It does matter for a couple of reason.

First of all, I actually believe that religion, in most of its conventional forms, runs counter to treating people how they wish to be treated.

Secondly, if there is a god, and we can know things about him, I'd like to know.  I try to believe in the truth insomuch as possible.

Whatever god you believe in, do you believe that it influences the world in any way?

The reason why I'm not interested in a conversation is because I never said anything about science, and you've now twice insisted that my argument is "but science".  You have some opinion you wanted to spout that had nothing to do with anything I said.  So you can just spout it without me.  

Subtle point, but beliefs are not choices. Beliefs are consequences of the input data. For instance you cannot simply instantly believe the contrary to something you currently believe. You must be persuaded to believe otherwise. 

I don't see why you wouldn't want to share why you believe; it's a win-win for all involved. Either you establish that theism is, in fact, tenable or you find out where you went wrong.

Definitions are important, but you're avoiding the topic entirely. The OP isn't asking whether others believe in OP's conception of a god, the OP is asking for any theist to say why they believe. Or, in the case of atheists, why none of the god concepts are believable. 

It is a simple yes or no dude...this is binary. Either you believe some conception of god exists or you do not. There is no operating in a grey area - do you operate under the presumption that there is a supervening force or don't you? Usually this entails baggage, like going to church, living a certain way. The only way to operate as both a theist and an atheist would be if you're some type of person who believes in a supervening agent who actually isn't tinkering with you, or the Universe, in any way. The type of agent who manifested this Universe then returned to finger-painting or whatever supernatural agents do with their time.

PS: The concept of a static entity causing change is ludicrous at best and it's downright inept to posit it. It also isn't confined to Platonists, Christians carry the same idea many times.

Or I recognize that there are valid criticisms due to the natural vagueness that exist in the concept of God. I don't have to have independently verifiable data to have a belief. 

As far as sharing why I believe... I'll put that info in my reply to permalite since he's farther along in the discussion.

You definitely can define it that way if you want, but I just don't think it's the best way to do it.  When we talk about atheists, I think we're pretty much always talking about what you're calling explicit atheists. So, I think it's just easier to use the term that way.  It avoids having to explain implicit vs explicit in every conversation, and is just easier to say.  

Again, I have no real objection to this definition.  It's a perfectly adequate solution to the issue.  I just don't think it's the best one.

Why do you feel threatened by someone's belief in a God? Your reaction to my original statement and your replies to above, exemplify that you have some religious zealot passion towards your belief in atheism.

It's rather funny actually as I'm betting the negatives you like to portray about god-based belief systems is exactly the type of interaction you display here.

I'll go ahead and play along with you to fulfill your need to feel justified in your beliefs.

The creation story is vague in Hebrew TaNaKh (actually two distinct versions) and Qur'an and only literal in the variations of modern Bible translations. In the Qur'an specifically, it outlines a scenario that can be interpreted as mirroring the Big Bang Theory. My personal opinion is that I don't look to religious literature for Scientific answers or validation. The point behind these religious texts is to provide parables and guidance to human interaction with life. The zealot need for literal answers to everything from these books is where you have problems because they don't account for the many generations of story re-telling and translation that guarantees loss of context.

Flat Earthers ignore blatant proof that celestial objects are in fact spherical naturally when forming from a gaseous or liquid state. Simple zero-G experimentation proves that without a doubt, if you choose to ignore the many centuries of visual data (older written accounts and modern photographic).

Belief in God does not have blatant proof for or against. It is in fact, not logical or correct to compare the two as you did regardless of what basis some of these people use to define their inaccurate view points. 

Atheism:  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism

-ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

I guess you could be right if you are extremely literal, which you are not literal in other replies, such as the flat-earth comparison. However the definitions above (taken from google) should suffice that I am correct in stating Atheism is a belief system on its own. Additionally, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist, means you are choosing to theorize or believe that the lack of evidence equates to non-existence of a god. For instance, there is currently no evidence that life exists outside of Earth, yet, I am certain it does as I'm willing to bet you do too. Interestingly though, there is, arguably, evidence of alien life from older civilizations just as there is for a God. (No, I don't think aliens build the pyramids or any other Earth structures)

Is it? Again, the lack of evidence does not dictate that something doesn't exist. Dragons did exist. They were misidentified dinosaur bones where imagination took over as if they were still living (modern example is Loch Ness).

There are volumes of human history from every civilization to have ever existed wrapped in the divine and spiritual. They have similar guidelines and themes, and even direct stories as well, even if their particular flavor of religious adherence varies. Just because Nordic peoples, Romans, Greeks, Asians, Indians, etc all formed divergent views of spiritual adherence and some were replaced with new interpretations, doesn't mean they were proven false. All it means is that human perception of God has continued to evolve including the belief that there is no god. Its not like Atheism is a solely modern evolution of a belief system as you suggest based on our progress in natural sciences.

The focus I take is in the commonality of these religious systems throughout history. They all share common bonds as guiding principles for their respective civilizations, even at the expense of other civilizations under the guise of cultural or national protectionism (generally abused doctrine by power-driven individuals). Sure, anyone who's ever stated they interacted with an angel, ghost, spirit, god, etc could be fabrication. But, in every story, there is always some thread of truth.

As our technology grows and we are able to learn and study the foundations of existence, we learn many scientific theories are debunked as well. It's all part of growing and evolving our understanding of life. For instance, we know can measure plant reaction and a sense of "knowing" that it is being culled and eaten. How much of life do we still have no understanding due to lack of the right technical solution? An aura can be measured yet people still think they are nonsense. People continue learn more and more about animal and plant culture and ability to understand / react to each other and the environment yet, majority don't understand why people protest places like Sea World. (Sea mammals are so much more intelligent and culturally rich than we commonly believe)

I don't discount the possibility of being wrong (principle of scientific method), but I don't think we've dis-proven centuries of human spiritual perception either. I think we don't have the tools yet to measure the data and I choose to believe that wrapped in existence itself is an form of sentience that has and can play a role in our individual lives.

A couple of points.

First, on atheism being a belief system.  A system implies a set of interrelated beliefs.  

Theism for example, is not a belief system.  It is a single belief on one question.  It generally does not dictate what you need to believe on any other point.

Christianity on the other hand is a belief system.  The belief in a god who is "the author of truth", and one you have to serve, necessarily dictates your belief on many other things. 

Secondly, in some situations, the lack of evidence can strongly indicate (if not dictate) whether or not something exists.  For example, suppose I said I had a ten children living with me in my studio apartment.  You've never seen me with the children, never seen any of the children.  I don't have any pictures of them on my phone, or in my house.  I have no beds for them, no children's clothes, no toys, no food, no school books, and no sign of any belongings outside my own.  Nobody has ever seen any of my children.  You talk to my friends and family, and none of them claim to have ever seen any children.

In this situation, I'm sure you would be 100% convinced that I do not have any children living with me.  Certain things, if they are true, should provide evidence.  If the evidence does not exist, you can confidently conclude it's not true.

Ok from that point, yes, it can be defined that "system" was a poor choice of wording. My intent was that atheism is just another belief, regardless of the lack of rules, structure, etc.

I agree you can theorize that something is true/not true based on the lack of evidence. But lack of evidence in itself it is not a fact which is my intent of that statement. 

Additionally, I do not think your example is without evidence. Not having all of those physical items that are required for anyone to have children is the actual data. If you told me you had 10 children, I being someone who does not know you in person or have access to any data to suggest otherwise, I'd assume you to be truthful (unless you have proven history of not being truthful). However, if I knew you in person and visited your home, I'd have data to disprove at that point.

The concept of a God is not in the same scenario. It's closer to the belief that "intelligent" life exists outside of Earth. There is no way to measure or detect either.  You can choose to use historical anecdotes and spiritual understanding to believe in a concept of God and you can use mathematical probability to believe intelligent life exists elsewhere. But, at this time, you cannot be factually driven to know either exists or does not exist at this time.

Yeah.  I'd be ok with defining it as belief, although certain people might want to argue with it that it's a lack of belief as I've experienced.  Lol.

In the example I provided, I'd say the lack of evidence is the evidence.  If I had a kid, or kids, you would expect to have positive evidence that a child lives in my house.  The lack of that positive evidence is the evidence.  

Similarly if you suggest there is a god, depending on how you define god, I might expect some evidence.  For example, if someone said that the Bible is literally true I would expect for instance some evidence of Jews having spent a significant amount of time enslaved in Egypt.  However, we don't have that.  We would also expect some evidence of a global flood, and we don't find that.  And so on.

Which is why I asked earlier if you believe that god actually interacts with the world.  If he does, then we would expect some kind of detectable evidence.  If we can't find this evidence, it is reasonable to believe that god does not exist.

I think there is evidence in the massive backlog of human spiritual experience. Literally every civilization has numerous ideologies and stories. I do think there is truth most stories. This is also hinted at the Noah story which is a common story shared by many different civilizations. Of course it can't be a literal global flood, but something had to have happened to drive so many common stories from so many different people and religions. You could argue that it is just one original story that was stolen and reused, but I still think it has truth at its core for some group of people.

This vibrant and massive history, to me, is the evidence of some interaction. Even today, across the world over, you'll find stories of little miracles here and there from all aspects of people (religious or not). Things that have quotes from doctors or other professionals that they cannot state why the outcome happened as it should not have. Possibly just random chance or natural variation or possibly the influence of the something else. (these examples also demonstrate that no single religion is 'right' as these 'miracles' happen in all societies)

My point of view is that the belief in the existence of God or the belief in the non-existence in God is irrelevant to each other or to God. People push on their belief's because it makes them feel better. I say, do what makes you a happy person and provides you value. So long as you recognize the worth of others and treat them as you'd want to be treated. If you are curious about that type of mentality, research UU.