which is incorrect.


----------



## sorry66

@PaulQ James's definition is the most neutral definition but (no disrespect) it doesn't vary much from the standard definition (and I'm sure I've heard it before, or is it just that people are always rejecting premises!).
In your crazy list, that would place him somewhere like the 'ignostic atheist' category and with my definition, I would be placed in the 'gnostic atheist' category! (I'm not sure I want to be there, or, even, in this discussion be the arch-atheist, but somebody had to take that position!)

Rethinking your pleonasm charge: I can see where you're coming from but I still think you've got it wrong (and, anyway, I modified my definition). You can say 'I believe aliens don't exist' (in the current set-up of the world) and you can also say 'I don't believe the existence of aliens is even possible' (so you're saying that even if the set-up were to change, you still believe that aliens wouldn't exist). It's just a stronger statement, that's all (and, in fact, (as far as the God question goes) it's not really my position because I don't feel that strongly about it).

I'll try again:

'An atheist is a person who is unswayed by arguments on the certainty (or otherwise) of God's existence (although, he doubts it strongly), as he considers it to have no effect on his life (or death) whatsoever'


----------



## sorry66

JulianStuart said:


> An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist.
> 
> An atheist is someone who accepts the_ premise_ that gods do not exist.
> 
> Are those two closer than the original pair?


I think they are closer so it is a tinkerproof definition and the best one, after all.
As truepurple said "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist." is very different from ain'translation's first sentence "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists."

'An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence (or the power) of gods' is another possible definition.


----------



## PaulQ

JulianStuart said:


> I'm fine with that concept, as James said in #21 but it does not address the "word order question" in the OP
> 
> An atheist is someone who does not accept the_ premise_ that gods exist.
> 
> An atheist is someone who accepts the_ premise_ that gods do not exist.
> 
> Are those two closer than the original pair?


Of the two, I'm going to take the first. The premise of gods is offered and "not accepted".


----------



## DerFrosch

sorry66 said:


> As truepurple said "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist." is *very different* from ain'translation's first sentence "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists."



Please enlighten me, in what way are they "very different"?

To me, it comes down to the exact same thing:

An atheist is someone who does not believe the proposition "God exists" to be true.


----------



## JamesM

It all comes down to the dual meaning of "believe" in English, which I'm sure someone brought up earlier.

"I believe in God" does not mean "I believe that there is a God" in English.  It means "I have faith in God".  So, to say an atheist (who does not have any relgious faith/belief) "believes" that God doesn't exist sounds like a non-sequitur.  It sounds very much like saying "I subscribe to the faith that there is nothing to have faith in".


----------



## MattiasNYC

DerFrosch said:


> Please enlighten me, in what way are they "very different"?
> 
> To me, it comes down to the exact same thing:
> 
> An atheist is someone who does not believe the proposition "God exists" to be true.



But again; if I never told you what I told someone else - that I have 11 fingers - do you believe that proposition to be true? Do you believe that my 11th finger exists? No, you don't, because you're unaware of it. If I _did_ tell you I have an 11th finger you might be convinced I do not, in which case your stance would go from "does not believe I have an 11th finger" (because you've never even heard that proposition) to "believes I do not have an 11th finger" (because it's now up for debate).

To me there is a distinction. One of the versions arguably allows for the other, but not vice versa.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JamesM said:


> It all comes down to the dual meaning of "believe" in English, which I'm sure someone brought up earlier.
> 
> "I believe in God" does not mean "I believe that there is a God" in English.  It means "I have faith in God".  So, to say an atheist (who does not have any relgious faith/belief) "believes" that God doesn't exist sounds like a non-sequitur.  It sounds very much like saying "I subscribe to the faith that there is nothing to have faith in".



I completely disagree. Pretty much every time the question "Do you believe in God?" is asked it is taken to mean "Do you think there is a god?", as far as I can tell.


----------



## truepurple

truepurple said:


> First sentence is a lack of belief. Second one is a specific belief against.



Do you believe in string theory? If not, do you have a specific belief against it? 

Perhaps you have a theory that says string theory is impossible, and have hard evidence to back it up. That would be someone who believes string theory is not true.

If you don't really know because that level of math is just too advanced for you, then you would be someone who doesn't believe in string theory. Since how can you believe something you don't even understand.

Do you understand the large difference now?

I also like Mattias example. Most people would not just believe someone if they told them they had 11 fingers. But you wouldn't necessarily disbelieve them either.


----------



## JamesM

I was talking about "I believe in God".  If someone said that to you, do you really think your follow-up question would be: "Oh yes?  And does that _thought_ make any difference in your life?"   

In my experience, someone who thinks there is a God but is not religious will usually say "I believe there's a God (up there)."


----------



## sorry66

PaulQ said:


> The premise of gods is offered and "not accepted".


And in the other  one the premise of 'no gods' is offered and 'accepted'. It's not like "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."
Julian asked whether the two new sentences were closer in meaning than the original two and they are.


----------



## truepurple

JamesM said:


> "I believe in God" does not mean "I believe that there is a God" in English. It means "I have faith in God". So, to say an atheist (who does not have any relgious faith/belief) "believes" that God doesn't exist sounds like a non-sequitur. It sounds very much like saying "I subscribe to the faith that there is nothing to have faith in".





MattiasNYC said:


> I completely disagree. Pretty much every time the question "Do you believe in God?" is asked it is taken to mean "Do you think there is a god?", as far as I can tell.



I'm with mattias. One theoretically could believe in the existence of a god, but not have faith in that god. This is a farce many chritians put on many athiests, that they secretly believe in a God, in their heart of hearts but simply reject God. In practise though, if you believe a god exists, most people would follow the religion they believe best fits that God they believe in. This is what is called faith, the blind belief in various religious matters. Believing in the existence of God is also a matter of faith, but it does not necessarily follow that belief in the existence of God is the same as having faith in God.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JamesM said:


> I was talking about "I believe in God".  If someone said that to you, do you really think your follow-up question would be: "Oh yes?  And does that _thought_ make any difference in your life?"



I still don't entirely agree. While I agree that "I believe in god" could mean "I believe there is a god and I have faith in him" it could just as well mean "I believe there is a god". 

But it's still beside the point. This thread is about what atheism is. This parsing of the word "believe" has been going on for quite some time now and it's quite frankly a bit tedious and irrelevant. The theists puts forth a proposition. The atheist doesn't buy it. It's pretty much that simple.


----------



## JamesM

It's quite relevant if the proposed definition includes the word "believe".



			
				MattiasNYC said:
			
		

> The theists puts forth a proposition. The atheist doesn't buy it. It's pretty much that simple.



This is a nice, simple summary that avoids the word "belief".


----------



## DerFrosch

OK, Mattias and truepurple, is this what you're saying?

"*He believes God does not exist*." He is aware of the debate of whether God exists. He is actively choosing not to believe that God exists. This could *not *be said if the person wasn't aware that other people believed in God, that this was a possibility.

"*He does not believe God exists*." He may or may not be aware of the God debate. This _*could *_be said if the person hasn't made an active choice in the question "Does God exist?"

I guess I could accept that, even if I wouldn't call it a "big" difference.


----------



## sorry66

DerFrosch said:


> An atheist is someone who does not believe the proposition "God exists" to be true.


I like this one.


----------



## truepurple

I agree, mattas summoned it up nicely the meaning of atheist, but that doesn't address the sentence structure bit.



DerFrosch said:


> "*He believes God does not exist*." He is aware of the debate of whether God exists. He is actively choosing not to believe that God exists. This could not be said if the person wasn't aware that other people believed in God, that this was a possibility.
> 
> "*He does not believe God exists*." He may or may not be aware of the God debate. This _*could *_be said if the person wasn't aware that other people believed in God.



No, that is not what I was saying. "He is actively choosing not to believe that God exists" is different from "believing that god does not exist"

Lets go back to the 11 finger example where someone you can't see, claims to have 11 fingers. If I don't believe the person has 11 fingers, that simply means it's not something I consider as knowledge. I don't know, so I can't believe it. It's in the realm of possible, but too uncommon to just assume.

If I believe a person doesn't have 11 fingers, it means I have already established a firm opinion on the matter, and my thoughts are, this person is lying.

"I don't believe" is neither a yes or a no, but a maybe. Or more specifically, you could call it a lack of a yes.

I believe/disbelieve is a yes/no.


----------



## DerFrosch

So then you're suggesting that "*He believes God does not exist*" expresses a greater certainty, because "believe" is more strongly emphasized?


----------



## PaulQ

DerFrosch said:


> He is actively choosing not to believe that God exists.


It may be more precise to say that he is *choosing not to accept* the premise of someone who is telling him that gods exists.

.....................*Informal*.............................................................................................*Formal*
A: "Let me tell you about unicorns and how they live in the forest." <- Unicorns exist
B: "I don't believe unicorns exist." ....................................................<- I do not accept your premise that unicorns exist.

I feel definitions should be formal.

The OP's examples were flawed by the word "believe" - the negated verb explains what is happening to the object of the sentence.


----------



## truepurple

DerFrosch said:


> So then you're suggesting that "*He believes God does not exist*" expresses a greater certainty, because "believe" is more strongly emphasized?


It's not about emphasis.

Going back to my nos and yess' and applying them to the sentence.

I believe god does not exist is similar to "Yes, there is no God."

I don't believe god exists is similar to "I am _not_ saying 'yes there is a God' "


----------



## CH3353C@K3

I think accepting the dictionary's definition is good and practical enough for me, because I have enough of endless arguing. 

Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheist

An atheist is a "person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Yep, that sounds right. In real life, if you were to ask an atheist whether he believes in God or the gods, then he is probably going to say, "No, I do not believe in any gods," or "I do not believe in God."

I don't think this suggests any truth about the world, but rather, according to that person's beliefs and experiences, that person feels that God or the gods don't exist. It's a matter of interpretation of the world, really. Some people interpret the world to be empowered by God or some supernatural force, while others interpret the world - assuming a preconceived notion of what God is or what gods are like - and conclude that God simply does not exist in the world.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Hi again. I agree with Julian S #27: "To an atheist, all the gods being promoted around the world fall into the same category: non-existent." & Mattias #69: "Pretty much every time the question 'Do you believe in God?' is asked it is taken to mean 'Do you think there is a God?'?...". Julian's short answers in #39 ring true to me also, (but, J, why add "undecided)"? Let's not dance too long on the "'believe'-as-the-right-verb-to-use" head of a pin, though. (And I'm not going to wander into _a + gnosis_-land here;my OP concerned the definition of an atheist, and I stated from the get-go that I thought the second definition was the one I favored because the first _could_ be interpreted as including agnostics). Could we simply say "An atheist is someone who categorically denies that god exists/...gods exist/...the existence of a god/gods." ? 
P.S., Sorry if I left some of you out; 80 posts (78 without my own) are a lot to read through!


----------



## MattiasNYC

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> I stated from the get-go that I thought the second definition was the one I favored because the first _could_ be interpreted as including agnostics).



Ok, but can you please explain why you think agnostics should not be included then? I mean, I just don't see the problem.

I like many others am an atheist _*and *_an agnostic. It's one thing to proclaim an atheist must be an agnostic, and a different one to define atheist so as to exclude agnosticism. All "we" are saying is that the commonly used and arguably correct definition of "atheist" doesn't touch upon agnosticism.

Again: Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and Atheism "opinion" or "best guess" (for lack of a better word while trying to avoid "belief").


----------



## JamesM

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Could we simply say "An atheist is someone who categorically denies that god exists/...gods exist/...the existence of a god/gods." ?



Sorry, but that seems a little odd to me.  If I say "I categorically deny that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists", doesn't that seem like an odd thing to say about something that, by all accounts, never existed?  Why would I categorically _deny_ the existence of something that doesn't exist (from my point of view)?  I mean, why would I categorically deny the existence of a WordReference black ops helicopter when no such helicopter exists?  It's a very odd choice of words.

I think you could say "an atheist is someone who categorically rejects any assertion that gods exist".   It might seem like a slight difference, but to me it's significant.


----------



## truepurple

Original Poster is to blame for part of this conversational mess. Two topics are being discussed here because essentially two questions were asked.
1. Definition of atheist?
2. Difference in meaning between two sentences structured differently?

Not only two questions, but the answers to these two questions keep getting mixed up.

Though I think both of these questions have been answered.
2. There is a significant difference in the meaning of those two sentences, differences I already explained but can elaborate further on for those who still don't catch my meaning (if you can explain what still confuses you about what I said)
1. And that atheist simply means that you aren't buying what religion is selling, but no more meaning than that.


----------



## Cagey

The original question concerned the way the position of 'not' influences meaning in the particular context provided. It was a language question that included a specific context. 

There is no need to call a thread that other people find interesting a 'conversational mess'.  If you don't like this discussion, you should move on to one that you consider more profitable.

Nor should you assume that once you have expressed your opinion, there is no need for further discussion.  It's disappointing, but all of us have had the sad experience of finding that other people won't accept our explanations or conclusions. It's one of the things we have had to get used to.


----------



## truepurple

There is more difference in the original questioned sentences than the position of the word not. 



Cagey said:


> It was a language question that included a specific context.



Then are you saying all this discussion by various members including a mod, were off topic? Because there is alot of discussion here about what defines a atheist, completely outside of said language question.

I am calling a thread spinning off in many topic directions a conversational mess.  It's fortunate we don't have anyone of strong religious belief joining this conversion or it would have gotten heated quickly. Whether people enjoy the conversation or not is irrelevant to this. Or are you saying it's ok to be off topic if people are enjoying the conversation?



Cagey said:


> Nor should you assume that once you have expressed your opinion, there is no need for further discussion. It's disappointing, but all of us have had the sad experience of finding that other people won't accept our explanations or conclusions. It's one of the things we have had to get used to.



You are right, not sure why you are mentioning this though, no one said anything like this. 


Does it seem like anything new on topic is being said to you? And of course if I were to choose a Point of View to summarize, I would choose my own unrefuted PoV that others agree with (and that consists of something someone else said first too)


----------



## owlman5

truepurple said:


> 2. There is a significant difference in the meaning of those two sentences, differences I already explained but can elaborate further on for those who still don't catch my meaning (if you can explain what still confuses you about what I said)


Perhaps Cagey picked up that notion from this remark, truepurple.  It does seem to imply that your explanation already covered all questions or comments that others might want to add to this thread.


----------



## truepurple

I speak for myself because it would be improper to speak for anyone else. Does someone have something to contribute to or correct on how that difference in structure affects meaning?


----------



## JamesM

Other people have already commented on how they see the differences between the two sentences, truepurple, and I imagine they will continue to do so.

The actual question posed by the original poster is "which do you prefer?", not "what are the differences between these two sentences?"  That is what has led to all this discussion.


----------



## owlman5

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> "An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." or
> "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."
> I can't help feeling there's a subtle difference; I lean towards the latter, as the former might (possibly) describe an agnostic, although etymologically an agnostic is someone who thinks they cannot know either way, who isn't convinced of the existence or non-existence of God.


If you want to restrict yourself to these two definitions for "atheist", I agree that the second sentence excludes agnostics.  Of course, you'd do well to expand "God" into something like "a god or gods."

I've seen many interesting ideas about how to define "atheist" in this thread.  I don't identify strongly with the term "atheist" when I think about myself, but I do believe that gods are imaginary beings.  To me, this enough to distinguish me from people who believe that gods (or any particular god) are real.  I'm not sure, but it probably also excludes my belief from any definition of "agnostic."


----------



## DerFrosch

Let me see if I've got this straight. I think my failure to see any large difference between the sentences was due to the fact that I for some reason largely ignored what JamesM wrote back in #67:



JamesM said:


> It all comes down to the dual meaning of "believe" in English, which I'm sure someone brought up earlier.



Would you (truepurple or anyone who's awake and feels like answering) agree that the difference between the following two sentences is nonexistent, or at least significantly smaller than the difference between the sentences in the OP?

_I believe he's not here._

_I don't believe he's here._

Here, of course, "believe" means "think". In "An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist", it does not. "Believe" in this case expresses the atheist's (non-religious) conviction.


----------



## truepurple

I would say they are different, just like the OP.

Fine, believe = thought, I can work with that. If you don't believe he is there, you lack the thought that he is there. If you believe he's not there, you have a specific thought that he is not there.

Do you think that "I don't hate X" is the same as "I like X"? No, these sentences are different in a similar way to the the way your sentences are different.

First sentence tells us your belief.
The second tells us what you don't believe.

"I believe mixing blue and yellow paint makes green paint."
"I don't believe mixing blue and red paint makes green paint. "
Well this example doesn't apply so well to your particular sentence examples since you speak of something that generally has only two options, there or not. Though there could be other middle grounds, like someone half way there or there via hologram but not in person.

Also, I don't believe, does not equal disbelieve. It can essentially mean the same thing for practical purposes. But it can also mean that you haven't formed a belief in a particular area yet.  I would replace "I don't believe" with "I have no opinion on." which is what it means when used this way. Belief equals thought so "I don't believe" equals, I lack a thought of this nature.

"I believe he's not here."
"I have not formed the opinion that he is here." Or "I have no opinion that says he is here. "
Not the same to you, right?


----------



## velisarius

I agree with an anonymous smart-alec  who always answers as follows when asked whether he believes in the existence of God:
_
First I would have to define "believe", secondly I would need to define "God", and thirdly we need to arrive at a definition of the concept  of "existing"._


----------



## sorry66

@DerFrosch I actually agree with you when said the two OP sentences were the same! I said as much, in a much earlier post.
(post#38 - pasted below)

You see when we’re not arguing about the Fifty Shades of the Grey Area of Certainty regarding an atheist’s conviction about the non-existence of God we actually agree!



sorry66 said:


> If you want a 'neutral' definition you have two of them in the OP. At root, semantically , they're the same but one reads emphasis into them as people, here on the thread, have done.
> 
> It's like with the Black Civil Rights' Movement - they rejected well-meaning claims that 'black people are as good as white people'. Why? They felt it presupposed that they weren't good enough to begin with. People on this thread have done the same with the OP sentences and I understand that.



When you quoted me saying that the two sentences were ‘very different’, I meant that they were perceived to be ‘very different’ (certainly by people in this thread) . In my haste to keep up, I omitted that, sorry.

I’m not sure ‘believe’ changes things all that much, it would be the same for ‘think’ or ‘feel’.

‘I believe/think/feel God does not exist’ sounds like a retort to someone saying ‘God exists’ and that’s all! That is the difference that’s being perceived and amplified!

In both OP sentences the concept of a God is presupposed. The sentences have the same semantic value. The atheist is defined by his opposition to the concept that God exists.

In my Black Rights example, if you interchange ‘white’ and ‘black’, the sentence, although the same in terms of semantic value, presupposes something different about who were considered to be the inferior group prior to making the statement. Here, you can understand why black activists objected.

The OP sentences are the same, they are like:

I believe this diamond is real.
I don’t believe this diamond is real.


----------



## truepurple

Sorry66, again, the "I don't" tells you what you lack belief on, not what you believe. See my previous post please.
"I don’t believe this diamond is real." does not mean you believe the diamond is fake, it just means you are not convinced of its realness.

"I have the opinion that shag carpet is the best kind of carpet"
Now we know what  your opinion on the subject is.

"I don't have the opinion that shag carpet is the best kind of carpet."
Now we only know what opinion you haven't formed as of yet. So we really know very little about what your thoughts on best kind of carpet is. We haven't even eliminated the possibility that you would learn you like shag carpet, we just know you haven't formed that opinion yet.


----------



## sorry66

Hi, truepurple, I've read your post now, we cross-posted.
I'm afraid, I don't agree. 

Firstly, I don't think you can replace 'I don't believe' with 'I don't have an opinion' as smoothly as you would wish. Secondly, there are more than two stances you can have on shag carpets: best; worst; somewhere in between; almost the best; almost the worst etc etc
Similarly with 'love': There are many states of feeling between love and hate.

A diamond is real or it's not real. God exists or he doesn't exist. The man is here or he is not here.
Just two views you can take - polar opposites.


----------



## DerFrosch

Truepurple, I guess I see your point. There may well be a difference, I honestly can't make up my mind. But if it is a difference, I feel it's in theory only, and therefore rather unimportant. In practice, people use them indiscriminately and understand them to mean the same thing.


----------



## DerFrosch

truepurple said:


> First sentence tells us your belief.
> The second tells us what you don't believe.



*I believe he's not here*_. _If you believe he's not here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.*

_*I don't believe he's here.* _If you don't believe he's here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.
*
It comes down to the same thing.  You can't call this a large difference. Can't you admit that?


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> A diamond is real or it's not real. God exists or he doesn't exist. The man is here or he is not here.
> Just two views you can take - polar opposites.



No, that's not true. Look:

[proposition] 158 multiplied with 7861 equals 1,242,037.
[question] Do you believe/agree with [proposition]?

Possible answers:

A: Yes.
B: No.
C: I don't know.
D: I never thought about it.
etc

Different responses are possible despite the proposition being either true or false. We're trying to define "atheist", and an "atheist" is a person with a certain view on a proposition. The views of people regarding this proposition are varied and not limited to "yes" or "no".


----------



## sorry66

When there only two opposing options for what you can believe, then saying 'I don't believe' is the opposite of 'I believe'.
It really is that simple.

Later someone might want to question 'how much you don't believe that God exists' or 'how much you believe that God doesn't exist' - it amounts to the same thing.

That's when the 'degrees of certitude' question comes in: I believe it absolutely; I believe it a lot but I have a few reservations; I believe it but not in a big way etc etc. 
You then have all the variants on agnostic/atheist descriptions created to satisfy the believer who needs to pinpoint precisely the state of your non-conviction - somehow that reassures him or, maybe, gives him the hope that he can convert you.

In earlier posts, I argued for a definition of what would be an 'extreme' atheist - I regret having done that - I think it was just lack of sleep.

The crucial point is that an atheist thinks that the existence of God is largely impossible. So when stealing a cake from a bakery, he's not worried about divine vengeance from an omniscient God - just the pangs of his own conscience. 
He says:
'I don't think I'll be struck down by lightening'
'I think I won't be struck down by lightening'.

There's no huge difference, except of style.


----------



## MattiasNYC

DerFrosch said:


> *I believe he's not here*_. _If you believe he's not here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.*
> 
> _*I don't believe he's here.* _If you don't believe he's here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.
> *
> It comes down to the same thing.  You can't call this a large difference.



But let's for the sake of discussion talk about someone else's mind instead of our own minds. Just consider the following:

I tell Frank I have an 11th finger. I do however NOT tell Jessica. Now I ask you the following question: What is Jessica's view on my 11th finger?

The proposition is [an 11th finger exists on Mattias' hand]. The two answers we're looking at are;

Jessica believes Mattias does not have an 11th finger.
Jessica does not believe Mattias have an 11th finger.

What I think people are seeing is akin to the above. The second version tells us that Jessica does not believe in a proposition. How can she, she was never told about it. The first version is a statement that affirms an opinion. When we read it we understand that Jessica has a belief. That belief is the proposition. But now you have to take into account that I never told her about it - so how can that be true?

That's what I think people see as being a difference.


----------



## sorry66

@MattiasNYC  But you wouldn't be using 'I don't believe' or 'I believe' with C and D!! We're just talking about A and B in the OP!
Here again, you're introducing stuff that's irrelevant.

In both the OP sentences, the atheists *already know* about the concept of God. (And what role does Frank play in your example, by the way?)

Please read my latest posts instead of just reacting fiercely in several long posts (sorry, but I can't type that fast ).


----------



## PaulQ

DerFrosch said:


> It comes down to the same thing. You can't call this a large difference. Can't you admit that?


If it is not a large difference, then it is a small difference - what is the difference?

X is an X
Y {is not} an X.
Y is a {non-X.} -> but *everything *other than X is also a {non-X}.

A bowling-ball *is* something that does *not *float in water.  -> This is *not *precise information about bowling-balls. -> A lamppost does not float but a lamppost is not a bowling ball.
A bowling-ball *is not* something that floats  in water. -> This *is *precise information about bowling-balls. -> a bowling-ball has a density higher than that of water.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> @MattiasNYC  But you wouldn't be using 'I don't believe' or 'I believe' with C and D!! We're just talking about A and B in the OP!



I'm trying to make you see that people can have different opinions regardless of what is possible. That's why your diamond-example doesn't make sense. Yes, a diamond is real or it isn't, just like my math example is accurate or not, but that doesn't stop people from having a view about it that is different from reality. 

And as I mentioned earlier, an atheist is one that doesn't subscribe to a proposition. But there are many god-propositions. Here's a thought experiment for you:

1: 1,000 years in the future religion is dead and nobody believes in any one or more gods. Is everyone an atheist?

2: 2,000 years in the future the situation is essentially the same, but the very concept of "god(s)" has been entirely forgotten. Nobody studies it in history class and nobody is aware of it - and still nobody believes in any one or more gods. Is everyone an atheist?

There are people on this planet that are unaware of particular god-propositions, and possibly all if they're some isolated tribe somewhere, and they could be called atheists regardless of whether or not they WOULD have a "yes, true" / "no, false" view IF they knew about it.



sorry66 said:


> Here again, you're introducing stuff that's irrelevant.



I don't agree.




sorry66 said:


> In both the OP sentences, the atheists *already know* about the concept of God.



That's your interpretation. Mine is different. That's why we're having this conversation in the first place.



sorry66 said:


> (And what role does Frank play in your example, by the way?)



The role of "Frank" is to illustrate that the proposition may exist outside of the group we're trying to evaluate. I.e. a Christian is unaware of Japanese gods, but that doesn't mean the proposition of those gods doesn't exist. If we want to characterize the views of a Christian about that proposition we need to NOT do that by framing it in a way that the Christian would express it, because the Christian is unaware of it. 

Same thing with "atheist". We're trying to define what that could mean and I think we have to take the above into account.


----------



## sorry66

@PaulQ
Hi, Paul,
This is completely different. 'Floating in water' is one of many options for a bowling ball.
You are describing a set of possible properties. It's not the relevant logical model here!
The OP is about 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist' - it's not about a set of properties but two propositions.
'a man is physically present' or ' a man is not physically present' - there are only two options to believe or not believe here.
(Please read posts #96 to #98)

Edit: @MattiasNYC  I'd like to limit myself to the OP question. I feel that you've distracted me before. Feel free to PM me on the general atheist issue.


----------



## PaulQ

sorry66 said:


> Hi, Paul,
> This is completely different. 'Floating in water' is one of many options for a bowling ball.


My example was to distinguish the negation of the verb from the negation of the object. I prefer the negation of the verb - *does not* believe {that gods exist.}


----------



## truepurple

You don't believe, belief and opinion mean the same thing? I do.

"My opinion is that god exists."
"I don't have a opinion on whether god exists."

This is the difference, with replacing belief, with opinion. Still similar meanings. And yes, lots of people regularly use "I don't believe" to mean "disbelieve". From a technical aspect, that is wrong, and also not _always_ used like that.
"A omniscient omnipotent being is watching over us right now, guiding our every path and torturing us for eternity if we don't accept its existence as fact and worship it."
"I don't believe that's how the universe works." is a different statement than "That is not how the universe works." The first expresses doubt. The second, certainty. "I believe the universe does not work like that." expresses a similar certainty. Except that using the word belief acknowledges that it's still just your thought process we are talking about.

"*I don't believe* I left my keys on the kitchen table." "*I believe* I didn't leave my keys on the kitchen table."
Again, first one *expresses doubt*, did you leave your keys on the kitchen table or not. The second, *expresses certainty*, you know you did not leave them there. (obviously even if you feel certain, you can be wrong, maybe they are there anyway)



sorry66 said:


> The OP is about 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist' - it's not about a set of properties but two propositions.



From a technical aspect, you are right, the original statement only allows two options, yes or no.  If this was a question, it would be a invalid one. Since there is are many spectrum in between. Not just with various levels of 'maybes'. Not just with 'I think so, or I don't think so, but am not positive.' But also, which god or gods we are talking about, and the nature of that god(s) and what it wants from us, is also mixed in.(which applies to a atheist since such things may change the atheists belief level) Perhaps the person is a wiccan, or some religion that doesn't believe in a god at all, still a atheist? If the OP wanted, as  PaulQ put it, to explore "negation of the verb (to) the negation of the object" with only two possible outcomes, than the subject of religious faith was a very bad example to use.

*A atheist is someone who is not religious, rather than someone who "doesn't believe God exists".*


----------



## sorry66

DerFrosch said:


> *I believe he's not here*_. _If you believe he's not here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.*
> 
> _*I don't believe he's here.* _If you don't believe he's here, *this must mean you believe he's somewhere else.
> *
> It comes down to the same thing. You can't call this a large difference. Can't you admit that?





PaulQ said:


> A bowling-ball *is* something that does *not *float in water. -> This is *not *precise information about bowling-balls. -> A lamppost does not float but a lamppost is not a bowling ball.
> A bowling-ball *is not* something that floats in water. -> This *is *precise information about bowling-balls. -> a bowling-ball has a density higher than that of water.


'to be' is a verb in its own category, but you can still apply it to the 'man is here/not here' case and you get the two sentences below (they follow the exact pattern of your sentences above):

1. Bill Ball is someone that is not here (ok, they make for clumsy sentences but we know what they mean!)
2. Bill Ball is not someone that is here

They mean the same thing! When the options are limited to *two things* like 'exist' and 'not exist', 'here' and 'not here', we get 'precise' information ; in this case about Bill Ball's absence.

So, I reiterate, that the two OP sentences are the same:
"An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists." 
"An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist."


----------



## sorry66

Hi TruePurple,
We agree about the OP then?!


truepurple said:


> You don't believe, belief and opinion mean the same thing? I do.


I actually said this (see below); I  just don't think it particularly helps illustrate anything to use another verb, why not just use 'think' then? or better still just 'believe'?! It's the word we're dealing with. That's a small point, though.


sorry66 said:


> Firstly, I don't think you can replace 'I don't believe' with 'I don't have an opinion' as smoothly as you would wish.




Your 'kitchen table' example again allows for a spectrum of possibilities and not just two. (re# 96/98 and the one above #110)


truepurple said:


> "I don't believe that's how the universe works." is a different statement than "That is not how the universe works." The first expresses doubt. The second, certainty. "I believe the universe does not work like that." expresses a similar certainty. Except that using the word belief acknowledges that it's still just your thought process we are talking about.


As for the 'universe' example (I spoke of this perceived difference in the OP sentences in post # 96) they only seem different if you take them as a response to the comment that you _imagine_ was said before.

Taken as statements made in different circumstances they would be equal, for example, someone watches a film about cosmology and then at the end makes either of the statements. Where is the difference? "I don't believe that's how the universe works", "I believe that is not how the universe works"
In you example, "I believe that is not how the universe works"(_I've altered it to exactly match the other sentence_ _but yours is a fine equivalent_ _in correct English_)  is denying a previous affirmative statement.

In the OP statements, we must not assume that they are retorts/replies to something said before. They stand on their own.


----------



## PaulQ

truepurple said:


> You don't believe, belief and opinion mean the same thing? I do.


Hold that thought for a moment...





> "My opinion is that god exists."
> "I don't have a opinion on whether god exists."


Then you say:





> This is the difference, with replacing belief, with opinion. Still similar meanings.


Why did you use "*similar*", which is weaker than "the same thing"? The answer to this is that "*opinion*" is weaker than the ordinary meaning of *belief*. And the ordinary meaning of *belief*, is itself weaker than the religious use of *belief*. The religious use of *belief *has been addressed by James above.

Opinions are lightly held; beliefs are not.


----------



## truepurple

sorry66 said:


> "I don't believe that's how the universe works", "I believe that is not how the universe works"



"I do not believe", you are saying you lack the belief, the "not" is negating the belief. "not how the universe works.", the "not" is negating how the universe works.

Again, the first expresses doubt, you negate the belief, you lack the belief thus you doubt. With the "not" negating how the universe works, you express certainty. Generally these technicalities are ignored by native speakers, but that doesn't mean they disappear, and still are pertinent to every day speech.

And my example of leaving keys on the kitchen table, that has only two possibilities, they are on the table, or they are not. But one phrasing expresses your doubt about whether they are there, and the other expresses your certainty.

@PaulQ
You might be right, that belief is stronger than opinion. But the basic structure as to the "belief" or "opinion" being negated by "not", or the subject being negated by "not", and the effects of such, remains the same, and that is what we are discussing.

Just that if "opinion" is a weaker statement of thought than "belief" then the doubt or certainty expressed would also be weaker. The effect would be less with a weaker word, so if you can see this effect with the weaker word, then it definitely applies to the stronger word.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> They mean the same thing! When the options are limited to *two things* like 'exist' and 'not exist', 'here' and 'not here', we get 'precise' information ; in this case about Bill Ball's absence.
> 
> So, I reiterate, that the two OP sentences are the same:
> "An atheist is someone who *does not believe** God exists.*"
> "An atheist is someone who *believes God does not exist*."



You're still not seeing the difference (and by the way: I'm not distracting you - I'm responding to what you yourself write). PaulQ is correct when he says that he's pointing out the difference between "the negation of the verb from the negation of the object". I put the "action" above in blue, and the "object" in green. To illustrate the difference, let's use your example of a diamond instead. The wording will be somewhat unusual, but it should show the logical difference;

_(On the phone) Jake: What are you doing?
Anna: I am *not mining* for *diamonds*._

In this case we know that Anna is not mining for diamonds.
We also know she could be mining for gold. Or she could be studying French.

_(On the phone) Jake: What are you doing?
Anna: I am *mining *for* not diamonds.*_

In this case, we again know that Anna is not mining for diamonds.
But we also know that she _is _mining; just not for diamonds.

Do you see the difference now?

So, if we then go back to the original sentences, we see that there is some "overlap", but that they're not the same. If the proposition ("object") is that god exists, and I believe 100% that there is no god, then either sentence will be fine. Of course if that is my stance I do not believe in the proposition, i.e. "I do not believe god exists". But if I haven't made up my mind yet, and simply don't know, the second sentence no longer works, because it states that I actually believe in a specific proposition ("object"), namely "god does not exist". Very different.

*Again, since the definition of "atheist" in pretty much every reasonable dictionary I've read includes that he or she solely rejects a proposition, it seems that the "do not believe" construction is the one that is fitting. If this is not the case, what other sources are available for us to see just how the concept is as narrow as you propose?*


----------



## sorry66

truepurple said:


> And my example of leaving keys on the kitchen table, that has only two possibilities, they are on the table, or they are not.


!!! The keys could be anywhere! In your bedroom, in your coat pocket etc. I didn't think I would need to point that out!
Anyway, here again, the statements seem like answers to a presupposed question  and can't really be used as examples matching the OP.

The simple point is this:

*Simple logic only applies if the statements are simple and polar opposites! *

So stop producing countless examples of more complex options!!!

I've already demonstrated that PauQ's 'negation of the object/versus negation of the verb' principle *doesn't apply to the simple either/or case of Bill Ball's presence/absence or God's presence/absence.*

The OP statements are simple and stand on their own; as titles to an essay, you wouldn't flinch an eye if one or the other was used.

It's not like you're arguing, as some have done, that the verb 'believe' has a special status, something equivalent to 'faith'. That might possibly make even the simple OP sentences slightly different, but you're like me, you think it approximates to something like 'think' or 'have an opinion' and other variations. In a simple context, it is  a _verb of thought _like any other and a simple logical model applies.

The only alternative to  X(e.g. here) is Y(e.g. not here) - X and Y are opposites:
I think this thing is  an X =  I don't think this thing is not an X (clumsy, unusual construction (perhaps because of uncertainty or just a response to a comment), but the conclusion is the same)
I don't think this thing is an X = I think this thing is not an X = I think it's a Y (same conclusion - no uncertainty)

However, I've explained this better in previous posts (with concrete examples). It only works when the choices (as in the OP) are very simple and polar ends of the spectrum, otherwise, we could reduce all language to mathematical/logical models.

In any case, you shouldn't confuse the logical structure of a simple sentence with nuances that you may, or may not,  attribute to the verb.

Consider the following story:
A group of armed religious fanatics, who believe only in the God Y, have captured a small village where the people worship their own gods a range of Xs.
It's a life or death matter for the villagers. They are dragged into their temple and one of the invading fanatics shouts:

'These Xs are pagan gods! Are these pagan gods true or false? Answer! Come on! True or false?'

The villagers' lives are hanging on the line, they must answer correctly.

One villager says: I believe these pagan gods are false.
Another villager says: I don't believe these pagan gods are true.

Is it likely that one villager is more likely to be executed than the other?  (_Wait, I think I know what you'll say!)_

I feel that you're blocked on a simple point about logical syntax; and that's all I'm talking about. If we start reading things into the simplest of sentences e.g. 'this box is square and blue' or 'this box is blue and square' you're talking about literary style rather than semantics. (Give these two lines and the two OP lines to a good actor, and with various stresses and intonations, he can make those sentence mean all sorts of things. We don't need to over-interpret here.)

You keep rebounding with posts about this; you seemed to accept the point about the OPs in #109 (I see that you've edited that for content and not just for proofreading!) but now you've changed your mind again!
I'm reminded of some very talented friends of mine who can't do a simple Truth Table in Logic (have you ever tried that?), even if they spent all day on it, when a six-year-old could dash it off in seconds.

To conclude, you're not really getting my point  - which is really quite a simple one. I've explained it as clearly as I can, in what's now, quite a number of posts; I'm not going to continue.


----------



## sorry66

MattiasNYC said:


> Anna: I am *mining *for* not diamonds.*


How are we supposed to understand a senseless sentence? If you alter it, to give it sense, then you're not talking about the 'polar opposites' and the simple syntactical model, which I keep referring to. As I've said above, I'm making a simple logical point - that's all. Negation of the verb or negation of the object is irrelevant - as I've explained in the previous post and many others - when you only have two simple alternatives.

Re: post #106 - I've already said: regarding the OPs, I'm assuming, that people already know what a God is!
Why should we imagine strange futures? Let's talk about the society we're living in.
Here again, you're leading the discussion down unnecessary paths and where you want to go with it is never clear. I'm not sure what your agenda is (_but please don't inform me of it)._


MattiasNYC said:


> If the proposition ("object") is that god exists, and I believe 100% that there is no god, then either sentence will be fine.


If you've come to this conclusion then I'm fine with it. It's exactly what I've been saying, it's either/or. I don't care whether you feel the need for a definition to include the people who are unsure. An atheist doesn't care to delineate or put a percentage on his certitude about God's non-existence - that's what the believers want him to do as I've already stated many times. Agnostics fall into that trap to soothe the believers. For an everyday atheist, he is as sure as he can be about anything. And why shouldn't he make an affirmative statement (if that's how you see 'I believe'); believers say that they believe 100% in God so why shouldn't he say he's 100% against (even its just to silence all the members of the bleeding heart brigade).

Let me go off track like you. Every educated person in Western society knows what an atheist is: ' someone who has strong, unshakeable doubts(yes, of course, he can't prove it) as to whether the existence of God is possible' (and millions of other variations on the same thing) and leads his life, oblivious to or unconcerned about the possible consequences of there being a God.
A godless existence, doesn't mean that your life is void of magic and mystery. An atheist, to paraphrase what someone said, doesn't wish to populate his  mind with uninteresting and implausible propositions about pompous supernatural beings; there's enough good-quality fantasy literature (and you can take from it what you want!) to titillate your mind and make you dream, so why bother with an authoritative religion that wants to peremptorily intervene in your life when all it has to offer are some dull fantasy elements .

Anyway, must we go on interminably about the same thing? All these posts are just repetitive.

There are two simple propositions 'God exists' and 'God doesn't exist'. You're either _for_ or _against_. Stop reading so much into it.

Either OP sentence can be the prompt for a philosophical debate about the existence of God; it really doesn't matter which one you start with.

Edit: By the way, if you wish to have the last word, you may (I'm sure you'll avail yourself the opportunity to quote me out of context and misconstrue my points); I, however, am tired of repeating myself and I'm not going to respond to this thread, anymore.


----------



## MattiasNYC

sorry66 said:


> As I've said above, I'm making a simple logical point - that's all. Negation of the verb or negation of the object is irrelevant - as I've explained in the previous post and many others - when you only have two simple alternatives.



Atheism is about the opinion/belief (or lack thereof) about the object, not about the object itself. It doesn't matter if the object's existence is a binary issue, what matters is what people think about it, if anything. It's what goes on in the atheist's mind that's of our concern, not whether or not god exists, can exist or whatever.



sorry66 said:


> I'm not sure what your agenda is (_but please don't inform me of it)._




_That's fairly rude I think._



sorry66 said:


> There are two simple propositions 'God exists' and 'God doesn't exist'. You're either _for_ or _against_. Stop reading so much into it.




Here's what American Atheists have to say about it:

_"The reason no one asks this question [what is atheism?] a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

*Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.*"_

"belief system" above is pretty much equal to what you called "propositions" above. Do you see the issue now?

And can you please refer us to any other source that supports your view other than yourself?



sorry66 said:


> Edit: By the way, if you wish to have the last word, you may (I'm sure you'll avail yourself the opportunity to quote me out of context and misconstrue my points); I, however, am tired of repeating myself and I'm not going to respond to this thread, anymore.



Again quite unnecessarily rude and confrontational.

And the "you may have the last word" comment is fairly "weak".


----------



## sorry66

1. I didn't choose the OP sentences; I'm only concerned about the linguistic point ( which I've said repeatedly).

2. I really don't care how you define 'atheism'. I was the one who introduced the idea of 'absence of belief' to this thread (in post # 33) before you entered the discussion (although, someone did mention 'no belief' before). Please reread (or have you not read it?) the following carefully:


sorry66 said:


> An atheist wants to emphasise his ‘absence of belief’ (he doesn’t care to reject or accept the existence of God, the concept doesn’t touch his life).
> All definitions put an atheist in opposition with theists – in fact, he is being defined by theists.
> In a world that was predominantly atheist, a theist might be described like this: ‘A theist is a person who believes (and does not feel the need to provide any ‘proof’ – he calls it ‘faith’) in an omniscient being with supernatural powers, who controls the lives and destinies of people.’
> An atheist might review his position if (what he considers to be) incontrovertible proof could be provided of divine intervention in the lives of ordinary people. Otherwise, he is someone who believes that all gods are false gods.



3. You want to endlessly contradict (for the sake of it) and I'm not sure what your agenda is apart from getting a definition of atheism that suits you.
I don't need to define myself as an atheist/agnostic or whatever ( again, said repeatedly in this thread).
Asked to express myself on the topic of God, I would probably say something like this, 'I reject the notion of a god because I think it's unsubstantiated'; you can put that in whatever category of atheist you wish; it's of little concern to me. It's like Eskimos needing fifty odd definitions for types of snow, it's important to them but it's not necessary for everyone. It's the 'believers' who need it in the 'atheist' case ( again, said repeatedly in this thread).
I've given countless definitions of 'atheist' in this thread; any definition which implies the rejection of a supposed god's impact on human life is good enough.
If the opinion of the majority is that atheism is something else (by the way, do you really think I'm going to waste, _even more _time, by looking for sources!), I will just discontinue to use the word 'atheist' as shorthand to get out of boring conversations on God because, heavens, that might rope me in, instead...er, can't imagine that happening?! Hmm.

For the future, could you consider limiting your spacing so that people don't have to scroll so much.

Edit: In the post above, I meant to say 'bleeding-heart God brigade' (nothing to do with liberals!)


----------

