Some people may say atheism is not a belief. If we define belief as the mental acceptance, psychological state, or confidence in the truth or reliability of something, then asserting with certainty that gods or goddesses do not exist could indeed be considered a form of belief. This is because it involves:

1. Cognitive Acceptance: The individual cognitively accepts the proposition that gods do not exist as true.
2. Psychological State: The individual is in a psychological state of conviction regarding the non-existence of gods.
3. Faith or Trust: The individual has confidence or trust in the reasoning, evidence, or arguments that lead them to this conclusion.

Therefore, strong atheism (the explicit assertion that gods do not exist) can be seen as a belief under this definition, as it embodies the cognitive, psychological, and confidence aspects of belief. In contrast, weak atheism (the lack of belief in gods) does not assert a belief in non-existence but simply withholds belief in existence, making it less about belief and more about a suspension of belief.

So, I believe the faith in god and not believing in god have the same properties and the same arrogance in ignorance, false assumptions, and irrational thinking.

But does this mean that both positions are equally justified or unjustified? Can one truly claim rational superiority over the other without definitive proof? How do personal experiences, cultural influences, and psychological factors play into these beliefs? Should we approach these profound questions with more humility and openness to alternative perspectives? Is it possible that suspending belief until more evidence is available is the most rational stance? And finally, what does this mean for the way we engage in discussions about belief and non-belief with others?

Reference: Mastan Ouagari. 

~X~