Is atheism a belief?

[Belacqua]

A completely coherent definition is not only NOT there, but also impossible.

I certainly agree with you that there is no coherent definition in the Bible. That's why sola scripture literalists don't interest me. 

The different definitions given later, on the other hand, have been pretty interesting. Always with the caveat that just about any definition accepts an apophatic element -- something as beyond human understanding as god cannot be described completely in human terms, they say.

Anyway, Nicholas of Cusa, in line with his mathematical work, defined god as infinite and completely immanent, which allowed him to propose a non-geocentric universe decades before Galileo -- and he didn't even get in trouble. Jacob Boehme defined god as a dialectic of spirit, unfolding entirely through human beings, a concept which Hegel called the foundation of modern thought.

I'm certainly not arguing that either of these definitions is persuasive. I'm not saying you should study them or value them at all. 

What's important, to me, if we genuinely propose that their ideas should be rejected, is that it requires better reasons than the old Sky-Daddy concept does. Of course a person could reject those ideas on a whim, or because he just doesn't like the word "god." But I don't think those would be good, thought-out reasons. They're no better than a fundie who rejects evolution because he doesn't like the sound of it. 

Anyone atheist who rejects all concepts of god for the same reasons he had as an infant is thinking at an infant's level, and hasn't thought out his conclusions.