That may be your trick, but it's certainly not a requirement for a great many other humans.
How well I know. Most people don't seem to be too interested in not holding false or unfalsifiable beliefs. Most are content or even compelled to hold unjustified belief.
what you accept as "confirmation" will vary wildly from what someone else might accept.
I'm not interested in what others call confirmation if it's not empiricism, or the application of valid reasoning to evidence to generate ideas that can be demonstrated to be correct. That's the academic method, and how scientific study and peer review proceed, and how courtroom trials are intended to proceed.
Words like correct, confirmed, fact, demonstrated, knowledge, and truth all are tied to empiricism or the terms are being misused.
All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. That's how we accumulate knowledge, and by no other means.
Either one agrees that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or he doesn't.
If he agrees, but disagrees with another critically thinking empiricist they have a means to decide the issue: dialectic. If this is not how his epistemology works - how he defines truth - then his contrary opinions are irrelevant, since they have no effect on anything and can be used for nothing. That's how I classify so-called spiritual truths including god beliefs and belief in supernaturalism.
I can tell from the comments that many here have no understanding of religious practice beyond a very childish dogmatic catechism.
You're quite fond of casting yourself in the role of knowing more and seeing further. Why should your opinions matter to me more than my own do? I use the method just described, and you're happy to stray off the empiricism reservation.
I agree. We humans tend to become intractable idiots when we start "believing in" things. And that's as true of all those who believe in atheism as it is for those who believe in gods.
Nobody believes in atheism, a idea you don't seem to be able to conceptualize, so there's no value in running it down again.
"Humanism" informs us all. Theist and atheist alike.
No. Christianity, for example, depends on faith over empiricism for truth and received morals over rational ethics for moral guidance.
That's absurd, and sadly debilitating for those who are foolish enough to "believe in" it.
That's your usual response. No counterargument, just dismissal and usually with an insult.
Professing such willful ignorance does not impress me.
Once again, it seems you have no rebuttal. You just wave ideas you don't like away.
Your opinions have no persuasive power without evidenced argument to justify them. Like I said, the trick is to not go beyond the evidence so as not to accumulate ideas that can't be used, demonstrated, or defended. That's what you done, and here you are expressing them to no benefit to anybody and at a cost to your ethos, a term from the theory of argument or rhetoric.
The term refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with sound, impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like. If your audience doesn't rust your thinking, you might have trouble getting them to accept your insufficiently supported opinions as even provisionally correct when a trusted source would have been believed (tentatively).
Your public persona is that of a person meeting some need by adopting self-serving definitions for atheism, embracing faith-based ideas like they're factual or meaningful, and disparaging those who reject them for being to modify their standards for belief. You've been told all of this before, but either you cannot see it or don't care.