“There is no absolute evidence supporting either the theist or atheist position regarding the existence of God. This being the case any individual who takes either position is doing so based upon belief and is, therefore, acting religiously.”
This statement is nonsense and betrays a lack of understanding, both about atheism, and religion. When there is no evidence of something existing, it doesn’t require faith to conclude it doesn’t exist, but it does require faith to believe it does.

Mr. Roberts here is using atheist in a manner consistent with your definition (a disbelief in the existence of a deity; the doctrine that there is no deity), in particular, the first part of your definition: i.e. a disbelief in the existence of *a* deity. Thus, the Christian/Jew/Muslim/monotheist (to all of whom this quote should apply), by part of your own definition, is atheistic when it comes to Thor, Pan, Jupiter, Native American gods, Shiva or any other one. If an adherent to one of these religions made the claim to you that these gods exist, I am sure that you would deny it. That is, you refuse to accept the existence of these beings. Why? Well now, that is a complicated question.

But if it has anything to do with *having no reason* to believe in Adonis…Zeus, then you will understand the root of Mr. Roberts claim.

Again, the atheist makes no positive assertion–he merely rejects the positive assertions of the theists.

OK. Disbelief: “noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real”

Thus, when someone asserts that God is real, I cannot accept that assertion.

But to say the other is to say that I could very well have a belief that that everything that does not exists, well, does not exist. This entails an infinite number of belief propositions that we would need to recount. Thus, if we formulate the belief positively, there is no end to the proliferation of beliefs in the non-existence of things. This is exemplified by the lists of all the gods that we believe do not exist, as well as any number of possible additions, ad infinitum. While it is true that I may be incline to disbelieve these infinitely absent things were someone to assert them, while no one asserts them, you cannot say that I either believe nor disbelieve them.

On the other hand, disbelief in a certain claim in simply that: the inability to accept that it is true. Disbelief arises vis-a-vie a claim, belief in the non-existence of something takes the form of a proposition or assertion, i.e. “I believe that…”.

Thus, when anyone makes an assertion, it is subject to belief or disbelief. For some, belief is strengthened by reasons and evidence to support that assertion. When the reason or evidence is found lacking, many find it reasonable to disbelieve both the assertion and those making it.

So when a theist says that he or she has reasons to believe in God, then the, let’s say agnostic for now, should have the chance to examine those reasons. However, if they do not support the conclusion, then one (not unreasonable) response is disbelief.

Thus, atheism is fundamentally not a belief in the non-existence of something (perhaps a good analogy would be to ask: Is your disbelief in the Norse god Thor really a belief that Thor does not exist, and thus, according to your own logic, an act of faith?). Rather, atheism is simply the inability (in this case, a logical, not a psychological one) to support the assertion “The proposition ‘God exists’ is true”.

There is no absolute evidence supporting either the theist or atheist position regarding the existence of God. This being the case any individual who takes either position is doing so based upon belief and is, therefore, acting religiously.

I THINK that your the one who is apparently “cocksure.”

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.