Disbelief Vs Unbelief

[OnceConvinced]

The term Unbelief is always thrown around by Christians when it comes to the likes of us here. It suggests that deep down we really do believe, but we just don't want to (which of course we all know is complete and utter bullshit and is simply a Christian fantasy). It suggests that we are rebellious sinners and in the bible it's always used with a negative connotation. So we ex-Christians are guilty of "unbelief" and most Christians can see it no other way.

 

I believe "unbelief" and "disbelief" are quite different words, even though the dictionary does say that "disbelief" is the inability or unwillingness to believe. However as soon as you start using the word "unbeleif" you have to differentiate between the two, because in context they do have different meanings.

 

Unbelief = The unwillingness to believe

Disbelief - The inability to believe

 

So one is a rebelious term and according to the bible a sin. The other though, is something that we have no control over. We either believe or we don't and we can't chose otherwise.

 

Example one: I do not believe in fairies. There is no way I can possibly believe in them, so therefore that is disbelief.

 

Example two: I refuse to believe that I need oxygen to survive. That is clearly unbeleif because the inescapable facts are I do need oxygen. I know deep down that if I stop breathing oxygen I will die.

 

So my questions here are:

 

Is there an obvious difference between Unbelief and Disbelief?

If Unbelief is considered unacceptable, can Disbelief be considered acceptable?

Is Disbelief something we can chose not to have?

 

Any other opinions welcome. Do you agree with my analysis on this?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Hmmm....

 

If I were to contrast "unbelief" and "disbelief," I would take a different angle.

 

unbelief = not particularly believing but not fully convinced

disbelief = firmly not believing and fully convinced

 

In other words, I would take "disbelief" as a firmer stance on nonbelief than "unbelief." With this understanding, I would say that I went through a stage of "unbelief" before I arrived at "disbelief."

 

As far as christians using "unbelief" more than "disbelief," I would say that that's because "unbelief" is repeatedly used in the NT.

[OnceConvinced]

unbelief = not particularly believing but not fully convinced

 

That really doesn't sound that sinful or rebelious to me.

[mwc]

If we're playing the word game then we should look at the words (all from online etymology dictionary):

un- (1)

prefix of negation, O.E. un-, from P.Gmc. *un- (cf. O.Fris., O.H.G., Ger. un-, Goth. un-, Du. on-), from PIE *n- (cf. Skt. a-, an- "not," Gk. a-, an-, O.Ir. an-, L. in-), a variant of PIE base *ne- "not" (cf. Avestan na, O.C.S., Lith. ne "not," L. ne "that not," Gk. ne- "not," O.Ir. ni, Corn. ny "not"). Freely and widely used since O.E. times in compounds with native and imported words, it disputes with Latin-derived cognate in- the right to form the negation of certain words (indigestable/undigestable, etc.). Often euphemistic (e.g. untruth for "lie"). The most prolific of Eng. prefixes, it even is used to make words from phrases (e.g. uncalled-for, 1610; undreamed-of, 1636; uncome-at-able, 1694; unputdownable, 1947, of a book). As a prefix in telegram-ese to replace not and save the cost of a word, it is first attested 1936.

 

un- (2)

prefix of reversal (e.g. unhand, undo, unbutton), O.E. on-, un-, from P.Gmc. *andi- (cf. O.S. ant-, O.N. and-, Du. ont-, O.H.G. ant-, Ger. ant-, Goth. and- "against"), from PIE *anti "facing opposite, near, in front of, before" (see ante).

dis-

(assimilated as dif- before -f-, to di- before most voiced consonants), prefix meaning 1. "lack of, not" (e.g. dishonest); 2. "do the opposite of" (e.g. disallow); 3. "apart, away" (e.g. discard), from O.Fr. des- or directly from L. dis- "apart, in a different direction, between," figuratively "not, un-," also "exceedingly, utterly," from PIE *dis- "apart, asunder" (cf. O.E. te-, O.S. ti-, O.H.G. ze-, Ger. zer-). The PIE root is a secondary form of *dwis- and thus is related to L. bis "twice" (originally *dvis) and to duo, on notion of "two ways, in twain." In classical Latin, dis- paralelled de- and had much the same meaning, but in L.L. dis- came to be the favored form and this passed into O.Fr. as des-, the form used for new compound words formed in O.Fr., where it increasingly had a privative sense ("not"). In English, many of these words eventually were altered back to dis-, while in French many have been altered back to de-. The usual confusion prevails.

 

unbelief

mid-12c., "absence or lack of religious belief," from un- (1) "not" + belief.

disbelief

1670s; see dis- + belief. A Latin-Germanic hybrid.

belief

late 12c., replaced O.E. geleafa "belief, faith," from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (early 13c.).

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

unbelief = not particularly believing but not fully convinced

 

That really doesn't sound that sinful or rebelious to me.

 

Precisely. There's nothing rebellious about honest unbelief, or honest disbelief either.