I'm an atheist, and I admit that I don't know.
Then, by definition, you're not an atheist.
An atheist is someone who believes that there is no deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
An agnostic is 1 a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Merriam-Webster is not a good source for a definition of Atheist at the level in which we are arguing any more then I'd use it to define words used by a astrophysicist to define the concepts they are describing.
You'd want to use something like a dictionary of theology or a dictionary or philosophy which would actually break Atheism down into its different components. In effect every Atheist on this thread is actually an agnostic atheist as are pretty much any other atheist your likely to meet or hear on TV hence atheist is pretty much the go to definition of Agnostic Atheist. In theory there are also Gnostic Atheists which is the version of Atheism the Merriam-Webster Dictionary seems to be, rather inaccurately, describing.
The real problem with the broad way your describing Agnosticism is that it lumps the very significant number of people that really are not sure and that there might actually be some greater meaning to life right along with people like Richard Dawkins and the vast majority of 'Atheists' who consider God to have about as much likelihood of existing as fairies at the bottom of the garden. All of these Atheists agree that they can't definitively prove that there aren't faeries at the bottom of the garden - faeries are hard to spot after all but consider the possibility so remote that its not really worth considering.
If you insist that Richard Dawkins and 99% of the self described Atheists out there instead use the term agnostic to describe themselves then how do you differentiate between them and the rest of the agnostics that really do fall into the not sure or have yet to definitively make up my mind camp?
Neil deGrasse Tyson,Professor Brian Cox, and Rock the Universe. Symphony of Science - Onward to the Edge! .
And just because Dr Alice Roberts mind explodingly hot Symphony of Science - "Children of Africa" (The Story of Us).
Featuring Jacob Bronowski, Alice Roberts, Carolyn Porco, Jane Goodall, Robert Sapolsky, Neil deGrasse Tyson and David Attenborough.
'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)
Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking
When people do their best to use fear, ignorance, manipulation or obfuscation to attack what and why I believe what I do - Glorious Dawn plays in my head and I smile and walk away.
Just because I can Tim Minchin - Storm
"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist
Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute b&#&**+#.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
A common assumption, especially in the West, is that if one is Atheist, that means one rejects the idea of the supernatural. This is false. Some religions are in fact atheist in basis. Atheist just means the disbelief in deities, not that there is no supernatural forces at play.
There is a big difference between someone who believes there is no deity and someone who does not believe that there is a deity. The space between those two is the agnostic.Some atheists would prefer to say that they're someone who does not believe there is a deity.Someone who does not believe there is a deity may be ether an agnostic or an atheist.Agnostics don't say that there is no god. They say that they have no ability to know. Not the same as Atheism, which says their is no god.
I brought visual aids.
**Vanna White pose**
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Seriously? You're messing with me, right?
A common assumption, especially in the West, is that if one is Atheist, that means one rejects the idea of the supernatural. This is false. Some religions are in fact atheist in basis. Atheist just means the disbelief in deities, not that there is no supernatural forces at play.
Most of the posters here have their upbringing based upon a cultural aspects originating from western Europe so the common definition is relevant.
Geographicaly I am a long way to the south and east of Europe and I am south of Asia.
Hell is still other posters.
---
All kidding aside, where have you been Citizen Duck? We had a pool in one of the other threads, and my money was on a new romance. Actually, come to think of it, I haven't seen BNW in a couple of days...
I think, but I might be wrong, that there has only been ONE thread about religion the entire time you were gone! WTF?!?
And have you argued with A Man in Black yet? 'Cos that's gonna be awesome.
Where Citizen Duck has been? I do!
Who the f@ck cares?
Faith No More does... They care a lot! but mostly about Tranforners and killer bees.
Who the f@ck cares?Faith No More does... They care a lot! but mostly about Tranforners and killer bees.
FNM Rocks!
Who the f@ck cares?Faith No More does... They care a lot! but mostly about Tranforners and killer bees.
Huh. In the not very long time I spent looking, not one vid with the original singer. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citizen Duck, I have explained this ad nauseum. Of people of all stripes, generally only the theists are so uncomfortable with ambiguity that they profess absolute certainty of ANYTHING. By your definition, 99.999999% of atheists are "agnostic" because they don't share your idea of faith-based certainty in The Truth(TM).
In other words, you've pegged the definitions so that to qualify as an atheist in YOUR mind, a person pretty much has to be a theist.
It's an atheist/agnostic semantics thread. That's what it's for.Seriously? You're messing with me, right?There is a big difference between someone who believes there is no deity and someone who does not believe that there is a deity. The space between those two is the agnostic.Some atheists would prefer to say that they're someone who does not believe there is a deity.Someone who does not believe there is a deity may be ether an agnostic or an atheist.Agnostics don't say that there is no god. They say that they have no ability to know. Not the same as Atheism, which says their is no god.
I brought visual aids.
**Vanna White pose**
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The bolded part is what I was specifically referring to. The only difference between the two phrases is first vs third person.
Citizen Duck, I have explained this ad nauseum. Of people of all stripes, generally only the theists are so uncomfortable with ambiguity that they profess absolute certainty of ANYTHING. By your definition, 99.999999% of atheists are "agnostic" because they don't share your idea of faith-based certainty in The Truth(TM).
In other words, you've pegged the definitions so that to qualify as an atheist in YOUR mind, a person pretty much has to be a theist.
Actual definitions and use of the english language need not apply.
The bolded part is what I was specifically referring to. The only difference between the two phrases is first vs third person.
*sigh*
No.*flips coin*
Ok. Under the palm of my hand is a coin. Neither of us know the result. I do not believe it is heads. That does not mean, suggest, or infer that I believe it to be tails. Neither of us can know what the result of that coin flip was, so it doesn't make sense to say you BELIEVE either way.
Lack of belief in something does not mean belief in the opposite, it can instead mean simply that you don't know.
I don't believe in god...because I can't know if he exists. (as well as a host of other reasons, but w/e). That doesn't mean that I believe that god doesn't exist.
Huh. In the not very long time I spent looking, not one vid with the original singer. :(Who the f@ck cares?Faith No More does... They care a lot! but mostly about Tranforners and killer bees.
Chuck Moseley hasn't been in the band since like 1988. He's in the We Care A Lot music video though. Actually, he showed up stage with them last year I think after FNM reunited. They've largely been playing non NA dates, because they're huge other places but not here (Asia and South America especially).
|
Some atheists would prefer to say that they're someone who does not believe there is a deity.Someone who does not believe there is a deity may be ether an agnostic or an atheist.Agnostics don't say that there is no god. They say that they have no ability to know. Not the same as Atheism, which says their is no god.
I brought visual aids.
**Vanna White pose**
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I believe there is no god because I haven't seen any evidence that would convince me otherwise. I would never claim that the existence of a god is impossible however because I cannot be certain in my knowledge. Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist. An atheist who claims that there is no god is a gnostic atheist. My position is default neutral IMHO.
"What are the top five pieces of evidence, given your experience, that God does not exist?"
There is no evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist.
And I readily admit that there's no evidence that he/she/it does exist.
Belief in God is an act of faith - the same way that believing that people are basically good (or basically evil) is an act of faith. We choose to have such a belief because of how such a belief affects us.
I think there's pretty good evidence that God doesn't it exist, it's harder to prove that no god exists.
1. A majority of the points that go to show God doesn't exist would be the anthropological development of the Jewish religion. Concepts and beliefs within Judaism aren't unique to the religion and in the few cases that they were (during antiquity) they were a product of interaction with other nearby religions.
God cannot have created man in his own image, if that image wasn't fully defined until several centuries after worship of him began.
2. Jesus of Nazareth may have been a real person, but the man depicted in the Bible is false. If he was real, he probably lived and died as much as a century before he is claimed to have lived and died. In a time of turmoil and struggle, his loss created a great sadness amongst his followers and they began to associate certain cultural myths with his life. Particularly if you examine the crucifixion story, the gospels that are believed to have been written later incorporate more and more elements from the psalms. It's like a timeline of how a myth develops amongst a people.
I really only need the 2, but here's a third anyways.
3. Most religions are mutually exclusive. Two separate beings cannot have created the exact same world using different methods. Since there is a distinct lack of evidence for any one religion, Occam's razor tells us the most likely explanation is that they are all false. If a random religion is correct, there's a 99% chance than any specific religion is false. Being neither the oldest, nor having the most worshipers, Christianity is not in the running for being the most correct by either standard.
The bolded part is what I was specifically referring to. The only difference between the two phrases is first vs third person.*sigh*
No.*flips coin*
Ok. Under the palm of my hand is a coin. Neither of us know the result. I do not believe it is heads. That does not mean, suggest, or infer that I believe it to be tails. Neither of us can know what the result of that coin flip was, so it doesn't make sense to say you BELIEVE either way.Lack of belief in something does not mean belief in the opposite, it can instead mean simply that you don't know.
I don't believe in god...because I can't know if he exists. (as well as a host of other reasons, but w/e). That doesn't mean that I believe that god doesn't exist.
Allow me to simply further as your coin analogy is completely irrelevant to the statement made.
someone who believes there is no deity
There is no deity. <-a statement of belief
and someone who does not believe that there is a deity
Belief that their is no deity. <- a statement of belief
These are the same things said in an every so slightly different way.
FNM Rocks!
Well, they did until Jim Martin left the band. Then they were mostly "meh."
Then, by definition, you're not an atheist.An atheist is someone who believes that there is no deity.
Instead of counting on the dictionary to be the final arbiter of my religious belief, nay, reality as a whole, let's look up this clearly very weighted term somewhere that has a more nuanced definition. If only such a thing could be found for free on the internet!
Oh! Here I found it for you. If you read the article, even cursorily (which I'm sure you're wont to do) you'll see there are indeed MANY categories of Atheism. There's implicit vs. explicit, positive vs. negative. Wow, who thought there could be so much to learn about this topic?
In fact, well this CAN'T be right (since it conflicts with your rhetorical definition and pejorative narrative) but shucks darn it looks like I AM some sort of atheist.
someone who believes there is no deityThere is no deity. <-a statement of belief
and someone who does not believe that there is a deity
Belief that their is no deity. <- a statement of belief
These are the same things said in an every so slightly different way.
No. They're NOT. Let's try this gain, this time with blinders off please.
Read your OWN BOLDED PORTIONS.Statement b is a "does NOT believe" statement. Just like I don't believe that the coin is heads.
"I don't believe there is a god" could mean that I'm unsure, it is not a statement of belief NECESSARILY it can be taken as a statement of ignorance. "I believe there is no god" means that I hold a belief in something, it is a statement of belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
someone who believes there is no deityThere is no deity. <-a statement of belief
and someone who does not believe that there is a deity
Belief that their is no deity. <- a statement of belief
These are the same things said in an every so slightly different way.
No. They're NOT. Let's try this gain, this time with blinders off please.
Read your OWN BOLDED PORTIONS.
Statement b is a "does NOT believe" statement. Just like I don't believe that the coin is heads.
"I don't believe there is a god" could mean that I'm unsure, it is not a statement of belief NECESSARILY it can be taken as a statement of ignorance. "I believe there is no god" means that I hold a belief in something, it is a statement of belief.
You're clearly worked up and confused. I get it. You're using one as a "maybe" statement and I'm not. However, I'm done now. I'd hate to be responsible for the loss of capital letters. There's such a shortage i'd hate to incite people to use them in excess. Save the caps, people. Save the caps.
This thread started as an interesting discussion on the man who is probably the number one public figure in science today.
Now it's just boringly pedantic and it has exceeded my Timmy Turner's Dad level attention span.
So this is where I exit stage right ---->
Ciao!
Ditto.
You're clearly worked up and confused. I get it. You're using one as a "maybe" statement and I'm not.
I'm reading it that way because that's what it is.
See my example about the coin. Not believing something doesn't mean believing its opposite.It's like categorical claims. An "is not" claim (exclusive) doesn't imply inclusion in another category. Ever. It's basic logic.
FNM Rocks!Well, they did until Jim Martin left the band. Then they were mostly "meh."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no evidence that he/she/it doesn't exist.
The laws of conservation of energy are a good place to start
This is again, running into your religion. And i don't mean christianity, I mean post modernism.
In your head the world IS as we describe it. Science isn't just describing an externally existing reality, its descriptions creates the reality. Since any scientific observation is imperfect, you think that the observation must be created by the scientist, and thus the scientists description of the movements of mars are no more real or valid than that of the Polynesian seafarers.
In this world, no one KNOWS anything. Everything is somewhat subjective, and that makes it the same thing as if being entirely subjective. With reality this up in the air, the only thing you attach any perfection to is language. With that level of importance placed on the description and so little placed on an ephemeral reality that only exists in our own minds, labels don't just describe something they create the more real version of it.
The problem is that you think that everyone, or at least everyone with a brain, thinks like this. You ascribe your internal worldview to the statements of others when virtually NO ONE ELSE thinks that way. It winds up with you practically speaking another language because no one else is using the same philosophical underpinnings as you are. To you, knowing something is a contradiction. Therefore no one knows anything, so anyone that says "I know there is no god" isn't wrong, its idiocy.
Hard atheism, my position, is that God does not exist. I believe that the idea of god contains enough internal consistency errors and fails to match reality as we know it on so many points that the idea is false. This is the exact same process we use every day to conclude that bigfoot, Nessie, and the cold fusion from water hoax are all incorrect. Some ideas fail so badly that we don't just say "your hypothesis failed to manifest sufficient experimental results and thus has not been proven" we call "bullhockey".
While there are true, genuine agnostics out there, I've seen enough of Neils speeches and talked to enough 'agnostics' to tell when someone is ducking a label, not an idea. Its the label he's avoiding, not the heart of the matter. The label might matter more to you, but the reality matters a lot more to me.
|
|
Then, by definition, you're not an atheist.An atheist is someone who believes that there is no deity.
Instead of counting on the dictionary to be the final arbiter of my religious belief, nay, reality as a whole, let's look up this clearly very weighted term somewhere that has a more nuanced definition. If only such a thing could be found for free on the internet!
Oh! Here I found it for you. If you read the article, even cursorily (which I'm sure you're wont to do) you'll see there are indeed MANY categories of Atheism. There's implicit vs. explicit, positive vs. negative. Wow, who thought there could be so much to learn about this topic?
In fact, well this CAN'T be right (since it conflicts with your rhetorical definition and pejorative narrative) but shucks darn it looks like I AM some sort of atheist.
Also,
Like meatrace has already explained, even a cursory reading would lead one to discover the compatibility between agnosticism and atheism and theism without depending on a dictionary definition.
Does it matter if he's agnostic or atheist? His keen intellect and defense of NASA alone is worthy of following what he says. The things he says about our education system and how we're failing our children and ourselves is added bonus. I don't care (other than for his immortal soul, of course) whether he believes in God or not, truth is just truth, no matter the source.
*waits with baited breath*
What about this awesomeness?FNM Rocks!Well, they did until Jim Martin left the band. Then they were mostly "meh."
I did say "mostly." I miss Martin's guitar riffs though. It's just not the same band without him, and that's a bad thing.
|
Atheist. Why on earth bother tap-dancing with the idea that you find the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being to be completely false? You don't say that I lack belief in the easter bunny, or "i would need to be omniscient to prove a negative" . you say "sorry kid, your parents put the candy there, go thank your parents"
Because, as he said multiple times during his video, many people don't intrepret the word "Atheist" in the way it's meant to be understood. Think of the word for a moment - it basically declares someone as the opposit of a theist. That makes you think of activly opposing the idea of theism, rather than just not agreeing with it.
The point is, Tyson is saying that while there is no reason for him to believe in a god or gods, he is not *against* the idea of their possible existence - it's just that for the time being, he sees no reason whatsoever to think that they do. I don't think Bigfoot exists, but I'm not going to define myself with the word "a-bigfoot-believer". Tyson symply dosen't care about the subject, and think that dealing with it is redundent and pointless.
I did say "mostly." I miss Martin's guitar riffs though. It's just not the same band without him, and that's a bad thing.What about this awesomeness?FNM Rocks!Well, they did until Jim Martin left the band. Then they were mostly "meh."
Meh. Don't get me wrong, I love Jim Martin and his contribution to the band, I just think they did plenty of great stuff post-Angel Dust. That being said, Angel Dust is one of the greatest albums of all time.
Neil deGrasse Tyson,Professor Brian Cox, and Rock the Universe. Symphony of Science - Onward to the Edge! .
And just because Dr Alice Roberts mind explodingly hot Symphony of Science - "Children of Africa" (The Story of Us).
Featuring Jacob Bronowski, Alice Roberts, Carolyn Porco, Jane Goodall, Robert Sapolsky, Neil deGrasse Tyson and David Attenborough.
'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)
Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking
When people do their best to use fear, ignorance, manipulation or obfuscation to attack what and why I believe what I do - Glorious Dawn plays in my head and I smile and walk away.
Just because I can Tim Minchin - Storm
"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalistHm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute b!+++&*@.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
Regards to Storm: Squee!!!! I love storm, have for ages.
I think that all any of use should do, from this point on when DD post this stuff is reply with a like to Storm, and an explanation of the celestial teapot, and leave it at that.
Citizen Duck, I have explained this ad nauseum. Of people of all stripes, generally only the theists are so uncomfortable with ambiguity that they profess absolute certainty of ANYTHING. By your definition, 99.999999% of atheists are "agnostic" because they don't share your idea of faith-based certainty in The Truth(TM).
In other words, you've pegged the definitions so that to qualify as an atheist in YOUR mind, a person pretty much has to be a theist.
I would be very surprised if every atheist in this thread has not at some point explained to DD that yes, they are Agnostics and yes they are also atheists.
I know I have, and I am sure I have seen you do the same.
Because, as he said multiple times during his video, many people don't intrepret the word "Atheist" in the way it's meant to be understood.
So because people are stupid you let them keep misapplying the term? Is that how an educator is supposed to deal with ignorance?
Think of the word for a moment - it basically declares someone as the opposit of a theist. That makes you think of actively opposing the idea of theism, rather than just not agreeing with it.
That would be antitheist. A theist. Not a theist. He is not a theist (monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, monosodium glutamate)
The point is, Tyson is saying that while there is no reason for him to believe in a god or gods, he is not *against* the idea of their possible existence
Against how? Politically?
- it's just that for the time being, he sees no reason whatsoever to think that they do.
That is enough reason to be against it: You do not randomly ascribe to ideas just because there's no evidence either way.
I don't think Bigfoot exists, but I'm not going to define myself with the word "a-bigfoot-believer". Tyson symply dosen't care about the subject, and think that dealing with it is redundent and pointless.
But he has railed (quite humorously) against creationists.
*flips coin*
Ok. Under the palm of my hand is a coin. Neither of us know the result. I do not believe it is heads. That does not mean, suggest, or infer that I believe it to be tails. Neither of us can know what the result of that coin flip was, so it doesn't make sense to say you BELIEVE either way.Lack of belief in something does not mean belief in the opposite, it can instead mean simply that you don't know.
I don't really think your statement here is clearly showing what you mean.
If you say, "I don't believe it is heads". I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret that statement to mean, "I do not believe it is possible for it to be heads." instead of interpreting it to mean, "I do not think it is possible for me to know for certain that it is heads." Which is how I think you are meaning it.
I think part of the problem there is with only 2 outcomes. Now say you had a die under your hand, and you said, "I don't believe it is a 1." That wouldn't imply that you believed it was a 6, merely that the outcome in your belief was not 1.
EDIT: I guess how I see it is if you believe that it is possible for the result to be heads, then saying that you believe it is not heads would seem to contradict that.
Meh. Don't get me wrong, I love Jim Martin and his contribution to the band, I just think they did plenty of great stuff post-Angel Dust. That being said, Angel Dust is one of the greatest albums of all time.I did say "mostly." I miss Martin's guitar riffs though. It's just not the same band without him, and that's a bad thing.What about this awesomeness?FNM Rocks!Well, they did until Jim Martin left the band. Then they were mostly "meh."
Somebody told me that the original lead singer got hit by a bus.... Maybe they were just spinning a yarn.
FNM were huge in Australia in the very early 90's
Neil deGrasse Tyson,Professor Brian Cox, and Rock the Universe. Symphony of Science - Onward to the Edge! .
And just because Dr Alice Roberts mind explodingly hot Symphony of Science - "Children of Africa" (The Story of Us).
Featuring Jacob Bronowski, Alice Roberts, Carolyn Porco, Jane Goodall, Robert Sapolsky, Neil deGrasse Tyson and David Attenborough.
'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)
Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking
When people do their best to use fear, ignorance, manipulation or obfuscation to attack what and why I believe what I do - Glorious Dawn plays in my head and I smile and walk away.
Just because I can Tim Minchin - Storm
"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalistHm that's a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute b!+++&*@.
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
Regards to Storm: Squee!!!! I love storm, have for ages.
I think that all any of use should do, from this point on when DD post this stuff is reply with a like to Storm, and an explanation of the celestial teapot, and leave it at that.
If you like Tim there are a few Podcasts with him being interviewed. The Nerdist, BBCs Chain Reaction.
If you are interested in Science and Skeptisim, I recommend The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Skeptoid, Infinite Monkey Cage with professor Brian Cox, Monster Talk, Astronomy Cast and Starstuff.
I already listen to the skeptics guide(mostly for Rebecca Watson), and I listen to infinite monkey cage on auntie. I like Tim's other stuff, but my love for Storm eclipses his other work, because it so perfectly encapsulates how I feel pretty much every time a thread starts on these forums.
1. Atheist (I know there is no god)
2. Agnostic Atheist (I am without belief in god)
3. Agnostic Theist (I am with belief in god but I will not define it)
4. Theist (I know there is a god)
Let's flip this around:
1. I believe there is no god -- atheist
2. I can't know if there is a god -- agnostic
3. I believe in a god I can't define -- agnostic
4. I believe in god -- theist
I don't see the point in trying to qualify clearly defined and understood terms. Isn't that what the point of your "vegan" story was? She was a vegan who didn't want to be called a vegan? Well, it seems there are a few agnostics in the thread who would rather be called atheists. (No offense meant to anyone.)
*flips coin*Ok. Under the palm of my hand is a coin. Neither of us know the result. I do not believe it is heads. That does not mean, suggest, or infer that I believe it to be tails.
That is exactly what it means.
At first, if you remain in the state where you know the coin is unknowable, you can only acknowledge that you do not know. Agnostic.
As soon as you assert any kind of belief regarding the state of the coin, you have chosen one side or the other, regardless of whether you attempt to distinguish between positive and negative qualifiers. "I don't believe the coin is heads" is therefore identical in all but semantics to "I believe the coin is tails." Theist/atheist.
When you say you "don't believe it's heads," that isn't really what you mean at all. You mean "I don't believe it's heads OR tails, because I can't possibly know." By leaving out the latter part, you are deceiving yourself and being disengenuous to your argument. (Again, no offense meant to anyone.)