Disbeliever, unbeliever, nonbeliever

[Unveiled Artist]

Finally, my curiosity and annoyance has been relieved. All in all, why does it matter. We seem to use it in the same context anyhow.

Oxford

Disbeliever: a person who refuses to believe something or who lacks religious faith.

Nonbeliever: a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.

Unbeliever: someone who has no religious beliefs, or who does not follow a particular religion

Guess its semantics. I like disbeliever for some reason.

 

[epronovost]

Disbeliever is more pejorative. The term "disbelief" is most often use when someone refuses to accept that something is true. In that context, the truth of that thing isn't in question or even in doubt, it's an evidence, but the person is so shocked or stubborn he or she cannot accept it. Unbeliever I must admit I have never see used. Nonbeliever seems to be the most commonly used and probably the most respectful and neutral term.

 

[osgart]

I always thought of unbelief as unwilling to believe.

Disbelief is that one can't possibly believe.

Non-belief would be simply the honest position of not believing something.

 

[LuisDantas]

Finally, my curiosity and annoyance has been relieved. All in all, why does it matter. We seem to use it in the same context anyhow.

Oxford

Disbeliever: a person who refuses to believe something or who lacks religious faith.

Nonbeliever: a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.

Unbeliever: someone who has no religious beliefs, or who does not follow a particular religion

Guess its semantics. I like disbeliever for some reason.

One thing to keep in mind about matters of belief: they are not supposed to mean much at all.

That said, as definitions go those are just awful. They go out of their way to commit the serious mistake of equating adherence with belief.


If I may, perhaps you could like to learn about apatheism and ignosticism. Unlike those definitions, the two are very useful and clearly defined concepts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One thing to keep in mind about matter of belief: they are not supposed to mean much at all.

That said, as definitions go those are just awful. They go out of their way to commit the serious mistake of equating adherence with belief.


If I may, perhaps you could like to learn about apatheism and ignosticism. Unlike those definitions, the two are very useful and clearly defined concepts.

Hm. I don't know if many would use those terms. I had to look it up. Unless one has interest in it, I guess the other three would do though I agree definitions aren't quite perfect.

Edit. Hahaha. I re-read ignoticism. All the time I'm wondering and writing why people don't know the definition of god which they either believer or don't believe in when I could just say I agree with ignoticism and eat a cookie instead. I'm not one for labels. The definition is applicable nonetheless. I don't know if many would use the two.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hm. I don't know if many would use those terms. I had to look it up.

They are very little known, but very useful.

Unless one has interest in it, I guess the other three would do though I agree definitions aren't quite perfect.

Sorry, but that is like saying that a car crash with total loss of the vehicle is not perfect.

Edit. Hahaha. I re-read ignoticism. All the time I'm wondering and writing why people don't know the definition of god which they either believer or don't believe in when I could just say I agree with ignoticism and eat a cookie instead. I'm not one for labels. The definition is applicable nonetheless. I don't know if many would use the two.

Spread the good news.

 

[Heyo]

Edit. Hahaha. I re-read ignoticism. All the time I'm wondering and writing why people don't know the definition of god which they either believer or don't believe in when I could just say I agree with ignoticism and eat a cookie instead. I'm not one for labels. The definition is applicable nonetheless. I don't know if many would use the two.

Ignosticism is a redundant definition as it is already covered by Agnosticism (the philosophical definition). But since agnosticism has become watered down in the colloquial definition, ignosticism may become the new word for Agnosticism.
I prefer the label Agnostic as it conveys the connection to Huxley. The neologism ignostic sounds like a new, freak concept that hasn't 160 years of history behind it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ignosticism is a redundant definition as it is already covered by Agnosticism (the philosophical definition). But since agnosticism has become watered down in the colloquial definition, ignosticism may become the new word for Agnosticism.
I prefer the label Agnostic as it conveys the connection to Huxley. The neologism ignostic sounds like a new, freak concept that hasn't 160 years of history behind it.

I looked up both, though. The two are different. An agnostic doesn't need to see the concept of god as meaningless etc. The concept of god actually has a lot of meaning to people; and, I'm sure even though agnostics can't claim there isn't a god that doesn't mean they think of it as meaningless (can't say all).

While ignosticism would probably be more akin to atheism in that one already believes god doesn't exist therefore questioning about it is meaningless.

Word salad.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, but that is like saying that a car crash with total loss of the vehicle is not perfect.

That's an interesting comparison. I would ask, but....

 

[Heyo]

I looked up both, though.

And you got the colloquial meaning. You'd have to read Huxley or other philosophers to get the original meaning - which is basically ignosticism.
But I agree that its "word salad" - as long as we agree what we are talking about, I don't care which words you use.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If I may, perhaps you could like to learn about apatheism

I'm reminded of a quote by George Carlin:

Seriously though, I do see some usefulness in the terms apatheism and ignosticism. The apatheist says the concept of "god" is irrelevant. The ignostic says the concept of "god" is meaningless. Applying the RF rule of "leave no stone unturned", the two terms seem to be related in this way: the concept of "god" is irrelevant because it is meaningless. Is, however, the concept of "god" meaningless because it irrelevant? My initial thought is: "No. To say that it is irrelevant seems to require some notion of what "it" is that is irrelevant." Tell me what it is, and I'll tell you whether I think it's irrelevant or not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Unwilling to believe more describes me - in the absence of evidence I see as being adequate. But otherwise I don't care how I am labelled.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is, however, the concept of "god" meaningless because it irrelevant?

No. It is meaningless because, when it is defined at all, it is defined by projections of personal expectations.

It is a negative worth concept; a word to be brandished about and create an appearance of mutual understanding without delivering the goods, because very often people use it without having achieved a common understanding of what it is supposed to mean - and fail to even notice that.

My initial thought is: "No. To say that it is irrelevant seems to require some notion of what "it" is that is irrelevant." Tell me what it is, and I'll tell you whether I think it's irrelevant or not.

I happen to disagree, as noted above. It is irrelevant because it is deeply dysfunctional, and it is dysfunctional because people fail to act on its severe ambiguity.

 

[Left Coast]

Finally, my curiosity and annoyance has been relieved. All in all, why does it matter. We seem to use it in the same context anyhow.

Oxford

Disbeliever: a person who refuses to believe something or who lacks religious faith.

Nonbeliever: a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.

Unbeliever: someone who has no religious beliefs, or who does not follow a particular religion

Guess its semantics. I like disbeliever for some reason.

In a different recent thread, for clarity we made a distinction between unbelief (to mean lack of belief in x) and disbelief (to mean belief that x is false). Some people seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the notion that atheists don't necessarily think God doesn't exist, they simply aren't convinced he does. But in general everyday language, I agree that the terms are interchangeable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Finally, my curiosity and annoyance has been relieved. All in all, why does it matter. We seem to use it in the same context anyhow.

Oxford

Disbeliever: a person who refuses to believe something or who lacks religious faith.

Nonbeliever: a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.

Unbeliever: someone who has no religious beliefs, or who does not follow a particular religion

Guess its semantics. I like disbeliever for some reason.

I'm sure there's quite a bit of variation, but here's what the terms mean to me:

- disbeliever: someone who actually rejects a belief as false (as opposed to merely not accepting it).

- unbeliever: someone who does not accept the specific belief system (especially a theistic belief system) being discussed.

- non-believer: someone who doesn't theistic belief systems in general.

... so a Pagan in a Christian community, say, could be considered an unbeliever, and might be a disbeliever depending on their attitudes toward Christianity, but they wouldn't be a non-believer. That's my take on it, anyhow.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In a different recent thread, for clarity we made a distinction between unbelief (to mean lack of belief in x) and disbelief (to mean belief that x is false).

Good for you for remembering that. I also participated in that thread. I made the argument that whenever you have two distinct concepts and two different words to assign them, it makes sense to assign one meaning per word rather than let the two meanings blend and the two words be synonyms. The alternative is the kind of ambiguity we are seeing in this thread.

So I propose once again, as you have defined them here, let unbelief be the absence of belief, and disbelief be that the assertion is considered not merely unproven, but disproven (note how un- and dis- are used in these words - exactly analogously to when they are applied as prefixes to belief).

By this reckoning, disbelief is a subset of unbelief. Using other popular nomenclature, we would say that gnostic (strong) atheism is a subset of atheism, which includes both gnostic and agnostic atheists.

Also, I have no third distinct concept to assign to nonbelief, so I avoid the word. Adding it to these lists offered by other posters has only muddied those discussions, as with the post above this one. I liked the first two definitions, but found that the third one added nothing useful.

Some people seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the notion that atheists don't necessarily think God doesn't exist, they simply aren't convinced he does.

Yes, it is a continual stumbling block for many people. Part of the blame, in my opinion, is due to definitions like this one from the Oxford English dictionary: "atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods," or as we might say it, disbelief or unbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

I dislike that definition because adds to the confusion. Disbelief is not a necessary condition for atheism. Unbelief, with or without disbelief is, however. So why mention disbelief in the definition, unless it is being used synonymously with unbelief? It's like defining theist by singling out one set of theists in the definition,as with Theist - any believer that Jesus is God, or belief in any other god or gods. Why single out the subset in a general definition?

in general everyday language, I agree that the terms are interchangeable.

Yes, unfortunately.