so fundamentalist believers tend to be very partial to belief; whether provable or not. wouldn't a negative belief be just as important as a positive belief in such a scenario?
You mean, for example, the lack of belief in a "humanist human rights centric biblicaly antinomian amoral philsophy" would be reflected in an opposite belief in the moral law centred on the biblical principles in 1 Cor 6:9-11?
I could agree. I should think that every belief in something had its counterpart in a lack of belief in what is diametrically opposed to the thing believed in.
so someone believes for, or in, somthing and someone believes against the same something. doesn't that kind of neutralize the belief?
belief without proof is dead?
No because then it involves two different people. It comes down to evidence, and what you'll find is that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ are invariably ignorant in some aspect, or as Christ himself said, "they prefer darkness to light because their deeds were evil." John 3:19.
In fact the apostles define intelligence not by one's predisposition to philosophy, but by one's approach to and belief in the moral law: Acts 13:7 "The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God."
Which renders lack of belief in Christ indefensible, because, such is the evidence for Christ, the lack of belief in Christ is always deemed to connote lack of intelligence, or at least a defective education.
