I have a question and it may seem redundant or stupid but...

[amyrose2712]

I think I understand that there is a difference between the following 2 statements:

1. I do not believe there is a god. (Or is it this, I do not believe in god, but then you would still first have to define "god")

2. I believe there is no god.


Also, I do finally understand the difference between not believing and not knowing, but in both of these cases I am finding it very difficult to explain.
Last night, my BF and I were talking about it and he still was equating the 2 in both cases, and he even went on to say that even when making it an equation the 2 came out even even. Now I don't know what the equation was because we stopped discussing it to watch American Dad. But can anyone help me to better explain(and I guess understand) the difference?

[lazarus]

1. knowing and believing

Quite simply, not knowing (agnosticism) is a condition that applies to belief, or lack thereof. Think of it as an adverb.

So, you can have:
agnostic theists (believe but admit they don't know)
gnostic theists (believe and think they know)
agnostic atheists (do not believe and do not know)
and gnostic atheists (do not believe and believe they know)

There are a lot of agnostic theists. They tend to be people who were trained in seminaries, especially priests.

The number of gnostic atheists is generally considered small, but I think it's growing. It's not as extreme a position as people make it out to be. Simply put, I don't believe in a god, and I don't think a god (as a supernatural being) can exist in our universe, due to the laws of physics and the definition of supernatural.

[amyrose2712]

2. What about outside our universe or the very smallest part of it?

Thank you for the explanation, but I supposed I was more asking about the first example up there. The difference between statements 1 and 2. And, truly I am not as stupid as it seems. I am just not very good at expressing myself.:dunce: :hide:

Anyway, I like asking you guys things. Helps me work stuff out in my mind a bit. Like, I guess now I suppose I am an ignostic agnostic atheist. Who knows, may change.

[lazarus]

3. by definition

there can't be anything outside our universe (not getting into extra dimensions, etc.). So nothing can exist outside our universe. Our universe is defined as "everything that exists".

:hi:

[amyrose2712]

4. Oh but there are multi-universe theories...

so I admit the possibility. Not saying I believe it, or even know much about it. :silly:

[lazarus]

5. the multi-verse stuff

isn't even theory at this point, it's speculation, since it's not falsifiable, that I know of.

[yellerpup]

9. "isn't even theory...since it's not falsifiable..."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

10. I wear the gnostic atheist badge proudly (sometimes)

Mostly, I just like to fuck with people, especially believers. I parse the label a little differently though: (YMMV)

atheist: I lack any belief in a higher power
gnostic: I believe that if there were a higher power, we would be able to observe and measure that higher power, and since we haven't yet been able to observe or measure a higher power, I "know" that there can't be a deity

It makes my head hurt.

[awoke_in_2003]

11. count me as a gnostic atheist...

while there is no real way to prove there is no god, there cannot possibly be something so fantastical

[rexcat]

13. I accept the null hypothesis...

until otherwise proven. By the definition theists use their "god(s)" is/are not provable. I do like your last statement concerning gnostic atheists, well stated!

[laconicsax]

6. There is a definite difference between the two.

It's quite similar to the difference between:

-I don't believe you.
-I believe you're lying.

The first is simple disbelief, while the second is an active belief in a specific condition. Saying "I don't believe you" (or "I don't believe in a god") is a rejection of someone else's premise; you simply don't accept the proposition put forward. Saying "I believe you're lying" (or "I believe there is no god") is a premise in itself carrying a burden of proof.

Saying "I believe there is no god" (usually with a capital "G") is no more extreme a position than "I believe there is a god," and far less extreme a position than "I believe in there is a omnipotent, omniscient, personal, intercessory god." The only reason why strong atheism is considered an 'extreme' position is because the much more extreme theist position I named is considered reasonable. Much the same way that the political spectrum in this country has shifted to the right so much that a conservative of 40 years ago would be considered liberal today.

Remember, the null hypothesis is not "one side" of the argument, it's the default, moderate position and "I don't believe in God/a god" is a version of the null hypothesis.

[charlie]

7. Passive and active

Not asserting and asserting.

Synonyms from definitions might help make the difference clearer:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=belief&ls=a

Confidence, trust, conviction, acceptance, etc.

I do not (have confidence) there is a god.
I (have confidence) there is no god.

I do not (trust) there is a god.
I (trust) there is no god.

I do not (have conviction) there is a god.
I (have conviction) there is no god.

I do not (accept) there is a god.
I (accept) there is no god.

[salvorhardin]

8. Put it to your BF this way...

Use Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Source: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

If you ask him whether or not he believes there's a china teapot floating out around the orbit of Mars, it's a good bet that he'll say, "No."

Now ask him if he knows, for sure, if there's a china teapot orbiting Mars. He'd be a liar if he said yes since (in so far as I know), there's no way for us to currently detect such a small object from Earth and the Mars orbiters don't cover the whole planet (nor am I sure if they could detect such a small object). So there's no way for him to know.

That's the difference between not believing and knowing that there's no god.

Of course, I'm sure once humans do reach Mars they'll find some asshole lab tech back on Earth, just for shits and giggles, has in fact launched a china teapot into orbit about the Red Planet.

[dmallind]

12. Yep - 1. weak/implicit atheism 2. strong/explicit atheism

1 is far more common among atheists I know and on DU, as well as far more logically supportable. To argue 2 you have to assume universal awareness/knowledge.

I have no damn clue if there is some sort of god anywhere/anytime but I do not accept any of the claims made about gods I have ever heard - and all for the same reason; lack of evidence.

If I claimed to be a millionaire, and you cared for some reason if it were so, would you simply request financial statements for proof, or assume based on no evidence at all I was NOT a millionaire. Same analogy.