Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

I'm kinda late to the party, but isn't believing that all gods and The God doesn't exist basically a belief?

As per Cambridge Dictionary, belief is:

So that being said, if Atheism is holding that no God exists, then is that not a feeling of being certain that something is true?

It is for this reason Cambridge Dictionary defines atheism as:

I realize the "or" statement there in the definition, but the contrapositive of the first half of the definition is believing in no god or gods, is it not?

So, therefore, how could atheism not be a belief?

Sources:

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief?q=Belief

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism?q=Atheism

ATHEISM = "NOT A THEIST"

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY

APOLITICAL = "NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION"

APOLITICAL != "ANTI-POLITICAL"

Atheists are too cool to have beliefs. See if they were like everybody else then they feel bad about themselves,  they have to be super duper special. My favorite is when they say if you want to be an atheist read the Bible like any non-Christian theist would care what the Bible has to say. Since the only religion they acknowledge in any way, shape or form is Christianity they're basically Christians whether they think so or not because they totally give Christians more power in their belief than any other religion.

How can one believe in no god?

The opposite of believing, is not believing.

How come we haven't seen Angels at Mar-A-Lago? Why aren't there any pictures of God talking to Melania from a burning bush?

If you do not believe the world is flat when you believe the world is round. If you do not believe someone is lying then you believe they're telling the truth. The fact that you are adverse to the word believe just shows the level and depth of the bigotry that you have for theists. It's disgusting and quite frankly makes you guys look a little dumb.

or pear-shaped

or pie-shaped

or star-shaped

or helicopter-shaped

or they are mistaken

or misinformed

or stating their sincere opinion

or they perhaps misspoke

Again the only point you're making is that you have a problem with the words round and believe. Always appreciate your b******* spam posts that you put down to just kind of take up space and time because you don't really have anything else to say and want to disagree with somebody, that's what makes this site great. Maybe if you'd asked me to define something or put a definition down it would have been more your style.

what is your personally preferred definition of "not flat"

what is your personally preferred definition of "lie"

See you should stick to your regular level of trolling. 

there are a lot of statements that are not "lies" and also not "truth"

there are a lot of things that are not "flat" and also not "round"

Atheism is simply "Intelligence".  Jim Bakker believes in God.  Stephen Hawking did not believe in God.

Doesn’t always follow, I remember debating with an atheist who was also a Moon landing denier.

Atheists are smart and religious people are stupid people that need an opiate. Evolution has produced countless amazing life forms, but you need look no further than to the human body to find examples showing that evolution has also produced a number of poor constructions. "The many flaws of evolution makes it impossible to believe in the theory of intelligent design," says Professor Glenn-Peter Sætre at the University of Oslo. An obvious example of "unintelligent design" in the human body is that women have a narrow birth canal, which makes childbirth both more dangerous and more painful than in other species. "The human body is also constructed poorly in a lot of other ways. We are for example not able to synthesize the all-important vitamin C, unlike other mammals. Therefore, we must either obtain vitamin C through our food or die from scurvy. It is unreasonable to claim that this is the result of an intelligent design," Sætre points out.

Why does God let children die from cancer?   The Universe is an accident.

How can you, a part of the universe, claim that the universe itself is an accident? Humans are a minuscule part of the vast universe, and it is astounding that some individuals claim that the entire universe is an accident. This notion is merely a reflection of how humans perceive the universe. I am aware that you could formulate a compelling argument that there are many tragedies in the world. However, the idea that there is tragedy in the world is proof that there is no God is incorrectly formulated. As I said, I don't believe in a conscious being of God, but rather that reality itself is what people call God. I agree that there are many tragedies in the world, but this is not proof that God does not exist.

 Most theoretical physicists now believe that our universe is just one of a vast number of universes all with very different physical properties.  And all of these different universes originate from the same fundamental principles.  So there’s not one solution to the crossword puzzle.  There are many solutions to the crossword puzzles.  In that case there’s no possibility of explaining why our universe is a necessary consequence of the fundamental principles.  There are many, many different possibilities.  Some of these other universes might have 17 dimensions.  Some of them might have planets and stars like ours.  Others may have just an amorphous field of energy with no planets and stars.  Some of them might allow life like our universe.  Some of them may not allow life.  And our universe is just one lucky draw from the hat.

In which case we are accidental.  We are an accidental universe.  And so, the historic mission of science, and especially physics, to show that we are – our universe is the unique result of a certain set of fundamental principles – that historic mission is no longer feasible. It’s no longer possible.  This conclusion makes theoretical physicists extremely unhappy because it means that a lot of our mission is an illusion.  But that may be the way nature is.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept that our universe is accidental with the idea that it was inevitable. Considering the existence of the multiverse, I believe that there are potentially infinite universes. If we consider the possibility of a conscious being questioning the probability of its own existence, it is inevitable because if it did not exist, it would not be able to have the consciousness to question its own existence.

A universe with life is likely to recognize its own existence and the existence of other universes than a universe without life. This is because only in a universe with life can there be conscious beings capable of recognizing their surroundings and contemplating their existence. In contrast, a universe without life would not have the ability to recognize or contemplate anything.

When you say the universe is an accident, are you suggesting that it is flawed or somehow not in alignment with what was intended? I could agree that the universe was not created intentionally, but I disagree with the idea that it is flawed or out of line. Such claims assume a standard by which to judge the universe, but we could argue that any standard is subjective and could be used to find flaws in anything. Similarly, the notion of the universe being "out of line" implies a comparison to something else. But what are we comparing it to? If we're referring to objective reality, then it's not correct to say that the universe is out of line with it since the universe is part of objective reality. Therefore, anything that the universe does is necessarily in line with objective reality.

The Universe is not part of objective reality.  A question that we cannot answer is whether there is such a thing as an objective, observer-independent reality. Many of us assume that it does, and we build our interpretations of quantum physics in such ways that they admit an underlying, objective reality. Others don’t make that assumption, and build equally valid interpretations of quantum physics that don’t necessarily have one. All we have to guide us, for better or for worse, is what we can observe and measure. We can physically describe that, successfully, either with or without an objective, observer-independent reality. At this moment in time, it’s up to each of us to decide whether we’d rather add on the philosophically satisfying but physically extraneous notion that “objective reality” is meaningful.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the meaning of something is not inherent in the object itself but rather derived from the perspective of the observer. Different individuals may perceive the same thing differently, finding meaning or lack thereof based on their unique views. This suggests that the concept of objective reality being meaningful or meaningless is irrelevant since it hinges on the observer's perspective.

I used to entertain the idea of solipsism, questioning the existence of an external reality, but now I realize its irrelevance. Whether there is an external reality or not, the most practical approach is to navigate our own reality by acting in a successful and predictable manner. By basing our actions on predictions and engaging with others in ways that our reality perceives as cooperative, we can better control and improve our own reality. In this pragmatic view, it is more beneficial to assume others have an external reality, as it contributes to a better interaction and outcome within our own reality. This perspective is less philosophical and more focused on practicality and effective living.