I think we’d do well to thoroughly examine not believing… From what I’ve seen, not what I believe but what I see people doing, not believing something is no different than believing something
Believing and not believing both require faith in things not seen. There was a person from the US Senate, or maybe the House of Representatives, that made the statement, “I wouldn’t believe that even if it was true”. This would be the classic example of a nonbeliever.
These nonbeliever people are not doubters, or skeptics (not to be confused with the paid skeptic found everywhere on the web these days), or people who withhold judgment until all the data is made available. Are these faith based believers and nonbelievers alike simply picking sides, joining the team they want to be associated with?
Is not this choosing sides usually done when someone looks to disassociate themselves with some group they don’t like. The two groups I’m watching at war today are religion and science. An argument that I find is not so much concerned with fact finding as with fault finding.
I find it just as impossible to believe in the unfounded as to not believe in it… what’s the logic in believing or not believing?
My position on religion and much of todays science is “I’ve never seen what you’re talking about”. I see no reason why I should belief or not belief in either one. Neither belief has anything to offer… other than being a distraction