“I don’t believe in God” versus “I beleive God doesn’t exist”
To my mind those two statements have slightly different fundemental meanings.
The former implies that this is your chosen way of thinking.
The latter implies that you think this is the way things are [irrespective the individual]
I am the latter type of atheist. My assesment of my life experience so far leads me to think that the God which everyone else is believing in doesn’t exist.
It’s like the difference between saying “I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, but you are welcome to” and saying “I think the tooth fairy doesn’t exist, so if you believe in it/her/him then I think you are suffering from delusuion”
I dunno, i think it’s hard for me to go along with any of this stuff…
Basically I’m not religious. I need proof. Currently, I believe in all of the stuff for which there is proof of it existing.
But does that mean I believe that God doesn’t exist? No. I believe that God doesn’t exist in the same way that I believe that faster than light travel is impossible. But maybe in the future when we understand the universe, FTL travel might be possible. I completely understand the mechanics (took a class that had a relativity section once) but I can’t say for sure there isn’t some kind of underlying factor that could change.
I can’t see much difference between the two statements from my point of view.
The only thing is that the second one sounds a bit more sure of oneself.
The first sentence does sound more personal, the second one sounds a bit too sure of something that is impossible to disprove. Obviously it’s pretty damn hard to prove the absence of something, so I don’t understand the confidence in God’s absence.
I mean, technically, there could be a God, yet he is completely absent, in every form, in our universe. That’s why I don’t understand Atheism.
“I don’t believe in God” sounds more like, “I haven’t found compelling evidence, but that’s just me”
So the second thing sounds a bit too sure for me. Now I’m essentially on the same side as you, I just don’t like to close my mind to ideas that are simply not proven yet. It’s just the way I operate. God happens to fall into that category. However, for all intents and purposes I’m an atheist.
My own position is: “I don’t see any reason whatsoever to believe in a God.”
I’m not the kind of person who can just believe something based on wishful thinking, not that I’d “wish” to believe in a God anyway. So believing in something for which there’s a total lack of evidence would require a “leap of faith” that would fly in the face of everything I ***do ***believe.
I would think that everyone who says the first believes the second - inevitably. They just aren’t saying it, perhaps to avoid sounding pretentious by speaking in the objective case.
I myself believe both (of course), but usually just say the first- it’s easier than prompting (and then defending against) the tiresome deistic argument.
(Plus the first version rolls more smoothly off the tongue. )
I used to think the same way, but then I realized that saying “I believe there is no god” is much weaker than saying “I’m convinced there is no god” or, worse “I know there is no God.” Given the lack of evidence for any god and the really poor prediction record, I think the second statement is reasonable. For me, as I studied the issue more, I went for lack of belief to active disbelief. But this is purely a function of internal thought processes, and no outside influence can make a person believe anything. So someone lacking belief is fine in my book
I can’t liken the belief in God to the tooth fairy myself, it’s just not in the same ballpark. I was raised with the Roman Catholic God, so I was taught about the holy trinity etc…etc…but not about anything else. I knew I was an empiracist waaay before getting confirmed at 15. But I went through with it because that was the thing to do when I was 15. Now more than 20 years later I see my religious life has taken on a spiritual tone to it. I see that I look through a lense that does not need a singular God who sits up in the clouds with a big white beard and long robes etc…etc…I need the energy I get from the things and people around me.
In a away I get my “religion” from nature and the environment from which I live. Like I said it’s more of a spiritual awareness than a singular deity that I need to worship.
However to put it in context of the OP “I don’t believe in God” fits in my series of beliefs. I look at the ocean and I see God, I look at an orchid and I see God. I go to a catholic church for a wedding and look at the crucifix and I see a man who was eternally knowledgeable one who led people, one who was waaay more evolved than I am. But then that falls into my series of beliefs as well. I believe we are led through life by our inner spiritual being, a younger self that guides our everday. I think the man I see on the cricifix was an evolved individual who could speak with the universal oneness out there, and truly tap into that which is essential and that which is right.
For me it is more like “I have no belief in god”, a statement of fact rather than an opinion or a statement of whether there is one or not. Not a choice or decision, just a fact.
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Alan Watts. When asked, “Do you believe in God?” he replied, “If you do, I don’t. If you don’t, I do.”
What does it mean? Well, since “God” is a handy Anglo-Saxon monosyllable generally used as a shorthand for your understanding of the universe from the point of view of your corporeal self, it’s impossible to believe in anyone else’s god. Those that claim to do so are either delusional or just going along with their particular crowd.
That’s why I think that the really bright people (Joseph Campbell, Meister Eckhart…) favor spirituality over religion. Religion is based upon someone else defining God and your relationship thereto and you following along in the hymnal. Not possible. May as well admit it. If you’re going to have a relationship with the universe, you’ll have to define it yourself. Good luck.
I suppose I’m the same, though I give it a hell of a lot less thought than you’d expect from a church-going atheist. Or is that “pretty near the amount of thought than you’d expect from a church-going atheist?”
Whatever. When I try to give it some thought my brain goes haywire so I stop. It’s a survival strategy, one the android women in “I, Mudd” should have followed.
(Advice to programmers: PLEASE add error-handling routines that deal with inconsisent, contradictory, and just plain STUPID input and results! I know you try but us users STILL hit one that doesn’t awfully often. Have mercy; people AND machines are stupid.)
I don’t see a difference between the two statements, functionally - I’d say both apply to me. I don’t think the concept of God is logically (or narratively or aesthetically) sensible (statement. 2), and like I said in the non-omnimax God thread, even if God existed, I wouldn’t worship him, which I think equates to statement 1.
I am extremely confident that the entire concept of Gods and what they supposedly do are entirely made up by people, and therefore are completely mythical. There is no omnipotent creator of all living things.
There is no God. I do not believe Gods can exist, let alone do exist.
I used to think I believed in God, but I think I was simply trying to please my parents. As I became older I realized I never believed but, to be honest, I only became okay with expressing this sentiment in my teens once I found out there were others out there like me.
I see no evidence that there are, or can be, gods, but virtually unlimited historical evidence of humanity creating gods to suit its purposes. The God of Christianity is just the latest to follow the well-worn model, so precisely, the entire construct of which so laden with borrowed historical allegory asserted as fact, that it couldn’t be anything but mythology run rampant.
I think these two make pretty good points. As a “thumper” I would have to say that these two statements mean two different things to me. Both statements imply personal choice due to the qualifier “Believe”. A person can either choose to believe something or not. Even when the facts are 99.999% proven and universally accepted one still has the choice of either believing them or not. That doesn’t necessaraly make them delusional, it may or may not be a poor choice based or not based on poor information but the person making the assesment may be totally sane either way.
Personally, based on the conditions outlined in the two bolded statements above, I fall along the lines of the first one but not the second. Do I think current dogma and apologetics are correct? Absolutely not. God, in so much as man understands Him, is a man made concept and can never be more than that. Just as we are bound by our physical limitations to be unable to run as fast as a train or lift a building; we are bound by our mental and “spiritual” limitations to be unable to conceive anything beyond that which fits into our reality, no matter how abstract that reality is. As apologetic as it sounds, the very nature of God is beyond the nature of man and therefor unapproachable. So no, I don’t believe in the God they speak about in church just as I don’t believe the Allah spoken about in mosques or the YHWH specifically not spoken about in temple. Yes, I fall in line with the first one.
As to the second one, I have to disagree with it’s concept. Because of the real physical, mental, spiritual and social limitations that we have as human beings there are many things that are quite simply unknowable or incomprehensable to us. Apologetics I know but when we are speaking of God and man we are speaking of apples and oranges. The various scriptures, mythologies, wood carvings, whatever may or may not be true but to know for sure whether they are true or false is simply not possible in our current state. Either this is it, when you die you stop like a dead battery or this isn’t it and when you die you move on to a different form, possibly in a reality governed by an omnipotent being, with a long white beard if you insist. We can speculate all we want, and build great empires, create and distroy civilizations, serve some funny almond scented kool-aid if you wish. Until we reach the end of the jouney we have no way of knowing for sure. It is precisely the acceptance of this Great Mystery, the acceptance of The Unknowable and the acceptance that there are just a few too many coincidences in the universe for my liking to make it all accidental, is exactly why I believe God exists. So no, I don’t agree with the second statement.
Doxastic logic — the logic of belief — examines assertions of belief with modals. Using your first person examples, Bx means “I believe it is the case that x”. And so there are two ways to negate the proposition Bx:
(1) Negate the modal — ~Bx “I do not believe it is the case that x”
or
(2) Negate the propositional variable — B~x “I believe that it is not the case that x”
So where G is “God exists”, ~BG means “I don’t believe that God exists” and B~G means “I believe that God does not exist”.
They are very different expressions. In fact, the person who asserts ~BG is not a believer at all, of any kind, with respect to God — hard, soft, what-have-you — because he just doesn’t believe. But the person who asserts B~G is a believer because he does believe ~G.
The latter can be further modalized for more precision in meaning. G can be modalized to figure out what kind of believer the asserter is. B~<>G means “I believe that it is not possible that God exists”. And B~G means “I believe that it is not necessary that God exists”. Finally, the negated proposition itself can be modalized, so that B<>~G means “I believe it is possible that God does not exist” and B~G means “I believe it is necessary that God does not exist”.
It should be pointed out that G can be modalized without a not, so that B<>G means “I believe it is possible that God exists” and BG, which means “I believe it is necessary that God exists”. Finally, just plain BG means “I believe God exists”.
God the Father - I actively believe he does not exist. I believe most people who claim to believe in him are caught up in an emperor’s new clothes effect.
God the Creator - More likely, perhaps “necessary” for a loose enough definition of God (i.e. “first cause”), but I still don’t necessary believe, and don’t think “it” needs or wants to be worshipped.
)