If we are distilling things down to base traits, we can. When we are talking about disbelief it can settle down into certain categories. The hard denial, sometimes with good reason, sometimes without, the denial based upon a lack of evidence for the item in question, and denial based upon confliction with currently held beliefs.
"God does not exist" is making a positive statement. It is one which requires evidence to support it; ex. "There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that God or gods exist," or "God in how it as an entity is incompatible with our understanding of physics."
"I do not believe a god exists because it has not been proven," this is not making a positive claim. It is a simple statement of disbelief due to lack of evidence.
"I do not believe in Zeus, because I believe in God." Interestingly often their reason for not believing in Zues typically lines up with most atheists, there is no evidce for Zues, so I believe in God. But in the end it is making a positive claim that God exists, and depending on how the person words it, it could also be making a positive claim that Zeus doesn't exist.
Are there other ways to divide it up? Sure. But we are talking in broad arguments - those that straight deny and those that leave the door open to further discussion.
In your hypothetical we would have literal proof of a god existing. Yes it would be denial, because we would be denying actual proof. However this is not the case with reality, no substantial evidence has been provided to point towards there being a god.If, hypothetically, someone could summon God, people could test their beliefs in interviews or anything else they might think off. In that case, denying his existence would end up being just that; denial.
It does matter due to how these two groups are both approaching the question. The second option is rejecting a claim because a burden of proof is not met, however they are not basing a claim of their own on it. They are saying "I cannot believe your claim because you are not supporting it to a degree I find necessary."What you're describing in the second option is, for the most part, an agnostic atheist.
But the thing is, both could say that religion doesn't have enough evidence. It doesn't matter which box they supposedly land in.
The first option could potentially use the exact same reasoning for their denial. But the difference is the first group is using it as evidence in their case against the opposing claim. The first group is saying "God does not exist, we know this because we cannot detect him in any way."
The second group is not saying, as a matter of fact, that God isn't real, just that there is no good reason to believe if evidence is not provided.
Ok, and? Christians can be scientists, but that does not mean their beliefs are valadated scientifically, nor does it mean there is any sort of issue with them holding the belief.There are scientists who work on the field of evolution who believe in God and have found ways that make the two beliefs coexist, but it doesn't necessarily mean that God does or does not exist.
Yes.You can claim what you will, but since the initial claim was that there is a God and not that there isn't, that's what's needed to be proven.
If you aren't meeting your burden of proof for the claim that there are flying rocks, it is not rational to believe they exist due to there being a possibility. What the second group is asking is for you to show that the thing exists before they choose to believe it. Their request for evidence and disbelief due to the lack of evidence is not the same as denial. The second group is denying what, based on their knowledge, is physically impossible. The second group does have a burden of proof to show that such a rock does not exist. And I am not stating wether or not that position is tenable. Proving that a thing doesn't exist is often hard.I can very well say that there is a pink pebble with wings that can fly on our planet Earth, but until you've examined them all, you can't truly claim that there isn't one, regardless of how ridiculous that claim may be (rocks are inanimate, how would the wings attach, how would the wings get their chemical energy...).
Yes.But the point is that you don't have to find evidence to support the fact that there isn't a flying pink stone on planet Earth. It's my responsibility to prove that there is one in the first place.