I can only believe that this is self-parody, Keiran:

>>Pericles, if you believe something in the negative derived from some factual information then it is a decision you have arrived at and it becomes part of your belief. Similarly, if you cannot believe negatively of positively due to lack of factual information, it is also part of your present belief.<<

For a start, "if you believe something in the negative" is a nonsense statement. There is no belief involved, only a lack of belief.

Let me try to explain one more time.

You believe that the moon is made of green cheese. I believe that the moon is made of some sort of rock. These are conflicting beliefs: you believe one thing, I believe another. By landing on the moon and trying to eat a piece of it with a biscuit, we will learn that one or the other belief is true.

You believe in the existence of God. I do not believe in the existence of God, and have no alternative theory to offer. These are not conflicting beliefs, but can happily sit alongside each other, since there is no amount of evidence that you can present that will prove your case. I, in the meantime, have no need to prove my theory, since there is nothing to prove or disprove about my position. It is only your belief that exists, not mine; mine is an absence of belief, not a belief in a negative.

Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?

The only reason that makes sense to me is that you cannot imagine being without faith, therefore you have to ascribe some sort of faith in other people in order to validate your own position.

That, in psychological terms, is a form of transference.

>>if you cannot believe negatively of positively due to lack of factual information...<<

Another nonsense statement. There is no "negative" or "positive" belief involved here, merely an absence.

If something is absent, it is not necessary to believe in the opposite of its presence: it simply isn't there.

Absent. Non-existent.

It's sweet of you R0bert, and Pericles to attempt to reason with irrationality. Unfortunately, one of the worst side effects of childhood indoctrination with illogical, unprovable notions of invisible supermen in the sky, is the corruption of the brain's reasoning facilities. Once damaged, it is nigh impossible to reconnect these neural pathways, and forever after, rational thought in the area of gods, monsters and other supernatural hob goblins, is impossible. Hence the urgent need to stop Chaplains and other religious instruction and indoctrination in all schools.

Pericles are you saying funny stuff to me like ... "You believe in the existence of God." ? Where did that come from?

Perhaps what I am saying is that all these teddies (gods) only exist in the minds of infected unfortunates and vulnerable people. There are many such ideas that reside in people's minds but when we try to find them it is not only logically but physically impossible to find them. They are abstracts or illusions with a life of their own that make it almost impossible to see that we live in an infinite ever evolving material universe.

I fully agree with your "Absent. Non-existent." and I have said much about this topic on OLO. Some examples .... the idea of nothingness is just that, an idea. It exists in the minds of many teddy infected people but when we try to create a perfect vacuum it proves impossible. Why? That is why the big bang high priests have recently started looking for dark matter to fit their stooopid models. They will not find it of course but they may learn about plasma. If they listened to Keiran here they would not only save billions but have this best idea that nonexistence is impossible too.

One again I feel we are arguing about the word belief from different contexts .... I find that I need to include the broader understanding where belief can prove something false. e.g. If you go to an oncologist and following a full check over he expresses his belief that you are free from cancer, I'd be very happy with his belief.

They are f'rinstances, Keiran.

>>Pericles are you saying funny stuff to me like ... "You believe in the existence of God." ? Where did that come from?<<

From the same stable as "You believe that the moon is made of green cheese." I suppose I could have phrased it more precisely, but I hate to use "one" where "you" or "I" will suffice.

I did get carried away from that point and ascribed a broader set of attributes to "you", but I thought it was clear that I had the pesky evangelist in mind.

But it concerns me that you assert:

>>I find that I need to include the broader understanding where belief can prove something false. e.g. If you go to an oncologist and following a full check over he expresses his belief that you are free from cancer, I'd be very happy with his belief.<<

You are moving into the area of "opinion" here, rather than belief. The oncologist is trained to look for signs and symptoms. If he recognizes neither, he will proffer his opinion that you are cancer-free. Unfortunately, that does not guarantee that you are in that condition, simply that one physician has formed an opinion.

Hence the phrase "I think I'll get a second opinion". If this differs from the first, the chances are you will go for a third, would I be correct?

None of this involves belief, in the sense our godly friends use the word. To them, it is closely aligned with "faith", since - unlike your oncologist - there is no evidence to find, or even search for. Without faith, no belief.

Which is, incidentally, the main reason that I refuse to accept that disbelief in something is the same as belief in its negative. In the physician instance, it would be analogous to an absence of knowledge that cancer exists.

Think about it. It would be impossible to say "I do not believe there is such thing as cancer", if nobody could show you what is is or what it does. There would only be an absence of belief.

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe He is the One True God. I also believe in the many and varied gods of the known religions of the world.
There are many deities people choose to worship. A lot of Australians worship the sporting gods of football, cricket or other sports. Some worship Lady Luck, the goddess of gambling. Some worship their car.
Your own personal god is who/what you expend the majority of your time/worship on and to whom you contribute your tributes (mostly your money).
My God acknowledges the existence of all the other gods. The first of the ten commandments makes that clear. I AM the Lord, YOUR GOD, you shall not have strange (other) gods before me, He commanded the Israelites.
I live near Nimbin in NSW, where the biggest part of the "alternative society" worship many and varied gods and goddesses and happily deride the God of the ten commandments. They do not doubt the spirit of God exists.
The spirit dimension is alive and active.
Could the very first question about athiesm be better put thus "do you personally believe in the spirit dimension? do you believe that human beings are tripartate beings, composed of a body, a soul (the mind, emotions and will) and an everlasting spirit?
Jesus said that God is Spirit, and those who worship Him truly worship Him in spirit and truth.

Amber asks: - Could the very first question about athiesm [sic] be better put thus "do you personally believe in the spirit dimension? do you believe that human beings are tripartate [sic’ beings, composed of a body, a soul (the mind, emotions and will) and an everlasting spirit?

No, Amber, I do not believe in the ‘spirit’ dimension, because there is no evidence – scientific or otherwise for such a thing. And all the atheists I know hold similar opinions. As to your second question; again, No. I support the dictum; Mens sana in corpore sano. A healthy mind in a healthy body… in other words, the mind is an inextricable part of the body. A body cannot exist without a mind and vice versa.. As for an invisible spirit… this is a nonsense notion derived from childhood, when tales about ESP and magic and so on enthralled us. The unpalatable fact that adults who cling to their childish hopes and fears must eventually face, is that like the tooth fairy and father Christmas, the spirit world is a figment of the imagination.
This quote – attributed to W. Darwin, puts it well: - "Man is an eating animal, drinking animal and a sleeping animal and one placed in a material world, which alone furnishes all the human animal can desire. He is gifted besides with knowing faculties, to practically explore and to apply the resources of the world to his use. These are realities. All else is nothing; - conscience and sentiment are mere figments of the imagination. Man has but five gates of knowledge, the five senses, he can know nothing but through them; all else is vain fancy. And as for the being of a god, the existence of a soul, or of a world to come, who can know anything about them? Depend upon it…. these are only the bugbears by which men of sense govern fools; nothing is real that is not an object of sense."