Why atheism is a belief.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Atheists state that there is no evidence for any of the mystical or supernatural claims made by any religion including but not limited to one or more gods.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Actually, we state that belief is required because there is no evidence. Evolution can and has been proven to whatever extent beyond a reasonable doubt. God and Jesus have not. It's as simple as that.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

The only person to have made 'assumptions' about evidence is you.
You can't discredit science to advocate religion for the same reason I can't personally attack you to discredit religion as a whole.
You've already set up a gaggle of presumptions and are responding to things I've never heard any atheist state nor have I, as an atheist, believe or otherwise assume.
You're already off to a bad start.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Atheists don't believe in science like you believe in whatever ridiculous faith you hold dear to yourself. Atheism is a term coined to represent a group of people with precisely one thing in common: we don't believe the claims from any religion.
That's it. The fact that you assume otherwise is why your entire presumption has failed.

Further, Atheists don't make assumptions to reach their conclusion - religion has simply failed to substantiate any of their claims with any kind of factual or evidence-based backing to prove that anything stated by any religion is, in fact, a matter of reality.

This was the method to prove gravity, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, big bang, germ theory, and any number of scientific ideas. These ideas have positive results that have practical benefits. Modern medicine has benefited from germ theory for penecillin and those magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) from electromagnetism, for example.

There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

Considering that anything is (supposedly) within god's power, a personal appearance, a signed note, and a proper demonstration of his/her/its control over life (perhaps he could make Mars habitable and fill it with earthlike life in an instant... or six days.)
I think that would soundly confirm beyond any doubt of his/her/its existence, although it doesn't have to be that thorough.

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

You do realize that your entire post is basically strawman arguement, correct? Perhaps instead of accusing us of being self-contradictory, you could perform a cursory google searach on atheism, avoid the obvious religious-affiliated websites and allow atheists to explain our own position and draw your own conclusions.
Instead, you appear completely ignorant of exactly what it is that we do and you're making yourself appear foolish.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

It isn't. Because it is not a belief. Atheism has no positive claims to 'believe.' We are not asserting a positive and therefore have no beliefs to unite under, unlike any religion.

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

If you're not a theist, then what are you?