To simply lack belief in Gods seems too weak for me.
It seems "too weak" because you're not considering the positive belief in naturalism which precludes supernatural gods.
I'm familiar with naturalism. Unlike a naturalist, I don't insist there can be no Gods but argue that they are not likely to exist.
So a naturalist doesn't need explicit reasons for why gods don't exist, the implicit reasons are there in naturalism.
I prefer to spell out why I think no Gods exist.
You've assumed that atheism is nothing else than a "lack of" for some or many atheists...
Many atheists describe their atheism as total lack of belief in Gods, a position that I'm skeptical about.
...because you didn't consider most atheist's actual philosophy, naturalism. That's quite a stupendous omission.
In an online forum, omissions are inevitable.
I lack belief in ghosts, so should I identify as an "a-ghostist"?
But why do you lack belief?
I'm not completely sure why I lack belief in ghosts. I used to believe in them, though. I think I started doubting their existence when I left Christianity.
Is it because you think nature is explained well-enough by science and doesn't need spiritual entities to help explain it?
That is probably one reason I don't believe in ghosts.
Besides, if I spent a night in a spooky mansion, I'd feel at least a bit anxious.
So would most people regardless of their beliefs. We've evolved to be nervous of unfamiliar, dark places. It doesn't logically follow, from a dark mansion feeling "spooky", that a person harbors a secret belief in ghosts, anymore than feeling fear from fantasizing about hell means the person has a little bit of secret theism.
I disagree with you there. I think that emotion can be a basis for belief. So I might fear God while knowing why He's likely a myth.
Actually, I realized that there's a dearth of reasons to believe in Gods and good reasons to be skeptical about them a long time ago. I was never completely sure that I completely shook belief in them though. So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.
The dearth of reasons results in a lack of belief in gods.
It can. Another possibility is that a dearth of reasons to believe in God may greatly weaken theism pushing it into the subconscious where it may lurk.
The dearth of reasons to believe in gods is from an abundance of reasons to be skeptical about them.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there. I think that the number of reasons to be skeptical about Gods' existence is not necessarily related to a dearth of reasons to believe in them.
That's how it is for atheists in general.
I suppose. I don't have any statistics.
Not fully shaking a contradictory belief results in cognitive dissonance. That's a problem to solve, not wallow in. If you're keen on reason, then try applying reason to solve this problem.
It's really not a problem for me to experience some cognitive dissonance. In fact, my cognitive dissonance may be telling me I'm wrong and that a God might exist which is very possible although unlikely.
Last time this was suggested to you, you chose to reject reason and side with belief and feelings and impulses.
I don't recall "choosing to reject reason and siding with beliefs and feelings and impulses" whatever that may mean. Being a rational atheist that would be out of character for me. I think I did argue that I have some theism that's based in emotions that are involuntary.
You wanted to say "it's YOU PEOPLE too!" instead of working out your personal problem. Try if you can to reconsider that self-harming response.
Why not at least consider that theism can exist in the psyche along with atheism?
Some theists harbor doubts about the existence of Gods yet have reasons to believe in them. Are others theists merely because they say they lack doubt?
You're straw-manning other atheists. Nobody has said they're atheists merely because they "lack belief".
That's not true. Atheist Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation has said that he's an atheist because he lacks belief in any Gods. Yes, he obviously has reasons to be skeptical, but by his definition he's an atheist lacking belief in God.
And how do you know what nobody ever said?
The lack of belief in god comes from the presence of other beliefs. They're naturalists AND atheists. The latter "ism" is a side-effect of the former. The former is a philosophy, a belief-system, but the latter is not.
Well, I'm defining atheism as a result of arguing against the reasons to believe in a God. I can live with other definitions but prefer my own definition, of course.