This is something I’ve been thinking about lately.
It’s my perception that most people seem to use the term “believe in God” to mean “believe that God exists”. Does anyone disagree with this? Comments, criticisms, compliments, etc. are all welcome, as are flames, as long as they make me laugh. 
…and as a tangent, is it possible to believe God exists, but not believe in Him? Or vice versa?
I don’t see why it’s not possible to believe God exists, but not believe in Him.
God is a prick.
Okay, don’t hurt me, that was just an attention grabber, but how come this is a rarely discussed view? Why doesn’t anyone believe that God exists, but he’s imperfect, or a clutz? Must we believe in a PERFECT God? If something created us, it must be perfect!
Let’s say that God wants to create humans, for whatever reason. He’s lonely. So he creates man. What great companionship man will bring to God! But God doesn’t want a bunch of yesmen or slaves, he wants genuine company that will be creative and original and will sprout great ideas and imagination. In order for this to happen, he must give them free will. Free will offers choice, which means there will be some bad apples. But wait, God doesn’t want any evildoers in heaven, so he must make some kind of filtering system, a test! Thus, the earth is created. Now there is a great test that will separate the evil men from the good men. But, God isn’t satisfied with a bunch of good men. If you want to hang with God, you have to worship him! Otherwise you can face the fiery hells of damnation, or outer darkness, or whatever. God doesn’t care what happens to the runoff, as long as he has his posse that will cheer him up and bring him much joy as well as worship him as a king.
It seems well accepted that God has many moods. He loves, hates, plays favorites, etc. He asks questions. Why would an all-knowing being ask a question of anyone if he already knows the response? (condescending prick!) Many people have stated something like, “If God would send many good men to hell simply for not believing in him, he is more like a satan than a God! And I wouldn’t want to worship him anyway.”
God’s response would of course be, “Meh, go to hell.”
I don’t mean to offend anyone by this, I’m just wondering why this view is rarely brought up? Why does God have to be perfect?
Oh yeah, the first question. When someone asks me this I like to say to them, “Do you believe in premarital sex?” The response is often “no,” which prompts my reply, “Well then you’re a fool, because it happens all the time.”
Usually they then get the picture and rephrase the question more specifically.
Art
I think for a lot of people ‘believe in’ (in this kind of context) means to invest some emotional attachment to the idea, rather than simple intellectual acceptance. I’m sure that this distinction is quite important for a lot of believers (“You believe in one God? - good - even the demons believe that, and shudder”).
Great OP!
It’s my perception that many, many Believers (a) mean the trust-and-reliance meaning when they use “believe in God” and (b) tend to see the two usages as either synonymous or inexorably consequential one from the other. If you’re convinced He exists, on their view, you must necessarily be obliged to believe in Him in the other, trust-and-worship sense.
A Deist who believes in a deus otiosus, a winder-up-of-a-clockwork-universe, or a person who is convinced that their God-appointed destiny is to live a miserable life without personal happiness, and thereafter go to judgment for their sins, would each be examples of the belief-in-existence-without-trust-in-grace sort of believers.
When I finally write my Bible paraphrase, all references to “believing in God/Jesus” for salvation are OUT! “Trust in”, “rely on”, “lean upon”- Yes. “Believe in”- no, No, NO!
My thoughts: If there is a god, he has a lot to answer for. Because his perfect plan…IMNSHO…sucks!
Oh man, I am so going to hell.
That’s pretty much what I thought - it seems to have a different connotation than, say, when someone says “I believe in you” (in the context of a pep-talk) or something.
It makes me wonder, when people say they either believe or don’t, what exactly they mean…
A good thread, pretty much already asked and answered, but I’ve analyzed this particular issue pretty thoroughly over the years, and the conclusion that I have come to is that there is an existentialist belief (as in the philosophy of existentialism) and an essentialist belief (as in the philosophy of essentialism). Existential belief is belief with the intellect — I believe that God exists because logically He must. Essentialist belief is belief with the heart — I believe that God exists because I know Him. For example, my belief in Othersider is existential, while my belief in Polycarp is essential. The God in Whom essentially I believe considers existential belief to be worthless. As Newcomb Being has more or less pointed out, it is possible to believe that God exists but hold Him in contempt. But even an atheist can believe in God essentially merely by valuing and facilitating goodness as He does.
Is this because you know him, and you don’t know me? (Forgive me, I’m still an amateur by most intellectuals’ standards).
…and (this may be really obvious, and I’m just missing it) could you elaborate on that point about God considering existential belief worthless?
I usually hear people say “I believe in god’s goodness, mercy, etc.” in the second context.
However I have also heard theists claim that atheists really believe, but just are unwilling to knuckle under - which is not true. People like that are theists. Remember,. the ole debbil is a theist also.
the difference between “believing in God” and "believing in premarital sex’ though, is that there is actual physical proof that premarital sex exists (heck, my proof is watching basketball in the other room 
) but there isn’t really that tangible proof that God exists. for that reason i don’t think you can believe he exists and not “believe in him” in that way.
I think that’s insulting to atheists. It doesn’t take their view seriously.
The difference between believing in God and believing in premarital sex is purely in context.
When one asks, “Do you believe in premarital sex?” it is commonly understood as “Do you believe premarital sex is acceptable or right?” while asking, “Do you belive in God?” is commonly taken as “Do you belive in the existence of God?”
That was my point anyway. One should be more specific when asking these questions, that’s all. As far atheists who really believe in God… sorry but no. Atheists are those who just don’t find evidence of a creator. Period.
Okay, I have a new question, which is somewhat related to the one I asked in the OP.
Either God exists or He doesn’t. It can’t be both ways.
Short of divine intervention (not very likely), we presumably cannot verify that God exists.
Likewise, we presumably cannot verify that God doesn’t exist.
If we ask a great many theists and atheists, I think the the majority of the learned ones will admit that, no, they aren’t sure they’re right - not 100% sure, I mean. I postulate that an intelligent person, regardless of how sure he is, should concede that he could be wrong. After all, the only way we can find out for sure is to die or for God himself to impart the verification of his existence to us, and I just don’t see that happening very often. Unless you believe some of those that we often label “loonies”. But I digress. Back on topic:
How sure are these intelligent people, then? Obviously, they have varying degrees of certainty. Some people might say they’re 90% sure they’re right, some people might say they’re 75% sure, and so on.
Let us take Bob, an intelligent man (probably a Doper) who claims to be a theist. We ask him to quantify his belief, and he says he’s 90% sure of his position.
So, Bob thinks there’s a 90% chance God exists, and a 10% chance God doesn’t exist.
Now let us take some other people. Tom thinks there’s a 60% chance God exists, and 40% chance he doesn’t. Dick thinks there’s a 20% chance God exists, and an 80% chance he doesn’t.
Can we classify any of these people as theists? As atheists? As neither? Where do we draw the line between theism and atheism, or is it more of a DMZ area rather than a definite “line”?
Can you 100% prove that my pants do not exist? Nope, you can’t. Oh well.
This reminds me of a riddle. Anyone familiar with Skinny Dakota? Anyway, you are sitting with Skinny in a bar. He bets you dinner that he can offer evidence of the fact that all ravens are black, without having to actually use any ravens. You’re skeptical of course, but you must know. How can Skinny prove that all ravens are black, here in this bar, without any ravens around?
The answer? Skinny picks up a white napkins and says, “This napkin is white, therefore it absolutely cannot be a raven. This, therefore, offers evidence, small evidence yes, but evidence nonetheless… that all ravens must be black.”
Well how about that? Unfortunately, this logic is a bit flawed, because this so called evidence could be used to equally prove that all ravens must be purple :smack:
Anyhoo…
No, you cannot offer any proof that God does not exist. However, can you offer any proof that anything does not exist? There’s no way to prove that aliens do not exist for that matter either. There is also no way to prove that our entire existence isn’t just some elaborate dream. But the fact that you can’t prove God DOES exist says a lot.
Let’s say you set up a test. You tell God (or just shout out loud to yourself), "If you exist, let me, a horrible darts player, hit 3 bulls eyes in a row. You throw three darts in a row and hit a bulls eye every time. Did you prove God existed? Unfortunately, no. How do you know it wasn’t a coincidence? Also, if you missed all 3 times, how do you know that God really does exist, but just didn’t bother to prove it to you at that moment? There has to be a test that can only have 2 conclusions: yes he exists OR no he doesn’t. So far I can’t think of such a test.
If you talk to men of God, most will tell you it boils down to faith. Unfortunately this isn’t fair to everyone. Not everyone has faith nor knows where to get it. Also, you can find very intelligent men of every religion who have just as much faith (can you really quantify it?) as the next guy. If a Mormon, Christian, and Jew all have faith yet are all led to different religions, well… that says a lot about faith doesn’t it?
Personally, I would say I’m agnostic. Not that I don’t know if there is a God, but that I don’t think it is possible to find out. Certainly it’s not possible to know the specifics, so why bother? I personally do not believe it’s very important anyway. If there is a God, and if he is a loving God, then nobody has to worry. If there is no God, then it was a wild ride. And of course maybe there is a whiny, bratty, prick of a God who only likes those who worship him as king, while he will let the rest of us live in eternal damnation. Well, if you really are like that God at least put some more effort into it. I have no problem following you and worshipping you if you actually make the time to show evidence that you exist. As God, don’t you think it’s rather sad that so many of us spend most of our time debating whether or not you even exist? Maybe if you got that part out of the way we could start debating more important things.
Art
As in Othersider’s example, I characterise the biological computer inside our skulls as outputting decisions according to the needle of a “Belief-O-Meter[sup]TM[/sup]”. To “believe” a statement is to ascribe a >50% probability of truth to it, rather like in fuzzy logic. Thus, an atheist ascribes <50% to the statement God Exists.
Now, given the non-zero probability that we are in a simulation, one cannot reasonably put one’s Belief-O-Meter needle exactly at 0% or 100%, since that would constitute certainty.
My personal needle for God Exists hovers arbitrarily close to 0: even if I “saw divine intervention”, my computer would output a higher probability for me being decieved by advanced technology (as in the non-impossible simulation) than such a sight proving God’s existence. That does not mean I can’t be wrong, just that you could never convince me I was wrong.
As for the other way the phrase “believe in” is being used in this thread, that’s just semantic confusion with the phrase “derive succour from”, just as “I see you” has different meanings depending on whether you’re playing hide-and-seek or poker.
Wouldn’t a lot of Buddhists fall into this category? I don’t know that much about Buddhism, but AFAIK some Buddhists don’t believe in god, at least in any Western sense. Buddhim seem to me more a philosophy than a religion. (Of course I am looking at this from the Western perspective of religion being about praying to some Big Guy in the sky to save your soul. Eastern religions don’t tend to work that way.)
Wouldn’t such a person better be considered an agnostic? I wouldn’t think considering there is a 49% chance god exists as being atheistic. Then again, I don’t know if the correct term for me is atheist or agnostic. I don’t believe god exists. However, I consider it to be at least logically possible that god exists. Consider the Deist notion of this just being a clockwork universe god created, and then left alone. If this is so, from within this universe I would be totally unable to determine if god exists. God has left no evidence beyond the existence of the universe of his existence.
Wasn’t there a Star Trek the Next Generation episode where a society ended up worshipping “The Picard”? How could I distinguish between god and a very technologically advanced society? (Let’s not get into that TNG had a character (Q) which appeared to be a god. IIRC Q in the last episode just willed it that he and Picard appear on Earth at the moment life first evolved. The show never implied Q used instrumentalities. How could other than a god do this without technology?)