@ Aaron W.

It's possible one of us is confusing opinionated with subjective. Chocolate being better than Vanilla is very clearly an opinion and not a truism. This is because it is subjective.

The candy bar is in the box is a true/false proposition. It either is, or it isn't. You seem to be saying that this requires a belief, while the chocolate/vanilla requires only an opinion. I suppose I have no problem with this.

But when I follow your suggestion and look into what I mean by "true", I still come up with how certain I can be about any given proposition. I cannot be certain that chocolate is better than vanilla even though I think it is. The candy bar in the box (like god), is either true or it isn't. A god either exists, or it doesn't. My belief about such things depends on my level of certainty.

What I'm trying to find out here is if people are correct to call my non belief in a god a belief. Or if atheism is a belief (or belief system). I highly doubt there is a god. Does that mean I "believe" there is no god? I'm starting to think it does.

Yes. And we use the word "opinion" for such things.

In the framework you've provided, you've made "true" depend on you and your ability to know. This means that for the candy bar, there is no true/false about the matter because you can never know.

You can be fairly certain that there is no objective reality that indicates chocolate is better than vanilla.

Your belief about such things depend upon you, not upon whether it is true or false.

Again, you have the three categories. If you legitimately have no opinion on the matter, then it's difficult to frame your position as a belief. For you, it's not so much that you have a non-belief, but rather you have a dis-belief. There's an affirmative statement about not-God that you're making.

I think that framing your perspective as a belief seems the most reasonable thing to do. I tend to think that framing it as non-belief is really problematic and virtually always intellectually dishonest.

Belief is a reasoning tool.

When you are problem solving there are two sources of input: assumptions that you can assume are true without spending further resource on and assumptions that need to be justified or derived.

Beliefs are the assumptions that you assume true without further justification; a huge advantage in efficient reasoning. Although things can sometimes get pear shaped if your beliefs happen to actually not be true. Conversely beliefs that are not particularly useful in making practical decisions need not be so accurate, and could be better developed to increase moral rather that accuracy.

That's a fascinating phenomena.

It's my opinion it's a function of solidarity. Fitting in socially means having an opinion - and holding and defending the opinions of the group. Opinions also become a useful way demonstrates various desirable traits that the group values.

Same thing applies to most of psychiatry, climate science, political leanings - particularly left wing - and many other things. Anything where there are group interests to be protected, the opinions in question are at odds with reality or difficult to determine the truth, and those group interests or credibility or power are strongly aligned with the opinion in question being correct.

If God doesn't exist then your family and friends are weird people who are so bizarre they believe embarrassingly wacky delusions. Thus even the doubting lean on the side of believing - the alternative is too bizarre (people massively overestimate the rationality and basic goodness of those close to them). It's only the strong doubters who take the leap to disbelieving.

Following the opinions of the group on important, indeterminate issues is part of human nature. People are heavily tribal, and it's just self preservation.

There is another category. People who very much want to be rational. Usually but not always scientifically inclined types.

While you can use whatever language you prefer, a belief is some proposition that you hold to be the case, and you will also have varying degrees of certainty, how sure you are that it is the case. What you are calling an opinion sounds like a belief held with a low degree of certainty.

You believe your gf won't cheat on you, with a low degree of certainty.
You believe the ToE is the best explanation...etc, with a high degree of certainty.

This is also probably just because of how you are using 'belief' as a label to only include those held with a high degree of certainty. If it was the case, no-one could hold false or unjustified beliefs, but aren't there people that do? There do exist actual Flat Earth believers (false). And users of homeopathy (unjustified).

Whenever I watch a particular 'street epistemologist' on Youtube talk with people about their beliefs about God, he always asks at the start for a percentage as to how certain the subject is concerning their God belief. In every single interview so far with a theist, they have declared to be 100% certain in their belief.

And the rebellious/recalcitrant. I think it's more usually about emotions than intellect. The bright sparks who figure out at 13 or so that God is nonsense are the exception rather than the rule. Most of the rest who disbelieve find God not useful or relevant, or too restrictive.

It's normal for the highly intelligent to overestimate the role of intellect or principles in the decisions and beliefs of the less intelligent.
Religions tend to punish shades of unbelief. If you don't "open your heart fully" and "accept the Lord", you're a bad person or unworthy of his love or ungrateful or tainted by the devil and you lose some group membership privileges. Works a treat.

ya you sure showed the zealots in politics a hard time by posting a slew of largely contentless and poorly though out OPs over a few days about such exciting subjects as racist yet black conservatives and germs of truth in trumps racist comments that resulted in you being more or less universally mocked and then allegedly quitting the forum.

Notice also as regards a God who will send you to hell unless you are almost positive he exists:

If you think there is a one percent chance he exists you think there is a one percent chance you will go to hell. And if you think there is a 70% chance he exists, there is a 70% chance you will go to hell.

So this also could account for not too many people being in the middle.

And this is what boggles my mind about theists who argue that we atheists just aren't trying hard enough, or have some personal vendetta against god. It should be altogether clear that we deem the chances of such a god existing to be so remote as to not even be bothered by the threat of eternal hell fire and damnation. If I thought there was even a .001% chance of this god existing, I would at the very least keep my doubts to myself and do everything I could to convince myself of his existence.

A belief means "I think x is true"

OP chances are you have lots of beliefs. You believe you exist. You believe the poker room exists. Or why would you go there?

You believe that when you drive your car in traffic, that other people are going to drive in their allotted lanes and not cross over into yours.

To try to live without faith in these things, or beliefs at all (which is the same thing) then you will go insane and never leave your room.