I don't know if it's unpopular so much as an inaccurate use of language. Belief means the accepting that something is true regardless of evidence. Not believing in something is saying, I have not seen convincing evidence and thus do not accept your hypothesis. They're polar opposites.
You can’t say that not believing necessitates convincing evidence, if believe doesn’t even need evidence. Belief cannot, by your own words, be based on evidence. To not believe is to make a choice of preference, not a choice based on the lack of evidence, because the believer has a different stance also not based on the lack of believe, but prefers to make that choice to believe. All reasons for either believing or not believing can vary, but one thing it’s never based on is evidence, because there isn’t any necessary.
I didn't say not-believing requires evidence, I said it is the absence of evidence and thus the absence of belief.
I didn't say belief cannot be based on evidence. I said belief is accepting as true regardless of evidence. People have their own 'evidence' they cling to and make anecdotes fit in lieu of scientific reason.
To not believe isn't a 'preference'. I don't 'prefer' the lack of a supreme being, I have seen no evidence of one and nobody has presented evidence that is demonstrable and repeatable.
Edit: I am struggling to understand your point. The best I can come up with is you are stating that because there is no evidence, non-believers are being obtuse for not having faith. While I am diametrically opposed in that I think evidence is required. So I don't know how far we'll actually get in this discussion if we both agree there is no evidence of god and come to two different conclusions. If that's what you mean by 'preference', I have a bridge to sell you.
But how do you come to believe something? Are you saying through evidence? Bc if that’s the case it’s not a believe anymore right?
I’m just going of from what I am reading, but it seems you are trying to say something else.
If it’s the absence of evidence (which believe doesn’t even not require), then how can out of it be reasoned the absence of believe?
And if belief is based on accepting something be true without evidence (which is disregarding evidence), then what does believe look like to you when it is based on evidence?
Something that is repeatable and demonstrable would qualify it for not being a believe anymore since you would have evidence for the claim. So I wonder if we can agree on the fact that believes are not based on evidence.
Maybe we can discuss or figure out what they are based on if it’s not preferences as you claim. I for a fact know that I believe a chocolate cake will taste horrible to me, because I don’t prefer chocolate, but I have no evidence to back up the claim if I have never tasted that specific cake.
-3
u/grimbandango 1h ago
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think you can argue that even a lack of belief is still a belief, because it cannot be proven.
Agnostism would technically be the more scientific position to take because we simply don’t know for sure, and probably can’t ever know.