How do you debunk people that does not believe in experimental facts?

[technix]

The problem is the usual one: that there is no one to ask what was originally meant by such a description. "Formless and empty" could simply mean the prebiotic state, and darkness could be metaphorical, or refer to a heavy cloud cover. Add in problems of translation and it quickly becomes clear that you can use the Bible to support virtually any interpretation. "The first day" could be anything, since the distinction between day and night is subjective and depends on there being an observer to notice it.

That is why I quoted 2nd law of thermodynamics there. A state of maximum entropy is "formless and empty" by definition of thermodynamic entropy. The first few lines in the Bible can describe the Big Bang where the concept of time itself is not yet stable, and no widely accepted theory exist as of now. It is totally possible that only Planck time passed in the reference frame of our universe, but in the Lord's frame of reference it really is three days or a week.

[LaserSteve]

Ardent Sky Pixie Believer here. I wont say my faith to keep within forum guidelines, and I'm not 100% creationist.  I will openly say I can prove the existence of biological adaptation, but by no means can I prove Creation. 

 I will mention that working in a multidisciplinary facility with tunneling microscopes,  electron microscopes and some really sophisticated laser scanning microscopes has taught me that every time I think I remotely understand some tiny fraction of molecular and atomic structure, some new underlying feature pops up.  The world just seems too sophisticated and well designed to have just popped up out of nothingness without a designer.  Every time I think I know something, I find there is far more to learn,.   I have yet to see a lab get anywhere close to generating the spark of life in 20 something years of working in labs that do a mix of Bio and Applied Physics/Applied Chemistry.  At least that is what I tell my fellow Sky-Pixie followers, when they ask how I can reconcile my beliefs, with my university workplace.

   While I work in a facility that would strongly deny Creation theory at all costs, you might be surprised how many different faiths we have working here, and we have subtle ways of finding each other. Some of my fellow workers can openly show their faiths, even put up recruiting posters,  but mine seems limited by social / legal  norms from doing that.

 One point, I've gotten more good  dates and social consideration from women at the Sky Pixie Adoration Facility then anywhere else. They are like minded women, with a goal of companionship, and less worship of money or shoes  then any other category I have ever dated. And they keep an eye on each other's behavior. Usually they take good care of themselves, too.   Which leads me to another point:

The main  point everyone often misses about faith, is that with a few notable exceptions,  that faith based groups often believe in providing second chances, avoiding strife, and offering help or redemption to those who are broken. Especially those people, whom our narcissistic political and community  leaders would  kill, exile,, jail, or toss aside, rather then help.

        As we age, experience divorce, medical or social problems, loose friends and family, move to some place far from home, etc., the one place you can always find some acceptance is a faith based place.   Even if I'm traveling on business, I can pop into a local community, have a few things in common, and at least have some one to talk to for a few hours. That and the business connections I can develop are fantastic. 

      But I do have to follow some strict rules.   About 50% of my local  fellow members are really smart, successful people, often highly educated. A large fraction of the rest are people we are helping to become productive members of society, again.  Many of them have problems that can be solved just by talking with others.  Sky Pixie day is often a chance to unload stress and vent, either thru ritual (Which has some interesting psychology behind it) or by having some one trusted to talk to.

So for my friends here who are atheist, agnostic, or just in doubt, please understand peaceful, faith, based communities (Note I did not use the word "Religious", it has very negative connotations in my world) exist for providing community, sanctuary, companionship, and guidance. Call it a sophisticated coping or survival mechanism if you will.  That and the food after worship cooked by all those wives (and a few husbands)  is amazing, but it will raise your cholesterol.

So before you think "Sky Pixie Tribe", no matter which branch,  is a cult of idiots believing in the impossible, please understand, that even if we're wrong, our meetings and structure provide a support system for a lot of people who would have no place else to go, or no other source of discipline in their life.  Even if He doesn't exist, I can say I have benefitted, and grown in amazing ways from being part of a second family of sorts. Most of my biological family has passed on/expired, and in a emergency, I have a unbelievable support system thru the "tribe", provided I devote some of my time to doing the same for others.

We're not a bunch who would go out and start a war or murder people on the street, either. In fact you might find that persons in our group would do whatever we can to stop any such event well in advance.  We see the groups who do such things as having not been around long enough to evolve, or being severely mislead. Usually misled by 5% or so of their group who twist the concepts and text around.

Even if Irrational, "Sky Pixie Worship" often serves as a badly needed social purpose, even if it just helps develop a person's conscience. That just might be why it exists and thrives.

From an Engineering Point of view, think about it this way.  If you as the Creator build a huge pile of robots who function flawlessly, with perfect software, what fun would it be to watch after a while?  Especially if you know the exact probable  outcomes of their function?. If you gave them the ability to learn, adapt, and think, and behave/ misbehave,  would it not be a lot more rewarding from the programming standpoint? What fun would it be to create a pile of creatures as companions without spontaneity and the ability to develop  an original thought?  Would you like to spend your life around C3PO?  The number of technologically sophisticated people who think they exist only in some sort of  simulation is amazing. Think about it..


Steve

[Cyberdragon]

I once found a weird video on Youtube where a guy was claiming he was recieving signals from a fire plug. I tried to explain how radio waves work in the comments which led to a bit of a debate. I recently read an article in my radio club magazine on this cult of people I encountered there who apparently call themselves "geomancers".

EDIT: There is a lot of that on Youtube too, just like free energy crap.

[mtdoc]

Excellent thoughtful post LaserSteve.   It's nice to see someone express a more nuanced view than the false Atheist versus Religious zealot dichotomy that seems to too often dominate this topic when it is discussed here.

From an Engineering Point of view, think about it this way.  If you as the Creator build a huge pile of robots who function flawlessly, with perfect software, what fun would it be to watch after a while?  Especially if you know the exact probable  outcomes of their function?. If you gave them the ability to learn, adapt, and think, and behave/ misbehave,  would it not be a lot more rewarding from the programming standpoint? What fun would it be to create a pile of creatures as companions without spontaneity and the ability to develop  an original thought?  Would you like to spend your life around C3PO?  The number of technologically sophisticated people who think they exist only in some sort of  simulation is amazing. Think about it..

This made me think of this excerpt from a lecture by Alan Watts:

[xrunner]

From an Engineering Point of view, think about it this way.  If you as the Creator build a huge pile of robots who function flawlessly, with perfect software, what fun would it be to watch after a while?  Especially if you know the exact probable  outcomes of their function?. If you gave them the ability to learn, adapt, and think, and behave/ misbehave,  would it not be a lot more rewarding from the programming standpoint? What fun would it be to create a pile of creatures as companions without spontaneity and the ability to develop  an original thought?  Would you like to spend your life around C3PO?  The number of technologically sophisticated people who think they exist only in some sort of  simulation is amazing.

Think about it..

How could this Omnipotent Deity, which created all basic physical reality (according to what people like you would say) not know how any creatures it created would behave? There is no level of what we would perceive as "randomness" that it would not understand and know to be predictable because it made the underlying structure. Remember it designed physical reality down to the quantum interactions and beyond - everything and all it's behavior and functionality is a design created from it's own thoughts, that never existed before. What we perceive as random is exactly and precisely a known outcome because it is the way it's designed to be, and the design came from the designer (according to what creationists would say). So claiming that it would enjoy watching "spontaneous" creatures interact as if it could not predict what they will do is nonsensical to me. It cannot design something that it can then not understand. Just as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being can somehow decide to not exist, because that would be a contradiction. An eternal being cannot decide to be a non-eternal being because it would have been non-sensical to have been called eternal to begin with.

Think about it.

Besides, there is really no difference for such a being between thinking about something and creating it. For example I can think about what 2 + 2 equals. I know what it equals. Now, what if I write it down on paper as a physical representation? Is there any more meaning for me? No. Same thing applies to an omnipotent entity - it's an unnecessary and trivial task that adds no more meaning at all.

[Zbig]

I will mention that working in a multidisciplinary facility with tunneling microscopes,  electron microscopes and some really sophisticated laser scanning microscopes has taught me that every time I think I remotely understand some tiny fraction of molecular and atomic structure, some new underlying feature pops up.  The world just seems too sophisticated and well designed to have just popped up out of nothingness without a designer.

But you don't wonder where, how and when this designer came about? How does assuming the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, infinitely intelligent, invisible sentient being with sadistic tendencies, who created everything, explain any single thing? Why does your need to ask the questions "who" and "how" seem to suddenly vanish when they're no longer about the universe itself but the guy who singlehandedly created it? How does this make it any easier to understand or accept? I find it really hard to believe you haven't ever gone through the thought exercise like who created the creator guy and wouldn't he have to be even greater of a creator? And the one before? Since how long does it go on like this? Oh, I guess there was just no beginning of time - it's a loop! Or better - the time itself began with the creator himself! But wait... couldn't we just replace "creator" with "universe", then? Doesn't this make it a tiny bit simpler? Oh bummer... I did as a kid and I will never ever again consider the most improbable answer possible to be the answer, even for a second. Do you really find the notion of a designer just popping up out of nothingness without a designer so much more palatable than the universe having just popped up out of nothingness without a designer? Really? Honestly?

[Cerebus]

How does assuming the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, infinitely intelligent, invisible sentient being with sadistic tendencies, who created everything, explain any single thing? Why does your need to ask the questions "who" and "how" seem to suddenly vanish when they're no longer about the universe itself but the guy who singlehandedly created it?

You're assuming that any religion under discussion is one with a omnipotent (etc etc), male, single deity. You're missing all the polytheistic guys like the Hindus (Easy to overlook, there's only over a billion of them), Sikhs, the animists, the ancestor worshippers, and all the many other varieties of Sky (or Earth) Pixie worship. There's much more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Abrahamic religious philosophy.

An aside: One of the things that I find interesting in looking at most religious traditions that aren't Abrahamic ones is that the Gods themselves are subject to consequences and varieties of rules (moral rules or what would be called in mundane matters the rules[laws] of physics). They tend to contain much better explanations of why their gods permit/allow/can't stop bad things that completely stump adherents of Abrahamic religions.

Obviously most of the here assembled worship at the Temple of The Angry Pixies. (Watchers of AvE's YouTube channel will know what I mean.)

[mtdoc]

You're assuming that any religion under discussion is one with a omnipotent (etc etc), male, single deity. You're missing all the polytheistic guys like the Hindus (Easy to overlook, there's only over a billion of them), Sikhs, the animists, the ancestor worshippers, and all the many other varieties of Sky (or Earth) Pixie worship. There's much more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Abrahamic religious philosophy.

As well as the half billion or more pantheists (Buddhists, Daoists, etc). Many of these are more philosophical belief systems rather than "religions" in the Western sense of that word.  Zen Buddhism has been called "the religion of no religion" for example.

Personally, I find both religious and atheist zealotry equally troubling and when it is in your face proselytizing, offensive and dangerous -no matter whether it's evangelizing Christian or Islamic fundamentalists or evangelizing Atheists ("There is no god and I am his prophet").

IMHO, the insistence of some to impose their non-physical belief system on others is one of the human race's most destructive forces.

[Zbig]

You're assuming that any religion under discussion is one with a omnipotent (etc etc), male, single deity. You're missing all the polytheistic guys like the Hindus (Easy to overlook, there's only over a billion of them), Sikhs, the animists, the ancestor worshippers, and all the many other varieties of Sky (or Earth) Pixie worship. There's much more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Abrahamic religious philosophy.

An aside: One of the things that I find interesting in looking at most religious traditions that aren't Abrahamic ones is that the Gods themselves are subject to consequences and varieties of rules (moral rules or what would be called in mundane matters the rules[laws] of physics). They tend to contain much better explanations of why their gods permit/allow/can't stop bad things that completely stump adherents of Abrahamic religions.

Obviously most of the here assembled worship at the Temple of The Angry Pixies. (Watchers of AvE's YouTube channel will know what I mean.)

Yes, I'm aware there's more than one religion in the world - I'm an atheist, not a moron My post was worded as a response to LaserSteve's use of singular "designer" but feel free to replace the "designer" with any other diety/dieties ever worshipped. It doesn't matter if you substitute the single male god with a merry bunch of multi-armed deities arguing the fate of the world or humanity with animal-headed dudes over dinner, like in a poor sitcom - it doesn't change a single thing as far as I'm concerned. Even if you refuse to call the entity "god" and start talking about shapeless, timeless cloud of sentient energy or whatever: the wheels fall of the cart as soon as there's a hint of an educated, will-driven act of design by any kind of self-aware driving force playing a role in shaping the laws of physics.

[Cerebus]

You're assuming that any religion under discussion is one with a omnipotent (etc etc), male, single deity. You're missing all the polytheistic guys like the Hindus (Easy to overlook, there's only over a billion of them), Sikhs, the animists, the ancestor worshippers, and all the many other varieties of Sky (or Earth) Pixie worship. There's much more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Abrahamic religious philosophy.

An aside: One of the things that I find interesting in looking at most religious traditions that aren't Abrahamic ones is that the Gods themselves are subject to consequences and varieties of rules (moral rules or what would be called in mundane matters the rules[laws] of physics). They tend to contain much better explanations of why their gods permit/allow/can't stop bad things that completely stump adherents of Abrahamic religions.

Obviously most of the here assembled worship at the Temple of The Angry Pixies. (Watchers of AvE's YouTube channel will know what I mean.)

Yes, I'm aware there's more than one religion in the world - I'm an atheist, not a moron My post was worded as a response to LaserSteve's use of singular "designer" but feel free to replace the "designer" with any other diety/dieties ever worshipped. It doesn't matter if you substitute the single male god with a merry bunch of multi-armed deities arguing the fate of the world or humanity with animal-headed dudes over dinner, like in a poor sitcom - it doesn't change a single thing as far as I'm concerned. Even if you refuse to call the entity "god" and start talking about shapeless, timeless cloud of sentient energy or whatever: the wheels fall of the cart as soon as there's a hint of an educated, will-driven act of design by any kind of self-aware driving force playing a role in shaping the laws of physics.

LaserSteve went well out of his way to avoid any useful clue as to which variety of Pixie he was describing, which is why I wanted to suggest that your implicit assumption that it was an Abrahamic, or Abrahamic style god was possibly off the mark.

[eyiz]

Yes, I'm aware there's more than one religion in the world - I'm an atheist, not a moron

How could anyone be an atheist?

You're either a theist or an agnostic.

If you claim you're an objective scientist, and can see no "evidence" for God, then you can't claim there's "no God" either, since neither is there any "evidence" for that.

[xrunner]

How could anyone be an atheist?

You're either a theist or an agnostic.

Incorrect.

Gnostic refers to knowledge, thesim refers to religion.

The "A" in front of these words adds "without". So a theist has a belief in god(s) - an atheist has no belief in gods. Notice how the "a" modifies the meaning. Lacking a beliefs in gods does not mean you KNOW there are no gods, it simply means that you have no verifiable knowledge of them hence you have no belief.

A gnostic has knowledge of something, an agnostic has no knowledge of something.

Gnostic and agnostic have no meaning by themselves regarding religious beliefs. For example I could be an aunicornist (without knowledge of unicorns). If I believed in unicorns I would be a unicornist, just like a person that believes in gods is a theist.

That mistake is made repeatedly by uninformed theists.

The correct way to use them is as follows -

You are either a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
A gnostic theist claims to have direct knowledge of gods. An agnostic theist lacks that knowledge but yet still believes in gods.

And you are either a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist.
A gnostic atheist claims to have proof there are no gods and so does not believe in them, and an agnostic atheist has no direct proof that there are no gods so does not believe in them.

Calling a person an agnostic is meaningless because it doesn't refer to the knowledge base the person is lacking.

[Cerebus]

Gnostic and agnostic have no meaning by themselves regarding religious beliefs. For example I could be an aunicornist (without knowledge of unicorns). If I believed in unicorns I would be a unicornist, just like a person that believes in gods is a theist.

Gnostic:
adjective
    1 Relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

    1.1 Relating to Gnosticism.

noun
    An adherent of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism
noun

    A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

Agnostic:
noun
    A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I'd say that both words are clearly about religious belief.

If you're going to make ex cathedra pronouncements on the meaning of words, it's a wise precaution to actually check the dictionary first.

Moreover, there can be no doubt about the intended meaning of the word agnostic as it was explicitly coined by T.H.Huxley to describe his own beliefs about religious issues.

I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.

[xrunner]

I'm using the terms the correct way in the context of explaining the four ways to hold or not hold religious beliefs.

Agnostic:

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


Gnostic:

1. pertaining to knowledge.

dictionary.com

The statement from eyiz -

You're either a theist or an agnostic.

Is simply wrong, and not precise, as I clearly showed in my last post. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

So stating you are an agnostic is not the most precise way to use the term, as anyone whose debated these topics for any length of time would know.

[IanB]

How could anyone be an atheist?

You're either a theist or an agnostic.

If you claim you're an objective scientist, and can see no "evidence" for God, then you can't claim there's "no God" either, since neither is there any "evidence" for that.

This is not how it works. If someone makes a fantastic claim, and there is no evidence to support that claim, then you are entitled to believe the fantastic claim is false.

For instance, if you show me a sealed box and tell me there may be a dollar bill inside it, then I do not know if this is true or not. I can be legitimately uncertain of the true state of affairs.

On the other hand, if you show me a sealed box and suggest that the Cullinan diamond is inside it, then I am in no state of uncertainty at all. I will be quite sure that no such diamond is inside the box and will have no doubt whatsoever about it. You may tell me I cannot see inside the box and therefore I cannot know for sure. But you know quite well that such assurances will count for nothing and I will on no account believe you.

[mtdoc]

The general claims "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally fantastic and equally unprovable. Both are personal beliefs.

[xrunner]

The general claims "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally fantastic and equally unprovable. Both are personal beliefs.

Indeed, however the rational stance is to not believe in a thing if there is no proof, not to believe in it. Therefore, the rational stance is to not believe in gods without proof.

[yada]

the sad part is when engineers , a group of ppl supposedly able of critical thinking, still believe earth is 6000 year old and all the crap that goes by religious crap. i totally respect ppl belief when it come to spirituality but when they try to prouve scientific stuff with their books i totally lose it , and baseball bat can be really useful.

A guy I knew at university is one of the leading lights of the British 'young world' creationists despite having a doctorate in biochemistry.

He's a perfectly rational man, can follow a logical argument, and is no stranger to scientific method. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand how he can hold the views he has. I can quite understand that a Christian upbringing, and not just any upbringing, but one in the Plymouth Brethren, can put a lot of pressure on him to want to think a particular way, but not how this otherwise intelligent scientist can ignore the evidence in front of him. Worse still, as he actively publicly argues for young world creationism, he gets faced with the conflicting evidence again and again. I repeat, he's rational and intelligent, and as a biochemist is well equipped to properly understand some of the most compelling evidence for evolution and against young earth creationism, yet continues to honestly believe that the world is a few thousand years old.

As I say, I cannot comprehend how he can still hold to his views in the face of all the evidence.

I don't get that. What does he do with the stuff he's learning in genetics? I took genetics and was always thinking that creationists have no fucking clue and just need to sit in on one class and try to tell me everything we learned was nonsense.

Just like understanding how the speed of light works, seeing well over 6000 ly's with the naked eye and saying those light rays are at most 6000 years old. 3/4 of the night sky would be dark if you excluded all the light sources more then 6000 light years away.

I saw one guy go as far as to say god had planted all the light sources to make the illusion that its older then 6000 years. Why would god want to trick us? What is he trying to hide. The bible makes perfect sense if you only had the knowledge available to you when it was written. Horse men of the apocalypse? They would have jetpacks or tele porters or better yet EM drives. That would take forever to conquer the world on horse back. You could out ride the horse men on a ebike or moped, they would never catch the ISS. 

[Cerebus]

I'm using the terms the correct way in the context of explaining the four ways to hold or not hold religious beliefs.

Ah, the Humpty-Dumpty approach. Look, if you want to chose your own meaning for words, fine, but only if you want to talk about the "skookumness of the schmoo", or whether "she chooches", not when you're saying someone else is using them incorrectly, then the only place of appeal is the dictionary. You can't use your own definitions of words in a rational argument. To do so is antithetical to communication at best, dishonest at worst (which I don't believe is your intent).

Further, you're choosing your own definition of atheist to suit your argument. Again, the dictionary defines atheism as "the theory or belief that God does not exist." [my emphasis]. Using the normally understood, dictionary based meaning of the words: Theism is a belief in a god or gods existing, atheism is a belief that they do not exist, only agnosticism stands aside and says I have no belief because I do not have any evidence.

[xrunner]

I'm using the terms the correct way in the context of explaining the four ways to hold or not hold religious beliefs.

Ah, the Humpty-Dumpty approach. Look, if you want to chose your own meaning for words, fine, but only if you want to talk about the "skookumness of the schmoo", ...

No, no you are incorrect sir. I'm being very precise and there is no need for insults.

If an agnostic lacks belief in gods, then what is an agnostic theist?

As you would have it, an agnostic theist would then mean "a person that lacks belief in gods, that believes in gods"

How could that exist? The term would be contradictory - but ... it isn't. The term exists and it means just what I said it did -

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or God, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

And, so it goes for the other terms I identified, you can easily google all of them at your leisure.

So, you see how to be precise you would have to use the terms as I did. Here is a graphic below if you prefer to look at pictures - but as I've been a member here for years and know well how these types of threads are bound for a lockdown, I will exit it and leave you all to your musings. 

[mtdoc]

The general claims "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally fantastic and equally unprovable. Both are personal beliefs.

Indeed, however the rational stance is to not believe in a thing if there is no proof, not to believe in it. Therefore, the rational stance is to not believe in gods without proof.

Simply verbal gymnastics and semantics.

The belief "there is no God" is itself a thing for which there is no proof.

In any case, the God/No God question is completely outside the realm of science. There is no testable hypothesis there.

[Cerebus]

This is not how it works. If someone makes a fantastic claim, and there is no evidence to support that claim, then you are entitled to believe the fantastic claim is false.

There's this fella who's suggested that the Universe increased in size by a factor of 10³⁰ between when the Universe was 1 x 10^-34 seconds old and 2 x 10^-34 seconds old with no direct evidence. If any claim is fantastical then, just on the scale of the numbers, that one is. By your standard of proof laid out above, we should label this claim false. However, most cosmologists do believe there may be something to this claim and the theory is called Inflation. Obviously this is science so: (1) rigorous attempts are being made to find experimental evidence to confirm or deny this, (2) the innate scepticism of scientists in unlikely claims gets suspended if it's cosmology or quantum physics because it's OK to believe six impossible things before breakfast if it's science.

My point is, there is a difference between justified scepticism and active disbelief, and the criteria you supply for belief in falsity  aren't sufficient. To have a belief that something is false you must have evidence for that position, not merely the absence of evidence of something being true. To have evidence for neither position requires one to either take a neutral position oneself or to take a faith based position (whether for or against is immaterial, especially as in my opinion either would be foolish).

At least you didn't say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - a phrase that makes me want to "reach for my machine gun" as ordinary evidence is quite adequate thank you!

[Cerebus]

I'm using the terms the correct way in the context of explaining the four ways to hold or not hold religious beliefs.

Ah, the Humpty-Dumpty approach. Look, if you want to chose your own meaning for words, fine, but only if you want to talk about the "skookumness of the schmoo", ...

No, no you are incorrect sir. I'm being very precise and there is no need for insults.

I'm not insulting you, just quoting acceptable nonsense use of words from a man I find very funny. I presume you do get the Humpty-Dumpty reference, from a very famous author also known for his use of nonsense words, and you don't think that's also supposed to be an insult too.

    "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

If an agnostic lacks belief in gods, then what is an agnostic theist?

As you would have it, an agnostic theist would then mean "a person that lacks belief in gods, that believes in gods"

How could that exist? The term would be contradictory - but ... it isn't. The term exists and it means just what I said it did -

An agnostic theist is a phrase you cling to, to support your argument about the meanings of words, about which the Oxford English Dictionary, and the creator of the word "agnostic", disagree with you.

[EEVblog]

Further, you're choosing your own definition of atheist to suit your argument. Again, the dictionary defines atheism as "the theory or belief that God does not exist." [my emphasis]. Using the normally understood, dictionary based meaning of the words: Theism is a belief in a god or gods existing, atheism is a belief that they do not exist

"Belief" based on a lack of evidence + evidence to the contrary 

I have belief that if I jump out of a tall building then I will die. Not because it makes me feel like a better person believing that, or because many other people believe it, or because it gives me comfort knowing that. It's a belief based on evidence.
If you are going to get anal about words, do the word "belief" a favour and acknowledge that there are different reason to have "belief" in something.
I also have belief that fairies aren't real.
It's perfectly reasonable to "Believe" something based on a lack of evidence.

[EEVblog]

There's this fella who's suggested that the Universe increased in size by a factor of 10³⁰ between when the Universe was 1 x 10^-34 seconds old and 2 x 10^-34 seconds old with no direct evidence. If any claim is fantastical then, just on the scale of the numbers, that one is. By your standard of proof laid out above, we should label this claim false.

Correct. One should not believe such a claim to be true simply based on a lack of evidence.
However, if you want get technical, and because you used it as a specific example, it likely wasn't an absolute claim, it was a scientific hypothesis.
Religion (and many other such things) are not scientific hypothesis, they are absolute claims of confidence based on faith without any real evidence, and in the face of evidence to the contrary to boot.
To us the analogy you did is a mistake.
Believing Elvis is still alive ranks in the exact same category.

My point is, there is a difference between justified scepticism and active disbelief, and the criteria you supply for belief in falsity  aren't sufficient.

Paraphrasing Doc Brown: There's that word again, belief, is there a problem with the understanding of the word in the future?

To have a belief that something is false you must have evidence for that position, not merely the absence of evidence of something being true.

Absolute rubbish.
Classic Russell's teapot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot