If I were an Atheist

[Ravenshire]

You guys make me laugh. If you and I were criminologists investigating a death the first question we would ask is was this death natural causes (an accident or a heart attack or some other unintended cause) or was it a matter of foul play? Evidence it was natural causes would weigh against it being foul play, evidence it was foul play would weigh against it being natural causes. If we go out in the woods and see some kind of structure made of logs we would attempt to evaluate whether the wood was placed intentionally to make a shelter or was it caused by a storm that blew the wood against a rock that made it look like it was intentionally placed. We wouldn't go into some kind of bullshit discussion about whether 'random variables are capable of producing a non-random effect'. That appeal to smoke and mirrors would only come up in this discussion.

Well, it's obvious you understand what evidence, what it's good for and how it's used. Now, maybe you can present some to support your claim that gawd exists.

You do seem to fail to grasp the difference between not believing in something and believing it doesn't exist. It is a fine distinction, but most people can figure it out. I'll lay it out for you:
Believing something does not exist is a type of positive claim, even though you're claiming to believe a negative. Not believing in something is simply the refusal to accept a claim at face value.

If you say "God exists." and I counter with "Nuh-uh." that is an example of the first.
If you say "God exists." and I counter with "I don't believe that." that is an example of the second.

Inherent is the fist is the necessity to prove my claim if confronted on it. Inherent in the second is a willingness to view evidence and change my stance if the evidence actually supports the claim.

See the difference now?!?

All that being said, while I maintain that I am an agnostic atheist, i do tend to become more gnostic as the gawd claims get better defined.