This is some thing I wish more people would realize.
Tags: Atheism, Picture
The first one is a belief, but the second one is a conclusion, derived from likelihoods and lack of certainty.
One gets a belief in various ways, one of them being as the result of an investigation, in which case the investigation reaches a conclusion. There is no logical conviction in having a belief based on an investigation. We just need to distinguish between reasonable beliefs based on the facts we know and beliefs people hold not based on facts at all.
Unseen, the word "belief" has baggage attached to it and that is why atheists tend to dislike using it generally. Occam's razor. The original statement is perfectly valid from a logical perspective. There is no need to play semantic games that tend to just confuse everyone involved.
I think what's confusing to others outside our little community is the insistence that we don't believe something we so obviously do, that theism has no basis in fact or logic and that, thus, we believe there is no God.
It's the mental gymnastics that confuse, and for us it's inside baseball.
I think to get into the pedantics of whether non belief in god is actually a belief is missing the point.
And yet, atheists bring this non-starter up all the time, which simply confuses the issue for outsiders. When one makes a negative statement about something, you either believe it or you don't, and whether your belief comes as the conclusion of an investigation is neither here nor there.
If a theist says "Well, okay, you atheists have beliefs, too," we can simply point out that our beliefs are based on an examination of the facts and not by simply deciding to believe something that has no basis in facts.
The point Unseen is trying to make (I think) is that some of us are so hard over on not using the word "belief" that those people end up looking absurd to others.
And it's very easy to expose the absurdity this way: Is it your position that you've concluded God doesn't exist but you don't believe your conclusion? Hmmm....
I believe there are no leprechauns. I don't believe in leprechauns. Is there any difference between these two statements? What is it about the second statement that makes it seem like less of a belief and more of a conclusion? I really can't work this one out.
You are not alone, LogicalLunatic. There IS a difference between the two statements, but it's a misuse to try to somehow eschew the word "belief" as implying religiousity or accepting something as true with no evidence.
I have a disbelief in any god.
I think a problem with this is also that a theist gets a sence of equality, as in, "see, you have a belief or something that you believe in, and so do I, so that makes us equal and my belief has just as much pull and chance of being believable as yours does". It makes me think of that line "I don't believe in evolution, I simply understand why it's true". Same thing, they treat it as if both sides have an equal chance of being right or wrong. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Is not the evidence for anything but evolution far outweighed by all that is for it?
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Think Atheist is 100% member supported
All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.
Started by Strass Strass in Small Talk. Last reply by Strass Strass 42 minutes ago.
Posted by Belle Rose on March 8, 2014 at 2:23am
Added by EducationIsCool
Added by Physeter
What would happen if you were to die in space?
Can alcohol really effect individuals differently at higher elevations? What about THC in marijuana?
How do satellites maintain altitude in space?
We are in love with our Amazon
Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!
Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com
Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com
© 2014 Created by Dan.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.