Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

They have a hard time grasping the concept that a belief can either be," I believe x exists," or "I don't believe x exists."

Let me just first say that I like how you are now avoiding responding to me, choosing instead to respond to me indirectly by saying "yeah" to other people's posts to me.

Now, I do have a hard time grasping a concept that makes no sense; that is true. When you say "I don't believe X", you're saying "I don't hold the belief X". "I don't believe X exists" is only a belief in that I'm saying "I believe that I don't believe X exists", but that doesn't mean my lack of belief in X is a belief. It means I have the belief that I lack that belief.

He does ,however, raise a valid point that "atheism" can be defined by lack of belief in "God(s)", however this assertion is not the view of most atheists.

First, it is the view of all atheists. Every atheist lacks the belief "God exists". Many atheists also hold the belief "God doesn't exist", but that only adds more detail to their description.

With that being said, a lack of belief in "God(s)" can be taken into the view of belief, simply because those atheists that stick by that definition, tend to belief in it and explain it in a most thorough manner.

You do realize that a debate is not simply repeating your opinion over and over, and ignoring counterpoints to it, right? We understand that you have this warped view. We've explained repeatedly how it is warped. You've ignored those responses. Either respond to the counterpoints, or just stop making the assertion.

That has been the basis of his (their) argument for some time now.

Not really the basis of my argument, but it is generally good to keep irrelevant things out of the discussion.

I would also note that no where in the definition of "atheism" does it say that it's not a belief, since when a label is defined by belief, it tends to be believed.

Again, we've pointed out several times the problem with your assertion here. It would be good to respond to those points or stop making the claim.

 

[Willamena]

They have a hard time grasping the concept that a belief can either be," I believe x exists," or "I don't believe x exists."

It's two distinct images of "belief" that are clashing. The real problem lies in making no attempt to see the other image, i.e. in the authority of knowing what "belief" means.

This has certainly developed into an interesting topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You'll never get a definition where it will always be possible to judge whether every entity you examine belongs to that category.

Then it's impossible to reject all gods, or all beliefs in gods. Is nobody an atheist?

However, you can produce definitions that allow unambiguous classification in the majority of cases.

And that might work if you were defining atheism as "rejection of belief in the majority of gods"... are you?

Here is one for "god":
"A supernatural being that has control over natural physical forces and that people worship."

Hmm. Okay... for the purposes of this discussion, that probably works. It might be overly broad - IMO, it probably includes some things like spirits, djinns, kami and the like that aren't normally considered gods - however, if you reject them while rejecting all gods, it's no skin off my nose.

Now... can you actually use this defintion as the basis for a rejection? Are you able to reject all things that meet this definition?

No. What I was saying was that you cannot know the meaning of "atheism" if you do not know the meaning of "god".

But you don't need to know the meaning of "atheism" to be an atheist. That requirement's not even in your overly restrictive definition.

I see no difference at all. A communist must know what communism is. An anti-communist must know what communism is.

So... in your view, someone who lived centuries ago, who espoused beliefs that we now recognize as being completely in keeping with communism, but never heard the word "communism" cannot be called a communist validly?

There are lots of words that are just like "theist" and "atheist". Your special treatment of words that rely on the concept of "god" is a form of special pleading, since you deny the relevance of your argument for other words.

Okay... can you give an example, then? Give me a word that, like your definition of communism, requires that the person make some express action or decision (e.g. rejection) for an entire category of thing (e.g. gods). Once you do, we'll see whether it has the same problems as your definition of atheism does.

You've completely lost me with this one.

Just as an atheist is someone who only believes in things that are not gods, an "a-geologist" is someone who only studies things that are not rocks.

Perhaps it would be better to stick with "-ism" examples. There is such a thing as antisemitism, and it is relevant to ask whether a given politician is an antisemite. If you tried to define antisemtism, you would find that it is not so easy. There are clear cases of it and borderline cases, just as there are for communists and atheists.

I don't see how this is relevant.

When we speak a language, we strive to use the same meanings for words as others--i.e. we assume that our meaning is "external" or acceptable to others. So we assume that our understanding is shared by others. The word "god" is no different from "door" in that respect and should not be treated as special. Again, I see you as engaging in special pleading in order not to be backed into the corner of admitting that you know enough about gods to believe that they do not exist. Doors, on the other hand, do exist, because we've seen them.

The issue isn't with the word "door" or "god"; it's with the issue "reject" and how it requires us to apply it to the thing in question. And if anything, I think it's you who's engaging in special pleading and me who's asking for consistency.

Rejection is a volitional act. If I say that I reject an entire category of things, then this means that I reject every single thing within that category. If the category is not properly defined to the extent that I can tell whether anything I don't reject falls within it, then I cannot truthfully say that I reject that category of thing.

I'm not sure what "other contexts" you mean here. I see no special problems that we do not encounter with other similar words.

I mean just what I touched on above: there are very few terms that require a person to perform an express act (e.g. rejection) on an entire category of thing (e.g. gods).

I thought about it more, and I came up with a couple... however, they seem to generally apply to cases where the category of thing is quite rigidly and narrowly defined, for instance: "vegetarian" (someone who refuses to eat all meats) or "teetotaller" (someone who refuses to drink alcohol). In these cases, it's easy enough to use the word, but these terms work only because the distinction between "meat" and "not meat" (or "alcohol" and "not alcohol") is quite clear. This clarity is missing with the term "god".

Can you think of another term that's like your definition of atheist? One that involves someone performing an express act on an entire category of thing, but where that category of thing can't be rigidly defined? I can't think of any.

Whoever listens to you.

That doesn't even make any sense!

How exactly can I, reading your posts after you've written them, go back in time, climb inside your head and decide what you meant to say?

Certaintly, we normally try to take the other person's understanding into account when we communicate, but ultimately, my intended meaning is mine alone.

No, you were not using set theory properly to represent the babies state of mind. It is reasonable to believe that the baby has a set of beliefs about the world it rejects. All minds have that. What is unreasonable is to represent the set of things it doesn't have any concept for as being in that space. If there is a divide-by-zero error here, it is you who is committing the error. Move that empty set outside of the rejection space, and you have an accurate description of my definition and no division by zero.

Exactly what grounds do you have to "move the set"? It's an empty set; there's nothing to pin its location down anywhere.

Its location is undefined; you don't get to then define it as "anywhere but this region".

That is a false dichotomy that is motivated by your desire to maintain your definition at all costs.

It's not a false dichotomy; it's a real dichotomy that comes from my understanding of the term "atheist". The mere fact that you have a different understanding of the term doesn't mean that I've committed a logical fallacy.

Your analogy with "conveyance" fails, because everyone knows what "car" and "conveyance" mean, and we can come up with conversational contexts where your sentence would sound natural. That is not true for persons who have no "god" concept. In any case, I've started a survey on usage just to see what folks in RF who hang out in this forum think.

Yes, and judging by how the survey's gone so far, it seems that the general consensus is going against you: as of right now, the majority of people who have responded to the survey have said that the term "atheist" does include babies.

Of course, it's not even a matter of a majority, is it? Even a sizeable minority would be enough to establish that it's a valid use of the term, right?

 

[Magic Man]

Of course, it's not even a matter of a majority, is it? Even a sizeable minority would be enough to establish that it's a valid use of the term, right?

Indeed. I put the sizeable majority at 20% in the other thread, although even less than that would probably do.

 

[Orias]

Let me just first say that I like how you are now avoiding responding to me, choosing instead to respond to me indirectly by saying "yeah" to other people's posts to me.

Your antics bore me.

Now, I do have a hard time grasping a concept that makes no sense; that is true. When you say "I don't believe X", you're saying "I don't hold the belief X". "I don't believe X exists" is only a belief in that I'm saying "I believe that I don't believe X exists", but that doesn't mean my lack of belief in X is a belief. It means I have the belief that I lack that belief.

It just means that you belief in every single point you argue against the base of belief.

If it's not a belief then you shouldn't label yourself an atheist and then progress into explaining your belief of what atheism is.

First, it is the view of all atheists. Every atheist lacks the belief "God exists". Many atheists also hold the belief "God doesn't exist", but that only adds more detail to their description.

Generalizing won't help you out.

You do realize that a debate is not simply repeating your opinion over and over, and ignoring counterpoints to it, right? We understand that you have this warped view. We've explained repeatedly how it is warped. You've ignored those responses. Either respond to the counterpoints, or just stop making the assertion.

Actually it is, to drive a nail into dry wall you must hit it repeatedly.

To speak of me continually repeating my opinion is pretty absurd, when in fact you are doing the same exact thing. I haven't read a single one of your posts in this thread where you don't mention lack of belief.

The only thing being ignored is unsupported claims without a factual basis for it's argument.

If it's not a belief, then one wouldn't take such a stance to determine their "God" position.

Atheism is in reference to, "I don't believe "God(s)" exist." That is a belief, no matter how much you sugar it up, or make it seem like nothing, because if it were truly nothing you wouldn't try and explain what "atheism" is to you.

Again, we've pointed out several times the problem with your assertion here. It would be good to respond to those points or stop making the claim.

By pointing out, I think you mean insulting and arguing off the base that there is more of you than there is of me. But don't worry, I don't let that kind of stuff get to me.

Point out again what exactly is "wrong" with my assertion here.

As far as I am concerned, a belief is anything believed to be. Now, how is atheism not a belief, if so many people follow it, and believe in it's reference?

Again, the only valid point being ignored is by you (The Opposition), since I have asked repeatedly for you to prove that you actually know anything.

 

[Willamena]

Huh? What I'm saying is if you ask someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they say "No", it would be reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?" because the first question doesn't necessarily imply the answer to the second one.

You had said, "If you're just talking to someone and they said out of the blue "I don't believe God exists", I would think it reasonable to assume that they mean "I believe God doesn't exist". However, if you asked someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they said "No", I would think it reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?"

I'm asking why it would be reasonable in the first instance to make an assumption and not reasonable in the second instance to make the same assumption.

I don't see how God can be known now any more than the blue shirt can.

Obviously. It's the information that we hold that makes us "atheist," not the information that we don't hold.

 

[Magic Man]

Your antics bore me.

Nice try, but if that were true, you wouldn't be responding to me now, and you wouldn't have responded indirectly to me before.

If it's not a belief then you shouldn't label yourself an atheist and then progress into explaining your belief of what atheism is.

This is why I said you should either respond to the counterpoints brought up against you or just get out of the discussion. Our counterpoints to this argument of yours aren't going to disappear. It's a little dishonest to try to ignore them long enough that people might forget them, and then make the same claim.

My belief about atheism has no bearing whatsoever on what atheism is. If I say "I believe a horse is not a belief", that doesn't make a horse a belief. If I state what I believe about atheism, that doesn't make atheism a belief. My beliefs about atheism aren't part of what make me an atheist. Most people who have heard about atheism have beliefs about it. Does that make them atheists? Does that make atheism a belief?

I think you've gotten yourself into an indefensible position here. This is your chance to say "No, that's true; a belief about something doesn't make that something a belief".

Generalizing won't help you out.

OK, are you intentionally missing the point, or just accidentally? The point of that paragraph was that "one who lacks belief in gods" describes all atheists. Every single atheist must lack belief in gods to be an atheist. It's a prerequisite. That part isn't in question. Even Copernicus will agree with that. The problem is whether or not that alone is sufficient to define oneself as an atheist, or whether one must also hold the belief that gods don't exist.

Actually it is, to drive a nail into dry wall you must hit it repeatedly.

That works for nailing drywall. It's not quite as effective when debating.

To speak of me continually repeating my opinion is pretty absurd, when in fact you are doing the same exact thing. I haven't read a single one of your posts in this thread where you don't mention lack of belief.

The only thing being ignored is unsupported claims without a factual basis for it's argument.

Of course I keep mentioning lack of belief. It's a central part of the argument. I've also repeated some things a few times. Partly that's because you just keep repeating your arguments without even responding to what I'm saying. You're doing it right here.

If it's not a belief, then one wouldn't take such a stance to determine their "God" position.

Atheism is in reference to, "I don't believe "God(s)" exist." That is a belief, no matter how much you sugar it up, or make it seem like nothing, because if it were truly nothing you wouldn't try and explain what "atheism" is to you.

This is very simple. "I don't believe" is specifically saying "I don't hold X belief". The only way that is a belief is if you mean "I believe that I don't believe X", but if that makes atheism a belief, than it makes a horse a belief. I've tried using this track with you for a while now, but you keep ignoring it, preferring instead to keep repeating this nonsensical view.

Point out again what exactly is "wrong" with my assertion here.

I've been doing that! You keep ignoring it. You ignored it in this very response of yours.

As far as I am concerned, a belief is anything believed to be. Now, how is atheism not a belief, if so many people follow it, and believe in it's reference?

Yes, a belief is when you believe something. That's obvious. So, when I say "I don't believe X", that's not a belief, since I'm saying I don't believe. Atheism is not a belief because it's lacking a belief, not holding one.

Again, I'll go back to an example. There are 2 people, one holding a bottle, and the other one not. Factual statements about them would be "One person has a bottle, and the other doesn't". Now, there are two people, one holds the belief "God exists", and the other doesn't. The factual statement about these 2 is "One person has the belief 'God exists', and the other doesn't". The person who doesn't have that belief is an atheist. The person might have many other beliefs. The person might even have beliefs about what atheism is. However, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is the person does not have the belief "God exists". In his set of beliefs, that one is absent, and that absence is described as atheism. That is why we use the definition "lack of belief in gods".

Again, the only valid point being ignored is by you (The Opposition), since I have asked repeatedly for you to prove that you actually know anything.

 

[Magic Man]

You had said, "If you're just talking to someone and they said out of the blue "I don't believe God exists", I would think it reasonable to assume that they mean "I believe God doesn't exist". However, if you asked someone "Do you believe God exists?", and they said "No", I would think it reasonable to follow it up with "Do you believe God doesn't exist?"

I'm asking why it would be reasonable in the first instance to make an assumption and not reasonable in the second instance to make the same assumption.

Because in the first instance, the person is saying "I don't believe God exists". Not having been asked anything, that would indicate the person has already put thought into it, and is asserting the negative. In the second instance, the person is responding to a question. It would be no different than responding to "Do you believe France is bigger than North Carolina?" with "No". I wouldn't assume you meant "No, I believe NC is bigger than France". The point is that in the first instance, the rejecting God's existence is much more implied than the second instance.

Obviously. It's the information that we hold that makes us "atheist," not the information that we don't hold.

That's a weird way to put it. No, it's the belief we don't hold that makes us an atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

I've provided many. Penguin even provided a very good one. Did you miss them?

I responded to Penguin's (Post 1021, regarding "I do not believe X" means "I have no opinion on X, and Post 1026, regarding belief really means knowledge).

Your post 1025, regarding blue shirts, red cars, and large stomachs did not make any impression, as I would indeed believe that someone who stated "I do not believe you own a red car" also meant "I believe that you don't own a red car". I would only consider "I do not know" or "I have no beliefs either way" to be a true state of lack of belief.

OK, but that's not the question here. If you agree that "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition for atheism, you agree that atheism is not a belief. The question of how many atheists believe gods don't exist is a separate question. However, just to clarify, "one who lacks belief in gods" is still an accurate definition even for atheists who believe gods don't exist.

But you are looking at only one side of the coin. We agree that atheism has two definitions: a lack of belief in the existence of gods and a belief that gods do not exist. Atheism is indeed a belief if you are utilizing the second definition, so you cannot just take the first definition and claim "See, atheism is not a belief!"

The question of how atheists formulate their atheism-- ie, which definition they use and importantly, why they use it-- is also important in determining whether atheism is more often to be considered a belief than not.

There seems to me a backlash against the idea of "belief" in general, among atheists, and hence the manipulation of grammar and definitions in order to eliminate the possibility of labeling as belief. Belief itself is not the enemy, friends; it is irrational belief that we strive against.

 

[Willamena]

Because in the first instance, the person is saying "I don't believe God exists". Not having been asked anything, that would indicate the person has already put thought into it, and is asserting the negative. In the second instance, the person is responding to a question. It would be no different than responding to "Do you believe France is bigger than North Carolina?" with "No". I wouldn't assume you meant "No, I believe NC is bigger than France". The point is that in the first instance, the rejecting God's existence is much more implied than the second instance.

Let's try a real-life scenario. Let's assume you're the person responding to this question, and you have no information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina. Some asks you, "Do you believe France is bigger than North Carolina?" Would your first impulse in responding to the question asked of you really be, "No," or would it perhaps be to desire more information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina so that you could give an informed answer?

That's a weird way to put it. No, it's the belief we don't hold that makes us an atheist.

I didn't say "belief." But that's significant, that you thought I did. Extremely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's try a real-life scenario. Let's assume you're the person responding to this question, and you have no information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina. Some asks you, "Do you believe France is bigger than North Carolina?" Would your first impulse in responding to the question asked of you really be, "No," or would it perhaps be to desire more information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina so that you could give an informed answer?

For a bit of a different take on that hypothetical, consider this conversation:

- A: "France is bigger than North Carolina."
- B: "I don't believe you."

Does this mean that B necessarily thinks that North Carolina is bigger than France, or does it just mean that B does not accept A's claim?

 

[Willamena]

For a bit of a different take on that hypothetical, consider this conversation:

- A: "France is bigger than North Carolina."
- B: "I don't believe you."

Does this mean that B necessarily thinks that North Carolina is bigger than France, or does it just mean that B does not accept A's claim?

The latter. Nothing's necessary when it comes to people, but we can reasonably assume that B has some reason to suspect the statement is false, i.e. that B holds some information.

 

[Magic Man]

I responded to Penguin's (Post 1021, regarding "I do not believe X" means "I have no opinion on X, and Post 1026, regarding belief really means knowledge).

Your post 1025, regarding blue shirts, red cars, and large stomachs did not make any impression, as I would indeed believe that someone who stated "I do not believe you own a red car" also meant "I believe that you don't own a red car". I would only consider "I do not know" or "I have no beliefs either way" to be a true state of lack of belief.

OK, well, I've provided examples. What you seem to be saying is that there is no example of what I'm saying in your opinion. Any example I gave you where there is no implication of the negative belief would just qualify as an example of an implication of the negative belief it seems.

But you are looking at only one side of the coin. We agree that atheism has two definitions: a lack of belief in the existence of gods and a belief that gods do not exist. Atheism is indeed a belief if you are utilizing the second definition, so you cannot just take the first definition and claim "See, atheism is not a belief!"

Actually, I can. The best definition of atheism is "lack of belief in gods, sometimes accompanied by the belief that gods don't exist". To fit the description, all you have to do is lack belief in gods.

The dictionary.com definition for automobile is:

a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.

Now, some automobiles these days have an electric engine, so they wouldn't qualify for this full definition. So, you couldn't say "An automobile has a gasoline or diesel engine" because that would exclude electric cars. The broader definition of an automobile doesn't include a specification on engine type.

In the case of atheism, some atheists don't hold the belief "Gods don't exist". So, you wouldn't say "atheism is a belief" unless you exclude them from the group "atheists". The broader definition of atheism doesn't specify that you need to believe that gods don't exist.

The question of how atheists formulate their atheism-- ie, which definition they use and importantly, why they use it-- is also important in determining whether atheism is more often to be considered a belief than not.

"More often" isn't relevant, though. An automobile has a gasoline engine more often than an electric one by far, but that doesn't make an automobile "a passenger vehicle with four wheels and a gasoline engine".

And "how atheists formulate their atheism" isn't really relevant either. A person who has never heard of gods and therefore doesn't believe in them has never "formulated their atheism", but they still lack belief in gods, fitting the definition we've agreed upon.

There seems to me a backlash against the idea of "belief" in general, among atheists, and hence the manipulation of grammar and definitions in order to eliminate the possibility of labeling as belief. Belief itself is not the enemy, friends; it is irrational belief that we strive against.

I see you're with Copernicus in your assumption that there's more to our argument than just trying to use an accurate definition. There is no backlash against belief. I have beliefs; Penguin has beliefs. Atheism just isn't one of them. Humanism has beliefs, as do other atheistic worldviews. We're not trying to manipulate anything. We're trying to use a definition for a word that includes the things it should describe and excludes the things it shouldn't. I wouldn't care if atheism was a belief. The fact is it's not, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The latter. Nothing's necessary when it comes to people, but we can reasonably assume that B has some reason to suspect the statement is false, i.e. that B holds some information.

But that reason could be, say, A's untrustworthy character and not any objection to the facts of the claim itself, right? All we can infer is that the claim has not been accepted by B.

 

[Willamena]

But that reason could be, say, A's untrustworthy character and not any objection to the facts of the claim itself, right? All we can infer is that the claim has not been accepted by B.

Right, but you presented a dichotomy. If A's untrustworthiness is in question, that may be yet another reason for B to say what he said.

 

[Magic Man]

Let's try a real-life scenario. Let's assume you're the person responding to this question, and you have no information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina. Some asks you, "Do you believe France is bigger than North Carolina?" Would your first impulse in responding to the question asked of you really be, "No," or would it perhaps be to desire more information about the relative sizes of France and North Carolina so that you could give an informed answer?

I would say "No". There would probably be more to the conversation after that, but that would be my response.

I didn't say "belief." But that's significant, that you thought I did. Extremely.

I didn't say you said belief, nor did I think you did. That's why I said yours was a weird way to put it. I changed "information" to "belief" because it's more relevant and accurate. "Information" isn't really helpful.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Which is "I don't have an opinion either way"? Just curious. So, would this technically be an agnostic position, and only atheist by default?

It can be both agnostic and atheist depending on which definition of each word you use. I've never stated otherwise.

Is your avoidance of the term belief accurate or just reflective of a bias against the word belief? I mean, you seriously do not have an opinion on the existence of god?

I explained what my opinion is, and why there are more accurate ways of explaining what it is. It's not an avoidance of the term belief, but more a matter that I like to communicate accurately what I mean when I'm talking to people. I take into account how different words can have varied and ambiguous interpretations as part of this process.

I'm not actually claiming that it is ambiguous. I am saying that it is inaccurate to say that atheism is not a belief if you say "I do not believe god exists."

Right, because you're saying the phrase can be intepreted as "I believe god does not exist," as a result of the phrase being ambiguous. Many here have explained that the term can accurately mean at least three different things depending on usage, so your claim that is inaccurate is simply incorrect.

Regardless, you seem to have missed the whole point of my post, or is it that your avoidance of my point is reflective of a bias against it's implications?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You just said it was.

To be an atheist you need nothing more than merely a lack of belief in a "God".

Right, which isn't a belief - it's an absence of belief. An absence of belief isn't a belief. Simple logic.

A belief is merely something someone beliefs, you just can't seem to get that through to your head.

Nope, that's self-evident. An absence of belief isn't a belief. Something you can't seem to get through your head. Although, to be fair, you're not really trying.

 

[outhouse]

The broader definition of atheism doesn't specify that you need to believe that gods don't exist.

ding ding ding ding ding

we have a winner.


my opinion is that, I know man made all the gods he has ever worshipped by historical evidence alone. I dont believe this, I have seen the facts and therefor belief is not in the picture at all.

one has to believe in something that one has no proof of, but disbelief is just that. a lack of belief.

 

[Alceste]

Regardless, when you make the statement "I do not believe god exists" you must have a conception in mind as to what "god" is referring to-- whether that conception was defined by your fellow debater or yourself doesn't really matter.

I've never made that statement. My non-belief is entirely reactionary. First someone must make a factual claim, then I offer my opinion. For example, first a theist must claim "god hates homosexuals" or some-such. Then I call bollox. If the claim is that God is redundant, as is the case with pantheism and statements like "God is love", I don't object.

Also, do you stop being an atheist when you are not talking to people? You must maintain a catalogue of god definitions in your mind, that you refer to when you consider yourself an atheist. It's not like you forget them all when you walk away.

I never think about god/s, the definition of god/s, or whether or not god/s exist. I sometimes contemplate or appreciate particular god-concepts as anthropomorphic representations of my values (such as Guan Yin for compassion), but other than that I am too busy thinking of other things to "maintain a catalogue of god definitions". Usually annoying songs. Sometimes two or three at once!

I gave my reasons to Kilgore why I chose not to believe he was wearing a blue shirt.

Besides, since when has evidence been required to construct a belief? It might be required to construct a rational belief, but beliefs exist just fine without pesky facts.

And it's not like "god doesn't exist" has no evidence to support it, so I fail to see the relevance.

All my beliefs are rational except those that are intentionally irrational but pragmatic (such as "if I try hard I will succeed"). None of my beliefs, irrational or otherwise, have anything to do with god. My rational beliefs "about god" centre on the observed phenomenon of theism and possible psychological or biological explanations for it. They have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god. That entire topic is simply absurd.