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

[robvalue]

It hasn't been demonstrated that atheism is a belief, even. I'm still waiting to hear how a lack of belief is a belief. All I get is commentary on what any particular person thinks an atheist must also believe to come to a status of non-belief. Which is balls. Those other reasons are not atheism, nor are those reasons always true just because someone can't imagine reaching the mindset of atheism any other way.

A lack of belief has been build around the evidence that this physical reality can not give any evidence whether God exist or not.

No, completely wrong. It's not up to you to decide what atheism is built on. Each atheist may have any number of reasons. You've just done exactly what I said you would do, adding your own commentary (see my emphasis above). And you still didn't even mention a belief anywhere.

And wrong, no one is saying the physical reality cannot give evidence, just that it has not. And that's only if you come to atheism through an evidence based analysis. You don't get to tell everyone why they have reached their conclusions.

The problem with this result is that God is (i believe) but let us say could only be understood or perceived
well away from the physical reality and in a different reality like spirituality.
By not exploring all avenues but insisting only on the supposed incorrect evidence or physical evidence it is obvious that it would be impossible to get to God that is why this lack of investigation lead to the incorrect conclusion and this non believing turn in the belief that God is not existing.  

This is completely irrelevant to how a lack of a belief is a belief. This is more of your own preconceptions about what atheists are like.

Seriously, can you please stop thinking you can tell everyone else how they reached their conclusions? Would you like us to tell you how you reached your conclusions? Huh?