Is the Atheism/Theism belief/disbelief a false dichotomy? are there other options?

[robvalue]

There is some debate as to definitions.

Lacking a belief just means you're not convinced. You're either convinced that there is a god, or you're not yet convinced. To me, that covers everybody. It doesn't mean you're convinced there isn't a god. If you're undecided, then clearly you are not yet convinced.

We can only go by what people say, they may have trouble even interpreting their own state of mind. But I don't see how you can be anything other than convinced or not yet convinced.

I use the courtroom analogy. Someone is on trial for murder. Either you are convinced they are guilty, or you are not yet convinced they are guilty. Theist, or atheist. You may be convinced they are not guilty, that is a subset of not being yet convinced they are guilty. That amounts to strong atheism. The default position is you don't believe or disbelieve a claim, which is (weak) atheism.

I don't buy the idea that a lack of belief "is a belief". I think that is simply wrong. I know that I am unconvinced. I know the evidence is not sufficient for me, I don't simply believe it. To say otherwise it to say I don't know what my own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are. If I have to have beliefs about my beliefs, I also have to have beliefs about those beliefs, and so on. If I don't "know" this, I don't know anything.

I could have a belief that the evidence is objectively lacking in support of theism. That is a different proposition, one which I do happen to additionally hold.