[awb]

> On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim

Not 100% correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

> Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

You’re talking about the most narrow definition, which is addressed by Russell’s Teapot. According to Russel, the logical position that there is no teapot floating in space is much more reasonable in the absence of evidence than saying you don’t know. To say you don’t know and to continue to entertain theories of a teapot in space is simply a waste of time. Or, if you say you don’t know but refuse to entertain theories of the teapot, then you’re simply projecting agnosticism, without truly practicing it.

A more common application of the term “atheism” is the absence of belief. An absence of belief requires no proof. It’s a rejection of an assertion, which is different than an assertion.

In fact, it’s a common logical starting point of not believing in something until you have a reason to believe. I’m sure you do it all the time with knowledge that isn’t innate. And then of course as evidence presents itself you’re free to reevaluate and change your mind.

You don’t get any bonus points for “not ever being wrong” by saying “I don’t know” all the time. It’s perfectly reasonable to say “I don’t believe you.” Or “No, it doesn’t.” as long as you’re willing to accept future information and revise your views then. Not being wrong isn’t the same as being right.

Progress comes equally from doubt as it does from curiosity. Countless discoveries were made by rejecting unsubstantiated claims. So from a practical standpoint, rejecting theories seems to have some utility.

So, if accepting or rejecting a hypothesis helps someone live a better life, then why not?

[Maursault]

Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist. Both phrases, in fact, mean the same thing. And with tomato tomato, we can dismiss a correction to one's adherence to an alternative standard.

[awb]

> Clearly, the absence of belief in God is the very same as believing God does not exist.

Not in my opinion.

You were born with an absence in the belief of an infinite number of things. Absence of belief is a default state.

Presumably you have a filter of what beliefs you choose to add to that default state you were born in.

Having a filter of: “Does it help me live a better life?” seems good to me. “Can anyone reproduce it?” seems like a decent filter too.

Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.

Believing a negative is saying that I have all the evidence I need and I’ve come to a conclusion. The burden is on me to show that I’ve collected enough evidence.

That’s how I see them being different states.

[Maursault]

> Basically an absence of belief is saying that the level of evidence presented to me has not surpassed the requirements of my filter. The burden is on others to improve the evidence.

Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it," is, in fact, a belief. Believing something is a belief, and not believing something is also a belief. Belief is not knowledge of truth, it is a gamble that something is true without seeing the dice. When you see the dice, you know.

[awb]

> Again, the "absence of belief" is identical to "not believing:" "the evidence has not convinced you, so you do not believe it,"

I really don’t think so.

Today you probably have an absence of belief in rainbow colored lions.

That’s different from trying to figure out if rainbow colored lions exist, evaluating claims and deciding to believe that they don’t exist.

Absence of belief = passive default

Belief = active decision making

When someone mentions the words “rainbow colored lions” or even makes a claim “I saw a rainbow colored lion”, I don’t feel a burden to evaluate their claim. I’m more evaluating the structure of their claim: they’ve provided no evidence.

So, I am choosing to believe that they’ve made an unfounded argument. I don’t suddenly feel the need to actively not believe in rainbow colored lions.