I think I am now an atheist

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure how this relates so you'll have t elaborate please.

OK, let's say some people believe humans evolved. Others do not. I'm not sure how a person who believes in God via certain religions and then think people evolved and then think some people go to heaven upon death or later can relate one to the other belief. In other words, many religious ideas can be confusing and/or detremental.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

And it can easily be said no other creature needs a god for comfort or anything else.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

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.

While I never used the word obviously, I will accept that characterization.

Here is the context;
You stated in post #172

We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

In post #185 after quoting the above for context,
I stated:

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.

Which you have subsequently agreed with:

Yes, you do have to accept it, although you can subsequently reject it.

Yes, although it would be corrected milliseconds later as it is obviously incorrect.

The fact “you can reject it” means that you do not “have to accept it”.

My rational case that the statement;
“We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general)”,
is fallacious reasoning is this:
_______________________________________
If we believe a proposition, it may affect any future thoughts or deliberations.
If we disbelieve a proposition, it may affect any future thoughts or deliberations.
So, “whether we can remain unaffected” or not has no bearing on if the proposition is believed or disbelieved, and thus no detrimental or beneficial or differential consequences.
So the statement “We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we are able to comprehend
(or sensory experience in general)”, is in fact fallacious.
You have agreed, the idea can be rejected.
Even if we take your hypothesis as correct (for arguments sake), and grant that at one point in time a person were to have held the belief that god/s exist (whether for at least a moment sufficient to comprehend the idea, a la Spinoza, or for years while the person may have been a theist), and has subsequently, after deliberation, concluded that the preponderance of any and/or all available relevant evidence fails to be sufficient to be judged most probable by a rational mind to warrant the belief that god/s exist (in other words, fails to meet the burden of proof to be considered true);
then that person could, as you have conceded, reject that belief.

As result, they would no longer hold that belief.

They would comprehend the proposition that
god/s exist.

They would disbelieve that god/s exist.

They would therefore have a lack of belief in the proposition that god/s exist while fully comprehending the proposition.

Definition of disbelieve
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief
Synonyms:
Incredulity
nonbelief
unbelief
Definition of nonbelief
: absence or lack of belief
especially : absence or lack of religious belief // nonbelief in God
Antonyms
belief
credence
credit

Therefore the statement:
“We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).”
is fallacious reasoning.
Definition of fallacious
1: embodying a fallacy
2: tending to deceive or mislead : DELUSIVE
Definition of fallacy
1a: a false or mistaken idea
b: erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
2a: deceptive appearance : DECEPTION
bobsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Synonyms

• illegitimate,
• illogical,
• inconsequent,
• inconsequential,
• invalid,
• irrational,
• nonrational,
• unreasonable,
• unreasoning,
• unsound,
• weak

Antonyms

• logical,
• rational,
• reasonable,
• sound,
• valid,
• well-founded,
• well-grounded

Definition of reasoning
1: the use of reason
especially : the drawing of inference or conclusions through the use of reason
2: an instance of the use of reason : ARGUMENT
Definition of reason
1a: a statement offered in explanation or justification
b: a rational ground or motive
c: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE
d: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense
2a(1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE
(2): proper exercise of the mind
(3): SANITY
b: the sum of the intellectual powers
_______________________________________

so there is no functional difference between stating you "believe X doesn't exist" and stating you "don't believe X exists".

Yes, I understand there is a grammatical difference, but I do not believe that reflects any cognitive difference.

This laughable……
What happened to;

We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

Do you consider the words “belief” and “disbelief”
to be synonymous?
Do you consider the difference between them to be gramatical or cognitive?
Lets check those definitions again:
Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Synonyms

• credence,
• credit,
• faith

Antonyms

• disbelief,
• discredit,
• doubt,
• nonbelief,
• unbelief

Definition of disbelief
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Synonyms

• incredulity,
• nonbelief,
• unbelief

Antonyms

• belief,
• credence,
• credit

Merriam-Webster defines them as being antonymous.
[All definitions from:Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary ]

Words have meanings.
The way words are strung together creating sentences, is how we impart ideas.

Granted, sometimes the way words are arranged in sentences can sometimes have nuances that are not always apparent at fist glance.
However, there are times that sentences appear very similar, yet have significantly different meanings; as in this case.

Let’s review that actual sentences in question here.

I believe no gods exist

I believe gods don't exist

These two sentences are very similar, but there is a slight difference.

Both state a positive belief (something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion).
The first that “no gods exist”.
The second that “gods don’t exist”.
These two sentences have a grammatical difference, but are synonymous in meaning
Both declare a belief (a positive), about denying the existence of gods (a negative), equaling an overall positive belief statement.
Since rationality demands that beliefs be justified, they would require a justification. (A burden of proof)

Notice if the first portion of the sentences included a negative i.e. “I don’t believe…”, the statement would have then contained double negatives, which would render the overall statement as a positive. (The ol’ double negatives make a positive.)
i.e. “I don’t believe gods don’t exist” which would render the statement to mean: “I believe gods exist”.

Now, let’s examine the statement which you claim to be synonymous with your two statements above, and only grammatically different.

“I don’t believe any gods exist”
This does not declare a belief, instead it is a rejection of a belief (a negative), about the existence of gods (a positive), equaling an overall negative belief statement.
Since no positive statement was made there would be no burden of proof necessary.

I exceeded the word limit: This will continue on the next post.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Continuing from post #203

Notice once again, if the second part of the sentence included a negative, i.e. “no gods exist”, the sentence would have contained double negatives, which would have rendered the overall statement as a positive.
i.e. “I don’t believe no gods exist”, which would render the statement to mean: “I believe gods exist”.

So the statement “I believe gods don’t exist” is a positive statement declaring a belief requiring a rational mind to demand a justification (burden of proof).
The statement “I don’t believe any gods exist” is a negative statement declaring a lack of belief which requires no justification (burden of proof).

Therefore the statements are not merely grammatically different, but cognitively different.
The first being a belief which requires justification to be considered rational.
The second being a statement of disbelief which doesn’t require justification to be considered rational.
Very different indeed.

It’s late here.
I’ll address the remainder tomorrow.

 

[Augustus]

In post #185 after quoting the above for context,

I see the source of the misunderstanding now. You didn't actually get the context quite right and it lead to a misunderstanding.

What I said:

We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

i.e. we might believe, disbelieve, assign a probability, etc. what we cannot do is lack belief.

There is nothing here about having to accept anything.

You said:

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 you said doesn't logically follow at all though. Your reasoning at this stage and that caused you to misunderstand the rest. The problem is you ignored how I explained "lack of belief" and applied your usage of the term. As I previously noted, this is not the right thing to do in a good faith discussion as it makes discussion pointless.

Now if we look at the expanded context of the quote, the mistake becomes clear

I don't agree with the idea it represents a "lack of belief" either. For me, a belief ultimately exists as some form of neural activity, and a lack of belief is therefore the absence of some corresponding neural activity (i.e. unawareness). We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

If we are going to go the dictionary route:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Note the distinction between disbelief and lack of belief, so it's not just me who sees them as different.

The fact “you can reject it” means that you do not “have to accept it”.

That was said in the context of the Spinozan/Cartesian distinction which was subsequently explained.

I could have made this more explicit to be fair, but given I followed it with this which makes context clear, it should be understandable.

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.

Long story short, it's better to pay attention to how other people use language, especially when very explicitly stated, rather than insisting on interpreting it according to your preferred usage as it helps avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Do you consider the words “belief” and “disbelief”
to be synonymous?

Again, it helps to pay attention to what I said instead of using your own definitions - "For me, a belief ultimately exists as some form of neural activity, and a lack of belief is therefore the absence of some corresponding neural activity (i.e. unawareness)."

Disbelief is a stance taken, thus a form of belief per the above, not the absence of a belief. You explicitly showed this with the article you linked to.

Remember the context was "we cannot remain unaffected by that which we comprehend" and that atheism exists as a stance taken, is visible in fMRI and is thus I see it as more accurate to describe it as a belief not the "lack" of one.

So, do you understand my position now?

I'll reply to the "non-misunderstanding" part separately (but it is important to understand my position, so if you are unsure just ask)

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, let's say some people believe humans evolved. Others do not. I'm not sure how a person who believes in God via certain religions and then think people evolved and then think some people go to heaven upon death or later can relate one to the other belief. In other words, many religious ideas can be confusing and/or detremental.

I don't find it difficult to understand that human beings having souls that belong to God, the Creator and Maintainer of the universe and all it contains, will return from whence they came.

A literal reading of Genesis in regards to creation
i.e. God made Adam out of dust/clay
can be interpreted as a "pff out of nowhere" if you like, but it is not the only option.
However Almighty God created us, NOTHING CHANGES.
I therefore do not see any point in claiming we know precisely how it was done. We simply do not need to know.

 

[Augustus]

So the statement “I believe gods don’t exist” is a positive statement declaring a belief requiring a rational mind to demand a justification (burden of proof).
The statement “I don’t believe any gods exist” is a negative statement declaring a lack of belief which requires no justification (burden of proof).

Therefore the statements are not merely grammatically different, but cognitively different.
The first being a belief which requires justification to be considered rational.
The second being a statement of disbelief which doesn’t require justification to be considered rational.
Very different indeed.

This is where it is important to understand what I was saying about the difference between belief (or disbelief if you prefer) and 'lack of belief'

When faced with the proposition 'gods exist' you adopt a stance regarding this: disbelief (in other words, a belief in the negative)

This is because we understand the human myths constructed around gods and the various god archetypes that emerged, our tendency to see agency in things, the lack of evidence for the existence of gods, etc.

We form a belief regarding the proposition 'gods exist' based on this. A belief that can be (crudely) shown on fMRI. As a result of this belief we live our lives based on the assumption of no gods. No gods exist in our world as a result of a cognitive stance we have consciously taken.

This is the context in which I believe there is no functional difference between a belief that no gods exist and disbelief in gods, the difference is simply grammatical. There is no extra burden of proof because they are functionally identical and the extra burden is just a word trick (I wonder if it is even grammatically possible in all languages).

Note the article you provided identified clear difference between disbelief and uncertainty.

I do not find it accurate to label this stance as a 'lack of belief' when it is clearly a belief of some form, although of others prefer to do so it's easy enough to understand what they mean. There are many ways to use language after all, difference is not necessarily 'wrong'.

Some people find it important to gain a linguistic advantage re: theists. I couldn't care less about this.

I think it is more useful to focus on the cognitive aspects of belief/disbelief. Some people couldn't care less about this.

Others have different preferences again.

Each to their own.

 

[setarcos]

OK, let's say some people believe humans evolved. Others do not. I'm not sure how a person who believes in God via certain religions and then think people evolved and then think some people go to heaven upon death or later can relate one to the other belief. In other words, many religious ideas can be confusing and/or detremental.

I agree...some ideas are confusing and/or detrimental. I also believe Christianity as taught by Jesus is a rationally coherent religion while some others are not as rational nor as coherent. Having standing mysteries within this coherence does not translate into being irrational. Most of the time human beings as human beings create our own detriment irrespective of religion and we often make confusion synonymous with ignorance which isn't necessarily the case. One gets confused when one thinks they know for a fact what the case should be but the case seems not to meet their expectations of those facts. Ones confusion may simply be a case of being ignorant of the correct facts.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The problem is you ignored how I explained "lack of belief" and applied your usage of the term.

Actually, I didn’t ignore how you explained “lack of belief”…..
I challenged your contingency,
I explained why it doesn’t hold water.

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.

This was also confirmed in the study I linked you to.
Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty - PubMed
https://pubmed.n
Naturally you responded:

If you think it contradicts my view you must have misunderstood it though, it exactly supports what I have been saying.

Is this because you are so enamored with your Spinozan hypothesis that you fail to see or concede that the results show:
“Results: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia.”
In other words different brain regions were activated for each of the states for belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Different distinct regions, but all activated the brain…. in other words cognition was applied and required for each.

Note the article you provided identified clear difference between disbelief and uncertainty.

Yes, clear difference between disbelief and uncertainty and belief…..all of which registered on the fMRI indicating cognition in different regions for each indicating they are different mental processes not variations of beliefs.

Your entire hang up here appears to hinge on your concept of “lack of belief” being synonymous with “unaware” in meaning and thus you feel everybody that uses the term is being misleading because they don’t get your meaning of the phrase; correct?

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.

Kettle …..meet pot.

Long story short, it's better to pay attention to how other people use language, especially when very explicitly stated, rather than insisting on interpreting it according to your preferred usage as it helps avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding.

This is good advice, perhaps you should heed it.

If we are going to go the dictionary route:

Unfortunately it appears necessary since:

it helps to pay attention to what I said instead of using your own definitions -

Lets start with the definition you provided in order to argue that “lack of belief” is erroneous and a misleading way to define atheism:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This is precious; using a definition of atheism which specifically includes the phrase “lack of belief in the existence of God or gods” to claim that very phrase is misleading!
I’m not sure which dictionary you got that from;
Perhaps it was an anomaly?
Lets check some others….
Definition of atheism
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsDefinition of ATHEISM

atheism
noun [ U ]
fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist:atheism

atheism
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Atheism isn't a religion — it's just the opposite.Atheism - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Atheism
(absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
(affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
atheism - Wiktionary

Atheism
The lack of belief in a deity or deities. Just that. Nothing else. Urban Dictionary: Atheism

Etc. etc…….
It appears it’s not merely MY preferred meaning.
It’s pretty ubiquitous.

As for disbelief not being lack of belief….
and

Note the distinction between disbelief and lack of belief, so it's not just me who sees them as different.

When a definition includes the word “or” in a definition, it is generally a clarification with a synonym or related item to expand the meaning.
For example take the Definition of belief
1: a state OR habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person OR thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, OR held as an opinion : something believed
3: conviction of the truth of some statement OR the reality of some being OR phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

This is why they often include synonyms and/or antonyms in order to help understanding and to offer alternative words that have the same general meanings and to show contrasting words to help see the opposite meanings.
You’ll note from my previous post;
From the Definition of belief
Synonyms

• credence,
• credit,
• faith

Antonyms

• disbelief,
• discredit,
• doubt,
• nonbelief,
• unbelief

Definition of disbelief
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
Synonyms

• incredulity,
• nonbelief,
  Definition of nonbelief
  absence or lack of belief
  especially : absence or lack of religious belief
• unbelief

Antonyms

• belief,
• credence,
• credit

I know:

For me, a belief ultimately exists as some form of neural activity, and a lack of belief is therefore the absence of some corresponding neural activity (i.e. unawareness).

Here’s a link to a list of 135 words/phrases even vaguely associated with the phrase “lack of belief”, none of which even remotely suggesting a lack of cognition or being “unaware”.
I did notice “disbelief” right up at the top, and many words synonymous with it.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/lack_of_belief.html
“What is another word for lack of belief?
Noun
Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
disbelief incredulity
doubt distrust
dubiety scepticismUK
mistrust doubtfulness
dubiousness incredulousness
questioning suspicion
unbelief chariness
cynicism nonbelief
……..114 words omitted here……
lack of faith in disbelief in
doubt about circumspection
lack of confidence in
“Fromm said he hopes his fellow students don't confuse his atheism, or lack of belief in a deity, with antitheism, or direct opposition to belief in a deity.”

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I still believe reality is a computer simulation though

So what created the computer simulation isn't God? Do you still see value in the thing that ultimately allowed your existed to be? Even if our existence is nothing but one's and zero's...

 

[DNB]

And it can easily be said no other creature needs a god for comfort or anything else.

What's 'anything else'?

 

[Augustus]

Is this because you are so enamored with your Spinozan hypothesis that you fail to see or concede that the results show:
“Results: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia.”
In other words different brain regions were activated for each of the states for belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Different distinct regions, but all activated the brain…. in other words cognition was applied and required for each.

I think you are extrapolating far beyond what is shown by the paper. I don't think it can definitively settle the Spinozan/Cartesian view either way. Can I ask if you are working from the paper itself or just from the abstract?

What the paper itself says (p143):

Several psychological studies9 –11 appear to support Spinoza’s conjecture12 that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection. Understanding a proposition may be analogous to perceiving an object in physical space: We seem to accept appearances as reality until they prove otherwise. Our behavioral data support this hypothesis, in so far as subjects judged statements to be “true” more quickly than they judged them to be “false” or “undecidable”


Why then do you think the paper definitively confirms the Cartesian view?

Yes, clear difference between disbelief and uncertainty and belief…..all of which registered on the fMRI indicating cognition in different regions for each indicating they are different mental processes not variations of beliefs.

I don't know much about neuroscience, but having read the paper I don't think it shows what you claim.

Can discuss if you want.

Your entire hang up here appears to hinge on your concept of “lack of belief” being synonymous with “unaware” in meaning and thus you feel everybody that uses the term is being misleading because they don’t get your meaning of the phrase; correct?

Thank you for clarifying as it shows the misunderstanding.

That is not actually what I am arguing. I don't think them not getting my usage confuses them, I think that using the "lack of belief" definition can confuse some of them. Therefore they think that a "lack of belief in god" can have no consequences of further impacts because it is literally nothing.

I think it is confusing because some people therefore think it is not a stance they have taken, but the absence of a stance: "Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair colour".

I don't care if they prefer to use it that way, it's easy to understand what people mean and words can be used many ways as that's just the way things are. Commonly tend to get a bit precious that other folk might use the word differently, and may even try to make a case that it's objectively wrong to use it that way, but that's on them.

Maybe this will help: If I say "The Godfather 1 is better than 2 because..." it doesn't mean I am claiming anyone who prefers 2 is "wrong", I am presenting an argument in favour of a subjective position. That is what I am doing, making subjective arguments about preference about which common usage has less potential for misunderstanding than the other.

So do you now understand what my point is?

I've been explaining why I think describing it as a belief/disbelief is more accurate than a lack of belief and would remove this potential for misunderstanding. Even then, I've said before, it makes little difference in most cases whichever definition you use.

This is precious; using a definition of atheism which specifically includes the phrase “lack of belief in the existence of God or gods” to claim that very phrase is misleading!

As noted above, you are not representing my point correctly. I'm fully aware "lack of belief" has been in common usage since it was popularised in about the 1980s and has appeared in dictionaries since around then too.

I have always said language has many usages and that is fine, it's subjective preference. From my experience it's some "lack of belief" folk who insist only their usage is acceptable and they are "objectively" correct, but that betrays a misunderstanding of how language works more than anything.

The point there was to show a difference between disbelief and lack of belief (which you would also get by looking up disbelief and "lack")

Dictionaries aren't definitive arbiters of truth, they simply identify some of the common usages of terms as subjectively defined by small groups of employees in a small number of companies.

Thus, before the 80s, they generally contained some form of the definition that an atheist "believes there is no god" (or perhaps God). Nothing about "lack" of belief, this didn't make anyone using "lack of belief" wrong even then.

Given they only show how words can be used (for example to show some people differentiate between disbelief and lack of belief), and I've repeatedly told you I accept people use the "lack of belief" definition, there is nothing they can really add to this discussion.

Kettle …..meet pot.

Again, you are basing your argument based on an incorrect representation of what I said.

My point was that you misunderstood my argument because you applied your contingencies to my argument when trying to understand what I was arguing.

I have said several times, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I think that definition can be misleading.

You could think the word inflammable is misleading and can lead to misunderstanding, and prefer to use flammable, that doesn't require you to think inflammable is wrong.

For me describing a belief that shows up on fMRI as a "lack of belief" is misleading and can lead to them misunderstanding, but I can still understand your usage of the term perfectly well. I just disagree with it.

To avoid repetition, I've not replied to the subsequent posts as, what should be clear, is that they are all based on something I didn't say and an argument I didn't make.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's 'anything else'?

Perhaps they have no need to believe in anything but "themselves"

 

[PearlSeeker]

I believe that whoever programmed The Projection (which is what I call the simulation) came into existence through sexual reproduction between beings who evolved from more primative lifeforms in an apparently Godless universe that apparently started with some kind of "big bang"

How do you know that the universe of programmers isn't a simulation like ours?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Atheism is a belief system in the same way that not playing tennis is a sport.

And covid denial and Anti-vaccinationism are also not beliefs? Just lack of belief?

 

[KWED]

And covid denial and Anti-vaccinationism are also not beliefs? Just lack of belief?

They are beliefs that there is a sinister conspiracy at work.
They aren't people who simply reject the existence of covid or vaccines on the basis of a lack of evidence or rational argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They are beliefs that there is a sinister conspiracy at work.
They aren't people who simply reject the existence of covid or vaccines on the basis of a lack of evidence or rational argument.

Not much difference really.
Atheists often cite "conspiracy of men" for why they do not believe.

 

[KWED]

Not much difference really.
Atheists often cite "conspiracy of men" for why they do not believe.

No they don't.

 

[KWED]

Perhaps they have no need to believe in anything but "themselves"

I think most animals are aware that other animals exist.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Can I ask if you are working from the paper itself or just from the abstract?

From the abstract.
However, even the portion you cite;
“Several psychological studies9 –11 appear to support Spinoza’s conjecture12 that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection.”
Along with:
“Our behavioral data support this hypothesis, in so far as subjects judged statements to be “true” more quickly than they judged them to be “false” or “undecidable”.”
Indicates that cognition (visible with fMRI) occurs in the case of rejection as well, and with uncertainty as well.
This dispels the notion that it is synonymous with
“unaware” (unknowing of, ignorant of).
The possibility/probability that this cognition may lag behind by milliseconds, is in my opinion being pedantic.
It has no bearing on the conclusion of the completed thought which is what the final outcome of a belief or lack there of entails.

Why then do you think the paper definitively confirms the Cartesian view?

I never said it does.
This hole Spinozan/Cartesian view thing is your hang up, not mine.

Would you agree that by the time each of us has come to our stated beliefs,
You that; “I believe no gods exist”
Myself that; “I don’t believe god/s exist” ,
that each of us in our own time and manner has come to these conclusions after considering all relevant known (to us at the time) evidence and after deliberation of this information arrived at our stated beliefs?

How might whether we favored one idea or another, for a matter of perhaps milliseconds or for that matter years and for whatever reason, have any bearing on our present conclusion that informs our current statements of belief or lack there of?

This was an unfortunate side road we veered down when I contested your statement:

I don't agree with the idea it represents a "lack of belief" either. For me, a belief ultimately exists as some form of neural activity, and a lack of belief is therefore the absence of some corresponding neural activity (i.e. unawareness). We cannot have a lack of belief on any proposition we can comprehend as we can never remain unaffected by any language we can comprehend (or sensory experience in general).

Once presented with the proposition "gods exist" we are forced to adopt a belief regarding this.

Particularly the last sentence which on the surface sounds as though one is forced to accept the notion of “gods “exist”.
Which I responded to with:

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.

_______________________________________

Your statement to @F1fan that:

Although I may be wrong, I believe gods don't exist

followed with the explanation
“because there is no reason to believe they do exist. I live my life assuming they do not exist.”
Is an example of what is considered the statement of “strong or positive atheism”,
i.e. The belief that god/s don’t exist.
Your explanation of; “because there is no reason to believe they do exist”.
Is an example of “weak or negative atheism”,
i.e. Disbelief or the lack of belief in the existence of god/s.

I addressed this in post# 171 with:

“You believe X does not exist because you
do not believe there is reason to believe in X, therefore your entire statement is due to a lack of belief.

Now that I know you have an aversion to the phrase “lack of belief”, allow me a reset.

You believe X (god) does not exist, because you do not believe there is reason to believe in X (god)
Therefore your entire statement is due to a disbelief in god/s.
Would you agree with this?