Is the Atheism/Theism belief/disbelief a false dichotomy? are there other options?

[robvalue]

I suppose it comes down to defining "belief." You could ask/measure to what degree someone "believes" the statement, "God exists" from 0 to 100%. To be fair, you also need a "?" response, indicating no opinion at all. This could be because they don't understand the question, or the concept, or don't feel the concept is even coherent. I think it's reasonable to lump this in with lacking belief, for practical purposes.

Now, at what percentage does it become "belief" and not just suspicion or estimation? I'd say at the absolute minimum it must be 50%, but really that can't be sufficient to be called a belief either. That would be like believing a coin will come up heads before it is thrown. Not very sensible.

So where does it have to get to before it starts to affect your behaviour? I guess this will be different for everyone. Maybe around 80%? I suppose that 50% or even 25% could be enough to modify your behaviour in a "just in case way". Perhaps even lower, if the stakes are high. But clearly that's not a belief the statement is true, but rather fear of it being true.

So perhaps 80% is a kind of weak belief, an expectation that the statement is pretty likely to be true. At 90% it becomes reasonable confidence, 95% firm confidence, 99% strong confidence, and once it's up to say 99.99% the person would call it "knowledge". Of course, this still doesn't mean it's true, no matter what they call it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism/theism is a true dichotomy presuming merely that theism includes deism.

[robvalue]

I agree, given what I would consider the most useful definitions.

If you insist that someone must have heard of a god before being "allowed" to lack a belief in it, then that presents a third category. I find this rather pointless though. I tried to coin this "default atheism", as opposed to "cognitive atheism" which means you've heard about it and still lack belief.

We're not born with this nonsense in our heads. But many of us are born with a vulnerability to believe it when we hear it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I always think that the word "lack" implies that there is something lacking in not believing, as in not believing is "not good enough". I prefer to say "absence".

[robvalue]

Sure, I agree it has some baggage. "Without" may be better. That has less of a spin, and is more often used in a positive way.

"Without hatred towards others"

"Without preconceptions"

"Without fux 2 giv"

[Edwardo Piet]

The verb, defined from google.com:

lack=

be without or deficient in.

It's the deficient part that pisses me off. Pet peeve of mine, years ago I used to say lack and I saw that - as a thesaurus reader, I spent 8 months reading a thesaurus- and it pissed me right off lol.

So I just say "absence", meh. "Without" works but I usually hear people say "lack" half the time and "absence" half the time, I stick with "absence".

My two cents,

Silly pet peeve,

Peace out,

EvF

[Reforged]

Well theres not caring. Thats definitely an option.
Alot of scientists fall into that camp. They get shit done., they don't have time for theological debates.
I mean, have you ever noticed how few scientists there are round here? They lead meaningful lives devoid of crackpots.
You think they're going to debate some creationist after making a nobel winning medicine? No. They're going to bang their ex-model wife underneath silk sheets, smoke a cuban cigar and watch cable on their 70 inch 3D 4K ultra platinum penis compensater 4000 home entertainment system with surround sound.

The scientists that are out and out atheists will say something like "Live your life to the fullest" when asked how we should approach death. Dawkins says it alot. Pisses me off because he should know better. Of course *they're* saying that. They've won life. They're sitting at home with their latest MK-V sex droid complete with mp3 compatibility and all seasons of breaking bad pre-installed in a wood cabin in the alps completely baffled why everyone else isn't completely fine with the idea this is the only life we have. Its like playing leapfrog infront of a paraplegic.
This is the only life I have. That doesn't mean I don't get to be bitter about it. Fuck you Dawkins. -.-

[Pyrrho]

The verb, defined from google.com:

lack=

be without or deficient in.

It's the deficient part that pisses me off. Pet peeve of mine, years ago I used to say lack and I saw that - as a thesaurus reader, I spent 8 months reading a thesaurus-  and it pissed me right off lol.

So I just say absence, meh. Without works but I usually hear people say "lack" half the time and "absence" half the time, I stick with "absence".

My two cents,

Silly pet peeve,

Peace out,

EvF

So you object to being deficient in stupidity, foolishness, insanity, assholishness, etc.?  Lacking something is a good thing, if what one lacks is bad.  It is only if one lacks something good that lacking something may be bad.

[Pyrrho]

Well theres not caring. Thats definitely an option.
Alot of scientists fall into that camp. They get shit done., they don't have time for theological debates.
I mean, have you ever noticed how few scientists there are round here? They lead meaningful lives devoid of crackpots.
You think they're going to debate some creationist after making a nobel winning medicine? No. They're going to bang their ex-model wife underneath silk sheets, smoke a cuban cigar and watch cable on their 70 inch 3D 4K ultra platinum penis compensater 4000 home entertainment system with surround sound.

The scientists that are out and out atheists will say something like "Live your life to the fullest" when asked how we should approach death. Dawkins says it alot. Pisses me off because he should know better. Of course *they're* saying that. They've won life. They're sitting at home with their latest MK-V sex droid complete with mp3 compatibility and all seasons of breaking bad pre-installed in a wood cabin in the alps completely baffled why everyone else isn't completely fine with the idea this is the only life we have. Its like playing leapfrog infront of a paraplegic.
This is the only life I have. That doesn't mean I don't get to be bitter about it. Fuck you Dawkins. -.-

And yet Alex K is here.  I hope he does not leave as a result of your post.

(And he likes scotch, not cigars.  You don't know scientists very well.)

[Reforged]

Well theres not caring. Thats definitely an option.
Alot of scientists fall into that camp. They get shit done., they don't have time for theological debates.
I mean, have you ever noticed how few scientists there are round here? They lead meaningful lives devoid of crackpots.
You think they're going to debate some creationist after making a nobel winning medicine? No. They're going to bang their ex-model wife underneath silk sheets, smoke a cuban cigar and watch cable on their 70 inch 3D 4K ultra platinum penis compensater 4000 home entertainment system with surround sound.

The scientists that are out and out atheists will say something like "Live your life to the fullest" when asked how we should approach death. Dawkins says it alot. Pisses me off because he should know better. Of course *they're* saying that. They've won life. They're sitting at home with their latest MK-V sex droid complete with mp3 compatibility and all seasons of breaking bad pre-installed in a wood cabin in the alps completely baffled why everyone else isn't completely fine with the idea this is the only life we have. Its like playing leapfrog infront of a paraplegic.
This is the only life I have. That doesn't mean I don't get to be bitter about it. Fuck you Dawkins. -.-

And yet Alex K is here.  I hope he does not leave as a result of your post.

(And he likes scotch, not cigars.  You don't know scientists very well.)

Yes. Because I'm sure he would burst into tears at the sight of this tongue in cheek post implying a greatly increased quality of life due to career choices and opportunities. 
How dare I.