Arguing that you lack belief in God for you don't see good enough evidence is called negative atheism.  It denies that atheism needs to be an express belief that there is no God.

Some say negative atheism is just a belief. The correct view is that it is not but indicates that you deny God in the way that actions speak louder than words and statements and so on.

Negative atheism in itself is not a belief but appears in the middle of beliefs that deny God.  For example, if God makes all things and is closer to you than you are to yourself then lacking belief in him is more than a lack.  It is a very loaded lack.  It shows what you really think.  Lacking belief in God is not the same thing as lacking belief in roses in December. 
Then what if you think there is a God because you suppose there is no evidence that he does not exist? You might call your view negative theism.
Negative theism in this form faces the problem of Santa Claus or the seventh wife of Henry VIII. It would have to say they exist simply because there is no evidence against them. This makes no sense. Something doesn't exist just because there is no evidence for it.
So if you have a choice between negative theism and negative atheism choose the latter. It is the most rational. It is the most rational even if both are irrational. Why is negative atheism the wise choice? Because it is stupid to believe in entities when you don't need to.

Many theists are actually negative atheists without admitting to it to themselves. They take care to pray for things they know will probably happen anyway. That says it all. They are trying to convince themselves that they help others with their prayers. They want a self-righteous glow and don't really believe in the power of a god. It is criminal to do this when it is praying for the sick.


No Copyright