YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not to change the subject but he used to come to the summer camp he would visit in the Catskills and entertain. I loved him and he motivated me to learn many folk songs and guitar. Btw...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think I am now an atheist
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Tinker Grey
Wanderer
I don't know if you got to watch the video, but that appears to be what he is doing here.
One of the nicest videos I've seen. I envy you the memory.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, it was fun. He was so good. Yes, I saw the video and yes, it looked like a camp gathering. He lived near the camp at the time and so it was easy for him to get there. (Not that I can go along at this stage of the game with the sentiments in the song because I don't think he believes these things will come true, I haven't spoken to him about it, but it seems he is at least saying he'd like to go on living, so it seems to me. And the world he was looking forward to is something that was a dream then, it is becoming more a reality to me now that I've studied the Bible and believe it. Fascinating. He had good thoughts though.)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
P.S. Most of my good, happy memories are about music.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
If you are a rational person they do.
You are the person which must be persuaded to adopt a proposition as true in order to believe the proposition.
Whether you do the persuading yourself by gathering information independently or somebody else persuades you by presenting evidence is inconsequential to whether you find the information/evidence compelling enough to warrant belief.
Yet, you have justified that belief to yourself.
How did you do that?
When you say:
You are justifying your stated belief, that gods don’t exist, by your lack of finding reason to believe that they do exist.
Therefore you are the person that lacked the reason to believe and as result came to the conclusion that no gods exist.
Can you prove that to anybody including yourself without that lack of reason to believe?
When you make the statement;
“I believe gods don't exist because there is no reason to believe they do exist.”
You have made a positive proposition that you believe that gods don’t exist.
Your stated reason for that belief is that there is “no reason to believe it.”
“No reason to believe it” is a negative.
In order to substantiate your belief you are therefore forced to corroborate (prove) that negative…. That there is no reason.
Thus you are attempting to prove a negative, which cannot be done.
What is in fact is “most reasonable” is to withhold belief until such time as sufficient objective evidence compels a rational belief.
In other words…..a lack of belief until it can be proven.
Neural activity is necessary to reject a belief just as it is to accept a belief. In order to comprehend the proposition at all requires neural activity, whether accepted or rejected.
The fact that neural activity is involved has no bearing on whether that neural activity results in belief or lack of belief.
Unawareness, is just that; being unaware.
(In this case of the proposition.)
If you are unaware of the proposition, you hold no position, neither for or against.
By this logic you have to accept any proposition you are able to comprehend; this of course is fallacious reasoning.
You are always free to reject any proposition that fails to meet a reasonable burden of proof.
What would “force” you to accept it other than sufficient evidence?
What prevents you from rejecting the proposition?
This is probably because most atheists understand the difference between making a positive claim and rejecting a claim until such time as sufficient evidence is presented in order to justify the belief.
If a specific god is proposed in lieu of any god or gods in general, it may (depending on the god proposed) become a viable position to posit a positive belief that the particular god proposed does not exist due to the possibility of being able to positively prove that the particular god in question does not in fact exist.
Since theism is a belief in a god or gods (unspecific) it makes the claim at present level of understanding unfalsifiable. In other words, without a specific god/gods being proposed they cannot be proven to not exist. (The old proving a negative problem again.)
What you are proposing is often labeled
“strong atheism” or “positive atheism”.
This is usually reserved when discussing a specific god not the concept of a god/gods in general as in the term theist.Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
What I have described is in fact a lack of belief.
I’m not aware of how to make it any clearer.
If someone fails to understand that, I surmise it would be due to their lack of comprehension as opposed to it being “misleading”.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Does that work the same way for non believers also?
Is there anything that non believers see and count as evidence for there not being god/s?
And do you think that scrutiny and reasoning is something that doesn't happen automatically, especially on a forum like this? Where there is faith, there is doubt.
Atheists however seem to believe that they are the only ones who can think rationally.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Some atheists believe that god/s do not exist. That is not irrelevant and absurd. It is irrelevant and absurd to claim that these atheists don't know what they are talking about and that atheism is only a lack of belief in god/s.
So what?
Oh I get it, that means that because in debate and logic a given idea is by default untrue until proven otherwise, then people shouldn't believe these ideas until proven true.
But what you said was in response to me saying:
>>>Yes we all know that you can't prove anything and that theists also cannot. But that of course shows that it is not a matter of proofs anyway, it is going past proofs to faith.<<<
So all you are saying is that you want proof before you will believe in god/s and that saying that there are no god/s is not a belief that requires proof. iow atheism is not something arrived at through adult reasoning.
It seems you don't like stepping past reasoning into a faith when reasoning does not give a clear answer either way even though your default position of atheism is a position that cannot be proven through reasoning and so is a belief, like the belief in god/s.
That sounds irrelevant. I suppose you are trying to say that they only reason people believe in god/s is because of social pressure, but what you said does not show that.
See above. It is you who dislikes the concept of belief apart from proof even though atheism is something that cannot be proven.
The gospel is so simple that children can understand it, and a simple understanding of the overall Bible story explains perfectly the way things are and how we ended up here.
As I said, it is not a matter of proof and as I said neither of us can prove our positions anyway. The answer for each person goes beyond proof and is a religious type or belief, which does not deny reason but answers the question for the particular individual involved.
You brought it up, you don't have any examples?
What gods, Hindu gods? Ancient Egyptian gods? Name any gods known to exist.
No, reasoning is a learned skill. Some confuse thinking with reasoning. Thinking comes with language acquisition, and all it does is allow abstract thought. Now some folks do have a talent and are able to learn reasoning over time. There are rules to reasoning, and an ability to recognize bias in the self's thoughts.
That's bad luck.
Atheists can show their work. Theists, if they attempt to argue for their beliefs, only show faults. We see this daily.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I still believe reality is a computer simulation though
A computer simulation would seemingly require hardware, software, and a programmer? You know, a Trinity.
Father=programmer. Holy Spirit=software. Son=hardware the other two run on/in.Apropos to nothing, I was reading Michael Talbot's, The Holographic Universe, just prior to reading this thread.
John
It's an absurdity because it is never an issue that would need to be believed. You don't have to believe in ideas known to be fact.
It's not something you need to believe, potter is fictional. Why would you need to believe a fact? We don't. We acknowledge facts.
I suspect you have a poor working definition of belief. Belief is a judgment we humans make about ideas that we are uncertain about. We don't believe rocks exist because we know they exist as a fact. Some believe in gods, but are not sure they exist. All belief is uncertain. You might believe OJ is innocent. You are likely wrong. It is a fact that Harry Potter is fictional, so we don't need to judge wether he really exists, or is just a fictional character. We do this with Jesus, but not Potter.
Those who take judgment seriously and objectively require evidence to judge any idea as true or likely true. As it is there is no evidence that suggests any gods exist.
No one has to believe they don't exist. Why is this awkward? Because the concept being judged is "gods don't exist" and a person would have to judge this as believable or not. But there is no evidence for gods, nor evidence for gods not existing, so how does a ming judge "gods don't exist"? There is no evidence.
To avoid this a rational mind just rejects the claims by theists that their gods exist, and this is a reliable thing to do because in the many thousands of years of human civilization no gods have been shown to exist outside of human imagination. Jim claims his God exists, but can show any evidence, so we reject his claim. Sorry Jim, not convinced.
If things aren't known to exist there is no evidence of their non-existence. All we have is a concept and no evidence. Just recently the Tasmanian Tiger was discovered existing, is was believed extinct. We know they existed and then there were no traces of any existing for years, so the belief was they were gone. But then one was discovered, so they still exist. My point is that how was anyone able to look everywhere for evidence of the Tasmanian Tiger's non-existence? You'd have to examine the whole Planet all at once and verify there was none. That cannot be done. So the easier and more efficient approach is to show the existence of things.
That is one category of belief. Some beliefs are pure nonsense. If you hear a noise, you're afraid, you think it is a poltergeist. No, it's just the house settling, but you don't know the fact.
Word games.
Not accurate.
The -ism is attached to the-ism. The a- means no or not. It's not-theism or no-theism. So the a- informs us that theism is negated.
Note that theism came first, and atheism was a response to theism. Not being a theist isn't some form of theist.
So the concept "gods don't exist" is something you judged one way and not the other. Why judge this idea at all since you can't determine whether any gods exist or not?
Because the crude way gods have been created in our history renders them implausible. They were created to be significant BECAUSE they can do extraordinary things. If you look at the two parts of the Bible you can see the two are not consistent descriptions of God. None of the Genesis myths are plausible because they contradict facts. Most any god concept you can pick will not be consistent with what we known of reality, so how are they plausible?
You are working too hard. You don't have to believe in anything. If theists claim their God exists, let them do the work and prove it. When they can't, then point out this is why you don't believe.
Augustus
…
Yes, you do have to accept it, although you can subsequently reject it.
If you think this is obviously fallacious reasoning, here are some studies for you that show that is exactly what is happening:
According to Spinoza, the act of understanding is the act of believing. As such, people are incapable of withholding their acceptance of that which they understand. They may indeed change their minds after accepting the assertions they comprehend, but they cannot stop their minds from being changed by contact with those assertions. [He believed] that (a) the acceptance of an idea is part of the automatic comprehension of that idea and (b) the rejection of an idea occurs subsequent to, and more effortfully than, its acceptance...
Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes (1644/1984) suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza (1677/1982) suggested that people should but cannot. Three experiments support the hypothesis that comprehension includes an initial belief in the information comprehended. Ss were exposed to false information about a criminal defendant (Experiments 1 and 2) or a college student (Experiment 3). Some Ss were exposed to this information while under load (Experiments 1 and 2) or time pressure (Experiment 3). Ss made judgments about the target (sentencing decisions or liking judgments). Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions about the target. In Spinozan terms, both manipulations prevented Ss from "unbelieving" the false information they automatically believed during comprehension.
You can't not believe everything you read - PubMed
http://www.appstate.edu/~bromanfulksj/Gilbert - How Mental Systems Believe.pdf
The way your brain works.
You can pretty much instantaneously reject it of course, but that is a secondary action that occurs after comprehension of something as true.
What we cannot do is remain unaffected by it until we choose to accept or reject it.
For me, unawareness is a lack of belief.
As shown above, awareness of something necessitate a belief of some kind.
This is why I personally prefer not to use the term 'lack of belief' in regard to something we are aware of as I don't think it is accurate.
It's really due to a different view of cognition.
For me, it is more accurate to say atheism manifests itself as belief held, as this maps on better to reality.
Describing it as a lack of belief is rhetorically and ideologically convenient for some, so they prefer that usage.
That is fine, we choose language to suit our purposes and can communicate perfectly easily. Our preferences don't make other preferences "wrong".
Each to their own.
[/QUOTE]If a specific god is proposed in lieu of any god or gods in general, it may (depending on the god proposed) become a viable position to posit a positive belief that the particular god proposed does not exist due to the possibility of being able to positively prove that the particular god in question does not in fact exist.
Since theism is a belief in a god or gods (unspecific) it makes the claim at present level of understanding unfalsifiable. In other words, without a specific god/gods being proposed they cannot be proven to not exist. (The old proving a negative problem again.)[/QUOTE]
Belief doesn't require proof. We believe many things on what we judge most probable given the evidence or lack thereof
As it relates to our personal view of gods, you are the one doing the proposing.
Anyway, the difference between believing gods don't exist and adopting the position you do not belie gods do exist is grammatical rather than cognitive.
It's easy to understand, I just disagree.
What you are describing is a stance taken, not the absence of a stance, hence I see it as more accurate to label that as a belief rather than a lack of belief.
Ultimately whether you prefer my way of thinking or yours is dependent on a series of subjective preferences in how we view thought and use language.
Augustus
…
I'm using the term in a perfectly standard manner. Insisting we can only believe that which we are uncertain about is not standard.
A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the universe is true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2] To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". However, holding a belief does not require active introspection. For example, few carefully consider whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow, simply assuming that it will. Moreover, beliefs need not be occurrent (e.g. a person actively thinking "snow is white"), but can instead be dispositional (e.g. a person who if asked about the color of snow would assert "snow is white").[2]
Given the above explanation, do you agree facts are indeed the most rational things to believe?
You are just plain wrong here. That it is athe(ism) is a fact. The term actually predates theism and so your proposed etymology is impossible.
OED if you don't take my word for it.
I agree they are implausible, hence, on balance of probabilities, I believe they do not exist.
I was wondering why you believe they are implausible yet find it absurd to believe, on balance of probabilities, that they don't exist.
Maybe dodos still exist, I can't prove they don't.
It's still rational for me to believe, on balance of probabilities, that they don't exist though.
Somewhat ironic seeing as this entire discussion is a word game
No, we don't need to believe in facts. Belief is a judgment our minds make.
Jim tells you there is a knife on the table. You look and see there is a knife on the table. This is an observed fact, you know there's a knife on the table, you don't look at the knife and believe it's there. It is there to see.
Or, you ask Jim if there is a knife on the table in the other room, he says yes there is. You can't see the table so you believe him. You go into the other room and there is no knife on the table. You were uncertain, trusted Jim, he lied, you believed him, and now you know your belief in what he said wasn't true. Now you know there is no knife on the table, and your belief is discarded.
None of this disputes what I said. Theism is a broad range of religious belief in god or gods. To not follow this behavior is atheism, to NOT believe in a god or gods.
You totally avoided this:
Whats the meaning of the prefix A?
“without”
a- A prefix meaning “without” or “not” when forming an adjective (such as amorphous, without form, or atypical, not typical), and “absence of” when forming a noun (such as arrhythmia, absence of rhythm).
“without”
a- A prefix meaning “without” or “not” when forming an adjective (such as amorphous, without form, or atypical, not typical), and “absence of” when forming a noun (such as arrhythmia, absence of rhythm).
So you have assessed the entire list of gods and determined none exist? How did you determine that?
Because Implausible doesn't mean impossible.
You are likely correct in saying the supernatural claims of theists don't exist, but you are asserting a fact that you can't verify. You one yourself to scrutiny by theists because you are making an assertion you can't demonstrate is true.
Same with gods, the Tooth Fairy, garden gnomes, etc. At least with dodos we know what they look like and that they are going to behave within nature's rules. Theists claim their gods behave outside of nature's rules, so we can't apply the same scrutiny. We can still conclude gods are unlikely to exist.
Right, because if the gods of theists behave outside of nature's rules we can't calculate probability in any way. Of course we still don't see any miracles happen, so it's not as if we skeptics have to account for unexplained things going on.
Ideally we want to use language in a precise manner that conveys meanings accurately. Debates can hone how we use language. We can often get away with mistakes and others understand what is meant, but as i have pointed out theists will exploit mistakes to help deflect from their burden of proof and imply non-theists hold beliefs much they way they do. In debate I try to be careful not to open that door for theists.Somewhat ironic seeing as this entire discussion is a word game
Augustus
…
As previously noted, it is perfectly standard usage to say we believe facts.
This is a fact whether you believe it or not
Yes, as I've noted several times, there are numerous definitions of atheism none of which are "objectively" the correct one and usage comes down purely to personal preference.
Of course the a- in atheos means 'without'. Now what does the -ism mean?
The etymology does not reflect a-theism, that is a fact. It reflects athe-ism.
Etymology doesn't define contemporary word meaning though, only usage does, so it doesn't matter that much either way other than regarding the history of the word.
But as it was not constructed a-theism and predates the term theism, presenting that as an argument for what it should mean doesn't work.
You don't need to check them off one by one any more than I would need to check off every single named ghost before I decided I believe ghosts don't exist.
There aren't that many concepts I would consider gods anyway other than monotheistic gods, polytheistic gods, dualistic gods, deistic gods and these seem like human creations to me and we can indeed see evidence of how humans created these myths.
I couldn't give a **** about what theists think
I just see it as more accurate way to describe my thought process. We don't need certainty before it is rational to hold a belief, simply that it is sufficiently justified.
Both usages are precise when used correctly in context, what you are noting is that one better suits your needs so you prefer it. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's what we all do.
I prefer seeing it as a belief because I think it better maps onto our thought processes and thus it is more accurate in this regard.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I now realise that the only reason I ever made myself believe in God was out of fear of death and annihilation
Wishful thinking basically
I now see no compelling reason to believe in God
Therefore I think I'm going to have to come out as an atheist
Which is what I was for many years
Although I hope there is a God and recognise there is a slim chance of one existing
I still believe reality is a computer simulation though
Just slipping my 2 cents worth in here....Are you saying that because you have that fear you were forced to believe in God as a coping mechanism irrespective of your belief in an actual existent God? "Making" yourself believe something is a false starter to begin with and I would venture to guess that you never "believed" in Gods existence in the first place but only sought to eliminate your fears.
So...one might ask how becoming an atheist has eliminated your fears or how has having those fears proven to you that God doesn't exist?
Supposing you still have those fears ,which I think most people do at some level, then I would propose that those fears are not the cause of your forced belief in God but a symptom of your search for relief from your fears. Perhaps your belief in atheism is a symptom of your disillusionment with something you had a premature understanding of into a projection of rejection? In other words, God doesn't live up to your expectations so you reject the idea of an existent God and atheism is an expression of that rejection.
If your rejection isn't strictly based on reason, which I don't think it is, but lack of evidence of God then what do you base your criteria for evidence on either way? That is, why do you choose one belief over another if both beliefs fall prey to the same lack of proof?
I don't think we should make the mistake of thinking that because nature exists that that is evidence for atheism since both hypothesis consider the existence of nature within their frameworks as a necessity.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Based on your favored Spinozan model (which I would not agree with); if you hear a proposition….
“Purple humanoids from Neptune are currently living in France”,….
your ability to comprehend the proposition means you hold a belief that purple humanoids from Neptune are currently living in France?
Even for an instant? Seriously?
You can't not believe everything you read - PubMed
This study is on the effects of pressure and time restraint…….”Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions”.
Are you suggesting that you were under pressure and time restraints when you formulated your “belief in the non existence of gods”?
Are you currently under pressure and time restraints while you are currently espousing
“I believe gods don't exist because there is no reason to believe they do exist.”
Have you not had time to reflect on the reasoning you have used to determine what you believe?
Since it is the underlying reason, wouldn’t it be more accurate to state;
“There is no reason to believe they do exist”, and leave it at that?
You have taken the extra cognitive step to proclaim;
“I believe gods don’t exist.”
While doing so, you have adopted a burden of proof. You have proposed a proposition;
“Gods do not exist.”
Of course you are free to do so….
What do you have to back it up?
Otherwise this study is meaningless.
Why didn’t you include links to these subsequent papers from the same site? They portray a different picture.
More evidence against the Spinozan model: Cognitive load diminishes memory for "true" feedback - PubMed
Spinoza's error: memory for truth and falsity - PubMed
Aligning Spinoza with Descartes: An informed Cartesian account of the truth bias - PubMed
As for;
https://www.appstate.edu/~bromanfulksj/Gilbert - How Mental Systems Believe.pdf
What I get from this one is maybe children’s brains while developing tend towards a Spinozan model but mature into a more Cartesian model?
In response to:
You respond:
In other words, nothing.
You admit you can reject it “pretty much instantaneously”.
So you are not forced to “accept” it, you acknowledge that you are free to reject it.”
Unawareness is a lack of cognition.
Granted, if you are unaware of something you would not believe in it; you would have a lack of belief.
Lack of belief requires cognition, and is due to a proposition not meeting a sufficient level of evidence to warrant a belief….
How are those purple French/Neptunian humanoids doing?
If that’s true for you….graeat!
Use whatever verbiage you prefer.
It is very accurate when I say I have a lack of belief in gods, and as you have attested to (and I agree) it is the accurate position held by most atheists that I am aware of.
An interesting study:
Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty - PubMed
Be careful here.
You are dangerously close to prescribing the intent of others.
By “proof” here I mean sufficient evidence to judge as most probable. So, yes a rational person should require proof (sufficient evidence to be judged most probable) to hold a belief.
If that evidence is lacking, a rational person should then withhold belief until such time that sufficient evidence is presented.
There is a cognitive difference between presenting a proposition which carries with it a burden of proof (sufficient evidence to be judged most probable by a rational mind), and the rejection of the evidence brought forth to support someone else’s proposition.
You claimed that
So apparently you don’t understand. I and others (perhaps a portion of the “most other atheists”) have made very clear is it is not a belief, it is the rejection of the proposition “god/s exist”
Here you are correct;
It is the stance that the proposition of “god/s exist” fails to meet it’s burden of proof (sufficient evidence to be judged most probable by a rational mind) and is therefore rejected.
It is not the stance “god/s do not exist”.
As I queried @Eddi in post# 152….you do understand the distinction, yes?
You understand there is a difference between;
1.) “I believe X is not true”
And
2.) “I don’t believe X is true”
Yes?
This was clarified in post# 167:
1.) “I believe X is not true” is a belief.
2.) “I don’t believe X is true” is not a belief; it is a lack of belief.
1.) Is a positive statement.
2.) Is a negative statement.
Since atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it would be considered a #2 type statement.
As result, can’t be a “belief system”.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I gotta say something here. The news has it that a former Pope is going to be made a saint, or something like that. So you have MILLIONS upon Millions of people, many of them very bright, who call themselves Catholic, and go through rituals, and who deny the truthfulness of the Bible among other things, but will possibly pray to someone who died as if he is alive in heaven, answering prayers. (oh well)
Augustus
…
Thank you for your detailed reply
Yes, like many areas of science, it is disputed, and evidence is often ambiguous. Some agree with Spinozan view others a modified Cartesianism (which contains a strong bias towards interpreting information as true and often produces similar results to the Spinozan view).
I think the Spinozan view is likely most accurate, although perhaps with a few caveats based on learned/conditioned behaviour.
If you remember the context of why I posted them was that you noted in response: "this of course is fallacious reasoning" .
I was pointing out it was an accepted (although contested), scientific perspective and thus it is hard to make a rational case that it is obviously fallacious.
Yes, although it would be corrected milliseconds later as it is obviously incorrect. I cannot know this until I have finished the process of comprehension though.
I see a clear evolutionary advantage to processing sensory information as 'true', so I would expect to see that bias in our evolved cognitive processes.
No it isn't. You seem to have misunderstood,
Cognitive load forms part of the experiment sure, but only to test whether things are comprehended as true.
I consider actively stating "there is no reason to believe X exists" to be the same believing X does not exist.
Yes, I understand there is a grammatical difference, but I do not believe that reflects any cognitive difference.
We interpret the world positively, so there is no functional difference between stating you "believe X doesn't exist" and stating you "don't believe X exists".
Both 1 and 2 are statements of belief: positions taken in response to a proposition.
In response to a proposition, adopting a stance that you can explain verbally is a belief in the standard use of the term.
I understand perfectly well, you seem to confuse people disagreeing with a view with them not understanding that view.
You have made it very clear you think it is not a belief, I just think you are wrong about this contingent on the criteria I mentioned as informing my judgement.
I accept that there are other ways of looking at the issue as a lot of it depends on subjective preference or other contingencies. So if you apply your subjective preferences and contingencies then you get a different result.
When discussing an issue in good faith, you look at what the other person is explaining and, if you disagree, either challenge it according to their contingencies, or challenge the contingencies themselves.
Simply saying something along the lines of "you didn't use my contingencies therefore you don't understand/are wrong" is pretty pointless. It's no different from asserting you are right because you say you are.
Thank you, that is interesting.
If you think it contradicts my view you must have misunderstood it though, it exactly supports what I have been saying.
Firstly, imo, disbelief is not a "lack of belief". I agree that atheism is disbelief in gods, I just disagree that it is most accurate to describe it as it as a "lack of belief".
As I mentioned before, I explained the contingencies of my position, one of which was that a belief relates to neural activity and a lack of belief doesn't. It is a stance taken regarding the propositions 'gods exist'.
Your study shows that is certainly true regarding disbelief in gods, which is basically the only thing I consider important: Atheism exists as a stance taken, not the absence of a stance.
Beyond this it's largely semantic quibbling
There is not a cognitive difference between believing something does not exist and not believing it does exist though.
Unless you actually factor in some chance of existence which impacts your thoughts or actions, they are functionally identical.
Some people prefer it for those reasons.
It is why the "lack of belief" definition was popularised in the 1980s (see for example Anthony Flew).
There's nothing wrong with it. It's a standard reason for redefining words - they better suit your purposes.
It's how language evolves.
If you describe a negative belief that shows up on fMRI as a "lack of belief" then it's easy enough to understand what you mean, yes.
Wouldn't go as far as saying it was the most accurate or informative description, but each to their own, as you note, you can use whatever verbiage you prefer.
In most cases it has little impact either way, although I have seen people argue that because atheism is a "lack of belief" then it is literally nothing and can have no impact on any subsequent beliefs, decisions or judgements which I think is pretty misleading.
I think identifying it as a belief helps clarify this a bit.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I'm not sure how this relates so you'll have t elaborate please.
DNB
Christian
That's the best that you can do in order to substantiate non-human spirituality - a dog staring into the woods, or an African elephant carrying their dead???
In other words, how do you know that humans are spiritual - a religious edifice on every street corner of every city in the entire world. Schools and courses dedicated to theology and world religion. Billions of dollars spent on building religious altars, temples, shrines, academia, books, artifacts, archeology, jewelry, debates, TV shows and movies, .... Countless religious wars, jihads, crusades, factions, denominations, revivals, holidays, etc...
No other creatures on earth but humans, can conceive of the notion of a God and morality.