Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Ben Davis]

It doesn't seems that you pay much attention to what atheists post in these forums.
They keep on claiming that the universe does not need to be run by God or any form of consciousness.
It can run by itself they say.
Isn't this to say that there is no God?

No. Just... no.

The absence of belief in a proposition does not mean acceptance of the counter proposition. I'd use the commonly understood 'courtroom' analogy: a defendant is judged 'guilty'/'not guilty' and not 'guilty'/'innocent'. The overwhelming majority of atheists, including on this board, hold the position that we don't know if there really is a 'god/s' or not however we don't/can't believe in any of the theistic proposition, offered so-far.

If these people would say instead.......WE THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN RUN BY ITSELF.....then it
would indicate that there is an absence of a belief in God...

That is what is said. Further that's all that can be said when we examine all of the evidence that's been collected, so-far.

...but as far as they claim that there is no God...

Only anti-theists claim this and they generally make this claim in regard to specific god-claims. As it happens, I hold this position for all of the Abrahamic gods.

...with the backing of their own science than they automatically make a claim and therefore
your claim that atheism is an absence in the believe in God is faulty.  

And again, no. You're conflating anti-theism with atheism and coming to an erroneous conclusion. This is quite common and results from theistic mischaracterisation of atheists. Theists of various kinds have defined 'atheism' in a variety if different ways, over time, in order to repress disbelief. Remember, to the ancient Romans, you would have been an atheist, too. In these days of civil progress and intellectual honesty, an elegant and universal definition of 'atheism' has been refined: 'an absence of belief in god/s'.