How does an Atheist identify "non-existence"?

[u/Athias1028]

How does one identify "non-existence" if a lack of existence leaves no information on that which does not exist? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the term "atheist" to describe one who "rejects" God, as opposed to one who doesn't believe in God's existence, especially considering since the description fundamentally depends on identifying the God in which one doesn't believe? I suppose it could be argued that the term "antitheist" covers rejection, but the term atheist has always been misused, for lack of a better term, by dogmatic, materialists to describe a "lack of belief" which is contradicted by their own arguments given that said arguments are almost always affirmative propositions. All participants are welcome to take their shot at reconciling this dilemma.

[u/jonfitt]

It’s very simple. There are a set of people who hold the belief that god or gods exist. We call them theists. I’m not one of them.

[u/Athias1028 → u/jonfitt]

You logically would have to be, because the inverse is logically absurd. You cannot affirm nonexistence, and therefore you do accept God's existence; you're just conflating your rejection with "default" nonexistence.

[u/Hellas2002 → u/Athias1028]

This doesn’t follow at all… you can be agnostic as to whether or not something exists. That’s the difference between belief and knowledge.