atheism is theism to the contrary

Okay, deep breath. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your argument, but I will do my best. "Facts do not exist beyond my own memory." Here you are arguing there is no such thing as an objective reality outside of your memory. This is a pretty radical view, as if there is no objective reality there can be no debate about what is real because nothing is real. While you acknowledge the Descartes' famous "I think, therefore, I am", you contradict your position later in this same post, when you call both my gender and the laws of mathematics absolute. So, which is it, do facts exist in the external world or not? "Supernatural events are false by default." Yes and no. Anything and everything is false until it can be proven true, especially things which appear to violate the laws of nature. But just because something appears supernatural does not make it automatically untrue. There have been plenty of phenomena over the years that have appeared supernatural and later been explained when we learned more about them. "I don't know something = I know it is false." These three statements are not equivalent, which you are claiming. Ignorance is distinct from falsehood. "What evidence is sufficient to prove that no unicorns exist?" This is exactly my point. It is impossible to prove a negative, such as prove unicorns don't exist, or prove I can't bench press a car, or prove that gods are not real. These things simply cannot be proven, but here's the thing; they don't have to be proven! The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is up to the person making the claim to prove their position is true. If they fail to do so, we are justified in dismissing their claim as unreasonable. "Evidence = Belief System = Theism = Scientific Information." I have no idea what the argument is here. Evidence is not a belief system. Evidence is not theism. Theism is not evidence. Scientific information is not a belief system. You cannot put an equal sign between unrelated terms. It is like saying "Apples = Suspension Bridges = Kenya = Handsome". It just makes no sense. I have reworked your next paragraph to make it read better, however I believe I have stated your position accurately: "If you make an incredible claim (ie. you are a unicorn, a god exists) you must provide physical evidence. Religious claims have no physical evidence. If you provide irrefutable physical evidence, then it is not a question of belief because you have proved your claim to be a fact about the world." This is actually a valid argument, except for this part: "Religious claims have no physical evidence". Now, I see your thinking here, which is a belief is something taken on faith and knowledge is something learned through evidence. However faith, while not a good system for learning about reality, is not automatically wrong. Just like the old saying "even a broken clock is right once a day", a claim accepted on faith could be correct by accident. If I see a shoe box on my floor, and my roommate says it is empty, and I choose to believe there is a gecko inside the box, I am doing so with no evidence. Geckos are not indigenous to my area, I have never seen one in my house, none of our neighbours has one as pets, and my roommate told me that he knows the box is empty. All point to the box not having a gecko inside, and my argument that "The box has a gecko because I believe it does" is a terrible one. It is an argument that we are totally justified in dismissing, just like religious claims. But, say we check the box and somehow a gecko really is there! Its incredible, it defies everything we thought we knew, and a rational person could not have predicted it. However, my insanely unlikely faith based claim turned out to be correct. This demonstrates how religious claims should be dismissed as not reasonable until we have evidence for them, not dismissed as automatically false because they can't currently be proven. Final point: "The positions you mention are completely invalid in all examples you can mention." I'm a little unsure what you are talking about here, but my best guess is you are referring to my mock "theist, agnostic, atheist" in relation to the unicorn. This may be partially my fault for being vague, so let's clear things up. One cannot be theistic/atheistic about anything other than the existence of a god or gods. You can't be a unicorn atheist, because the term atheism specifically refers to a lack of belief in gods. You simply do not believe in unicorns. The term agnostic, however, just translates to "without knowledge". This means someone can be agnostic about anything; ghosts, gods, goblins, ghouls, gremlins, grumps or grouches. With that in minds, lets look at our three positions now: 1. I believe X is true. 2. I cannot know if X is true. 3. There is no evidence of X existing, therefore I have no reason to believe in X, therefore I do not believe in X. We can substitute God, or Thor or Vishnu or Rah or any god in for X, and person 1 becomes a theist, person 2 becomes an agnostic, and person 3 becomes an atheist. If we substitute any other supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts, in for X, the names of the positions change (believer, agnostic, skeptic) but that is the only thing that changes. 1 and 2 are still unreasonable positions, because X is currently unproven, but theoretically provable. Once again, position 3 (atheism/skepticism) is the default position for a reasonable person when encountering unproven claims. To answer your final question, you are called a skeptic if you do not believe I am a unicorn. It is akin to being an atheist, the only difference is the subject matter. I apologize if i came off as condescending or insulting, that was not my intention. I look forward to your reply!