You run into two guys. The first one says: "I don't believe that God exists." And the second one says: "I believe that God does not exists". Which one would you say is more accurately atheist?
Both meet the criteria. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods or the belief that no God or gods exist. That's the dictionary definition. The latter is a subset of the former, as one who believes no deities exist necessarily lacks belief in such deities. The American Atheists specify "lack of belief" on their website.
The latter is anti-theist not atheist.
Atheism is a response to the theist's claim that a god(s) exists. It is not a claim that gods don't exist. The burden of proof remains with the person making the claim.
If you state that god does not exist, you have a burden of proof to back up your assertion.
Gtear
I voted for guy #1 because his statement is grammatically correct, and therefore he is more rational.
I think the key is "I don't believe" which underscores the notion that atheism is not a belief, but rather the lack of belief.
First and foremost, when I am asked that question I must define what they mean by god. Someone will ask if I believe and perhaps I say yes I love ALLAH , then they say oh not that god. perhaps I say Jesus and they say oh yes he is the only one
My idea is god is not necessarily a religion , rather a concept for discussion
@Diarmaede The difference between the two phrases is nuanced, and it really comes down to rhetoric. Too many people want to twist the notion that "I believe there is no God" and make out atheism just to be another belief system, aka a religion, which is of course nonsense. I resist that notion by declaring a lack of belief; I don't go to any temples and pray to non-gods.
@godef
Actually the difference is huge, because the second one is actively expressing that God doesn't exist, thus he should proved evidence for it
While the first one simply does not believe that God exist, maybe because he didn't see enough evidence, but he is not required defend his belief because he doesn't have belief in the first place.
Is second one right or wrong?
The second one slightly assumes that person has evidence. It makes it sound like a faith based claim because there isn't evidence available that negates every possible god. However, that doesn't really make it wrong just not easy to defend in debate. Personally, believing he doesn't exist seems reasonable because few people take a disbelief position on anything else. Like bigfoot. You can't proof he doesn't exist so why would we take a position of believe he doesn't vs I don't believe. Just semantics but one sounds close minded to other people.
What about I know God does not exist.
How can you know that?
@Srijith - I think it's time to drop the capital thing for god.
@GoldenDoll yes. It's the auto correct. I generally do correct it. Forgot this time