Is atheism a belief?

[fredd bear]

I'm not sure. It could be an emotional things, as beliefs about religion tend to be. The proud atheist claim that our lack of belief is due to reasoning alone, I think is nonsense as a generalisation. We human beings are simply not that rational. Of course, we DO have reason and facts on our side, which religious believers do not.  

Who can say the why of anything for any other person, even ourselves at times.?

Making a claim about God/supernatural/ paranormal/ psychics, etc etc attracts the burden of proof. The agnostic and 'soft' atheist does not have that burden , he states a position, but makes no claims.

A person who asserts 'there is no god" or "I believe there is no god" may be asked to prove those claims, just as much as the same demand is made of theists..

Sure but that is a straw man. The majority of atheists, if they think about it, (and most have) get right down to being unconvinced by the claims of the various claims of the thousands of bizarre claimants.** All of those claimants cannot be simultaneously be correct, yet all of those claimants are somehow the only true answer. None have any modicum of evidence.

What is one to make of that ball of baloney?

Make what you will of it.  I speak only for myself.  

My journey from devout Catholic to atheist took over 30 years.  It began with rejecting some of the more fatuous claims of the Catholic Church. Over decades, I read voraciously, and spoke to  members of other Christian flavours, as well as some Muslims. (whileI  lived in a Muslim country).

Also did some formals studies at University about aspects of Islam(plus lived in a Muslim country) and Hinduism, plus  a bit on some of the weirder Christian sects. So I guess your idea is probably pretty close to the process I went through, over all those years.

However,  I am unable to say what  'the majority of atheists ' think about anything. With respect, neither do you.  I keep saying this ,and it keeps getting ignored: ATHEISM IS NOT AN HOMOGENEOUS  POSITION. One can no more speak meaningfully about Atheists as a group than one can about Christians as a group.

I don't understand why my short explanation of the burden of proof is a straw man.  I think it's pertinent because  Christian apologists have  that burden. Agnostic atheist do not

To which ball of baloney do you refer? If you refer to my post, I'd appreciate if you would explain my errors. It will help me avoid the same mistakes in future. Or not...


**Sounds a lot like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me ,but I may be wrong.