Is atheism a belief?

[EgoDeath]

Finally! An answer! 

Yes, I was guessing that this is your belief. When you say "evidence" what you mean is evidence of the type that you consider to be good. But earlier you didn't specify which type that is. 

What type of evidence would I be talking about? Don't act as if I've been avoiding answering this or something, it's completely disingenuous. What type of scientific evidence we would need would depend on how we are defining god, which is the problem. God hasn't been defined yet so we don't know what type of evidence we would need. Certainly that evidence would be scientific in nature, but there are a vast number of types of scientific evidence.

Once again, this is not the evidence that I find to be good. This is how the entire scientific community operates.

I have asserted nothing about the quality of evidence. I did not say that those things should be considered valid forms of evidence. And I do not insist that you defend why scientific evidence is superior. Please try to read more carefully and not accuse me of saying things I haven't said.  

You said, and I quote...

Religious people may also include revelation, authority, tradition, the logic of natural theology, and the logic of metaphysics.

...you go on to say that they me be wrong to suggest these things as evidence, but you act as if they could be right on par with scientific evidence, which they are not. This is not my belief. The scientific community does not operate on "revelation, authority, tradition," etc. So while you give yourself a little backdoor to escape out of, you've essentially suggested that these things are possibly just as valid as scientific evidence.

So until you've proven why these other types of evidence should be considered valid, they can be dismissed.

The issue I want to address is not about quality of evidence.

And yet you are constantly asking me to prove why "my" version of evidence is superior. What you're missing AGAIN AND AGAIN is this is not my definition of evidence.

It is that you derive your conclusion from a belief. This belief is that there is no evidence.

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I'll continue to assert there is no evidence.

The belief that there is no evidence is derived from your belief that only empirical evidence counts. Your atheism, therefore, is derived from beliefs. 

This is, once again, not my belief. This is how the entire scientific community works. This is what the facts show. Empirical evidence is used to develop medicines and vaccines, it is used to discover new species and unearth mysteries of the past. The scientific method is, objectively, the best way we have of understanding the world around us.

So I guess we can split hairs and say that atheism is only a lack. But it is a lack derived from, supported by, and maintained according to, beliefs.

Nope. See above.

---

You seem to have an issue with defining atheism as a belief or as being AT LEAST rooted in beliefs. I'm not sure what your obsession with this is, to be honest. And if atheism was a belief, which is isn't, I'd sleep tight knowing that it's a belief which would be rooted in empirical evidence, which is much more than any religious person can say about their religious beliefs.