Is atheism a belief?

[EgoDeath]

Again, I am using the term "belief" in its simplest sense: something one holds to be true.

You have very specific criteria which you hold to be true concerning what constitutes good evidence. Other people disagree with you. When talking with such people, you would have to defend your beliefs concerning what constitutes good evidence.

Well, that's the thing; a belief doesn't necessarily require evidence and therein lies the issue. I don't have to defend any beliefs or lack thereof. The burden of proof is on theists to present their evidence. I don't have to present evidence for the nonexistence of something we have not yet even defined - that's complete nonsense and not at all how a scientific proof works.

I'll guess (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that when you say "evidence" you mean input of the type that scientists use. Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics. They may be wrong to do so. But the position you hold and the position they hold are both criteria by which you reach conclusions, and require support.

So, you're invoking NOMA here? Suggesting that god and science operate under two different realms? What exactly are you suggesting? If I, by personal revelation, come to realize that their are underwear gnomes that sneak into my drawers at night and steal my boxers, does that mean anything to anyone else? No, of course not. My claims would not be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. I would be laughed at if I then suggested that science couldn't do a thing to prove or disprove the existence of such gnomes, that you have to learn about them through tradition, personal revelation or "the logic of metaphysics."

Just because someone can come up with an idea through some random set of criteria doesn't mean that idea deserves to be taken seriously

By definition, they hold it to be true that the claims they have heard concerning god are unpersuasive. Do you have an argument against this?

If you are an atheist, or call yourself one, I have to assume you do not hold a belief in any god or gods.

That's an interesting assertion. Is it true in every single case? Are all religious people, of every type everywhere, operating in the way you say?

Yep, pretty much. They're looking at the world through the lens of religion, rather than taking the evidence that exists and letting it lead them to conclusions. Instead, religious people start with the conclusion and work backwards to find what evidence fits their conclusion.  

Right now I'm reading the autobiography of a very intelligent and wise scholar. She studied biology at Cambridge in the 1930s, during the time when Russell and Wittgenstein's views of religion were at their most influential. None of the undergraduates in her circle took religion seriously, all of them thought that a purely materialist view of the world was the only truth and the only thing possible for honest people in the future. 

If you're into poetry at all, it will be meaningful for you to know that in those days Yeats was considered laughable while William Empson's poetry was seen as the wave of the future. 

Cambridge in the '30s pretty much pioneered the kind of beliefs that are popular on this forum.

Anyway, that scholar discovered that the purely rationalist view of things failed to explain the events of her life.

Someone not being able to "explain the events of [their] life" doesn't mean anything in relation to science or religion. It just means that this person cannot PERSONALLY explain certain events - which tells us nothing about anything except her own comprehension.

After decades of conflict based on trying to retain this science-only view of things, she was reluctantly forced to change. She became an important scholar of Neoplatonic philosophy--including its religious aspects--and a wise spokesman for the value of such a view. To his credit, William Empson, who despised Christianity, continued to value her advice.

So there is an example of a profoundly intelligent woman who doesn't fit your description of what religious people are like. And I think it's better to examine the ideas of intelligent people rather than stupid ones. 

Just because you cite one example of someone who possibly came to religion later in their life doesn't mean you've proved anything. You've painted a very incomplete picture to prove a point that you haven't even really proved.

This is downright false. This is something you believe which is blocking your ability to analyze things clearly. ]

Okay then. What real, working definitions of god do we have that?

There are any number of reasons to fight with religious people. It's true that different views give different and incompatible definitions. It's true that many of the definitions are not persuasive. It's true that the older definitions are incompatible with good science. But to say they "refuse to even define" it is false. 

An example: actus purus. This is an important definition in the Christian tradition. It may be good and it may be terrible, but it is a definition.

Okay, now you're just saying nothing a bunch of times in a row. Do you really think this is clever?