If one can't see the flaws in his analogies, one is not even ready to have this conversation.
Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god. Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.
Thiest- One who believes in God.
Athiest- One who does not believe in God. I actually prefer 'one who knows there is no God'.
Theology- The study of the nature of God and religious truth (it's hard to even write).
Atheological- Well, you get the point.
In what universe does the impossible have even a small chance to exist?
Atheism is a statement about belief.
Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.
They are related to each in much the same way as knowledge and belief are but knowledge is not belief, nor is vice versa.
This is another version of disproving a positive, not proving a negative.
You're simply mixing belief and knowledge.
You're mistaking the action or location of an object for the proof of the existence of the object, and they're not the same thing.
Volcanoes exist, lucky charms exist - they just don't exist in your hotel room or kitchen presently, they nevertheless exist.
Forget all your arguments about volcanoes spewing in hotel rooms or kitchens - just try something simple like proving the non-existence of something.
Simply try to describe the process for proving that talking, blue diamonds do not exist. - without saying there's no evidence of them.