Is atheism a belief?

[EgoDeath]

It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.

Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street.  Do I believe she's having a boy?  Do I believe she's having a girl?  Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy?  Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No.  I know she's having a boy / girl.  My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

This is my position on the God idea in general.  I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god.  I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

Your position sounds to me a lot like those who insist: "A photon MUST BE either a particle or a wave.  It can't be both or neither, because that's physically impossible!"  Well, you've got to wake up to the fact that not only is ambiguity real, it's the default state of reality: a photon is particle/wave until it's resolved by the act of collecting knowledge.  It's absurd to form a single belief about the mortality Schrodinger's cat; but it's perfectly reasonable to say you don't know if it's alive.

The existential truth about a philosophical God is hidden inside Schrodinger's box, and nobody has the key, or probably ever will.

I don't know what to tell you. It's been explained to you multiple times that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. That you're unable to identify whether or not you hold a belief in god or gods is a testament that you DON'T hold said belief. Meaning you are an agnostic atheist. Not sure how many times you want me to repeat this, but this is the last time I'll say it. If there's some last word you'd like to get in, feel free. I'm done explaining this to you as I've done it multiple times now, as have others.

Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street. Do I believe she's having a boy? Do I believe she's having a girl? Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy? Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No. I know she's having a boy / girl. My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

But you don't know which yet, so you withhold any beliefs regarding its gender until it is clear which one it is. So at this stage, you would be both an "a-boyist" and an "a-girlist".

This is my position on the God idea in general. I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god. I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

But, put in other words, this still means you withhold belief that "God exists" until the time comes when God is made obvious to you. So in the more inclusive sense of the term "atheist", you would still be an atheist. Of course, you don't have to agree with the definition I argue for. All I'm saying is that, per this definition, you are an atheist. You need not agree with the definition, though. It's up to you how you identify yourself as.

I appreciate you drawing this out for him, but SEVERAL people have explained this to him multiple times in the thread and he keeps on trying to create these weird hypothetical positions to prove his point; which obviously fail.

You have more patience than I, sir. I for one, am checking out of this thread, for now.