Atheists are emotionally stronger than theists

[Angrboda]

I do mind, because opinions formed on the basis of reasons or evidence are not considered guesses.  Like many religious people, you want to level the ground of opinion in order to give your own a better face.  If you cannot accept the faults in your own opinion, that's nobody's problem but your own.  Making distorted claims about the opinions of atheists won't correct that problem.  Perhaps the poster is equally exaggerating in the other direction by claiming knowledge, but as we all learned as children, two wrongs don't make a right.

I find rather bizarre for you to show me the dictionary meaning of the word GUESS when the dictionary itself back me up 100%.  

The first option is that this guess is an opinion with little or no evidence   and the next meaning is all about arriving at a correct conclusion thing that Alex has never arrived at so what is your point anyway?
Where is the evidence that Alex did form his opinion on the basis for reason or evidence?
You show me these reasons and evidence and I will cover you in a sea of kudos.  

Are you suggesting that we have no evidence that the material world exists, and a lot of evidence that supernatural things like God and an afterlife exist? If you think that is the case, then I suggest you furnish us with some of this overwhelming evidence for God and the afterlife. You don't even believe in an afterlife as such, but instead prefer reincarnation, so you're being intellectually dishonest here. If you're asserting that the atheist has no reason for belief in the existence of the material world, then I think you've lost your mind. To borrow one of your excuses, the existence of material reality is as obvious as the fact that water is wet. I no more need to provide evidence of the material world than I do that water is wet. It is an undeniable fact. As a practical matter, the atheist refuses to grant belief to the existence of things for which there is insufficient evidence. If instead, one chose belief in things that lacked sufficient evidence, their beliefs would know no bounds, and their internal model of the world would become inconsistent, with mutually contradictory things being granted credence. As that would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, we have good a priori reasons for believing that models of reality constructed according to such criterion are not valid descriptions of reality. Are you trying to contend that we have reason to think, instead, that black is white, up is down, and right is wrong? I don't think you even believe that. So your complaint is inconsistent with your own prior representations. Of course, if reality is really inconsistent, I have no reason for you to make sense from one moment to the next, even if I presume that you are rational.

As to your kudos, I don't give a shit what you do or do not kudos. Your kudos are like the vomit of a dog -- not something to be sought for their own sake.