"I don't believe in God" vs "There is no God"

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

Lack of belief + intelligence and humility = agnostic
Lack of belief + hubris and stupidity = militant atheist.

Gardener said:

Lack of belief + intelligence and humility = agnostic
Lack of belief + hubris and stupidity = militant atheist.

Click to expand...

This link dicusses the matter rather well:

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

Click to expand...

Atheism vs. Agnosticism - Degrees of Disbelief

The second type of atheist you mentioned simply recognizes that there is something called the burden of proof. If you claim there's big invisible pink bunny rabbit behind me, not only do I not believe it's there, I'd even venture to make the positive statement "Of course there is no invisible rabbit behind me". Does that mean that he 100% isn't there? No, he could be there, but until I see one shred of credible evidence I'm not going to just take your word for it.

You seem to have no problem whatsoever making positive claims that muhammed, krishna, buddha and the other gods you don't believe in don't exist, so what is so extreme about claiming 1 extra god doesn't exist?

Ultimately christians only use this argument in an attempt to drag atheists down to their level of pure faith and magic, but in doing so you miss the very thing that makes us atheists : we don't have blind faith in anything. I only accept what can be proven, and as soon as new evidence comes in, I update my interpretation of the universe accordingly. You on the other hand wouldn't abandon your beliefs regardless of the amount of evidence presented to you. So which of the two of us is more closed minded?

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely right. It is interesting.

But debating the existence or non-existence of God is not.

I don't see much of a difference since most of the "I don't believe" crowd is waiting for "proof" and no amount of proof will satisfy them

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

I've seen this myself. I'm an ambivalent agnostic, but I know people you are really just pushy about atheism.

It's seems like just another way to proselytize.

The examples I know of were raised in religious households. Maybe it's similar to the way many ex-smokers HATE smoking.

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

In the ongoing lack of evidence of a god it's safe to say there's no god. It's a reasonable conclusion when assertions don't bear fruit.

Crovax said:

I don't see much of a difference since most of the "I don't believe" crowd is waiting for "proof" and no amount of proof will satisfy them

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Click to expand...

Completely untrue. You just don't like the burden the pro-god side has to live up to in order to substantiate its claims.

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

How about, "I believe that God doesn't exist. Of course, I could be wrong."?

RabidAlpaca said:

The second type of atheist you mentioned simply recognizes that there is something called the burden of proof. If you claim there's big invisible pink bunny rabbit behind me, not only do I not believe it's there, I'd even venture to make the positive statement "Of course there is no invisible rabbit behind me". Does that mean that he 100% isn't there? No, he could be there, but until I see one shred of credible evidence I'm not going to just take your word for it.

You seem to have no problem whatsoever making positive claims that muhammed, krishna, buddha and the other gods you don't believe in don't exist, so what is so extreme about claiming 1 extra god doesn't exist?

Ultimately christians only use this argument in an attempt to drag atheists down to their level of pure faith and magic, but in doing so you miss the very thing that makes us atheists : we don't have blind faith in anything. I only accept what can be proven, and as soon as new evidence comes in, I update my interpretation of the universe accordingly. You on the other hand wouldn't abandon your beliefs regardless of the amount of evidence presented to you. So which of the two of us is more closed minded?

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, buddy, but some of you are already there, demonstrating exactly what you always accuse of us doing. You just don't notice it or care because you agree or, maybe it's because that person I described is you. No I won't abandon my beliefs but I have yet to see an evangelical atheist (the second type) that would either.

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

a statement of belief is just that a statement of belief and requires little or no backing.
saying there is no God as a statement of fact on the other hand requires evidence to support itself.

if you want to say i don't believe in a God then you are free to do so.
If you say God doesn't not exist period. then that is an assertion that the person needs to backup.

since they can't do this their argument is flawed.

Andalublue said:

How about, "I believe that God doesn't exist. Of course, I could be wrong."?

Click to expand...

That sounds more like the first statement.

ludin said:

a statement of belief is just that a statement of belief and requires little or no backing.
saying there is no God as a statement of fact on the other hand requires evidence to support itself.

if you want to say i don't believe in a God then you are free to do so.
If you say God doesn't not exist period. then that is an assertion that the person needs to backup.

since they can't do this their argument is flawed.

Click to expand...

Of course they can say the same about us and our assertions that God does exist.

X Factor said:

Of course they can say the same about us and our assertions that God does exist.

Click to expand...

depends. I state God exists as a matter of faith and belief therefore no proof is required. I personally have seen enough evidence in my life and other people's lives to come to that conclusion.

X Factor said:

That sounds more like the first statement.

Click to expand...

I thought it was somewhere in between, but fair enough. I actually haven't come across many people (Cephus excepted) who claim to be 100% certain that God doesn't exist. Dawkins doesn't claim that. Hitchens never did. Who did you have in mind?

Believe it or not, agnosticism is a truth claim itself, just as gnosticism and hardcore atheism is.

Agnosticism isn't just wavering on the fence. It's a statement that it is impossible for man to know if there is or is not a god. Gnosticism is to know with certainty, which is the opposite. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any particular one god or set of gods.

It follows that agnostics are atheists, because to be rooted on the fence means that you are not following any religious creed, even if you're not in complete hardcore rejection of the possibility of one being true.

X Factor said:

Of course they can say the same about us and our assertions that God does exist.

Click to expand...

Yup. There's a very good reason why there's a rule about where the burden of evidence lies. If we could all make any claim we wanted and simply shift the burden of evidence to whoever contradicts us, there would be no logical way to negate fallacious claims.

ludin said:

depends. I state God exists as a matter of faith and belief therefore no proof is required. I personally have seen enough evidence in my life and other people's lives to come to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have as well.

Cardinal said:

Completely untrue. You just don't like the burden the pro-god side has to live up to in order to substantiate its claims.

Click to expand...

You just can't be honest about what you really believe

Crovax said:

You just can't be honest about what you really believe

Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh okay.

X Factor said:

Hate to tell you, buddy, but some of you are already there, demonstrating exactly what you always accuse of us doing. You just don't notice it or care because you agree or, maybe it's because that person I described is you. No I won't abandon my beliefs but I have yet to see an evangelical atheist (the second type) that would either.

Click to expand...

If you provide any evidence whatsoever that god exists, I will change my view of the universe immediately. This is something you can't say.

A quick little scenario for you:
I tell you that right now in your refrigerator is chocolate pudding. You stand up, walk to the fridge and look, and you can't find any chocolate pudding anywhere in the fridge. Do you feel safe declaring "There is no chocolate pudding in my fridge" or do you not say anything to avoid the possibility that there might be invisible chocolate pudding in your fridge? So I believe without evidence (faith) that there's chocolate pudding in your fridge, but you don't because you don't see any evidence for it. Would you consider both of our view points as equally reasonable and factual?

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

re·li·gion

1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2) "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

3) synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More a particular system of faith and worship.

4) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

I'm an atheist. If I'm asked if I believe in god. My answer is simple. "NO!" Then comes the question: "Well don't you think that there is at least a possibility that there is god who created the known universe?" Again, my answer is simple. "NO!" In other words I can clearly look someone in the eye and say, "there is no god" in my awareness or reality. Nothing more needs to be explained or said. God is not a part of my mental vocabulary. The word (or the meaning of the word) simply isn't relative to my life. I don't ponder the possibility. There is no element of, or any concept related to "god" that nudges my curiosity. I don't have the desire to consider it relevant to anything that involves my existence...or the existence of anything that I'm capable of being aware of.

A belief does not constitute a commitment - or to put in practice a personal effort in order to sustaining, enhance, or show allegiance to a said belief. To say, "There is no god" requires virtually no mental, emotional, or physical investment into making clear the intent and meaning of the statement or comment by the person who makes it.

When something is absent from one's physical, mental, sensual experiences...or otherwise. How can one sustain or build on something that doesn't exist to them?

Are there things that doesn't exist in my experiences that might, in fact, exist? I would have to assume that's more than possible. But I must confine my beliefs to those possible unknowns to also be empirical in some shape, form, or fashion. There's a lot of places in the universe I've never been to or experienced. Obviously, I've never been approached by a supernatural entity either. If I can't be inspired, compelled, have access to, or somehow be motivated by things unknown, that are out of the realm of my awareness. I'll automatically turn to those things derived by my own nature and experiences that I rely on to help me navigate through my life. God is not one of those things. God simply doesn't exist in my reality.

X Factor said:

Do you see the difference? One is a personal assertion of non belief, the other is an affirmative statement of belief that there is no God.

Many atheists define atheism as a simple lack of belief, and for many, I think that's accurate. For those, though, that go the step of saying that there is no God, that's a belief just as sure as any religious belief and some atheists will preach this gospel (that there is no God) like an evangelist with an aim to converting people to their belief. Sometimes they end up behaving just the same way as the believers they (maybe even rightfully) mock, resent and ridicule.

Just something I always thought interesting.

Click to expand...

Your argument is one of semantics not substance.
There is no conflict between a lack of theology and the realization that the concept of an all powerful deity is hogwash.
The two can easily be one in the same.
I have no religion (atheist) and I give no credence to deities of any kind either...
See by phrasing the idea differently I can say it without committing to any belief.

Andalublue said:

How about, "I believe that God doesn't exist. Of course, I could be wrong."?

Click to expand...

That's the "humility" to which Gardner was referring in post #2.