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

Ok, then it hasn't anything to do with "weak atheism" or "strong atheism" in the sense that it is commonly used (and also in the sense that it relates to the issue that you most commonly bring up). Either way, this would have been a much more painless thread if you just pointed that out when I asked 10 pages ago.

I'm not looking for further reduction in this case. I'm still waiting for an explanation of what the different percentages mean, and why you believe those percentages are valid ways of thinking about it.

Sure. I would imagine any proposition has its own light switch (for each person). "This person believes there is a god" is one light switch, "this person believes there is no god" is another light switch (of course, "there is a god" is a different light switch, which is not specific for each person). Weak atheism, or Flew's definition is the "there is no god" light switch being off.

 

it has everything to do with it.

so when a teacher grades a test paper you have no clue what the percentage means?

Nice switches that dont switch! brilliant.
last time I checked a single light switch has both an on and an off position.

 

In some roundabout way, perhaps, but if you look at for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism, you'll see that weak atheism is not weak in the sense that it one's belief in it is weaker than in strong atheism.

I can give an educated guess, but in this case, letting the percentage mean the strength of belief, the likelihood of your proposition to be true or whether or not it qualifies as a belief has different implications.

(But as a fun aside, it does turn out that test score percentages mean different things in different systems. In uni I met many Americans who were upset that they did poorly in class, but that was simply because in the U.S., highest grade is 90% and in the UK, highest grade is 70%, the UK tests are simply harder and include more questions that an A grade student can be expected to get wrong).

Sorry, I think I misphrased my last post. The last bit should read 'Weak atheism, or Flew's definition, is the "this person believes there is a god" light switch being off'.

The switches switch just fine, there is a "this person believes that there is a god" switch, and it can switch between on and off. There is a "this person believes there is no god" and it can be switched on and off. Note that the off position means to fail to believe in the proposition, not to believe in the opposite proposition (which would be covered by a different switch). The off position would for instance also be applicable to an agnostic or a person who does not know/understand the question.

 

once again I had to get my hip waders on to wade through the bullshit, but I did find one part that I can at least make an excuse to dignify with a response.

Light switches are on and off, weak and strong cannot exist in a binary (as in light switch) world, (unless of course if you fabricate a strawman which I ignored), they can however in a light dimmer world.

So again, how much 'lack' of belief is required to hold the title atheist?

 

You talk about having a test like in school.

Please show what the questions would be. Maybe that will help identify what you think you are measuring.

And, dont include questions like "Is your belief in there being no god above 50%?" That's a poll, not a test.

 

If people could choose which objections to respond to, you could easily prove anything, no matter how false it is. You've not evaded my objections.

They can exist in a light switch world if there is more than one light switch. Weak atheism is "this person believes there is a god" being off (i.e. lacking that belief), and strong atheism is "this person believes there is no god" being on (i.e. having a belief in a different proposition).

 

Nope there is a level of strawman spin I wont waste my time sorting out. When you go past that point with your evasive spin I dismiss those out of hand, much the same as explaining the same thing 1000 times.

Like the garbage post above, that does not even dignify a response.

"Weak atheism is "this person believes there is a god" [switch] being off"
Weak atheism being the same as theism is completely absurd!
You ran straight into a wall, same problem the rest who have tried to defend [neo]atheology. I love it! I predicted it was a short matter of time before neoatheists would also claim theists are neoatheists too!
"strong atheism is "this person believes there is no god" [switch] being on"
Sure, no different than 'disbelief''.
As I said you wiped out any variant outside of full on full off, which is a legitimate belief/disbelieve logical negation, you like the rest wiped out 'lack' as a viable definition.
"having a belief in a different proposition"
That would be false, its on proposition, approaching with a relativity filter does not change the fact.

That 3 people 3 strikes, 'lack of belief' is a proven logical failure, regardless which angle we approach the matter.

Thats a wrap, thanks for playing

 

From where I'm sitting, "dignify a response" looks more like a failure to understand the argument altogether.

I didn't say weak atheism being the same as theism. Theism is "this person believes there is a god" switched on, weak atheism is "this person believes there is a god" switched off.

I'm not convinced we use "disbelief" in the same way either. I have refrained from bringing that word in, since it can suffer from the same issue, and it's not necessary to resolve the issue at hand.

They're not wiped out, they're just governed by different switches (and different states of the two switches).

I'm not sure what it is you're claiming to be false here. The only thing I think I'm claiming here is the one you agreed with earlier. Also not sure what "its on proposition" means.

 

Most atheist I know arte not interested in passing along a non-existent world where invisible beings live in conjunction with humans on the planet Earth. Nor do they desire to annoy people by trying to spread their non-beliefs..

 

It's what is known as gibberish.

 

Its the opposite however for [neo]atheists

yeh its easy for people to get involved with topics that are beyond their comprehension, I get visions of south america and finding a newly discovered tribe and tryiing to teach them nuclear physics. LOL

Nope its when the same stupid questions that have been ansered before are asked again.

I didnt say you verbalized it

"Theism is "this person believes there is a god"
"Weak atheism is "this person believes there is a god"

Hmm looks the same to me, now what?

Are yo0u about to tell me you moved the goal posts to the switch?

Nack! Sorry, penalty flag, illegal move pal.

​

We are about to enter the twilight zone!

From what I have seen of those who defend neoatheism to their own demise as has just happened I cant imagine they use it the same way as anyone other than others in their own religion.

If its all or nothing its belief/disbelief. Lack holds the throne for stupid ****.

That was a typo, 'ONE' not on. Your last post is possibly the funniest one I have seen from you to date.

 

We know you get visions of some kind. But I don't believe in visions. And the newly discovered tribe would have more chance in nuclear Physics than your posts.

 

Im sure the neoatheist religion feels very cozy and comforting.

Why dont you answer the question?

"what percentage of 'lack of belief' must one posses to qualify for the title of atheist", Oh wait you just admitted the question is too tough, NM.

 

There's a jar of marbles. The number of marbles in the jar is either even or odd. Believing the number is even makes you an evenist. Lacking belief that the number is even makes you an anevenist. How much lack of belief does it take to be an anevenist?

Does that help clarify why the OP queston is confusing?

 

Ha!

Cute, thats really creative, gold star for creativity, unfortunately unlike determining a position on G/god using lack of belief the way these guys are using it, your example is binary, even/noteven.

Keep in mind neoatheists claim they are weak atheists, strong atheists, and even agnostic atheists and now theistic atheists, and anything in between, none of which are binary, which this (in part) sets out to address.

Believe/Disbelieve in G/god(s) is binary, that would match and be comparable to your format.

So its a serious question that oddly enough they duck twist and squirm at every corner.

I enjoyed that!

 

I disagree, it's mostly questions that you have failed to answer satisfactorily.

That's because you omitted the difference. I even underlined it for you and it is the central (if not the only) difference between the two versions, and yet it slipped your mind when you copied it.

Theism is "this person believes there is a god" being switched on.
Weak atheism is "this person believes there is a god" being switched off.
Strong atheism is "this person believes there is no god" being switched on.

So in the version that I actually said, they're not the same. In fact, since light switches only have an on and an off (the middle is excluded), weak atheism is the logical negation of theism.

No goal posts are moving, but perhaps you're starting to figure out where the goal posts were from the beginning.

Yes it is all or nothing for each proposition, but there is more than one proposition, and the difference between weak and strong atheism is that they are answers to different questions (although they're both all/nothing answers).

In that case, I guess it was also "it's" rather than "its". I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

 

Because the question is nonsensical. . An atheist is an atheist, Period. The idea of someone being 99% atheistic is in your mind. Such a person is agnostic. I don't believe in a god/gods therefore I am atheistic. Period.

And one can possess - not posses.

A 'Neoatheist' is something dreamed up by psychologists, and other 'ists'. Its true meaning is found way back in the ancient past - a disbelief in god/gods.

I'd give up if I were you. Swensson has a better grip on life than you do.

 

When a light switch is on, the light glows at full brightness, off there is no light, period.

If you have weak light its not off and glowing dimly, same with strong its bright but not completely on, not glowing to its full brilliance, hell we could really throw a wrench into the work by adding stronger and strongest, the latter could be considered full on but not the prior.

Long story short weak and strong change the problem from 'binary' (on/off switch)----true atheist, to 'analog' (dimmer)----lacker neoatheist the latter with an infinite number of brilliance levels between 0 (switch off) and 100% (switch on).

But these are not atheists, they are [neo]atheists every 'real' atheist that has come on the board states point blank they do not believe in any G/gods, and neither have I seen any real atheist agree with the LoB theory, they have pointed out its fallacious nature, and neoatheists have presented so far as prove their position is repeated jingos.

I totally agree, which is why I made the thread, and as you can see they fail to get to first base. Hell it took close to 300 posts to even get these neoatheists to post anything close to on topic, they had to drain the duck and dodge tank first.

Thats at best a 1/2 truth, technically an agnostic takes a 'Null' 'Null' position which for the limited understanding I have seen from most neoatheists I put up as 'neither believe nor disbelieve', and most dont even comprehend that.

Yep and there isnt so much as one philosophy dept in the world, (nor me) that would disagree with that.

Thanks for correcting my typos.

Not at all, it applies to those (neoatheists) who still follow and adhere to the fallaciously based lacker theories, real 'atheists' are not part of this group.

Etymology fallacy.

Please get serious, Im in the catbird seat.

Not with a runaway ego.

When people go over the deep end with their arguments I shift to looking for something arguable that is reasonably on point, I dont, nor do I have any obligation to dive into one dead end rabbit hole after another satisfy yours or anyone elses strawman arguments.

Very simply that is a broken switch, you need to replace it.

I did with burznalis post, I do not enjoy being forced to rip someones arguments to shreds that I in general have a certain level of respect. But then they do it to themselves when they attempt to take a discussion into the twilight zone.

 

Should have read disbelief is a direct negation to belief, therefore will remain the only definition that is a legitimate negation to theism. LoB is based upon an etymology fallacy. using the obsolete absence and without which carried the meaning 'no G/god', back when there were only 2 known choices, which of course is why its obsolete, hence LoB is also a composition fallacy.

 

You don't know enough about the Easter bunny? What the hell is there to know? Do you think there possibly could actually be an actual Easter bunny who brings candy to kids?

 

In the absence of knowledge about the exact number of marbles in the jar, do you think it's possible to neither believe that the number is even nor believe that it is odd?

 

Sure by proxy.

when in belief/disbelief debates I generally express it as neither,nor however technically as I explained above, its a null vote, or abstinence from voting.


"The Principles of Morals," morality is useful as well as beautiful and aligns agnosticism with ethics: it is immoral not just unscientific to believe that for which there is no evidence. T. H. Huxley

Every neoatheist on the board is now having a nervous breakdown!

 

Sure, but if someone asked if you believed the number of marbles was even, what would your response be?

 

beats the **** ottta me! lol
want me to count them and find out?

 

So you say if someone does not believe a god exists, it is clear, but if a person lacks a belief in god, it is not so clear. What's the difference between not believing and lacking belief???

Your demand for a precise measurement or accounting of the amount of belief is absurd. It reduces atheism to a whim; a conclusion based on "feelings". I am an atheist, and I am one because of the foolish, modern, worldly nonsense called "religion" today. I have no objection to practicing religion for the purpose religion originally represented in any of the later religions. And that purpose has always been, and remains always, that of gradually withdrawing more and more from the things of the world, and turning within to "deny thyself" and finding "the kingdom of God within". Such a journey demands we surrender what is of self and that we continually separate our spiritual experiences more and more from all things of the world. And that, in itself, requires that we never bring our spiritual life and events and practices to the level of human discussion, as that makes it more worldly, which is the opposite direction from what is needed in a quest to find what is within. Therefore the expression was developed that we must keep our spiritual walk "secret, silent, and sacred". And hence, any insistence and/or practice of preaching and chastising and "advertising" one's religious views stands as proof of having a greater need and affection for worldliness than any wish for spiritual practice or perception.