Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?

I'm not here to explain things to five year olds, I'm here to discuss issues with people who can challenge my arguments. I'm fine with answering questions, but we've gotten to the point where you've asked me to explain the difference between describing one's bmindset vs describing reality, how the scientific method tells us what's true, and what makes A and not A the only two options.

If you want to continue this conversation you need to participate in it.

I've had the presuppositional apologetics debate

but not when I'm talking to someone who just keeps asking "why" over and over again without offering anything.

You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.

How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?

Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.

If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real. You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.

Yes, but you made it a point to argue a functional distinction manifest in one's actions. So I'm trying to understand what actions are theist, atheist, agnostic, etc. Case in point: could I not just argue that a functional distinction between one who "lacks belief" and one who "disbelieves" is that the former would sit in the pews of a church "bored" while the latter would attend a Richard Dawkins "lecture"? Could I not just as well argue that one who lacks belief would be just as bored at a Richard Dawkins lecture? Your argument that there's no functional distinction between one who "lack belief" and one who "disbelieves" is a quantitative one, correct? Especially since we're discussing actions?

To understand your position, I'm engaging you in reduction--that is, to reduce your argument to its barest and fundamental premise. I assume that you understand the argument that the scientific method helps us determine what's real, so why not explain it? If it helps, pretend you're writing a paper on it. Who knows? Maybe explaining it can help you have a better understanding of it as well.

You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.

I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A

Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?

I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A.

That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.

are all gods equally "true" ?

Are all religions equally true?

And GODS and religions have been an important part of the process of data development and associated material manipulation.

If you want your arguments challenged, then you have to stress-test them. And one manner in which you can stress test your argument is through reduction. I'm doing nothing more than interrogating your position. Are you capable of explaining your arguments?

the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLYalternative to "theism"

it's a false dichotomy

rejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomy

non-theism could be DEISM or PANTHEISM or MONISM or GNOSTICISM or even APATHEIST ("i don't care if a theistic god exists or not")

many of these people do not self-identify as "atheist"

but probably could still qualify for technical "atheism" if one understands "atheism" to be "not-a-theist"

Except Double_R alluded to the Law of Excluded Middle which he believes determines the truth values of proposition A and B independent of belief.

Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?

I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly acceptclaims of truth to proposition A.

Are all religions equally true?

equally unfalsifiable

Deists and pantheists are theists. 

Are all religions equally true?

equally unfalsifiable

I'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true. 

If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable.  It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable

theist

ˈθiːɪst

noun

a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. 

something that is not relavant to this conversation.

a theist believes in a god that writes books

a theist believes in a god who interferes in human affairs

a deist accepts a god that does not write books

a deist accepts a god that does not interfere in human affairs

Lies. This is why theists can't stand to engage in conversation with atheists. You listen to nothing, you don't believe anything theists say about their own thoughts and practice, and then you make up your own mind about what we believe and don't believe. 

someone who believes in a god

But when it comes to their beliefs these are very different.

i don't know what exactly proposition A is

and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is

therefore

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"

which is exactly what i was already doing anyway

up to and until the hypothetical point in time when someone or something CONVINCES me that proposition A "is true"

It has nothing to do with capability. You wouldn't be asking me these silly questions

if you didn't see something wrong,

all I'm asking is to start contributing to the conversation by pointing out what you see so that I know I'm not wasting my time with elaborate answers that are irrelevant.

We started off talking about the definition of Atheism and worked our way to flat earth examples to show the difference between a statement of one's mindset vs reality.

You can convince yourself that I'm afraid to answer your questions all you want, I've entertained this far longer than most would have.

An atheist says "I don't know how the universe and all of existence came about, let's try to find out"

A diest says "agoddidit"