A-theism, we are told, actually means "without a belief in any god"?

Question

and not "the belief that there is no god".

Could somebody please explain the difference to me?
How can you be "without a belief in pink unicorns" for instance, without "the belief that there are no pink unicorns"??

Darwinsfriend is absolutely right...it IS semantics...
It is a game atheists play, called "semantic-antics"...
You could call me an "a-coatimundist" because, yes, in my head, there is a belief that there are no seven-legged coatimundis. I have no proof, as atheists would say, to convince me that I should believe in seven-legged coatimundies, therefore, I do not believe in them.
However, I have no way of knowing for sure that there is not a planet, somewhere, where seven-legged coatimundis do exist. Therefore, my stance on coatimundies is based on FAITH...until someone discovers a seven-legged coatimundi, I will continue to believe that there are no seven-legged coatimundis.
But my believing that will not make any seven-legged coatimundis that may exist on their remote planet suddenly pop out of existence. They don't need me to believe in them, in order for them to exist.

Basically, my point is that atheism is based on faith. Atheists have no proof that they can accept that God exists, therefore, they have a belief that He does not...however, they cannot KNOW that there is no God, it is a matter of faith for them.
Just like those coatimundies, not believing in God will not make Him pop out of existence...

It is faith, and nothing more.
There can be no proof either for the existence of God, or against the existence of God, since God is not a part of this physical universe.
But that doesn't mean that He can't exist, just because someone doesn't believe in Him...

When it comes to physical proof....
We have a better chance of finding the coatimundies!!

Answer 1

One is an absence of belief, and one is believing in an absence.
I see your point, but why do you need a belief in an absence to validate an absence of belief in a presence.
It's fairly simple really.

Answer 2

One accepts the possibility (however remote) of existence while the other does not.

For a long time I've asserted that theists do understand this difference but simply won't admit that they do. Honestly do you truly not see the difference?

I've always rolled my eyes at comments like this..
"An atheist firmly believes there is no Supreme Being." because they just seem utterly absurd arrogant and presumptuous. It seems more like an angry insult than anything else.

==
"In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".

"You" were told wrong."

This is another one that baffles me. I've seen people like this tie themselves in knots trying to spin the word to mean something it does not. Why do people try so hard to misdefine the word??? The prefix 'a' means not or without. And in spite of what this poster would like the second part to be it is 'theist" NOT theos.

The word literally means "not" "theist".


http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/prefixtext.htm

Answer 3

Easy. You're certainly "without a belief in 7-legged coatimundis", right? Now, does that mean that somewhere in your head you have a belief that there are no 7-legged coatimundis"? Obviously not.

Answer 4

It's a subtle distinction, but it is possible to have no position on the existence of gods. In other words, if you do not see any evidence of any gods, but also do not think the idea can be sufficiently dismissed, then you might be without belief, while simultaneously not believing in the nonexistence of gods.

Answer 5

Since there is no way to actually prove that god does not exist, but there is also no evidence that god does exist, I do not have a belief in god, but I can't say for sure that there is no god. I simply say that there is no reason to believe in god, so I don't.

Answer 6

The first implies that there is NO belief, NOTHING to even remotely hint of a drop of Faith.
The second is more subjective without being dogmatic. It's like an opinion even though this person can have Faith in something else.

Both are inconsistent.
Every person has a measure of Faith but some levels can only trust in a chair. ( A person sits on a chair without thinking 'will this hold me'? They just sit. This takes a measure of Faith).
And a person can say 'I don't believe in God' despite all the evidence of a Creator leading to a creation logic. (A painting just doesn't APPEAR; it is created by someone. If there's a creation, it was made evident by a creator). It can also be argued that the one who does not believe in God may not even be present or speaking. I can say to him / her ' I hear a voice but I don't believe in you; don't believe you are there'. What would make me wrong? It's also my subjective belief.

Answer 7

I don't believe anybody has been naturally born with purple hair...

But I don't have evidence to say that nobody has been born like that... see the difference?

Its subtle - and really for most applications - its pointless to distinguish. When in debate however, its important to understand who is making claims - and who is simply rejecting things until evidence convinces them otherwise.

Answer 8

You can't logically prove something doesn't not exist. The evidence is on the one making the claim, and most atheists argue that they make no claim.

Answer 9

Technically because we don't actively believe there is no god. (Or at least most of us don't. Some do.)

Just like you don't actively believe there are no unicorns. It's more of a default state.

Answer 10

There is no evidence for god. I don't believe in any gods.

Christians hold the "belief that there is no Zeus or Odin."

How can you be without a belief in Zeus or Odin without "the belief that there is no Zeus or Odin."