If Atheism is a psychological position we don't need to seriously consider it

[Milton Platt]

From SEP: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not directanswers to this question."

This is a very clear explanation of why atheism is, indeed, a position. It's not simply a psychological state, it's a metaphysical view that the unvierse is absent gods, opposed to theism being 1+ existing god. Further, atheism doesn't exist in a vaccuum. The second you get to morality, epistemology, materialism, and so on the more defense the position needs.

In no other cases do we accept a position that does not need defense and support, so why do some do so with atheism? Even worse, why not just defend your atheism if you can?

A great example is being told "you don't need to defend/support being an abigfootist." That's ... That's not true. If you think Bigfoot is fiction you need reason to think so or we shouldn't seriously consider your position. For instance - "I don't believe because the video evidence was shown to be a man in a monkey suit". That's a reason one can defend for holding their position.

Why do I think atheism has taken to this? Burden of proof games. The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous. There is no "burden of proof," anyone who has a position needs to defend it. Ask yourself: if you don't have evidence and arguments to believe something, and can't / aren't willing to defend it... Is it really a worthwhile position?

Posts like this are often referred to as "word Salad". Both belief and lack of belief in ANYTHING are psychological conditions because they necessarily require the use of a brain. So what???

There is more than one usage of the word "atheist". you would be better off asking the person using the term what usage he/she is intending in the context of the conversation.

Would it be fair of me as an atheist to pick one of the many definitions of what, say, a Christian is and then say that all people claiming to be a Christian hold exactly to that definition with regards to their beliefs??? No, it would be an absurd argument to make.

Atheism is not necessarily a claim that there are no gods. Most atheists simply claim that they do not believe any of the gods defined so far exist because the evidence is lacking, or the description is internally conflicting or inconsistent. However unlikely, someone may someday discover a god somewhere. But until then, there is no reason to believe this undefined thing actually exists.

You said " why not just defend your atheism if you can".
Not holding a belief in something does not require a defense. I assume you believe in a deity? Can you defend your lack of belief in all the other deities you do not believe in? Do you realize you are an atheist with respect to all those other deities? I just go one god further than you do.

 

[Jim]

@Regiomontanus @lukethethird
“Atheism,” like all the other labels for people in public debates, means different things to different people, including people who wear the label, but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views. It may or may not be true for some of them that their atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, but that isn’t what I would challenge if I wanted to challenge what they’re saying. What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello. No, not at all. But when someone says "I am an atheist" they are (usually) saying that they subscribe to a strict materialism, that there is no god/Gods/Creator. My point is that such a claim is not rational and insisting on a certainty when certainty is not possible is a dogmatic position.

"I am an atheist" has nothing to do with materialism.

No deities does not equal no supernatural

How did you make the connection?

 

[ChristineM]

atheism is denying.

Atheism is denying like not playing football is a game

 

[ChristineM]

From SEP: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not directanswers to this question."

This is a very clear explanation of why atheism is, indeed, a position. It's not simply a psychological state, it's a metaphysical view that the unvierse is absent gods, opposed to theism being 1+ existing god. Further, atheism doesn't exist in a vaccuum. The second you get to morality, epistemology, materialism, and so on the more defense the position needs.

In no other cases do we accept a position that does not need defense and support, so why do some do so with atheism? Even worse, why not just defend your atheism if you can?

A great example is being told "you don't need to defend/support being an abigfootist." That's ... That's not true. If you think Bigfoot is fiction you need reason to think so or we shouldn't seriously consider your position. For instance - "I don't believe because the video evidence was shown to be a man in a monkey suit". That's a reason one can defend for holding their position.

Why do I think atheism has taken to this? Burden of proof games. The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous. There is no "burden of proof," anyone who has a position needs to defend it. Ask yourself: if you don't have evidence and arguments to believe something, and can't / aren't willing to defend it... Is it really a worthwhile position?

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is just misrepresentation.

 

[ChristineM]

There are a few religions. All talk about the same god.

Three talk about the abrahamic god. There are roughly 4200 religions. And in recorded history about the same number of gods (excluding the 33 million Hindu gods).

But on the bright side, of those 4200 (ish) gods only around 3800 created the universe.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"I am an atheist" has nothing to do with materialism.

No deities does not equal no supernatural

How did you make the connection?

Hello. That was my outlook for most of my life. And that seems to be the view espoused by many self-identifying atheists here on RF. In short, my experience. And note in my second post above I qualified my definition ('usually').

The take away here seems to be that we should agree on terminology/definitions up front.

 

[Father Heathen]

How exactly is lacking belief in something due to insufficient evidence an unreasonable position.

If anything, it's unsubstantiated assertions that are unworthy of serious consideration.

 

[Milton Platt]

@Regiomontanus @lukethethird
“Atheism,” like all the other labels for people in public debates, means different things to different people, including people who wear the label, but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views. It may or may not be true for some of them that their atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, but that isn’t what I would challenge if I wanted to challenge what they’re saying. What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices.

Anti-religious views would be classified as anti-theism, which is not the same as atheism. While many atheists are anti-theist as well, the two things are not synonymous. I believe that anti-theists are more vocal as a group and their presence is more pronounced on online forums.

Also, don't confuse someone arguing against a particular god proposition as being an anti-theist.

One could argue that even theists have anti-religious prejudices, as they can be prejudiced against all other religions but their own.

 

[lukethethird]

@Regiomontanus @lukethethird
“Atheism,” like all the other labels for people in public debates, means different things to different people, including people who wear the label, but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views. It may or may not be true for some of them that their atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, but that isn’t what I would challenge if I wanted to challenge what they’re saying. What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices.

Not to mention the anti-religious views of the religious that wage war against those of other religions than their own.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello. That was my outlook for most of my life. And that seems to be the view espoused by many self-identifying atheists here on RF. In short, my experience. And note in my second post above I qualified my definition ('usually').

The take away here seems to be that we should agree on terminology/definitions up front.

I never heard of the word atheist until I came on RF (bout five years ago I think). I live all among christians and other believers sprinkled here and there. I heard so many definitions on RF, that I just went off the dictionary.

I dont even know what a deity is to even consider to believe it exists. A lot of believers think atheist are people who reject god of abraham. To me, its allt the same in context. Hindu god. Pagan god. Abrahamic god. A deity is something not in my line of reasoning. A creator! Most definitely not.

But even atheists want to fus with me on RF sometimes; so, I guess Im not the typical one. Many I know here come from a christian background of some sort.

Its easy to generalize base on our experiences. Im sure there are atheist-hindu and atheist-Pagans etc. Just we dont know a lot about it to debate so we lean to abrahamics by default.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I never heard of the word atheist until I came on RF (bout five years ago I think). I live all among christians and other believers sprinkled here and there. I heard so many definitions on RF, that I just went off the dictionary.

I dont even know what a deity is to even consider to believe it exists. A lot of believers think atheist are people who reject god of abraham. To me, its allt the same in context. Hindu god. Pagan god. Abrahamic god. A deity is something not in my line of reasoning. A creator! Most definitely not.

But even atheists want to fus with me on RF sometimes; so, I guess Im not the typical one. Many I know here come from a christian background of some sort.

Its easy to generalize base on our experiences. Im sure there are atheist-hindu and atheist-Pagans etc. Just we dont know a lot about it to debate so we lean to abrahamics by default.

Hello. Yes, I had a pleasant exchange here a few weeks ago (ack my memory - I forget his name) who is a 'Hindu - strong atheist' - he is a regular here. Anyway that was a new one for me. And that is a great thing about this forum, being exposed to new points of view.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From SEP: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not directanswers to this question."

This is a very clear explanation of why atheism is, indeed, a position. It's not simply a psychological state, it's a metaphysical view that the unvierse is absent gods, opposed to theism being 1+ existing god. Further, atheism doesn't exist in a vaccuum. The second you get to morality, epistemology, materialism, and so on the more defense the position needs.

In no other cases do we accept a position that does not need defense and support, so why do some do so with atheism? Even worse, why not just defend your atheism if you can?

A great example is being told "you don't need to defend/support being an abigfootist." That's ... That's not true. If you think Bigfoot is fiction you need reason to think so or we shouldn't seriously consider your position. For instance - "I don't believe because the video evidence was shown to be a man in a monkey suit". That's a reason one can defend for holding their position.

Why do I think atheism has taken to this? Burden of proof games. The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous. There is no "burden of proof," anyone who has a position needs to defend it. Ask yourself: if you don't have evidence and arguments to believe something, and can't / aren't willing to defend it... Is it really a worthwhile position?

To make it more complicated:

Theist: Pagans, Hindu, Buddhist. Abrahamics. Anamists, Deists.

Atheist can be: UU. Some NeoPagan. Pantheist.
Not familiar with any religion without theistic concepts regardless how they define their gods; supernatural does not equate to deities.



Burden of proof: If I said I I bought some groceries, and you dont see them, you may ask me to produce a receipt so I can check the date you brought it and if it aligns with whether you bought them and when.

I cant prove whether you did or didnt buy groceries because I dont have the burden of proof; I dont have the rceipt. You do.

So, logically, if you present an argument of refutation, be expected to present evidence with your statement. Its not religious in nature. You make a claim. The other wants facts. You present evidence. They can make a counter position based on what you gave them. They cant do anything unless you support your statement.

Thats why you hold the burden of proof.

The Bigfoot thing is just silly in general

God and bigfoot are compared because neither exists. Point blank.

If there were no books about either of these two, how would you know either exists?

Step back a sec. If you had no information about the existence of these two things, what would be your poistion about them if they arent in your awareness to even know what they are to begin with????

 

[Ponder This]

@1137 @It Aint Necessarily So @ChristineM

How exactly is lacking belief in something due to insufficient evidence an unreasonable position.

If anything, it's unsubstantiated assertions that are unworthy of serious consideration.

If you're not interested in playing football, then you don't have to play and we can all agree that you are being perfectly reasonable. You can spectate on the sidelines as the players compete.
But if you want to play football, then you have to pick a side.

That's how debate works. Debaters debate the truth or falsity of a positional claim. Debaters don't walk onto the field of debate and say, "You must defend your position, but I do not have to defend mine."

So the question would be what turns your psychological condition of 'lacking belief' into a positional claim?
What proposition are you affirming to be true? Once you answer that question, we can know what fields you are playing on and what fields you are merely spectating.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello. Yes, I had a pleasant exchange here a few weeks ago (ack my memory - I forget his name) who is a 'Hindu - strong atheist' - he is a regular here. Anyway that was a new one for me. And that is a great thing about this forum, being exposed to new points of view.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

Hmm. Yeah.I think I know who youre talking about. Ima read the link in a bit; but, it threw me off guard too that one can be an Hindu Atheist. I was more surprised over than a christian one. Urban Dictionary: Christian Atheist (Believe jesus existed and his morals but not his fathers existence)

 

[joe1776]

From SEP: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not directanswers to this question."

This is a very clear explanation of why atheism is, indeed, a position. It's not simply a psychological state, it's a metaphysical view that the unvierse is absent gods, opposed to theism being 1+ existing god. Further, atheism doesn't exist in a vaccuum. The second you get to morality, epistemology, materialism, and so on the more defense the position needs.

In no other cases do we accept a position that does not need defense and support, so why do some do so with atheism? Even worse, why not just defend your atheism if you can?

A great example is being told "you don't need to defend/support being an abigfootist." That's ... That's not true. If you think Bigfoot is fiction you need reason to think so or we shouldn't seriously consider your position. For instance - "I don't believe because the video evidence was shown to be a man in a monkey suit". That's a reason one can defend for holding their position.

Why do I think atheism has taken to this? Burden of proof games. The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous. There is no "burden of proof," anyone who has a position needs to defend it. Ask yourself: if you don't have evidence and arguments to believe something, and can't / aren't willing to defend it... Is it really a worthwhile position?

You're making demands that are nearly impossible because while proving negatives isn't impossible, it's rare. To me the Bigfoot phenomenon displays the pattern of evidence that I associate with a hoax. That's a reason that I don't believe in Bigfoot's existence, but it's not evidence of non-existence.

I'm agnostic on the possible existence of a Creator. However, I'm convinced by massive evidence that I don't feel obligated to explain to anyone, that if such a Creator exists, the founders of the world's most popular religious faiths knew no more about its true nature than I do.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Some people do not like to be defined by others, and it seems a fair objection. Materialism is separate from atheism. Atheism is separate from theism, and theism has different meanings. One persons theism is anothers idolatry sometimes. Other times theists all sing together. Its popcorn, and you get what your hand finds.

...but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views....

We have some regulars here who in addition to being atheists reduce all religion to a strawman of systems of belief and further make then built strawman into a scarecrow. Religion some claim is the cause of our social ills and to get rid of it all. I would not call that atheism but anti religion in addition to atheism.

 

[Milton Platt]

@1137 @It Aint Necessarily So @ChristineM



If you're not interested in playing football, then you don't have to play and we can all agree that you are being perfectly reasonable. You can spectate on the sidelines as the players compete.
But if you want to play football, then you have to pick a side.

That's how debate works. Debaters debate the truth or falsity of a positional claim. Debaters don't walk onto the field of debate and say, "You must defend your position, but I do not have to defend mine."

So the question would be what turns your psychological condition of 'lacking belief' into a positional claim?
What proposition are you affirming to be true? Once you answer that question, we can know what fields you are playing on and what fields you are merely spectating.

Right. Most atheists will simply claim a lack of belief in a god, not a belief that there is no god.
I am one of the former. I do not say there is no god, only that I do not believe there is one. Belief or lack of belief is subject to change based upon sufficient good evidence.
One does not have to offer evidence for a lack of belief in any proposition, whether it be a god, a unicorn, or anything else. Stating a lack of belief is not a proposition, it is a declaration of a mental state.

The football analogy doesn't stand up well. We are not talking about a game, but a belief. The person not wanting to play football is not claiming he does not believe football exists as a game.

 

[Milton Platt]

@Regiomontanus @lukethethird
“Atheism,” like all the other labels for people in public debates, means different things to different people, including people who wear the label, but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views. It may or may not be true for some of them that their atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, but that isn’t what I would challenge if I wanted to challenge what they’re saying. What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices.

I would hope you would also then challenge anti-religious views of religious people who hold anti-religious views towards others who are of a different faith?

 

[1137]

No. I may address further.

It is far more rational and logical than the belief systems clinging to ancient mythology, and ancient scripture of questionable provenance

The question at hand is not whether atheism or theism is more rational. The question at hand is that atheism is a proposition and not a psychological state. I would say it is more rational to accept a position that presents reasoning and evidence, rather than stating they do not need to and only other positions do.

I think this is all semantics. When the discussion gets to this level of precision, it's common to describe "hard atheists" as distinct from other atheists. I would say that your argument might hold some water of you're referring to "hard atheists". In my experience, there are not many hard atheists, we're mostly in the "a god probably doesn't exist" camp.

"God probably doesn't exist", is a proposition, it is identical to "the universe likely has zero gods". All such propositions needs to be defended, and if they cannot be they should not be seriously considered.

If you start in life with no God, there is no God. Atheism is not a position. It's a fact.

See, this is just claiming "It's a Fact". I can say "creationism is a fact," are you now a creationist? What evidence do you have of this? Why do the beliefs of an ignorant child define reality? I started life thinking when mom walked out she would never come back - wasn't true. I thought people lived forever - not true. I thought teachers lived in the school - not true. But of course you accept all these things since I was born thinking that way, correct?

Doubting the claims of believers is an unsupportable dogmatic position?

The user seems to be talking about certain forms of atheism like materialism and anti-theism, or even LaVeyan Satanism.

That's not a useful definition of atheism. It excludes all of the people who make no claim either way about the existence or nonexistence of gods, and who live like those that claim that no gods exist. If your definition of atheist doesn't include such people, it is an inadequate definition. It only includes a subset of those with no god belief, and probably a minority of such people. Why place so much emphasis on whether an unbeliever is willing to claim to know that gods don't exist or not? It's irrelevant.The two groups are otherwise indistinguishable. Neither believes in gods or participates in religions.

You don't have to make a claim. When I theist says "I believe in gods" the atheists still jump down their throat screaming "PROOOOOVE IIIIITTT!!!" So it is only fair this works both ways. "I believe in god" implies "I believe there are 1+ gods in reality", and atheists are right to recognize. It doesn't magically change for you guy. Atheism is the position that "I believe there are zero gods in reality", and you need to have reasons to think so. It has nothing to do with claims of certainty.

I don't know is the only logically sound position to take about an unresolved issue. Why would one answer yes or no to a question that he has no answer to?

Saying "I don't know" does not mean you cannot find one option more likely than another.

Atheism needs no defense. It is merely the position that one does not believe in any god or gods. No other claim is being made apart from the implication that one should have a reason to believe anything, and that the atheist hasn't found that reason.

Seriously this is special pleading - what other position are you ok accepting without any defense of it? I am guessing none. If you believe there are zero gods in the universe you either need reasons and evidence to believe so like anyone else on any other proposition, or your position should not be considered.

You don't seem to understand skepticism. No reason is needed to not accept claims that Bigfoot exists. The opposite is true. A reason is needed to believe, and that reason must be convincing evidence. Absent that, such belief is unjustified, that is, faith.

This idea that "you have a different view so cannot be skeptic" is the perfect identifier of false modern skepticism. Unfortunately, "hardcore materialistic atheism" is not a skeptical position and not even a reasonable one. If you accept claims with reason to there's no reason to take you seriously. Here: "creationism is true and I dont need a reason to believe so like you said." Looks like you're a creationist now, sorry!

"I am an atheist" can simply be saying that one does not share in the same unsupported beliefs as the claimant that believes in what there is no evidence for, so who is it that is being dogmatic about their claims here?

Well there are two problems here. First is that we know full well that theism can be a justified belief, so simply labeling it an "unsupported position" is about as fallacious as we can get. Why do we have to accept your unsupported claim that it is more likely no gods exist??

I think God is real in people's minds. A manifestation of ones personality.

God can be real in that context.

We've known each other a long time now, I know you're too smart to actually not understand the difference between something mind-dependent and something objectively existent.

Posts like this are often referred to as "word Salad". Both belief and lack of belief in ANYTHING are psychological conditions because they necessarily require the use of a brain. So what???

It's always concerning when people refer to philosophy in such condescending terms. I think you misunderstood the entire point of the article - that both theism and atheism are a believe and proposition on whether or not gods exist, atheism is not some nonsense "lack of belief" as often claimed.

Would it be fair of me as an atheist to pick one of the many definitions of what, say, a Christian is and then say that all people claiming to be a Christian hold exactly to that definition with regards to their beliefs??? No, it would be an absurd argument to make.

If that definition was something like "they believe in the divinity of christ" then that is perfectly fine, fair, and objectively true, It is a defining characteristic. Should Setians be insulted if you defined us as all honoring Set? I mean... that's part of the definition. Same with atheism and the belief in a godless universe.

Atheism is not necessarily a claim that there are no gods. Most atheists simply claim that they do not believe any of the gods defined so far exist because the evidence is lacking, or the description is internally conflicting or inconsistent. However unlikely, someone may someday discover a god somewhere. But until then, there is no reason to believe this undefined thing actually exists.

It doesn't have to be a claim of certainty, it's the proposition that no gods are more likely to exist than 1+. You literally state this yourself in that last sentence.

You said " why not just defend your atheism if you can".
Not holding a belief in something does not require a defense. I assume you believe in a deity? Can you defend your lack of belief in all the other deities you do not believe in? Do you realize you are an atheist with respect to all those other deities? I just go one god further than you do.

I do not comprehend how this is so difficult for atheists to understand. If you don't believe the universe is godless you believe there are gods and are a theist. That's literally it, QED. If you believe the universe is godless or is with gods, either way you need reasons to believe so. If a position has no reasons to believe it then we should not seriously consider it.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is just misrepresentation.

Exactly, you are spot on! Atheism is the belief and proposition that there are no gods, that the universe is godless. And like all beliefs and propositions we should have reasons to believe them. What other positions do you accept which have no reason to be believed?

How exactly is lacking belief in something due to insufficient evidence an unreasonable position.

If anything, it's unsubstantiated assertions that are unworthy of serious consideration.

Pretending the arguments and evidence are not there does not make them magically disappear. Address those or defend your own position.

Right. Most atheists will simply claim a lack of belief in a god, not a belief that there is no god.
I am one of the former. I do not say there is no god, only that I do not believe there is one. Belief or lack of belief is subject to change based upon sufficient good evidence.
One does not have to offer evidence for a lack of belief in any proposition, whether it be a god, a unicorn, or anything else. Stating a lack of belief is not a proposition, it is a declaration of a mental state.

Wrong. If you believe the universe is godless, and have no reasons to believe so, then your proposition is worthless. Please share with the class what other positions you accept without reasons to do so? Will you believe any claim I make since I do not need reasons to believe them?