Why atheism is a belief.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Try not to be so dramatic, I’m fully aware that twats like you exist and will always do so. Keep holding a vigil for that sweeter life though.

I'd like to think I was optimistic. Then again, instead of doing something useful with my time, I'm lowering myself to educate someone who can only speak in insults. Of course, that is a result of my own masochism to subject myself to this special education course in the basics of the basic definition of atheism.

Once again, what evidence are you looking for? A signed affidavit by Jesus, a quick visit by Allah or Yahweh?

Any of those would indeed be accepable, assuming there was some way to determine if said affidavit isn't a forgery.
As such, it would likely require more evidence.

Given the variation of belief amongst each and within each religion, what theists claims are you dismissing? All of them? How do you reconcile those who do not believe in a literal translation of the bible and that their theism is based on one of the following (theological, ethical, spiritual, liturgical, or other theme).

Given that I am not aware of the beliefs of every religion, I can't say that I reject 100% of the claims of every religion on the planet given that some of the beliefs might be grounded on a facutal basis and that I'm unaware of it. This includes individual variations of someone's faith.

Of the major religions to which I am aware of and given my basic understanding of those, yes, I soundly reject them based upon their principle founding documents and the claims made made by their leaders.

For example, I reject christianity and islam based upon their holy texts, the supposed 'power' of faith healers, and the existence of souls.

I accept the fact that I can be proven wrong on anything at any time but I also accept the fact that virtually every religious claim is without merit or evidence and as such, I have no reason to believe any of it.

Your perceptive is limited to denying those who are literalists and fundamentalists.

Just because someone accepts some things in the bible and not others doesn't make their beliefs better founded in reality. Literalists and fundementalists just make the easiest targets. The remainder simply chose to fill in the current crop of the "unknowns" of the universe with whatever they feel apprpriate.
For the non-literalist bible believing christian who chooses to believe that god created the universe but everything else is true (and thus rejects biblical creationism) is still essentially deluding himself.
We don't know what happened before a certain point in the big bang theory and numerous other scientific principles, but there's still no evidence of god, therefore, the 'god hypothosis' is without reason or merit and thus THAT answer is as good as any other - including both the ridiculous and insane.

Repetition does not make it correct, unless you’re using your atheism as an affirmation? Most of your statements consist of saying “I’m right as I’ve repeated it numerous times”. Also I’m telling you that you believe, not what you believe. Or is this a veiled acceptance on your part?

No, repeating myself doesn't make me correct. I'm certainly glad you've pointed out an arguement I've never made but I'm not thrilled about being told that I believe in unsubstantiated claims given the fact that, as an atheist, I reject delusions and I don't accept them.
The idea of god is an unsubstantiated claim that has no support and thus far hasnt' provided falsifiable evidence. It isn't a belief to reject the idea of god because there is no cause to believe that such a being exists.

The reason I bring up 'repeating myself' (I actually stated that certain arguemetns have been repeated ad nausium - not even that i had been making the arguements, but what's intellectual honesty's worth when you can just make shit up, right?) is because all of these points were brought up in the first few pages of the thread and you both ignored them and failed to make any counterclaims while hurling insults along the way.
That is to say that it proves essentially that you don't care about finding out why atheism isn't a belief as you claim, but rather you seem to prefer to preach to us what you think we believe.

Just for the record, that conclusion isnt' me putting words in your mouth, considering that this entire thread is evidence of my above statements.

There's a requirement for an cause and god is a possibility.

Really? The first cause arguement? For someone who doesn't have religious beliefs, you certainly have taken to their ridiculous nonsense.

The short answer is no, there is no reason to need to bias ourselves toward an answer that has no merit or evidence outside of trying to fit reality into a delusional bex because it fits a certain propoganda.