Of course atheism is a belief. It is reasonable but not based on science.
-x
Outside sources? Do you mean that I’m not in their head? Folks can lie, sure. Dishonesty does not invalidate the scale, no more than it invalidates any poll one could devise (though it may invalidate the ‘results’–but that’s the risk polls take). There is a fact of the matter. Am I misunderstanding your question?
Fuse–
Whether or not atheism is a belief or a lack of belief draws a lot of debate, so I’m not sure why you conclude this thread is unnecessary. You say, “there’s a major difference between 1) believing there is no God and 2) not believing in God” – and that difference is seen in the scale. Believing there is no God is atheism (pistic) on the scale, weak or strong, depending on the strength of belief (in response to evidence). Not believing in God, if it does not equate to believing there is no God, but to a lack of belief either way, is agnosticism/pisticism on the scale. What I am satirizing (with the new, new theism bit) is the claim that atheism is not a belief in response to evidence (moreso than the argument from ignorance…as can be seen when I mention the problem of evil argument). I think my assertion that if there is a God, it is loving, and there is evidence of that love by now, is not an argument from ignorance (assuming no evidence) but is an example of finding no mouse in the shoe. The whole ‘prove’ thing, though–that’s an epistemology thing. Science cannot give absolute certainty, but deals in probability.
Regarding your comment to Xunzian, agnostics lack a positive belief either way–they do not believe one god exists, and the do not believe one god does not exist. The don’t believe, either way. But, if they’ve found no evidence of a loving God, then they should be atheists, or they have an inferior god concept (their god concept does not include that God is love).
Humpty (and Only_Humean)–
– Humpty
False analogy. Blind belief (blind faith) is a specific kind of belief (faith). See turtle’s response. Note how turtle can admit atheism is a reasonable belief (involving reasonable, not blind faith), and it doesn’t weird turtle out. (Of course, I disagree that an atheist has fully considered things, but that is a different topic.)
Only Humean–
– O.H.
I’m not saying faith/belief is knowledge–unless, in the case of atheists, God does not exist, or, in the case of theists, God does exist. Knowing “feels” no different (to the person) than believing/having faith–and, all knowledge lacking certainty involves good faith (but, granted, faith is not ‘necessarily’ knowledge lacking certainty–sometimes we are wrong about what we believe).
I replied to your use of the word faith in the original post, as well as to Humpty. I’ve read a little Nietzsche, not a lot.
I added this to the end of the scale:
[ ***Note: since 100 and 0 are reserved for the polls, 50/50 ‘could’ be changed to 49/49 (requiring the other 49’s in the scale to go down to 48, and the 51’s up to 52), but that would just look weird. 50/50 symbolizes “equiprobable” moreso than 49/49, and one does not even need to know the exact number to know whether they are a weak/strong atheist/theist or agnostic. ]
I don’t follow - how do you know what knowing feels like, unless you’re omniscient? Or rather, how do you have a belief as to what it feels like?
Are you uncertain what language this is written in? Are you uncertain as to your name? Omniscience is a silly standard to hold certainty to, in my eyes.
Then I don’t think the definition of faith you use is relevant to the debate. The basic atheistic argument is that religious faith lacks (or is contrary to) evidence or verification; if you include belief-supported-by-evidence or tentative-belief-to-be-tested as ‘faith’ then you are not addressing the point, you’re just redefining words to annoy them. By analogy, a sentence that doesn’t mention God is atheistic - look how many atheistic statements you’ve made! 
The second point that atheism needs to make is that evidence is needed for claims of existence, and not non-existence.
What is the problem here. There is NO scientific evidence for theism or atheism. Agnostic position is the only place to be in approaching the origin of the universe and life. What is going on here?
The question is whether evidence is needed for claims of non-existence.
Precisely. It is a question of context - as all knowledge is contextual and related.
We don’t need to search the entire known and unknown universe to make the certain claim that there are no square circles. Likewise, a being that - for “it” to exist - must necessarily make our existence impossible, is likewise, impossible - as we’re certain we exist. Whether we exist in a Matrix - or exist in a dream - it is irrelevant. Our existence is certain - with the context of specific known parameters of knowledge.
ONLY-------------very good. omg. Eventually I think that evidence is needed. Non-existence of what? How about an example. You need evidence to prove the non-existence of atoms.
Ichthus,
Whether or not atheism is a belief or a lack of belief draws a lot of debate, so I’m not sure why you conclude this thread is unnecessary.
I don’t understand what relation you are claiming between atheism and belief. Can you explain what you mean that atheism is a belief position?
Atheism certainly entails that one does not believe in God. Other beliefs may be associated with atheism, but do not follow necessarily.
The whole ‘prove’ thing, though–that’s an epistemology thing. Science cannot give absolute certainty, but deals in probability.
Forget certainty - we don’t have it and are quite likely never going to get it. Probabilities are what we have and they matter greatly.
Hi turtle,
There is NO scientific evidence for theism or atheism. Agnostic position is the only place to be in approaching the origin of the universe and life. What is going on here?
If no theistic claim I know about the existence of God has ever checked out and many others are downright false, then it is reasonable that I do not believe in God. I don’t have any good reason to believe in it, yet I don’t need scientific evidence to disprove it. What would you call me?
FUSE---------I wouldn’t want to call you something. I am bothered by the arrogance of some atheists and their attacks on persons who believe differently. Also I believe it is good to keep our minds open.
While I don’t have time to reply just yet, I did create this belief scale poll on Facebook that I’d like everyone to take and share: http://apps.facebook.com/my-polls/belief-scale?ref=mf
I have evidence for the existence of them, so I can’t. Do I need to prove there are no such things as flying elephants or liquid pigs, for example, or am I justified in living my life as if they don’t exist until I have a reason to think otherwise?
Done 
A couple of comments:
“X might exist” is the same as “X might not exist”. Perhaps “X is (un)likely to exist” or “It is (im)probable X exists” would be more clear?
Also, “I’m certain X exists” is another, perhaps useful, category than “I believe strongly X exists”.
Which, IMO, reinforces the value of the rise of modern atheism, which serves to debunk the claims about the nature of reality that religions make…e.g., claims about phenomena and events that cannot be supported scientifically.
This is an excellent question, in my opinion, and a good way to illustrate the position of a faith based system.
Evidence can only be gathered once something has been defined, posited, or proposed as ‘existent’. Therefore, any evidence attributed to a thing can only affirm it; whereas a lack of affirmation results in a roughly proportionate amount of skepticism (aside from those that stick on a position regardless). A lack of affirmation is a lack of evidence.
With atoms, for example, existence was postulated at some point. The subject of inquiry was defined by certain properties which are then tested against a logical/scientific framework.
In the same sense, any evidence of non-existence would be affirmative. However, something that does not exist will not have any manner of evidence (affirmative or otherwise). What can act as supporting evidence for that which does not exist? Doubt, it seems, is our best bet. Evidence of non-existence cannot be determined – our ‘evidence’ in this context is actually a lack of evidence, or affirmation.
So, in short, those who take the position that God doesn’t exist are acting on a perceived lack of affirmation. The faith based systems, on the other hand, are essentially peddling that lack of affirmation as inconsequential. They realize that their position can only be affirmed to a degree that provokes ideation. Therefore, rather than seek more evidence, more affirmation, many faiths will seek to debunk other preconceptions about reality to make their lack of evidence seem on par with other conventional beliefs. As if to say - “God exists because it is absurd to believe he doesn’t.” Unfortunately for them, such a statement affirms the absurdity of life more so than the existence of God.
Sorry for the delay in responding!
Turtle: Scientific evidence is not the only acceptable evidence to consider. Atheists try to use the problem of evil, for example. And if they were right that there is no evidence of a demonstration of love from God, I would agree with them that no God (worthy of the title) exists. However–theists like myself argue–there is evidence of such a demonstration: http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-modesto/list-of-articles-on-evidence-for-god
Fuse:
Statiktech:
Do you seriously think that? First, “faith-based” is a term better used to describe “any organization or government idea or plan based on religious beliefs” (wikipedia) because all belief systems lacking absolute certainty are faith based. And you are wrong that faith based systems (better said “people in general who hold religious beliefs”) hold that “lack of affirmation” is inconsequential. Rather, most deny such a lack. See the link I just gave to Turtle.
So sorry for the delay in responding.
Ichthus,
Theism certainly entails that one does not believe in the nonexistence of god(s). Is theism a lack of belief/faith? Yes–but only in that sense. The same is true of atheism.
Constructing propositions as double negatives does not make a positive proposition into a negative one:
Theism: X (belief that X exists)
Atheism: ~X (no belief that X exists)
So when you say “one does not believe in the nonexistence of god(s)” that translates to ~~X, a double negation, which is logically equivalent to X. Theism is a positive belief, while atheism is the negation or lack of that belief. I have faith in many things, but it does not make sense to say that I have faith that I don’t believe in God. Atheism does not entail the belief that God doesn’t exist; it merely entails that one does not believe in God. The distinction is crucial.
fuse
There are negative and positive aspects to every belief. To not believe in something, is still to positively believe against it. When we doubt a certain belief, it is because we think it’s alternative holds some weight…we kinda already believe (positive belief) the alternative belief, and kinda already disbelieve (negative belief) our current one.
Whether something is a positive belief or a negative belief, it is belief, nonetheless. Maybe that’s actually what I came here to learn, lol. Thanks for helping me think it through.
Now, to clarify, the only “lack” of belief, is agnosticism/apisticism (I prefer calling it apisticism, on a belief scale, which I clarify in the article responding to the Coyne/Meyers debate). Atheism is not a lack–it is belief…negative belief…that no god(s) exist.
Great…now I have to reread the articles I wrote on this and see if there are any mistakes to edit, and update it with the idea in bold…yay! I just hope I can find time…
how does dawkins define his brand of atheism?
In terms of formal logic and data, the only possible position regarding theism is agnosticism. In terms of personal experience, theism is possible, though atheism is not, because one cannot experience the absence of a supernal entity. Personal experience encompasses any experience that acts as evidence to convince the self without constituting formal proof. Those experiences may be due to verbal argument that is not formal, but nevertheless convincing; they may be practical, due to unusual yet natural human behaviour that convinces; or they may convince because unusual and supernatural.