I believe that people of various beliefs, who feel threatened by those who do not believe them, try to spin the position of non-belief in the eyes of the non-believer themselves in an attempt to convince the non-believer that their position of non-belief is no different from their position of belief
I think that there is a group of people that simply are unaware of what critical thinking is and what it can do. I used to think that they simply had no respect for it, but now I believe that they are simply unaware that people can know things with a high degree of reliability and know that they know it. I call them the knowingly knowing, because they both know something and know that it is correct. I'm thinking now of people that can evaluate the morbidity and morbidity data regarding COVD and vaccines. The can look at the death rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and conclude with near certainty that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine, and that all eligible people should take it.
Then their is a second tier that isn't adept at critical thought, but recognize that it exists, and that people who can do it well can be experts in a field. They understand that somebody like Dr. Fauci can also come to such conclusions, and being an expert, should be believed. I call them the knowingly unknowing. They don't have the answers, but they know that they exist, that some others have them, and who they are.
Then comes the third tier, the unknowingly unknowing (see Dunning-Kruger). They are unaware that there is another way of thinking than their own, which is simply guessing what to believe and who to trust. They assume that everybody else is doing the same, unaware that there is another way to think. They're the unknowingly unknowing, and they think that all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the type you're describing, albeit in the arena of religion rather than vaccines. It might not be spinning if they are unaware that their arguments aren't as good as some others'.
I don't think it's that they lie, but that they can't comprehend basic logic.
Agree. That is usually the case, as alluded to above.
The challenge here on RF when we encounter somebody with thinking that is so bizarre that one wonders whether they believe it themselves (cognitive bias) or are gaslighting. You would think that it wouldn't be too difficult if you can read a few posts from that person. I've got a discussion going on another thread with somebody who fits this description. His opinions are stunning. It just doesn't seem possible that he or anybody else could hold them. I'm looking for clues to help me decide if possible. One clue is this poster's reluctance to discuss this when I and others bring it up. I would expect that if he really doesn't know what we're criticizing in his thinking, he would express that. Instead, he simply never responds to such comments. Is that meaningful? Does that indicate an understanding of which comments need to be evaded?
Criteria like this are used in court when trying to decide if somebody charged with a crime knew right from wrong. If they find evidence that he tried t cover up the crime, that indicates knowledge of guilt. Is this that, too? Is strategically selecting which questions to ignore (and I mean ignore in the strongest sense, that there is no evidence the comments were read in any reply) evidence of gaslighting over confirmation bias, the equivalent of knowledge of guilt and not?
What else is there left to think about when in an absurd discussion?
Would you prefer to be labeled as an atheist or as a nullifidianist?
It seems that nullifidian can mean either one with no religion or one with no faith. The etymology says 'without faith,' which to me is a larger category than lacking faith in a god. I lack religious type faith (insufficiently justified belief) everywhere people are believing by faith, such as regarding climate change, election hoaxes, vaccine danger, etc.. If I can use the word that way, then I am both, atheism being a subset of nullifidianism.
If you want to understand "faith" for instance you don't turn to a dictionary. You turn to experts who spend their lives on the subjects. That is true with any subject.
Experts in faith? No. There is no such thing. This isn't specialty knowledge. All I need do is to define the word (and not with a dictionary, but according to which definition is most useful). I have a strong opinion about believing by faith based both in reason and experience, and have no reason to defer to the opinions of others, especially theists.
"I believe God does not exist" is identical with saying, "I do not believe God exists". No difference.
No difference t you, which is running theme on these threads: theists who simply cannot make this distinction. It's really like dealing with somebody with red-green color blindness looking at a red sock and a green one, and declaring that there is no difference.
It is the assent of the mind of the atheist of a proposition or statement that there is no God, for which their is not complete evidence... it is their belief in general.
Nope. I for one make no such claim. Would you say that I'm not an atheist? If so, your definition of atheist simply isn't useful to me. Of course I'm an atheist, and it is independent of any comment I make about whether gods might or do not exist. I choose the former, not the latter.
Isn't atheism the ' belief ' that there is No God/god
No. Where did you get that from? Who told you that, and why did you believe it, especially in the face of dozens of atheists telling you otherwise? Do you trust whoever told you that more than the atheists themselves about what they believe? It seems so.
Why is this so difficult for so many? Agnostic atheism is an incredibly simple idea.
If a person were to say "I lack belief in deities" or "I believe deities do not exist" I would think both communicated the same...er...meaning, consistent with describing oneself as an atheist.
They're both consistent with atheism, but represents different subsets of atheism that are easily distinguishable. I say that I don't believe in gods, but have no experiment, observation, argument or algorithm that can rule gods out, so I don't (this is also true for all other unfalsifiable claims such as vampires and leprechauns).
"I lack a belief in deities" I believe that
@Laika has said that he is also an atheist, and claims that gods do not exist. He is of the "I believe deities do not exist." Can you see that Laika and I have distinct opinions about the existence of gods, yet are both atheists? We are not communicating the same meaning, even though there is overlap.
Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God or gods. Hence, by definition, atheism is not a belief. I'm curious to know who among us can't just simply comprehend the dictionary's definition of atheism?
You've apparently got it. Well done.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods.
And so do you. Congratulations to both of you.
