Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

Irrelevant. You have no proof for "mind". Despite your blathering on about what is irrelevant, you have actually addressed not one of the salient points. 

You should note two things, though:
1)  I've never argued that the brain, its structure, its functions, our experiences and our behaviors as human beings aren't very much linked.  The philosophical question is at what level of material organization the most essential elements of mind emerge.  You think you know the answer to that, but you cannot demonstrate it to be true, and nobody else has demonstrated it to be true.  And I myself never asserted panpsychism to be true-- I said IF it is true, then I'd be well-disposed to those who would call the Universe the mind and body of God.  If.

Irrelevant. What you  "should note" is that is if I need advice I'll be sure and ask. That brains and experiences are linked is an obvious childish tautology, and not even a question. That might be YOUR question. You don't get to tell others how they think and tell them what their questions are. You are not here to teach anyone. Just because you happen to be a patronizing asshole doesn't mean you have to be taken seriously. 

2)  While you are very certain of material monism, there's a problem: literally every "objective" observation made by people, ever, in all history, has been done through subjective agency: looking at a ruler, poking the brain with an electrode, looking at fMRI machines, listening to your professors, watching this Youtube video.  100%.  In other words, if the human species has evolved to be born with the blue pill in its mouth, you'd never know it from your observations.

Irrelevant. Humans COMPARE and measure their experiences and use machines and various objective measures to do their measuring. There are ways to verify what you claim are all subjective experiences. You talk like you are a child just having discovered solipsism. LOL. In fact your statement actually means that for you there is nothing objective. No wonder you believe in the god in a box.

3)  There's still, after about 100 years of the field of psychology, no good description of how any material system could allow for subjective experience.  There's an increasing body of neural correlates-- "When X brain function is observed, people report Y experience, when XX brain system is damaged, people's behavior changes in YY ways."  What there isn't, however, is any understanding at all of how subjective experience arises rather than not, in ANY physical system including the brain.

So you ignorantly keep stomping your little impotent feet about. Yes there is, you are just too ignorant to know what that explanation is. 
I have given you one and even if I hadn't, there are explanations out there. You don't want there to be, as then your entire world paradigm would get upset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Kandel

4)  You've made an explicit appeal to this man's authority, i.e. via his credentials.  However, he doesn't claim to be an expert on the philosophy of mind.  It's not surprising that a neuroscientist is going to talk about interesting things he knows about the brain-- but if he had explained why there is subjective experience rather than a lack of it in the Universe, you could have added "Nobel prize winner" to his credentials.

Total non-sequitur. I never said or claimed he wa s a philosopher of mind. I could care less of he was or wasn't. There is no mind, ... why would I care if he was a philosopher of mind ?
You really are stuck on your position of ignorance. 

Let's give a different question, so I can explain in what way you and I are not on the same page.  Let's say I asked why a plane flies.  You could point to the wings, and show that damage to them causes a plane to fly badly or not at all.  You could show all the wires or electronic systems which control the ailerons are all needed-- you could perhaps give a few formulae for fluid dynamics showing how speed over a curved surface reduces pressure.

In the end, though, the real question of flying isn't ultimately about that-- it comes down to an interaction among forces, ultimately tracing back to the 4 universal forces.  A good physicist could tell you how those forces interact to create the pressure differential that allows a dense object to maintain its elevation in a fluid of lower density.  But a good brain scientist cannot point to any such thing-- all they can do (as the man in this video has done) is wave toward the brain and discuss interesting correlations between structure and behavior.  All he can do, in other words, is point to wings and jet engines in a more entertaining way than you or I could.

Let's not. You can stop telling us how and what to think any time.
Pathetic fallacy of the false analogy. You do in fact really know NOTHING about neuro-science and about how humans experience what they do and how they learn.
It is NOT a "tracing back to 4 universal forces".

A good physicist could tell you how those forces interact to create the pressure differential that allows a dense object to maintain its elevation in a fluid of lower density.

Are you fucking kidding me ? What a pathetic bozo. 
https://www.healthline.com/health/chemic...n#symptoms