Ok. As every "atheist", you and your questions and your answers are all sophists, fallacious.
In this case, you show do understand what belief is. It is not the case that "it is true or false", like the school exercises. It is the case if believing in something given at the moment as inexplainable, such as your origin, the universe's orgin (including the a priori things for the big bang), amongst others.
Plus, no one "dislike" atheists"; we do not accept dogmatic people that cover themselves in fallacious things: "it you do not prove God's existence, then It does not exist". As well as atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something (because this is a logical necessity and to prove It suppose to consider It as existent), they stay on a vicious circle, affirming that "we don't know because It does not exist and it does not exist because we cannot know what is beyond our senses;God is beyond our senses, therefore It does not exist..."
In other words, you necessarily will always fall in contradictions or will do fallacious questions or will use sophist argues.
Ah, please, quote this you wrote to a question of mine:
Using God as a dumping ground for everything you dont understand is only the evidence of lazy thinking [RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE IS A DIFFERENT TIPE OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT EXPRESSION OF LAZY...] and you being bias towards any other possiblities. The top scientists are 85% Atheist [WHOM SAY THAT? WHERE?], 10% agnostic [IDEM], and 5%. theist []IBIDEM]. That's because the more you know, the less likely you are to believe in God [E.G., F. CAPRA DOES NOT SAY THAT; A. EINSTEIN DOES NOT SAY THAT; SARTRE TOO; ARISTOTLE TOO; WITTGENSTEIN TOO; SHALL I GO ON?].
So, please, stop making an epistemologic war here ... because people like will find out the meaning of knowledge, as a whole in different types, on the bed deaht (just like F. Nietzche). which is not good.
Okay. Sorry for my language mistakes here. I don't master English very well. Try to overcome them...
Tnx and passar bem!
ie - B r a z i l