"Lack of belief"

[Valjean]

Vän in Swedish means friend.

So, it has to be a friendly diagram.

Tack , det är till stor hjälp

(googled it)

 

[McBell]

On what grounds do you contend that you have a lack/ absence of belief regarding the existence of god?

The fact that I do not have, I.E. lack, a belief either way on the existence of god.

Can you explain to me why you think these studies are wrong?

Simplicity itself.
I lack a belief either way on the existence of god.
I understand quite a few god concepts.

Thus your false dichotomy is just plain flat out wrong.

 

[McBell]

The difference here is ignorant vs educated.

Which have absolutely zero bearing on whether someone is an atheist....

 

[Valjean]

So, do you accept that a rejection is not total ignorance. How do we then know what exactly the so-called weak atheist has rejected?

The weak atheist hasn't rejected anything. That's the strong atheist.

"Empty" can apply to any box, weather it once contained anything or not. Emptied, on the other hand, applies only to boxes that once had contents.
Subset.

 

[atanu]

The weak atheist hasn't rejected anything. That's the strong atheist.

"Empty" can apply to any box, weather it once contained anything or not. Emptied, on the other hand, applies only to boxes that once had contents. Subset.

I will not expect a Vedantic to teach me that mind is ever empty. Atheists can say anything.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, you gotta keep a close eye on us. No telling what's going on on our heads.

 

[PackJason]

Huh. Weak or strong, if you assert lack of love, you must know what love is.

Sure.

 

[Augustus]

The fact that I do not have, I.E. lack, a belief either way on the existence of god.


Simplicity itself.
I lack a belief either way on the existence of god.
I understand quite a few god concepts.

Thus your false dichotomy is just plain flat out wrong.

So you believe gods may or may not exist?

Interesting that a scientific paper by an one of the world's leading psychologists is 'plain flat out wrong' simply because you say it is.

Suit yourself.

 

[Valjean]

The key word being "assert," Atanu.

 

[Willamena]

They do unconsciously Willamena, and whenever they use language.
Chair is a subset of furniture. Oak is a subset of tree. Oak chair is a subset of chair.

Anytime you use an adjective, you're indicating a Venn subset.

That's classification, not venn.

 

[Valjean]

That's classification, not venn.

Venn diagram is just a way to illustrate sets and subsets. Like graphs, it can be applied to lots of things

People normally don't think in ven diagrams.

People think in categories, overlaps and subcategories.
I thought a Venn analogy would be easier to visualize than those sentence diagrams we had to learn in English class.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, do you accept that a rejection is not total ignorance. How do we then know what exactly the so-called weak atheist has rejected?

We don't. We do not need to.

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, even with modifiers, I do see a huge difference between the "implied atheist" and someone who made an effort before identifying themselves as an atheist.

There is a difference. How significant it is is (nearly?) entirely a function of one's expectations.

 

[Willamena]

Venn diagram is just a way to illustrate sets and subsets. Like graphs, it can be applied to lots of things


People think in categories, overlaps and subcategories.
I thought a Venn analogy would be easier to visualize than those sentence diagrams we had to learn in English class.

People undoubtedly classify, yes.

If you've been using the word subset when you meant class, now some of the things you've said make more sense. Hard and weak are classifications of atheist.

 

[PackJason]

All it takes to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god or gods. It is no more complicated than that. How this thread has reached 17 pages is beyond me.

 

[Willamena]

All it takes to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god or gods. It is no more complicated than that. How this thread has reached 17 pages is beyond me.

Pfft. That's nothing.

In common English all it takes to be an atheist is to disbelieve or lack belief in god. The dispute is about interpretation.

 

[PackJason]

Pfft. That's nothing.

In common English all it takes to be an atheist is to disbelieve or lack belief in god. The dispute is about interpretation.

There is only a "dispute" if you can't get past semantics. The reason I say I have a lack of belief is because I don't want to come across as being assertive that there is no god. I simply lack belief; I don't actively disbelieve ... that would be ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My argument is about the impossibility of lacking belief in the existence of god if you understand the statement "god exists"

The peer reviewed scientific journal I quoted suggests you are 'plain flat out wrong'. Perhaps you have an "argument" about why you consider that article to be flawed?

This is from a paper written by Sam Harris (not an eminent scholar admittedly, but someone that many atheists tend to put stock in): "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... 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”"

On what grounds do you contend that you have a lack/ absence of belief regarding the existence of god?

I notice that the question in question morphed a bit over the course of your post. Do you understand that "lacking belief in the existence of god" and "lacking belief regarding the existence of god" are not the same thing?

BTW: do you understand the statement "god exists"? In particular, do you understand the term "god"? If so, maybe you can explain what "god" means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are.

They do?

What's a god?

 

[Willamena]

There is only a "dispute" if you can't get past semantics. The reason I say I have a lack of belief is because I don't want to come across as being assertive that there is no god. I simply lack belief; I don't actively disbelieve ... that would be ridiculous.

It's a semantic discussion, there is no "getting past" that.