Same as when asked "what do you believe", the answer "not this god and not that god either" isn't an answer to the question either. — Tomseltje

Unless the context is clearly religious, who would respond to "what do you believe" with a comment about gods?

If the context is clearly religion, then "I don't have any religious beliefs" would answer the question just fine, just like if someone were to say, "I don't play any sports."

Otherwise I'd expect someone to respond to "what do you believe" with a question of their own--"what do I believe about what?"

(physical evidence and reasoned logic) — Tomseltje

I don't see why a pear list couldn't be an atheist. Not only that, I don't see why a pear list couldn't also be ambiguous about the extent he was certain about being an atheist.

It's always a good idea to bear in mind that the prefrontal cortex is only one player in the game; there is also that thundering powerhouse of the limbic system. Nobody operates purely on pear lists.

Much discussion here (potentially) and elsewhere about atheism and religion, most a waste of time because a common understanding of the terms is never established. Atheism seems to mean at least two things: 1) my non-belief in your god, 2) the non-belief in any god, and 3) the non-acceptance of supernatural/non-natural beings or explanations.

#3 is sometimes taken for or confused with a non-belief in mystery or unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions - call that #4. Some people are proud to be called, and call themselves, atheist, as if to have earned the label were the sign of both intellectual accomplishment and some kind of maturity of thought. Often, though, they mean it in sense #4, which I take to be a sign of the shallowest thinking and plain ignorance. In this sense no scientist worthy of the name is an atheist.

Some people are proud to be called, and call themselves, atheist, — tim wood

I say that I'm an atheist, but just to be factual, just to tell folks what my view is. (I'm an atheist in your #2 (which implies #1) and #3 sense.) I'm not implying anything value-judgment-related in relaying the fact that I'm an atheist. I'm just relaying a fact.

A-theism plays against theism for (its) meaning. The privative a- establishes that. Two possibilities: 1) atheism is an independent word/idea in its own right without reference to theism. What might it mean? #s 2 (implying as you say #1), and 3 above seem about right; that is, not a rejection of any particular, but rather an entire genus of belief. We might call this a positive sense of atheism. Oddly though, we define it in negative terms. Positively, I suppose it the expression of confidence in the eventual answerability of all answerable questions in natural terms aka science, in terms of natural processes, however obscure or difficult to establish (the point being to distinguish between kinds of answers, e.g,, scientific and theological). .

Or 2) it's against theism, which means that theism must first be defined and that a-theism will be no better defined than the concept it opposes, being defined in terms of that concept.

Atheism in this positive sense seems respectable and thought-out. And for this sense, theism is a tar-baby that atheists had best not grasp, because their own understanding of atheism passes right by theism. A-theism, on the other hand, seems problematic at best, and a mire that non-critical thinkers are caught in and waste other people's time with, to their discredit, if they but knew it.

Sense? Disagreement?

. . . because their own understanding of atheism passes right by theism. A-theism, on the other hand, seems problematic at best, and a mire that non-critical thinkers are caught in and waste other people's time with, to their discredit, if they but knew it. — tim wood

I don't quite get what you're saying there.

"Reasoned Logic" is basically redundant, and it's beside the point. I think one could in principle have "physical evidence and good reasoning" backing up... backing up what you might ask. Well, the very thing this old idea was just I'm hiding from: belief (or disbelief") in God or gods. Just call yourself an atheist, everyone can see the shell game.

I don't see why a pear list couldn't be an atheist. — Bitter Crank

Since to a pearlist, the scientific method is the god to believe. It's the god of scientific naturalism at least. Supernatural proporties are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory.

If the context is clearly religion, then "I don't have any religious beliefs" would answer the question just fine, just like if someone were to say, "I don't play any sports." — Terrapin Station

I don't play any sports is a valid answer for someone who actually doesn't play sports. But 'not soccer' is not a valid answer to the question when given by a person who plays hockey for sports. Wich in many cases is the equivalent answer self proclaimed atheists give when asked about their beliefs. They seem to conflate the question with another question : "do you believe the same as I believe",
(to be fair, many people might actually have intended to ask that question rather than the first question, so it may not be unwarranted in all cases)

Wich in many cases is the equivalent answer self proclaimed atheists give when asked about their beliefs. They seem to conflate the question with another question : "do you believe the same as I believe", — Tomseltje

I can't say I've knowingly run into that, but maybe some people do that. I don't know.

1) my non-belief in your god, 2) the non-belief in any god, and 3) the non-acceptance of supernatural/non-natural beings or explanations. — tim wood

I share your observation,I like to discuss with atheists (not debate), and it often bogs down in the atheist unable to clarify wich of the 3 positions they take, or even worse, they uphold position 4.
To clarify my position ill adress all the first 3 (though I think we already agree on all 4):

1 not an answer to the question, the question wasn't about the belief of the one asking the question, the question was about the belief of the one asked

2 the only position I accept as possible defendable, however, in order to do so, one must have studied the religions of over 6000 gods that have been believed in by humans. I never meet a self proclaimed atheist that actually done so.

3 supernatural/non-natural qualities are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory. Hence this argument is not an argument for atheism but for scientific naturalism.

In this sense no scientist worthy of the name is an atheist. — tim wood

I agree, a scientist should at least believe in the science he/she practices. Additional believes are optional as long as they don't undermine the scientific method practiced by the scientist.

Otherwise I'd expect someone to respond to "what do you believe" with a question of their own--"what do I believe about what?" — Terrapin Station

I assume you didn't watch the video, or you would already know the answer to this question, but I'll be more specific:
What do you believe about the universe?

You seem to apply a narrower definition on the word religion than I am. To clarify my position think of the most broadest definition as in the oxford dictionary:
" 1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’

1.1 A particular system of faith and worship.
‘the world's great religions’

1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’ "

If it qualifies for any of these three the context of the question is a religious one in my vieuw.

I assume you didn't watch the video, or you would already know the answer to this question, but I'll be more specific:
What do you believe about the universe? — Tomseltje

One thing I'd say I believe about the universe is this: it's big.

One thing I'd say I believe about the universe is this: it's big. — Terrapin Station

So what about the 3 more specific follow up questions?

1 Is it real?
2 Is it possible to learn something about it?
3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value are more valuable than ideas about the universe with no predictive value?

Yes, of course to the first two.

Re the last question, yes, although valuing things is subjective.

Re the last question, yes, although valuing things is subjective. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps I should have stated it as:

"3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value more usefull than ideas about the universe without predictive value in order to learn something about the universe?

of course this question does only apply if you already said yes to the former two.

Sense? Disagreement? — tim wood

Sorry for responding abit late to this part. No disagreement on my part. What you stated makes sense as far as I understood it correctly.