To some people, it’s semantics, and to others it’s a big deal. (Magellan01 has repeatedly said that the distinction is very important.) I think it’s an issue only in the very specific discussion of “is atheism a belief/religion?” I doubt it makes any difference in anybody’s day-to-day life.
As a contrast: “I do not believe in gods” is the lack of a belief on the subject of gods.
“I believe there are no gods” is a belief that gods don’t exist."
Again, what’s the difference, really? I do not believe that Liverpool will win the Premiership this season. How is that different to “I believe that Liverpool will not win the Premiership this season”?
The difference is just what I said it is: one is the lack of belief, the other is belief in the negative statement.
I can’t really see a difference between those two. Sorry to be dense, but can you give an example, maybe like the football results example I gave?
I was trying, but in your analogy I couldn’t think of a way to explain the difference. Maybe this will help: thinking that something won’t happen is different from thinking the opposite of that thing will happen.
I would say it’s the difference between having a prediction that a specific team will win and having no opinion at all about who will win.
The distinction as drawn by Marley23 is helpful, and it is not only semantic. The statement “I do not believe in Gods” implies that one simply hasn’t found (a) reason to do so. There’s an implication in it that they may in the future be saved 
, and that creates common ground with the believing majority. The stronger statement “I believe in no Gods” is a flag planted in the ground. It represents a sentiment that is at direct odds with what the vast majority of Americans believe—rightly or wrongly—on an issue that most find very important. From a practical standpoint, it is much easier for the former to be tolerated > accomaodated > accepted than for the latter. Americans understand that religion is a personal journey and are very understanding of the devout and non-devout alike. But a group that is planting a flag in the ground declaring “There is no God” is pitting themselves against both the masses and our history. At least, that is the likely perception.
And Marley23, here is another thing that I think would be effective, maybe most effective at all. If atheists dropped the issue of opposing the mention of God in The Pledge I think that would help them make immense inroads toward acceptance. For many Americans that one issue is their only exposure to Atheists, and it is one that they perceive being at odds with their mostly closely held personal spiritual beliefs and, to make matters even more difficult, patriotism. Fairly or unfairly. Newdow has become the face of atheism to many Americans. My mom, elderly, apolitical, and not very religious at all, gets riled by Newdow like she gets riled by few things. I think he makes the arguement well, although I don’t agree with him.
I hope this doesn’t turn into a hijack about The Pledge, as that has been debated amply elsewhere on these boards. I just wanted to offer another answer to your OP.
Like SentientMeat, I’m afraid the distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ atheist is a little too fine for me to completely grasp. The existence of God (defined, for the purposes of argument, as a sentient uncaused first cause) is a binary possibility. Either he does exist or he doesn’t. The two statements “I do not believe in gods” and “I believe there are no gods” are logically equivalent. The only difference is that the former is a statement of a position held whereas the latter is a more forceful positive assertion. However I can detect no difference between the content of the statements. They’re both, if believed, completely incongruous with a belief in God.
Most people who object to the illegal insertion of the phrase “under God” into the Pledge are theists. The idea that any movement to protect the Establishment Clause is led by “atheists” is a fantasy of right wing religionists.
Yes, but equally. Maybe this will help:
I don’t believe in love.
I believe there is no such thing as love.
I don’t believe I will go to college.
I believe that I will not go to college.
I don’t believe we will win.
I believe that we will not win. Or even, I believe that we will lose.
I don’t think that the statements in pairs are equal, do you?
magellan01
Thanks. That does make the distinction clearer.
I’ll take a stab at it. We’ve got the NCAA Final 4 coming up next weekend. I haven’t followed college basketball at all this season, and don’t have a clue as to which teams might be expected to win. So, I don’t believe that LSU will win the Final 4. Nor do I believe they won’t win. I have no belief either way. So, in this case at least, I can not believe X without believing not-X.
Now, the case of God’s existence is obviously a little different. I mean, there’s no line on the issue in Vegas to guide me in forming a belief should I want to, just for starters. More significantly, most people’s views on the existence of God won’t be informed by the sublime indifference and ignorance I have with respect to Louisiana State’s basketball team. So, let us take another example: Bigfoot! Let’s suppose, contrary to fact, that vast swathes of the Pacific Northwest are completely unexplored. No one has ever been through the interior of BC. It’s just endless, impenetrable conifers stretching on for days and days. And, let’s further suppose that the evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is exactly what we have today - some grainy footage that’s pretty obviously faked, some purported footprints of unknown provenance, and numerous anecdotal tales of encounters that could have been with pretty much anything that’s large and shaggy. In such a situation, what should we believe with respect to the existence of Bigfoot? Well, we still have no evidence that Bigfoot exists, so presumably we shouldn’t believe that it does. However, we don’t have any evidence that it doesn’t, either, with all that unexplored forest. It’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility that a large ape, possibly some close relative of the gorilla, might have made its way into the Pacific Northwest. Absence of evidence, as they say, is not evidence of absence. So, one might plausibly argue that in this case we should believe neither that Bigfoot does exist, nor that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. One of those statements is obviously true, but if I have no way to pick between them, why should I believe either?
Now, if we then go on to define “weak” atheism as “has no belief that God exists”, as distinct from someone who believes that God does exist, you might well think that this “has no belief” stuff is indistinguishable from agnostic fence-sitting on the issue. Perhaps. I don’t much care about what gets labelled as what in this debate. I just thought I’d try to help out with the difference between “no belief that X” and “belief that not-X”.
WHAT?!!! While there may be more theists (most notably, I’d say Barry Lind) opposed to the insertion of “under God” (legal or not), the face of this has been Michael Newdow. You are aware that he is the one who filed suit twice, making it to the Supreme Court. If you can’t acknowledge that I’ll have to either buy you a TV or start praying for you. Maybe both.
:smack: Obviously, the first line of my post #130 should have read:
Yes, but not equally.
And Gorsnak, you’re welcome. Glad it helped.
:smack: :smack: Make that: “George Kaplan, you’re welcome. Glad it helped.”
One thing at a time magellan01…one thing at a time…
I don’t like the implied assumption that belief and non-belief in gods are plausibly symmetrical positions. Positing the existence of gods is no more inherently plausible than positing the existence of centaurs. Failing to be convinced (on the basis of nothing but other people’s unsupported assertions) that magical creatures exist is not a rationally “equal” position to believing that they do. Non-belief is the logical default. It’s not arrogance. Just because one person can imagine a magical creature does not mean that everyone else is obligated to take the possibility of that creature’s existence at all seriously.
Michael Newdow is one person. He does not represent an “atheist” movement. As I said most people who object to “under God” are not atheists. Most atheists don’t even care about it.
The OP was asking about the image of atheists. Do you deny that if you asked a million Americans “Who wants to take under God under the Pledge?” that they wouldn’t come up with Michael Newdow? Come on, he’s made the circuit on the talks shows more than once. I’m warning you, Dio, I’m about to start praying for you.
I disagree. We have the little problem of the beginnings of everything. On the one hand we have option to believe in a God, defined as somehting that is able to exist without being caused. On the other hand, adhering to Brane Theory and the like, we have the option to belive that the universe, with it’s constituent component s of matter and energy have existed always, for infinity. Logically, I don’t think you can say that one is that much more of a stretch than the other? I obvioulsy, come down on the other side. Is there a leap of faith invloved? Yes, for both positions.
I don’t see your point. You said “atheists” should quit trying to take “under God” out of the pledge. The people trying to do that are mostly theists. Michael Newdow is only one person. It’s not an atheist movement. atheists can’t “stop doing” something they never started doing.
Michael Newdow is 100% correct, by the way…just FYI.