I keep running in to the agrument that disbelieving in something is not a belief in itself. I have trouble with this logic, most especially when it's presented by people I otherwise like and respect. The argument that not believing in the Loch Ness Monster makes sense and holds water is perfectly reasonable, but to make the same case for the statement, "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist," is completely different. It's semantics, but important semantics. In the first case you are hazily dealing with probabilities such that the odds seem to be against the Loch Ness Monster existing, so I generally don't bother believing it. If you state unequivocally that it Does Not Exist is a statement that requires proof, not hazy generalities. Just like proving that something Does exist requires proof and rigorous testing, proving that something does not exist would require some kind of logical or scientific argument that allows for every possible effort of having searched for and not found the Monster. It is easy and logical to say that such a beast probably doesn't exist as it has been looked for by amateurs and professionals and crackpots for so long that at this point it would seem that someone should have found something. The trouble is, not finding something doesn't actually prove it doesn't exist unless you can show with a reasonable amount of scientific effort that you have looked everywhere it Could be.
There is a subtle but powerful difference between saying that something is unlikely in the extreme and that something is impossible and/or truly Does Not Exist. You can apply this argument to any form of Statement of Universal Truth and I often do. I'll leave it to those reading to decide whether they can agree with me even if the Loch Ness Monster is replaced with other semi-mythical realities.
Don't get me wrong, those of you who insist on a black and white world, the opposite of belief is in fact disbelief but the opposite of a believer is not an atheist.
