My argument for atheism +

[Belacqua]

It is literally translated from the Latin evidentia which means "obvious to the mind or eye".

OK, but I'm sure you know that etymology doesn't tell us the current meaning of the word. I think the definition I quoted is the common one.

 
Replace "think" with "believe" and we're in agreement. It's belief because while they believe that one deity exists they do not believe that an army of equally (im)probable deities also exist. Dispassionate application of their standards would result in the belief in a literal host of mutually exclusive deities and theological chaos.

Well, I think that if you believe something, you just hold it to be true. 

I understand that some people want "belief" to be a weaker version, in which we hold something to be true without persuasive evidence. But that just gets us back to the issue of what kind of evidence is persuasive. 

The age-old definition of knowledge as "justified true belief," in which belief is anything you hold to be true, and knowledge is a subset of that belief, seems to avoid these issues. I don't want to say that knowledge is what people hold to be true according to standards I like, while belief is what other people hold to be true based on standards I don't like. 

It's funny that you'd think that you'd have to tell a sceptic that any given viewpoint should be regarded with suspicion, especially one's own.

[...]

And knowing that I try to use a variety of relatively objective standards. They aren't perfect but then nothing ever is. 

I've been surprised by how many atheists think they can reject religious claims based on no viewpoint and no objective standards. They say that they just hear a claim and reject it and that's that -- they don't have to apply any logic, evidence, etc. To me, this is an indication that they may be insufficiently skeptical of their own standards of judgment, just because they aren't consciously applying such standards. 

It's encouraging for me to hear that you are not only conscious of your analytical process, but capable of skepticism about it.