Wilgrea7:

If I asked you. Do you believe in the blue moving thing? I'm sure your response would be something like "what??"

It seems more difficult to form a belief on something that lacks a clear definition. If further pressed on the issue in the absence of evidence, i think most people would just simply say they don't believe in the blue thing.

I don’t know about most people but I would never simply say “I don’t believe in” the blue thing.
I would say I don’t believe you ( the person making the claim) because “the blue thing” is probably nonsense.

Endtimer:


On the other hand, God, I believe, is the actual existence of deity.

God is the actual existence of god.

KnownUnknown:

I don’t know about most people but I would never simply say “I don’t believe in” the blue thing.
I would say I don’t believe you ( the person making the claim) because “the blue thing” is probably nonsense.

You would still be saying you do not believe in the existence of the blue thing!

Here's a story to make it illustrate our arguments. The theist and atheist are like two cavemen who've spent their entire lives living between rocks, when all of a sudden one asks the other if he believes in the existence of other planets. Perplexed, the atheist caveman asks what a planet is (which would be understandable for a caveman as he doesn't have access to dictionaries or the internet or kind adults to ask).

After being brought up to speed on what a planet is, the atheist caveman rejects their existence on the grounds that he cannot sense them whatsoever. He spends the rest of his time saying things like:

"you claim I am wrong because I haven’t refuted a proposition that can’t be refuted. How does one argue against the nonexistence of planets?"

It does not occur to him that he, like the theist caveman, wants to know what is true and should question what positive proof he has for his belief. After all, he is making the unsubstantiated claim that "planets do not exist" and is at a loss for ways to prove it. Even worse, the theist caveman has provided evidence indicating that it is very likely there are other planets. The atheist caveman, however, is unfazed. He assumes he is right and has no obligation to himself to ask whether his view is warranted at all.

I am pointing out here that the reason the atheist caveman doesn't bother coming up with proof that planets do not actually exist is that he assumes that his point of view is the properly basic, neutral starting point. He believes he is correct from the start and just has to disprove the theist caveman's points to remain correct. Fortunately, Wilgrea7 has begun to understand me. Hopefully, you will too.

Endtimer:


You would still be saying you do not believe in the existence of the blue thing!

No, it is not the same thing. I didnot take a position of belief or unbelief about the existence of a non-defined “blue thing”. The “blue thing” is essentially meaningless because the person claiming it exists can’t even define it therefore I don’t believe the person’s claim.

Endtimer:


Here's a story to make it illustrate our arguments. The theist and atheist are like two cavemen who've spent their entire lives living between rocks, when all of a sudden one asks the other if he believes in the existence of other planets. Perplexed, the atheist caveman asks what a planet is (which would be understandable for a caveman as he doesn't have access to dictionaries or the internet or kind adults to ask).

After being brought up to speed on what a planet is, the atheist caveman rejects their existence on the grounds that he cannot sense them whatsoever. He spends the rest of his time saying things like:



It does not occur to him that he, like the theist caveman, wants to know what is true and should question what positive proof he has for his belief. After all, he is making the unsubstantiated claim that "planets do not exist" and is at a loss for ways to prove it. Even worse, the theist caveman has provided evidence indicating that it is very likely there are other planets. The atheist caveman, however, is unfazed. He assumes he is right and has no obligation to himself to ask whether his view is warranted at all.

Your analogy is nonsensical. You calling one caveman atheist and the other theist when the discussion is about planets is senseless. A handful of planets can be seen with the naked eye so all one caveman has to do is show the other how to observe and explain phenomena. There is no belief or unbelief required because the issue can be settled by simple observation. The idea that the “theist caveman” would be calling it a planet and not a god is a joke. You keep being disingenuous by trying and failing to shift the burden of proof from the people making claims about deity to those who don’t have to do nothing but point out the nonsensical nature of the beliefs.
Your piss poor analogy is because you are unaware that the five brightest planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn - have been known since ancient times and can easily be seen with the naked eye if one knows when and where to look. So your “theist caveman” does not have to resolve to Christian apologetics and mealy mouthed bullshit to show the “atheist caveman” that planets exist.

Endtimer:

I am pointing out here that the reason the atheist caveman doesn't bother coming up with proof that planets do not actually exist is that he assumes that his point of view is the properly basic, neutral starting point. He believes he is correct from the start and just has to disprove the theist caveman's points to remain correct. Fortunately, Wilgrea7 has begun to understand me. Hopefully, you will too.

The second caveman does not have to provide proof that planets do not exist; that’s utterly senseless. It’s up to the first caveman who happens to know about planets to show the other where, when, what, and how.

KnownUnknown:

No, it is not the same thing. I didnot take a position of belief or unbelief about the existence of a non-defined “blue thing”. The “blue thing” is essentially meaningless because the person claiming it exists can’t even define it therefore I don’t believe the person’s claim.

You do not believe the other person's claim that the blue thing exists; therefore you do believe it does not exist. This is surprisingly simple logic, even for you and yet you fail to grasp it. Like a child, you want to play at words and suggest that you do not believe the person, but as I've demonstrated, belief in anything is binary (like being pregnant) inasmuch as you possess basic knowledge concerning it. You may oscillate between believing it and not as you learn more, but you cannot avoid one of these positions except by virtue of stupidity. Repeatedly claiming that the blue thing is poorly defined is only a justification for your belief in its inexistence, rather than the proof you imagine it is that you believe neither in its existence nor inexistence.

Your analogy is nonsensical. You calling one caveman atheist and the other theist when the discussion is about planets is senseless.

While I originally considered otherwise, I decided to label the cavemen as I did so even you could see the comparison I was making. I'm not surprised that you lead your refutation by noting such an unimportant point; I suppose you have to give yourself credit for the kinds of battles you can win.

A handful of planets can be seen with the naked eye so all one caveman has to do is show the other how to observe and explain phenomena. There is no belief or unbelief required because the issue can be settled by simple observation. The idea that the “theist caveman” would be calling it a planet and not a god is a joke.

Yet again, I'm unfazed by your lack of comprehension considering the arrogant brain-death that pervades atheism. You actually think I was talking about how best one can go about proving the existence of other planets to cavemen. You are wrong. I was talking about proper basicity and do not need a lesson in effective caveman communication. I will leave the quote below for you to gaze at and feel stupid:

Your piss poor analogy is because you are unaware that the five brightest planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn - have been known since ancient times and can easily be seen with the naked eye if one knows when and where to look. So your “theist caveman” does not have to resolve to Christian apologetics and mealy mouthed bullshit to show the “atheist caveman” that planets exist.

The point of the example given, was that the atheist caveman believes the truth-claim: "there are no other planets", and feels no obligation to provide evidence to support this because he had never considered any alternatives prior to the theist caveman's challenge. The view is self-evident to him and that's that. Ironically, you continue your response by insisting that your point of view is properly basic:

You keep being disingenuous by trying and failing to shift the burden of proof from the people making claims about deity to those who don’t have to do nothing but point out the nonsensical nature of the beliefs

You cannot seem to grasp that we both bear burdens of proof in this argument as we are both making claims. You are stuck imagining a scenario where an atheist is approached by some proselytizer who alone bears the burden of proof by virtue of starting the conversation. In reality however they are both obligated to have evidence pointing them to their views regardless of whether they are arguing against people who disagree and even before they begin discussing these views with others. To put it so simply that you could hope to understand, I am asking why you are an atheist in the first place, with the caveat that you must include reasons pointing toward a godless universe and not just away from religion. I am also extending this question to Wilgrea7.

I should also add that the first sentence of the above paragraph isn't entirely true. I was merely being gracious. Nobody who believes in the existence of "god" (as I've defined the concept earlier in this thread) has to provide reasons for this belief as it is properly basic. Everybody comes to that conclusion naturally. For instance, if we take a number of people, wipe their memories and dump them naked on various uninhabited islands they will sooner or later come to the conclusion that "god" exists. I know this for a fact, because it already happened: fragmented and completely remote human societies all around the planet all came to the same conclusion (feel free to ignorantly point out exceptions). The reason for this is that the existence of god is self evident. We know that god exists just as we know that we exist. However, for the sake of kindness I will (and have) provided evidence that our common sense as a species is rational. It is time for atheists to do the same!

The second caveman does not have to provide proof that planets do not exist; that’s utterly senseless. It’s up to the first caveman who happens to know about planets to show the other where, when, what, and how.

To beat a dead horse further, the above is only true if the second caveman is not concerned with believing the truth. I suspect, however, that you truly did misunderstand the story I told. For emphasis: the atheist caveman is making the claim that other planets do not exist, much like modern atheists make the claim that god does not exist. Unless atheists are ok with believing lies then they have an obligation (to themselves at least) to have reason for believing as they do.

Lastly, I should note that your feigning ignorance about the definition of the term "god" is a shameful attempt at winning any argument. It is also not true. Not only have I pleaded with you to use a dictionary to enlighten yourself, I have also defined it several times already in posts on this thread, although not addressed to you. You should have left the thinking to the more intelligent atheist I was already conversing with.

KnownUnknown:


No, it is not the same thing. I didnot take a position of belief or unbelief about the existence of a non-defined “blue thing”. The “blue thing” is essentially meaningless because the person claiming it exists can’t even define it therefore I don’t believe the person’s claim.

Endtimer:


You do not believe the other person's claim that the blue thing exists; therefore you do believe it does not exist. This is surprisingly simple logic, even for you and yet you fail to grasp it. Like a child, you want to play at words and suggest that you do not believe the person, but as I've demonstrated, belief in anything is binary (like being pregnant) inasmuch as you possess basic knowledge concerning it. You may oscillate between believing it and not as you learn more, but you cannot avoid one of these positions except by virtue of stupidity. Repeatedly claiming that the blue thing is poorly defined is only a justification for your belief in its inexistence, rather than the proof you imagine it is that you believe neither in its existence nor inexistence.

What’s the main difference between 'belief' and 'believe'? So, 'believe' (with a v) is a verb. It means to have confidence in the truth. Then, 'belief' (with an f) is a noun. It means a religious faith or the feeling of being certain that something is true.

Because 'belief' and 'believe' are almost homophones (words that sound alike), they are often confused. Here are some tips on how to tell them apart.

https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-belief-vs-believe

Endtimer:


The point of the example given, was that the atheist caveman believes the truth-claim: "there are no other planets", and feels no obligation to provide evidence to support this because he had never considered any alternatives prior to the theist caveman's challenge. The view is self-evident to him and that's that. Ironically, you continue your response by insisting that your point of view is properly basic:


To beat a dead horse further, the above is only true if the second caveman is not concerned with believing the truth. I suspect, however, that you truly did misunderstand the story I told. For emphasis: the atheist caveman is making the claim that other planets do not exist, much like modern atheists make the claim that god does not exist. Unless atheists are ok with believing lies then they have an obligation (to themselves at least) to have reason for believing as they do.

Lastly, I should note that your feigning ignorance about the definition of the term "god" is a shameful attempt at winning any argument. It is also not true. Not only have I pleaded with you to use a dictionary to enlighten yourself, I have also defined it several times already in posts on this thread, although not addressed to you. You should have left the thinking to the more intelligent atheist I was already conversing with.

The only reasonable thing you said is “don’t beat a dead horse further”.
Another reason why your analogy is senseless is the you can’t use something as apparent as a planet for your ridiculous analogy about the vague idea of god and your continued attempt to shift the burden of proof is farcical. Both cavemen would be aware of planets by virtue of the definition, “wandering star”, your theist caveman does not have to rely on making claims without support. Both caveman CAN SEE the “wandering stars”
Your analogy would be better if the “theist caveman” claimed that those planets are gods. Yet, it would still be up to the “theist caveman” to convince the “atheist caveman” that the wandering star is indeed a “god” and that is after explaining what a “god” is. The “atheist caveman” can they show the “theist caveman” that those planets are not gods but similar to the ground they stand on.

Endtimer:

I was talking about proper basicity and do not need a lesson in effective caveman communication.

Is “proper basicity” a synonym for “proper bullshit”? Or what does chemistry have to do with this?

Endtimer:


You cannot seem to grasp that we both bear burdens of proof in this argument as we are both making claims. You are stuck imagining a scenario where an atheist is approached by some proselytizer who alone bears the burden of proof by virtue of starting the conversation. In reality however they are both obligated to have evidence pointing them to their views regardless of whether they are arguing against people who disagree and even before they begin discussing these views with others. To put it so simply that you could hope to understand, I am asking why you are an atheist in the first place, with the caveat that you must include reasons pointing toward a godless universe and not just away from religion. I am also extending this question to Wilgrea7.

I’m not an atheist. The supernatural or the so called “divine” is just a subset of fiction. Since gods are supernatural or divine, they are obviously fiction. Gods also do not appear outside of fiction, be it religious or profane, and their actions are extraordinary and unlike what actually happens in reality. I have no belief or unbelief in Thor and regard him as an extant work of fiction and same goes for El, the Mesopotamian fiction you call “God”.

Endtimer:

I should also add that the first sentence of the above paragraph isn't entirely true. I was merely being gracious. Nobody who believes in the existence of "god" (as I've defined the concept earlier in this thread) has to provide reasons for this belief as it is properly basic.

Yes, you do have to provide reasons if you insist in an argument that your god is more than fiction. If you believe Thor is more than Scandinavian fiction or Marvel comic fiction it’s up to you to provide reasons than don’t consist entirely of your beliefs(opinion, faith). Same goes with “God”.

Endtimer:

Everybody comes to that conclusion naturally.

That’s a joke. If they came to the same conclusion naturally, they would believe the same thing. However, your opinion about gods is entirely dependent on your genealogy and geography.

Endtimer:

For instance, if we take a number of people, wipe their memories and dump them naked on various uninhabited islands they will sooner or later come to the conclusion that "god" exists.

No, they would not.

Endtimer:

I know this for a fact, because it already happened: fragmented and completely remote human societies all around the planet all came to the same conclusion (feel free to ignorantly point out exceptions).

It has never happened. No one comes to an opinion about gods on their own and like I said before, it is totally dependent on on your genealogy and geography. They have been and there are still atheistic societies and gods themselves were created by ancient people based personification of the natural world. No society came to the same conclusion so that’s just one of your baseless claims.

Endtimer:

The reason for this is that the existence of god is self evident. We know that god exists just as we know that we exist. However, for the sake of kindness I will (and have) provided evidence that our common sense as a species is rational. It is time for atheists to do the same!

All these is meaningless babble. Gods are obviously fictional and that is the only thing that is “self evident”

KnownUnknown:

The only reasonable thing you said is “don’t beat a dead horse further”.

Let's not pretend like you're smart enough to know.

Another reason why your analogy is senseless is the you can’t use something as apparent as a planet for your ridiculous analogy about the vague idea of god and your continued attempt to shift the burden of proof is farcical.

This is what I mean when I say you simply aren't very intelligent. I mean that as an honest observation and not an insult. It would be smart of you to wait for others to do the thinking and to simply copy and memorize what they say. The example given had a point, which you've scarcely addressed, instead choosing to attack it because you do not know how examples work or because you simply cannot wrap your head around the point. The last part quoted above is simply you insisting that your point of view is properly basic.

Both cavemen would be aware of planets by virtue of the definition, “wandering star”, your theist caveman does not have to rely on making claims without support. Both caveman CAN SEE the “wandering stars”.

The dimwittedness on display here is as amusing as it is frustrating.

Is “proper basicity” a synonym for “proper bullshit”? Or what does chemistry have to do with this?

No. Actually it is simply more vocabulary that you do not know and are too lazy to investigate. This is the second time you've failed to make an elementary inference: "proper basicity" cannot be about chemistry. Why would a human being even think that. Furthermore, you are as arrogant as you are uneducated, unable to ask for the definitions of terms you are ignorant of because it would expose the intellectual underclass you belong to.

KnownUnknown:

I’m not an atheist. The supernatural or the so called “divine” is just a subset of fiction. Since gods are supernatural or divine, they are obviously fiction. Gods also do not appear outside of fiction, be it religious or profane, and their actions are extraordinary and unlike what actually happens in reality. I have no belief or unbelief in Thor and regard him as an extant work of fiction and same goes for El, the Mesopotamian fiction you call “God”.

Above is more of the unintelligent assumption that your position is properly basic. It will serve when I'm explaining to Wilgrea7 what I mean when I say that the average atheist (which you claim you are not; although this is just another demonstration of your not understanding English) is unable to conceive of the possibility that he is wrong. Note the emphasis above on statements for which you feel no evidence is needed for. Unsubstantiated opinions that the majority of people would disagree with. Yet, you simply state them, imagining yourself some profound thinker when you childishly believe without reason.

That’s a joke. If they came to the same conclusion naturally, they would believe the same thing. However, your opinion about gods is entirely dependent on your genealogy and geography.

I'm sure you don't even think up these responses or bother yourself to try to understand mine (it could also be that you cannot for genetic reasons). If you will, however, note above that you state that they "would believe the same thing" and shortly thereafter append "your opinion about gods is entirely dependent on your genealogy and geography". Assuming you are capable of understanding your own words (as it seems we cannot hope for you to understand mine), you will notice a contradiction. In the above quote you simultaneously claim that people do not believe similarly about deity, and yet they all believe in the existence of some sort of god.

They all believe the "same thing" if that same thing is that god exists in some form. This is exactly the point your quote above claims to be refuting. The impact of their environment is to be expected as that is the lens through which they filter their perception of the divine as well as their experience as humans.

It has never happened. No one comes to an opinion about gods on their own and like I said before, it is totally dependent on on your genealogy and geography. They have been and there are still atheistic societies and gods themselves were created by ancient people based personification of the natural world. No society came to the same conclusion so that’s just one of your baseless claims.

The bolded part above comes in spite of the warning I issued below:

I know this for a fact, because it already happened: fragmented and completely remote human societies all around the planet all came to the same conclusion (feel free to ignorantly point out exceptions).

That some people are subjective idealists does not mean that the majority of us don't know that matter really exists independent of mind. Subjective idealists are exceptions and their existence does not invalidate the claim that we simply know that matter is more than just an illusion. The same thing applies to the handful of naturally atheist societies.

All these is meaningless babble. Gods are obviously fictional and that is the only thing that is “self evident”

Thus spoke Zarathustra!

KnownUnknown, and with that I'll be wrapping up our correspondence. Barring the supernatural event that you develop startling intellectual abilities, you simply are not getting any smarter. Feel free to observe my discussion with Wilgrea7 when we continue. You might even continue to learn new words.

Compliments of the season Sir. Once again I apologize for the delayed responses. I promise to address all relevant mentions soon.

Endtimer:


No, I defined your atheism as the same thing you define it as above. I wrote that if you believe in the general concept of god, but not in the actual existence of any form of deity, then your atheism is the same as saying: "I don't believe in the existence of god" or "god does not exist". I use the term "god" here as the name of a set of every possible concept of deity including God, Allah, Vishnu etc. If you agree that the concept of deity is sensible but do not believe in any of the aforementioned, as well as the actual existence of any form of deity then you do not believe god exists.

Correct. The concept of "god" as you define it, is somewhat similar to my "higher cause" definition. Although like I said earlier, I wouldn't go as far as to use the word "god" because of what the name implies. (not to be mistaken for God. I'm aware of your clarification on the issue)

Imagine yourself a disembodied consciousness touring the remains of our galaxy following some catastrophe that has led to the extinction of all life. You may accept that the concept is logical and could exist, but if you do not believe it actually does exist in some form then you would be saying: "life does not exist". Likewise your lack of belief in any and all specific forms of god.

So I've understood all your points up until this particular point. And this is something I believe you've mentioned several times here. So I think it would be a good idea for us to further expatiate on it.

It's the idea that not believing in something, even though you understand the concept of it, is equal to saying that said thing does not exist. It seems to be a binary decision thing, where we are asked to affirm that something does exist, or that it doesn't.

I don't necessarily believe this to be the case. And as usual, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you also seem to view the response "I don't know" as a sort of way to evade the burden of proof.

I sincerely do not see it that way. There are some things to which we have no knowledge about, and in such cases, an honest "I don't know would be sufficient".

The problem I have with the "God does NOT exist" statement, is that it makes a claim that seems like it's based on knowledge. Meaning "I know that God does not exist".

I used the big g God here, because I'm trying to refer to the specific concepts of "god", like as portrayed in monotheism or polytheism.

In that case you are changing the definition of atheism in order fit yourself in. The above would conventionally be described as agnostic theism/deism: you believe in god, but are unsure of his nature. If you agree, we can stop calling you an atheist and simply move on to discussing the traditional concept of god and leaps of faith.

Belief seems somewhat irrelevant here, considering we have evidence for a "higher cause" (once again, not necessarily a conscious one, or what people would consider a "mind, or anything in the religious sense" ). But then again, I wouldn't go as far as to describe this general concept as "god" because of what the name often implies.

I've been thinking about the "god" thing for a while, and it seems to lead me back to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"... But i think this is a discussion for another day.

In regards to being called, or not being called an atheist, I have no issues with the names given to me here. My adoption of the title came after I was repeatedly called so here on nairaland

Endtimer:


Let's not pretend like you're smart enough to know.



This is what I mean when I say you simply aren't very intelligent. I mean that as an honest observation and not an insult. It would be smart of you to wait for others to do the thinking and to simply copy and memorize what they say. The example given had a point, which you've scarcely addressed, instead choosing to attack it because you do not know how examples work or because you simply cannot wrap your head around the point. The last part quoted above is simply you insisting that your point of view is properly basic.



The dimwittedness on display here is as amusing as it is frustrating.



No. Actually it is simply more vocabulary that you do not know and are too lazy to investigate. This is the second time you've failed to make an elementary inference: "proper basicity" cannot be about chemistry. Why would a human being even think that. Furthermore, you are as arrogant as you are uneducated, unable to ask for the definitions of terms you are ignorant of because it would expose the intellectual underclass you belong to.

Now, this is “proper basicity”. Still don’t know what chemistry has to do with it though. Lol

Wilgrea7:


Belief seems somewhat irrelevant here, considering we have evidence for a "higher cause" (once again, not necessarily a conscious one, or what people would consider a "mind, or anything in the religious sense". But then again, I wouldn't go as far as to describe this general concept as "god" because of what the name often implies.

What is the evidence for a “higher cause”? How does this evidence show its singular and not multiple?

Compliments of the season sir

KnownUnknown:


What is the evidence for a “higher cause”? How does this evidence show its singular and not multiple?

When i talk of a "higher cause", like i pointed out to Endtimer, I'm not necessarily talking of a conscious one, or a centralized one.

We all understand the law of cause and effect. Our universe, regardless of how we observe it, seems to have a cause. Or a reason for existing.

Like i also mentioned to Endtimer, it seems to lead back to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"

So in regards to that, I classify whatever reasons for this as the "higher cause"

Wilgrea7:
Compliments of the season sir
When i talk of a "higher cause", like i pointed out to Endtimer, I'm not necessarily talking of a conscious one, or a centralized one.

Giving a negative definition of this “higher cause” does not clarify your idea.

Wilgrea7:

We all understand the law of cause and effect.

No, I’m not aware of such law. Things really can’t be boiled down to simple cause and effect. Myriad things work together to form temporary structures or events but most of it can’t be boiled down to cause and effect. Take daylight for example and how it happens, can you describe it as simple cause and effect?

Wilgrea7:


Our universe, regardless of how we observe it, seems to have a cause. Or a reason for existing.

It could very well have a cause or causes and reason or reasons for existing but it’s definitely not apparent to me at least.

Wilgrea7:

Like i also mentioned to Endtimer, it seems to lead back to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"

What is “nothing”? Can you imagine nothing? Rhetorical questions.

Why does everything exists? That question is beyond humanity’s pay grade.

Wilgrea7:

So in regards to that, I classify whatever reasons for this as the "higher cause"

Can I classify whatever reasons for the “higher cause” as the “highest cause” or are we to abruptly terminate this chain of cause at “higher cause”?

Hello Mr. Endtimer and KnownUnknown, and anyone else following these discussions.

First of all, i want to wish you a happy new year, and the best of things this 2023.

I want to apologize for my scarcity here recently.

Due to certain events (nothing bad i assure you), i may not be able to be as active as I'd like in the coming weeks.

This is, and has been, one of the most interesting discussions I've had on the issue of God, and I promise to return to it as my schedule clears up in the forthcoming weeks.

I hope you all are safe, and i wish you a fantastic year ahead.

Wilgrea7:
Compliments of the season Sir. Once again I apologize for the delayed responses. I promise to address all relevant mentions soon.

Happy new year to you as well.

So I've understood all your points up until this particular point. And this is something I believe you've mentioned several times here. So I think it would be a good idea for us to further expatiate on it.

It's the idea that not believing in something, even though you understand the concept of it, is equal to saying that said thing does not exist. It seems to be a binary decision thing, where we are asked to affirm that something does exist, or that it doesn't.

I don't necessarily believe this to be the case. And as usual, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you also seem to view the response "I don't know" as a sort of way to evade the burden of proof.

I sincerely do not see it that way. There are some things to which we have no knowledge about, and in such cases, an honest "I don't know would be sufficient".

The problem I have with the "God does NOT exist" statement, is that it makes a claim that seems like it's based on knowledge. Meaning "I know that God does not exist".

I believe I may have contributed to that issue. Upon rereading our discussion, I realize the way I used the term "believe" may constitute a category mistake. In one sense I used "believe" in the sense of agreeing with a theory and in the other in the sense of believing God truly does exist. I think of it now as a theory and practice distinction. I was trying to say that both definitions of atheism do not regard deity as practical.

Belief seems somewhat irrelevant here, considering we have evidence for a "higher cause" (once again, not necessarily a conscious one, or what people would consider a "mind, or anything in the religious sense" ). But then again, I wouldn't go as far as to describe this general concept as "god" because of what the name often implies.

I've been thinking about the "god" thing for a while, and it seems to lead me back to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"... But i think this is a discussion for another day.

The latter part of the above is Leibnitz's cosmological argument. The former is rather curious to me, as I don't see how this higher cause could possibly be unconscious.

In regards to being called, or not being called an atheist, I have no issues with the names given to me here. My adoption of the title came after I was repeatedly called so here on nairaland.

Don't worry about it, you aren't an atheist in any true sense of the word. If you had been, we wouldn't have been able to have a discussion this long without slinging mud.