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.

[Little Rik]

[...]
Simple person but much more rich inside than intellectuals.
Intellectual to me are losers so i do have little respect for them.  

That's because "intellectuals" - by which I expect you mean anyone, who's not stupid enough to believe in your magical bullsh*t - tend to remind you of your mental shortcomings.

Those people that you condescendingly describe as "simple" don't challenge your deluded perception of reality and it's easy for you to imagine yourself, as a relatively smart and worldly person. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king...

You should try going to the zoo. If you stand near enough furiously masturbating monkeys - you'll seem like a f***ing rocket scientist.

So you reckon that picking up butts outside the pub and believe in ideas not supported by solid evidence is more important than grow food for survival?
You are hilarious Nutter.      

[Ben Davis]

So you reckon that picking up butts outside the pub and believe in ideas not supported by solid evidence is more important than grow food for survival?
You are hilarious Nutter.      

Candidate for the most non-sequititious non-sequitur of the year?

[Cyberman]

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.

Maybe he's talking in the homeopathic sense - inasmuch as those two words sit comfortably together - and the less belief one has, the stronger it is.

Based on that, of course, I have an amazing homeopathic sex life.

[Homeless Nutter]

So you reckon that picking up butts outside the pub and believe in ideas not supported by solid evidence is more important than grow food for survival?
[...]

Yeah... That's not even a sentence and I never said any of that. Try reading other people's posts before you reply.

What I "reckon" is that people who know stuff make you feel stupid and that you imagine yourself to be smarter, than people you call "simple" - which you're not.

I also suggested that you belong in a zoo, because the level of intellect you're displaying is comparable to that of a masturbating monkey.

Anything else I can clarify for you?  W o u l d    y o u     l i k e    m e    t o    t y p e    m o r e    s l o w l y ? . . .  

[Cyberman]

So you reckon that picking up butts outside the pub and believe in ideas not supported by solid evidence is more important than grow food for survival?
You are hilarious Nutter.      

Candidate for the most non-sequititious non-sequitur of the year?

That plus a front runner for the Big Shiny Mirror Award 2015.

[robvalue]

We did it!

100 pages and no evidence or correlation with reality in sight. Not even close.

[Little Rik]

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.
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.  

[SofaKingHigh]

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.
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.  

Yet more babbled nonsense.

[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?