Difference Between Negative Belief and Lack of Belief

[jgh7]

For this debate, it is assumed that the person has a reasonable or even basic understanding of the targeted subject in question for belief. For example, with Zeus, it is assumed that the person knows the basic story of Zeus. Therefore, if they do lack belief, it is not because they are completely ignorant of Zeus (What's a Zeus?? Is that a Dr. Seuss character?). With this in mind:

1) I lack belief in Zeus.
2) I believe Zeus does not exist.

What is the difference between these two?

-----
This is how it plays out in my mind when someone says they lack belief in this regard:

Lonny: I lack belief in Zeus in that I lack belief that he exists.
Ronny: Do you believe he doesn't exist?
Lonny: No, I can't rule out the tiny little spec of a chance he exists.
Ronny: So 99% of you leans on the side of him not existing, and 1% of you leaves open the wild crazy possibility that he might exist. And yet you don't want to label yourself as believing he doesn't exist. You choose to say you lack belief in his existence?
Lonny: That's correct, u mad bro?

[ThePainefulTruth]

For this debate, it is assumed that the person has a reasonable or even basic understanding of the targeted subject in question for belief. For example, with Zeus, it is assumed that the person knows the basic story of Zeus. Therefore, if they do lack belief, it is not because they are completely ignorant of Zeus (What's a Zeus?? Is that a Dr. Seuss character?). With this in mind:

1) I lack belief in Zeus.
2) I believe Zeus does not exist.

What is the difference between these two?

Atheists came up with this ruse so that they could say we can't prove a negative, which is true. But we have on our hands a near infinite amount of evidence to deal with, the universe, which came into existence at the Big Bang--for which there is no evidence or explanation for how it happened. There are only two possibilities, it was a spontaneous event, or it was willed to happen. If such a Will desired not to be discoverable without supplying false evidence that it did not exist, such a dichotomy would fit the bill.

I used to think that such a perfect lack of evidence for what what preceded the Big Bang was something that couldn't happen at random. But then I remembered that we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence--but we can hope.

[Divine Insight]

Atheists came up with this ruse so that they could say we can't prove a negative, which is true.

Actually it's not true that we can't prove a negative. Mathematicians do it all the time. The single most popular example is the proof of the non-existence of a rational number as the square root of 2. So negatives can indeed be proven quite easily in many cases.

But we have on our hands a near infinite amount of evidence to deal with, the universe, which came into existence at the Big Bang--for which there is no evidence or explanation for how it happened.

Actually there is both evidence and an explanation for the Big Bang is we accept the existence of quantum fields prior to the Big Bang. Of course we have no way to know whether quantum fields existed prior to the Big Bang or not. But if we accept that they did, then we have both evidence and an explanation for how the Big Bang occurred.

There are only two possibilities, it was a spontaneous event, or it was willed to happen.

If the quantum field theory is true, then it was indeed a spontaneous event. No intentional will would have been required.

I used to think that such a perfect lack of evidence for what what preceded the Big Bang was something that couldn't happen at random. But then I remembered that we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence--but we can hope.

Actually lack of evidence can serve for evidence in many cases. For example, if someone tells you that your house had burned down and you rush home to find your house in perfect condition just as you had left it with sign of any fire. Then the lack of evidence for the fire is indeed evidence that the previous claim was indeed false.

There are many situations like this where lack of evidence does indeed serve as evidence. So you need to be careful when making blanket assumptions about these things.

When it comes to thing like the Biblical God we actually have tons of evidence that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as described. In fact, it can be proven to not exist in a similar way that mathematicians can easily prove that there is no rational number that is the square root of 2.

If the God described by the Bible include self-contradictions in that description, then these contradictions prove that the God being described cannot exist.

Also, if there are claims made by the Bible about the real world that can be shown to conflict with facts about the real world, then we can also know that the Bible is not true. And we certainly see this in the Bible where the Bible attributes all the ills of the world to the fall from grace of humans. We know this isn't true because the ills of the world existed prior to the appearance of humans on planet earth. So we have sufficient evidence to confidently discard the Biblical stories as being clearly false, and nothing more than man-made mythology.

Could there be some other type of God? Sure. But we can be confident that the fables of Yahweh have no more credibility than the fables of Zeus.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheists came up with this ruse so that they could say we can't prove a negative, which is true.

Actually it's not true that we can't prove a negative. Mathematicians do it all the time. The single most popular example is the proof of the non-existence of a rational number as the square root of 2. So negatives can indeed be proven quite easily in many cases.

I'm only reiterating the typical atheist argument, which is just a slight of hand in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof for their position that there is no God. But they're actually refuting the proposition that there is a revealed God, for which there is massive evidence against it. But as several atheists have conceded, they can't rule out a deist God.

Actually there is both evidence and an explanation for the Big Bang is we accept the existence of quantum fields prior to the Big Bang. Of course we have no way to know whether quantum fields existed prior to the Big Bang or not. But if we accept that they did, then we have both evidence and an explanation for how the Big Bang occurred.

You just demolished your own argument. We have absolutely no evidence about or from before the Big Bang. It is for all intents and purposes (so far, at least) an impenetrable firewall.

If the quantum field theory is true, then it was indeed a spontaneous event. No intentional will would have been required.

So you say, and I'm not convinced of that, but as you also say, there's no evidence for such.

Actually lack of evidence can serve for evidence in many cases. For example, if someone tells you that your house had burned down and you rush home to find your house in perfect condition just as you had left it with sign of any fire. Then the lack of evidence for the fire is indeed evidence that the previous claim was indeed false.

Huh??? You merely disproved the fire, and proved the lie. The problem with your analogy is that there was a known pre-existing condition--something that doesn't exist with the Big Bang.

There are many situations like this where lack of evidence does indeed serve as evidence. So you need to be careful when making blanket assumptions about these things.

Your "lack of evidence" is actually the evidence that there was no fire.

When it comes to thing like the Biblical God we actually have tons of evidence that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as described.

I believe I've already agreed with that. In fact, the usual flaw in atheist thinking is that they ignore a deist God and only argue against the various revealed, interactive gods, which is what you did for the rest of your post--

If the God described by the Bible include self-contradictions in that description, then these contradictions prove that the God being described cannot exist.

Also, if there are claims made by the Bible about the real world that can be shown to conflict with facts about the real world, then we can also know that the Bible is not true. And we certainly see this in the Bible where the Bible attributes all the ills of the world to the fall from grace of humans. We know this isn't true because the ills of the world existed prior to the appearance of humans on planet earth. So we have sufficient evidence to confidently discard the Biblical stories as being clearly false, and nothing more than man-made mythology.

Could there be some other type of God? Sure. But we can be confident that the fables of Yahweh have no more credibility than the fables of Zeus.

[agnosticatheist]

-Agnostic atheists would say "I do not know if there is at least one god, but I believe that no gods exist."

-Gnostic atheists would say "I know there is no god."

-Agnostic theists would say "I do not know if there is at least one god, but I believe that at least one god exists."

-Gnostic theists would say "I know that at least one god exists."

Most atheists would fall into the agnostic atheist category; a few are foolish, stubborn, ignorant, or sufficiently lacking in intelligence to hold the erreneous position of gnostic atheism. Until reality itself changes, and we have absolute proof as to whether or not at least one god exists, it is impossible for one to *know* if at least one god exists or not.

I'm not as sure about theists; I think many are agnostic, but some, like the gnostic atheists, hold the erreneous position that they know at least one god exists.

The first step is to admit you don't *know* either way. Then, you can set about evaluating available information and deciding to take the position of agnostic atheism, or agnostic theism.

Just a word to the wise here for Christians: If you actually were to know your god exists, it would destroy your ability to have faith in your god's existence. If you were to *know* that god exists, you couldn't have faith in their existence. In order to have faith that they exist, there would have to be some uncertainity. There would have to be the possibility that god actually doesn't exist. Absolute proof absolutely destroys the need for, and the ability to have, faith.

[tam]

Peace to you, and thank you for those explanations about agnostic or gnostic atheist or theist. I found that quite interesting. Perhaps I can take a moment to explain something to you about faith as well?

[Replying to post 14 by agnosticatheist]

Just a word to the wise here for Christians: If you actually were to know your god exists, it would destroy your ability to have faith in your god's existence.

It is not about faith in God's EXISTENCE, per se.

It is about faith in God Himself (and of course in His Son). Faith that He is who He says He is; that He has done what He has said; that He will do as He has promised to do; etc.

Abraham knew God existed. But Abraham was also a man of faith, as evidenced by his having believed and obeyed God. Abraham did not have (visible) proof of the things promised (Abraham walked by faith, not by sight), He had the word that God gave him.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[agnosticatheist]

Peace to you, and thank you for those explanations about agnostic or gnostic atheist or theist. I found that quite interesting. Perhaps I can take a moment to explain something to you about faith as well?

[Replying to post 14 by agnosticatheist]

Just a word to the wise here for Christians: If you actually were to know your god exists, it would destroy your ability to have faith in your god's existence.

It is not about faith in God's EXISTENCE, per se.

It is about faith in God Himself (and of course in His Son). Faith that He is who He says He is; that He has done what He has said; that He will do as He has promised to do; etc.

Abraham knew God existed. But Abraham was also a man of faith, as evidenced by his having believed and obeyed God. Abraham did not have (visible) proof of the things promised (Abraham walked by faith, not by sight), He had the word that God gave him.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And peace to you, as well ☺.

I do understand the importance of faith in God, and not so much God's existence, however it does seem that the idea that faith that God exists is important does work its way into doctrine and discussions from time to time.

Abraham may or may not have known God existed. I don't know and unless you are on a whole different plane of existence than me...neither do you.

Abraham may have *believed* he was dealing with God, but unless he had been provided with absolute, objective, falsifiable proof, he did not *know* that he was dealing with God.

For all we know, Abraham could have been in contact at least sometimes with an entity who he believed to be God but whom was actually an evil spitit masquerading as God.

It was foolish for Abraham to have faith in God and trust him, because what if it turned out that God actually wasn't who he said he was? What if God actually was evil, and tricked Abraham into killing his son? That's part of the problem with blind faith; if you do what someone says without having proof that they are good, you could be tricked into doing something evil. And if you are, what then? At that point, you have done something evil, and there's absolutely nothing you can do. You can't bring Isaac back at that point. He is dead. All you can do is sit there and scream and cry and say "Oh why, why God whhhhhhahyyyyyy? Please God! Please! Please bring my son back." But guess what? Isaac, Son of Abraham, aint walkin through that door.

If something seems evil, trust what reason and your conscience tell you, and act accordingly. Until I have proof God is good and is justified in asking me to put Isaac on that alter, I ain't doing it. Heck no.

[ttruscott]

Whatever is decided in this topic,

the Christian ie Biblical, pov is that all lack of belief comes from, is based upon, is impelled by non-belief which is clearly written in Rom 1:20 to the end of the chapter.

This chapter claims that ignorance of belief, (lack of belief) is basically impossible since we have all seen the clear proof of HIS divinity and power that the lack of belief has is only due to the repression of the truth seen in favour of sin. This repression of the truth can be characterized as the product of a negative belief, ie, an antagonistic and hostile antipathy to YHWH.

This is the issue whether you accept it or not.

[Bust Nak]

This chapter claims that ignorance of belief, (lack of belief) is basically impossible...

This is the issue whether you accept it or not.

For those who accept this, what is the point of proselytizing? Why is conversion even possible? You are talking about those who repress the truth, are antagonistic and hostile after all.

[Furrowed Brow]

The Pintupi tribe in Australia were the last to be contacted. They had managed to avoid contact with the rest of the world until 1984. Assuming they never heard of Zeus we might say that up until 1984 the Pintupi lacked a belief in Zeus. Maybe they still do.

But if we discount ignorance of the subject it is difficult to see what "lack of belief" means. Difficult but not impossible though it is a precarious position to maintain. Those critical of weak atheism may find it too easy to misunderstand.

If someone does not vote and says they don't do politics and have no opinion either way about whether the Republicans or the Democrats have better records they are professing their disinterest. They may be well informed and they are not uncertain about their disinterest - they just don't support the Republicans or the Democrats and don't care either way. But it would then be inauthentic for that person to go on to political forums expressing their lack of faith in the political system. If they did they are implicitly admitting there is something wrong with both the Republicans and the Democrats and their action expose their true feelings.

Atheist who post on religions debate forums while maintaining they are weak atheists tread a thin line. Those antagonistic to weak atheism may not have the patience to tease out the nuances of the position and to them a weak atheist may look like an apolitical person posting on political forums claiming they are not interested in politics. It is certainly easier to defend a weak atheist who gets on with their lives and lets religion pass over them with little comment. But there is I think a sensible position retrievable for those weak atheists who both lack belief and engage in debate.

It runs something like this: if there is a claim Zeus exists but every reason, story, argument, and evidence that follows to support the initial claim is found to be without merit then it would be valid to say the evidence is unconvincing. Maybe the claim is true (maybe Zeus exists) but the Zeus believers have failed to come up with acceptable evidence. Weak atheism amounts to rejecting the putative evidence but leaving on the table as a possibility the claim there is a Zeus. The position comes down to the mundane response "Maybe there is a Zeus maybe there isn't I'm not invested in whether there is or is not a Zeus and remain uncommitted about that, but I just can't take seriously anything you (Zeus Follower) are saying". This is different from the agnostic response "I find the evidence a mixed bag I am not sure what to believe and I'm a bit torn". The weak atheist is unequivocal the evidence is insufficient to reach the threshold of ambivalence.

Compare the weak atheist to the strong atheism. The strong atheist reviews the putative evidence and rejects its. They then go a further step. They observe how the evidence is generated and take note of its the paucity and filters this information through everything else they know about the world and human nature and conclude this Zeus fellah quite clearly exists only in the shared belief system of the Zeus followers - and is not real.

The is a striking difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. All the Zeus followers have managed to do is convince the strong atheist Zeus does not exist. The weak atheist is less dismissive. They have seen enough to conclude the evidence so far presented does not amounts to anything but they leave the door open.

Language can be vague but clearly there is a difference between agnostic, weak atheist and strong atheist that ought to be expressed clearly. With some qualification phrases like "lack of belief" or terms like "unbelief" capture what is meant by weak atheism.

(I flip between strong atheism and ignosticism btw and I am certainly not a weak atheist).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 9 by wiploc]

This isn't just a question for wiploc, but where do you all see the term 'Skepticism' fitting into these distinctions?