Regarding number (2) - That seems to me to be a rather odd outlook; all other things being equal, why would you require evidence that something DOES NOT exist? If I told you that the government beams thought-rays into my brain, would you believe me until it could be disproven?
There is a simple reason why “there exists some kind of God” cannot be disproven; because “God” is ill-defined. It is impossible to disprove it by its very definition. Defining something as being “outside of objective experience” automatically makes it immune from objective evidence and/or reasoning. And furthermore, I notice that you included the qualifier “some kind of”. This further complicates matters; if some characteristic of a particular god COULD be shown as evidence of its non-existence, you are still requiring proof that EVERY god, both conceived-of AND as yet unconceived-of, does not exist.
Think about it: to ask for evidence against the proposition “there exists some kind of God”, without defining God, is tantamount to saying: “Prove that there is nothing beyond our current understanding”. Only a fool would attempt such an endeavor.
Which is why most atheists avoid the position: “There is no God”. Since the concept is not defined in any meaningful way, it is unimportant to us.
Dictionaries are tomes of common usage. That atheists are immoral god haters who put up a passionate and angry resistance to the very idea of god (even though they secretly know the truth) is a caricature (a very deliberate and intentionally propagated one at that, in the Christian cannon starting all the way back in the Scriptures, repeated by Paul, and so on), and that caricature is enshrined in many people’s usage.
But it’s no different than if the dictionary defined Chinese as “inscrutable,” just because that’s what the majority of English speakers think about them. It’s no different than how favored beliefs are defined in many dictionaries without any reference to their reality, while fringe beliefs are noted as such.
As I said before, anyone who thinks they’re an expert in objective fact because they own a dictionary, or even that dictionaries can settle anything but debates over common usage (and even then, not great: what is “common”? Common to what groups? Which groups count more?), is fooling themselves.
—So, what exactly do we disagree on? Besides the existence/nonexistence of God, that is. Not much, I’d bet.—
Tis probably true. You think there is a god. I don’t think that. But unless its pressing for you to convince me, there’s not really a lot of ground for conflict, ultimately.
