format_quote Originally Posted by
therebbe
So tell me what the difference of lacking the belief of G-d and denying the belief of G-d? It all leads to the same outcome does it not?
Not really. In philosophical terms there is significant difference between the two; how large depending on whether you believe truth is relative (or subjective) or absolute (or objective), or some combination of the two.
For example, someone who believes truth is relative would quite happily accept that "you" believe in God, and therefore that for "you" the existence of God is true. That is in no way incompatible with "me" not believing in God, and therefore for "me" the existence of God is false.
Someone who believes truth is absolute has a different perspective. If they believe God does not exist, for them the existence of God is false, but they also must believe that the existence of God is false for
everybody else as well, or in other words they
deny God's existence.
All of which is subject to the (dubious) assumption that believing something must imply it is true, at least for the believer... but that makes it all a bit complicated! :D
In answer to the original question, which is a very good one I think, you could find atheists who fit one, the other or indeed both. I would say that most well-known atheist philosophers, though, would fall very much into the "deny" camp.
format_quote Originally Posted by
therebbe
Your asking if Atheists truly believe there is no G-d, or if they just believe there is not enough evidence to support the threory of therebeing a 'G-d'.
I would have thought the latter would be a description of an agnostic, not an atheist?