I think I am now an atheist

[Augustus]

With this statement;?

How do I square an earlier post talking about the past with something mentioned after it?

But what I said is not specifically Spinozan so it doesn't really matter. Assuming we are impacted by all information we perceive doesn't require us to perceive it as true, it might simply be that we are forced to make a judgement one way or the other.

Here, allow me to rectify that to the actual conversation:

A: The difference is grammatical rather than cognitive with regard to the proposition "gods exist"
DH: But, here is why it’s a cognitive difference
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (again your Spinozan hypothesis)
DH: But, once again, here is why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines.
A: Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (at least according to me)
DH: But, again detailed examples of why it’s a cognitive difference with bold font and underlines in a different context.
A: (once again not addressing the previous examples with anything other than….) Yes, I know, but for me that isn't relevant in the context I have just explained regarding how we view reality. (Spinozan?)
(While not answering any of the direct questions.)

*rinse/repeat*

Again, has nothing to do with Spinoza, and your examples don't actually address my point in context. I've also answered those direct questions ad nauseam, you seem to keep missing that though.

Last time:

With regard to "gods exist" we adopt a position. In cognitive science this is known as an explicit belief. As noted many times, disbelief, in this context, is a belief.

The explicit belief in regard to this position is that gods do not exist (we hold an explicit belief that rejects their existence, hence asserts their non-existence in our world).

That's it.

Grammatical and contextual shifts don't change this.

You know, the way it’s defined in a dictionary.
Definition of lack
1: the fact or state of being wanting or deficient:
lack of evidence
2: something that is lacking or is needed

While using dictionaries as an arbiter of linguistic truth is generally pretty weak form of argument for all kinds of reasons, neither of those actually relate to the way it's used in atheism

You aren't saying us atheists are "deficient" or a belief in god is "needed" surely?

You’ll notice all these mean disbelief in something and non of these in any way mean “unaware”.

These are all different usages. I don't doubt the phrase exists, it's just not commonly used in the context it is in atheism (I also didn't say lack means unaware, I said one would have to be unaware to lack a belief regarding god's existence).

Lack belief in themselves - you've noted its clearly a different usage

People who hunt for 'the truth' must be getting pretty exasperated at the public's lack of belief in aliens. UFO Hunters Believe They’ve Captured Military Planes Fighting Aliens = insufficiently widespread

Religion, education and industrialization were suggested as some of the causes for a lack of belief in fairies as well as for the reasons fairies were not as popular or numerous in numbers as in earlier centuries.https://www.amazon.com/Fairy-Faith-Celtic-Countries-Library-Mystic/dp/0806511605 = declining in amount, contrasted with earlier centuries

Despite lack of belief in witches, however, art depicting supernatural beings became very popular at the time. = the absence of something perhaps expected by the following example (supernatural art)

etc.

These are however consistent with the dictionary definition you presented.

Since it’s been shown (see multiple examples above) that it is in fact not a “contrived, unnatural linguistic formation”, and you’ve demonstrated several instances of not adhering to common use of language and it’s meanings; perhaps you could cite some examples of what you’re talking about here.
I have a feeling you may well be misconstruing their actual intended meanings.

As explained above, you have misconstrued their actual intended meanings, as people who get overly attached to dictionaries and thesauruses at the expense of intuitive natural expression often do.

I suppose you would be in a better position to know what impact their atheism has on any other aspect of their worldview?

You aren't quite addressing what I said. What I said was that because they view atheism as literally nothing then it can not have any impact.

IMO, and well supported by cognitive science, is that explicit and implicit beliefs held can always impact our judgement of the world though.

Do you seriously believe it possible that disbelief in gods can have absolutely no impact when judging any one of a wide variety of theistic claims?

Can you prove that gods do not exist?

Of course not. I've stated that from the very start.

We can't prove anything inductively. We can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow.

Only hold it as more or less likely to be true. We can be almost certain the sun will rise, but can not prove it.

Given we get to decide on what we view as gods (your view that we have to use all possibilities would make us all theists), we can judge their non-existence more probable than their existence as you do by "disbelieving" the claims for their existence (i.e. adopting an explicit belief in their non-existence)

Again, were are conversing in English, the only common tongue between us.
I’m sorry if you are not content with it’s structure or the definition of it’s words.

Again you are missing the point. It's not about the English language, but the connection between language and reality.

We’ve already covered this:

Factually, other people have been misled by the definition and it is thus potentially misleading in a way disbelief is not. Hence it is perfectly rational to prefer a more precise definition.

That you personally have not been misled is beside the point.

Can you honestly address this?….

You haven't noticed I've addressed it somewhere between 5 and 10 times. One last time:

The following example relates to implicit belief, something we are not conscious of, but that impacts our thoughts or behaviour. Implicit beliefs can often be inferred from behaviour, and many implicit beliefs can become explicit if forced to consider them. Our implicit belief (or explicit now we have discussed it) is that the following do not exist.

When I cross the road, I believe there is no invisible train from another dimension that could kill me, I only look out for cars, bikes, etc.

I cannot prove there is no invisible train from another dimension, but I believe there is not one.

You propose that the layer of theoretical philosophical doubt that exists in your "classroom" distinction reflects a cognitive difference. I believe it only does so if it has the potential to factor it into our decision making or view of the world.

For example, if I were uncertain about the existence of interdimensional trains, I might consider running across the road just to be safe.

But the "believe interdimensional trains do not exist" and "disbelieve they do exist" positions are functionally identical as either explicit or implicit beliefs.

This difference is purely linguistic and relies on us speaking a language that has the specific linguistic features that enable us to make such a distinction. If we spoke a language that did not have these features, we wouldn't even be able to conceptualise such a difference...

I believe there is a cognitive difference between positive and negative beliefs. I do not believe there is a difference between disbelieve and believe/not in the context I am discussing.