Is atheism a belief?

[EgoDeath]

You do if you are asserting something to be true.

The thing I'm asserting is that no evidence for god has been presented, as you go on to say. I don't have to defend the assertion that something which hasn't even been defined doesn't exist."

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god. Is this true? You have so far made no argument to this effect. You just assert it. Does this mean we are free to reject it out of hand?

Where is this evidence then?

What's that mantra the New Atheists like? "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Why does that apply to them and not to you? Where is your proof that your definition of evidence is the only good one?

I'm not concerned with what "new atheists" think or don't think or what mantras anyone likes to use. What I'm concerned with is evidence. And, despite your implication to the contrary, I'm not claiming my evidence is the only "good one." The scientific community by-and-large is what defines good evidence, and good scientific evidence is empirical and should be in accordance with the scientific method. Personal revelation does not fit into this definition of scientific evidence, and as we know, the scientific method is the best way we've come up with so far of understanding the world around us in a verifiable, observable way.

This has nothing to do with what "my" version of evidence is. Good evidence is good evidence, regardless of what any one person thinks. Before any hypothesis is accepted as a theory, mounds of scientific evidence has to be given in support of that theory, experiments have to be conducted and different aspects of the hypothesis have to be tested. The scientific community has to come together almost completely in agreement on something for a hypothesis to be proven as a theory. This is why the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact; there is an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE in support of the original hypothesis.

Do you not understand how the scientific method works?

And since you generally respond by changing the topic, please note that I am in no way arguing for the existence of god or any other religious claim. I am talking about your beliefs. You believe that your beliefs about what constitute good evidence are true. Please prove this. 

Or is this something you believe to be true for no reason?

How am I changing the topic? I've responded almost line for line to everything you've said to me. Please don't be disingenuous. Once again, I've explained why we use scientific evidence to understand the world around us. Empirical evidence is observable, verifiable and repeatable. This is why things like "personal revelations" are not considered empirical evidence. The scientific community works this way for a reason. The ability to test others hypotheses and verify their claims for yourself is the entire reason that science is what it is. I cannot verify your personal revelations and vice-versa, so while you may have a had a "spiritual experience" that showed you god was real, no one else has to take your claim seriously. At most, we can take your word that you had a "spiritual experience," whatever that even means, but we cannot verify what that says about objective reality and might as well assume it says nothing about objective reality at all. It's not repeatable, verifiable or subject to experiment.

Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated why the things you listed shoud be considered valid forms of evidence, yet you insist that I have to defend why scientific evidence is superior. You are really something.

You do if you are asserting something to be true.

You consistently assert that there is no evidence for any god.

Wait?

Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?

Okay => ( )

An empty set. As close to doing such on a computer screen that I can come up with on spur of the moment.

But asking some one to 'Present no evidence.' seems... wrong and even a tad dishonest, some how.....

I guess they're trying to suggest that forms of evidence besides scientific evidence should be considered evidence for god. He/she is trying to say that "personal revelation, the logic of metaphysics (whatever that means?), and traditions" should be considered as just as valid a form of evidence as empirical evidence, which is nonsense. Belaqua's suggestion that I should "prove" that "my" form of evidence is the only good one is a testament to the fact that they clearly do not understand how the scientific method works.

As if the scientific method is something I personally came up with and now need to defend. SMH.