Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Golbez]

Truth - That which is considered to be factual or genuine.
Knowledge - That which is wholly believed to be fact, true.
Facts - Things believed to be indisputably true. Don't you love dictionaries and their circular definitions?
Evidence - Information indicating that a belief or proposition might be true.
Existence - That which is.
Hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Conjecture - An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

^What a proper scientist should be doing, not a conclusion they outright know.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...-play-dice

That's pretty much what I think of physics That we might well one day find that our entire understanding of them shatters in lieu of something that explains our observations even better.

Everything anyone knows is incorrect because none of it can possibly be objective, ultimate truth cannot be observed by a subjective being, only assumed by that being, assumption of which would then be necessarily wrong.

Wow, I've been out of the PA loop for awhile. They're on season 5 of videos? Didn't know they were making them at all. That was a pretty good video, and I think it did a pretty good job to illustrate where you're coming from.

Concerning your definitions, it is important to know that opinions don't count in determining how the universe operates. So considerations and beliefs are out. The world was never flat, nevermind that a vast majority decidedly believed it to be the case. The earth never was the center of the solar system. Gravity never affected objects at different rates. It doesn't matter that people believed them to be true. My belief of what is true is not necessarily truth. But it might be. I might happen to believe the earth is a sphere. That this happens to be the case makes my belief correct. It doesn't mean that my belief dictated what was the case. Truth is unaffected by belief. Truth is what actually is the case. Science can be wrong by not accurately describing the truth. But it doesn't simply validate beliefs.

Re:evidence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
And again, despite your laughter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Now, there are multiple definitions for this, all of which are related. But they are not all identical, which is a non-flexible term meaning "the same."

From Dictionary.com's link:
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I'm sure your eyes are lighting up at the term "belief" in example no. 1. But note the emphasis on proof. A proof is something that asserts it in the affirmative and cannot be disproved.

Definition 2 is, in my estimation, what you use as evidence for religion. Interpretations that might be construed as to suggest a creator. But it is not proof.

Definition 3 again emphasizes proof of facts. This is evidence. This is at least what I mean when I use the term. So things like beautiful skies, mountains, occurrences of rare odds, etc are not evidence. They might satisfy definition 2, but they don't fully satisfy definitions 1 or 3.

Existence is good enough. But you then misconstrue that to interpret thoughts as "is." So let's clarify that further. A thought might truly exist. But the contents of that thought still wouldn't exist in nature as a result of that thought. I can't simply imagine a big pile of money into existence. You must be playing devil's advocate with that idea. Mental ideas can exist. Material things can exist. Mental thoughts don't bring material things into true existence. Eg - 2,700 dead gods.

Here's the rest of google's info on conjecture:

con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Synonyms
noun. guess - surmise - supposition - presumption - assumption
verb. guess - surmise - presume - suppose - assume - speculate

This is the same as a hypothesis. If you've learned nothing as a result of your experiment, then your conclusion might simply be left as your starting hypothesis. Otherwise they should be decidedly different.

Your method is pretty much on. The shortened method seems to omit research and rethink. Just to point out, you don't need to rethink a hypothesis to publish your results. It doesn't impact the findings at all. Although you could suggest how mistakes might be corrected. But that is something you can keep personal so no one scoops your work/ideas. Doesn't mean it's bad science. And the "research" is really part of the observation. It doesn't necessarily need its own step.

I think until and unless we clarify and agree to these distinctions we have here, we will gain no ground on discussing evidence for religion.

---

If everyone agreed on that meaning of the word, then I would be OK being labeled as such.

As long as you know and understand what the term means, who cares whether others do? By this standard, you could not adopt any label ever for fear that someone may get it wrong. That just seems unnecessary. No one could be a "teenager" or a "boy" or "girl" etc. Even though they are defined terms, people could potentially screw it up. But if the term is clear, and its clear meaning applies to you, you could just educate those who misconstrue it in your presence. Otherwise, why bother what they think?

---

I personally find it simpler and more enjoyable to operate on the assumption that people are usually capable of perceiving an objective reality. If my eyes see something, and your eyes see the same thing, then I'm comfortable believing in the existence of that thing.

http://youtu.be/9X68dm92HVI?t=2m26s
^ this is supposed to have a time stamp of 2:26.

There are visual illusions and so it requires all of our senses. But even those illusions can be objectively acknowledged.