It is not belief in the absence of something. It is a disbelief in the presence of something whose exisitance has yet to be shown to be truly plausible. These are actually two different things.
This. An agnostic or aetheist can be approaching the Deity issue as a hypothesis which they refuse to accept for lack of any convincing testing.
Other aetheists consider that they have proven the case for reason over belief, by debunking various religous myths...though I don't know that those rationales hold up.
Either way having a non-believer view of religon based on reason, is distinct from having a Belivers' belief in religon based on accepting the theological doctrine *despite* reason.
Believer belief can hold that God is Awesome against any refutation because that kind of belief values will of belief itself as an act of creation, morality, identity and belonging.
Re: Codicil B
This. An agnostic or aetheist can be approaching the Deity issue as a hypothesis which they refuse to accept for lack of any convincing testing.
Other aetheists consider that they have proven the case for reason over belief, by debunking various religous myths...though I don't know that those rationales hold up.
Either way having a non-believer view of religon based on reason, is distinct from having a Belivers' belief in religon based on accepting the theological doctrine *despite* reason.
Believer belief can hold that God is Awesome against any refutation because that kind of belief values will of belief itself as an act of creation, morality, identity and belonging.