[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

If someone rejects or disbelieves that a G/god exists the position held is crystal clear, on the other hand if someone claims to lack belief it is not.

Recently one person used a wet example to explain that if someones 'lack of belief' (LoB) is 1x10^-2000, (which backfired on him for the point he was trying to make, because that number is several trillion times smaller than a water molecule, therefore no water existed), however it turned out to prove my point that lack is not an 'all or none' condition, and may instead be anywhere from '1% to 99% condition'.

[Neo] Atheists out here constantly complain that people are telling them what they are and what to believe, but then what choice do people have when the neoatheists have proven themselves incapable of quantifying this LoB for us?

Other than the single allegorical attempt I have not been able to obtain from [neo] atheists any kind of explanation regarding how much lack of belief is required to legitimately attach to the label 'atheist'?

If its1x10^-2000, even though its technically LoB, how can that possibly qualify to hold the label atheist as its pretty tough to get closer to zero than that?

So far all other attempts that were made to quantify this were met with the usual:

​

and of course accusations of trolling and false claims of 'proven already' from people simply trying to blow this off as they have no defensible response, but 'nowhere' will anyone find a 'percentage' given to us by the very people who ironically claim to be intellectually superior in logic and reason, and demand to define themselves, which is what I am looking for here to clarify this matter.

So I am hoping that someone, at this point anyone, since the neoatheists to date have proven to lack the required ability to explain themselves, will step up to the plate and 'quantify' how much LoB is required/necessary to be an atheist?

50% maybe?
10%?
99.95%

There has to be a point where someones LoB no longer qualifies as an atheist, as shown in the 1x10^-2000 example, or does any infinitesimal amount of LoB qualify a person to identify as atheist?​

​

 

@Kokomojojo
I've read several of your posts in this forum and I cannot for the life of me try to figure out what it is you're arguing. It sounds as if you're asking atheists to prove a negative to you. You cannot prove a negative.

So what the hell are you postulating?

 

It’s called trolling. This is about the 12th thread on this exact same topic he’s created. His premise was demolished in the very first post in his very first thread but he likes to troll.

 

Interesting. That's something I usually attribute to the politics forum. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Its not a heads up, the takeaway point is that rahl, has no answer, and neither does anyone else?

 

Im a bit surprised that I have to post this but........... I guess


lack

noun

the state of being without or not having enough of something.

how much LoB is enough to hold the label of atheist, very simple question?

 

"Lack of Belief" sounds pretty negative.
Better call it "Strength of Belief (or Faith)", which doesn't imply whether it is good or bad to believe.

 

well its what the neoatheists claim is their belief. It has nothing to do with me proving a negative, if anyone had to prove the negative it would be them, its their claim. FYI however its easy to prove a negative, 'there is no pink elephant in my hand', you look and if you do not see a pink elephant then the negative has just been proven true, and if you do it will be proven false.

I agree though it would be far more positive for them to take a different approach from what I can see, but never know maybe they will come up with an interesting theory for this.

 

So are you inferring that belief (I'm assuming you are referring to belief in a deity) is the normal or default state?

 

Yes, without, as opposed to with.

How does one measure something that they do not have?

 

Atheists don't claim anything. They live in a context of absence of faith in god.
They aren't disbelievers. Faith simply has no meaning to them.

An atheist speaks to a monotheist: "If you understand why you reject all other Gods, then you'll understand why I reject your God"

 

You know this is false

 

Sounds like a path toward trying to build some sort of consensus to me. I don't see how that would be useful at all in this context.

 

I am curious if I could be reclassified as an atheist, to know this I need to know how much lack of belief is required, but as you can see this thread has already started out with neoatheists dodging out of answering and misrepresenting the proposition. I periodically check on my agnostic position to insure its the best position based upon logic and reason.

 

yes humans believe something is true or they believe it is false.
In both conditions it is a belief.

if my glass is 3/4 full it is without 1/4.

If you need a full glass and you have only 3/4 it goes without saying you lack 1/4, and do not have enough

 

false, atheists have 'faith' just like theists, they claim no Gods exist, neither group can sufficiently prove their positions within the secular scientific model, which seems to be an expected requirement, hence the belief is not based in incontrovertible fact, but faith.

 

Humans can and do believe there is a third option which is neither of the two, call it neutral, idealistic, or indifferent if you will.

If you're going to limit your responses to these meaningless labels, then there isn't much to discuss.

Get to the point of what it is you are asserting rather than pontificating, okay?

 

This is a thread about LoB and how it relates to a legitimate label of atheist, Correct the options you listed are in fact meaningless and inapplicable since the only 'options' under examination is 'LoB as atheist'.

My point is crystal clear, please refrain from injecting meaningless noise into the equation that has no relationship to the subject matter 'under examination'.

TIA

 

Any thread that puts an atheist on the defensive is a troll thread.

 

yep dayitiz!
They already pretended they did not understand the OP (which is 'crystal clear'), whining for clarification, then when I dignify their request and elaborate down to a k2 level they accuse me of pontificating and continue to pretend they do not understand what the point is.

You will not find a straight forward response to that question 'anywhere' on the board.

Very true, its the same dodge and duck game they play when its brought up in threads, however the OP is constructed such that I get no reasonable response, as in a percentage number, they auto default to admission that others (not LoBers) are required to answer the question 'for them' and 'tell them what they believe' since at that point its crystal they do not understand their own beliefs or 'lack' there of!

yeh and the trolling and destroyed bit, any port in the storm to bullshit people into believing their imaginary debate victories that do not exist. Ask them to cite the post, and they find other threads to post in, 'as it never happened'! The trolling bit is just poisoning the well fallacy to hide behind their projections.
After a while you come to see it as it is, static and noise.

 

Ask someone if they believe in the Easter Bunny. When they say, "no" is that faith?

 

I never looked into the history or origin of the easter bunny, so I have no clue, however we did have one poster that insisted that unicorns were imagined only to find out they existed thousands of years ago and weighed in at around 4 ton, and they were seriously ugly creatures. They have a skeleton in some museum.

 

You avoided the question. Yes or no will do.

 

Sure, I dont know, agnostic. You will not pressure me to take a position either way until I know enough about it to take a position either way, until then AGNOSTIC, I abstain from a vote.

 

Oh but the more militant amongst them do, they are very certain their is no God, they are very adamant in their beliefs.