Stringsinger

I suspect we are not on the same groove. Possibly, I did not explain my interest well. I will give it another try.

Your original statement that I referred to was:

"It is not a delusion that any god can't be proved. This is fact.
(There is no balance in this argument. The delusion of god stems from a belief system that is untenable because it has no basis in scientific fact. Atheism is not a delusion because it does not profess belief but merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact".

And, you recently state, "Atheism remains simply the recognition that a deity can't be proven and that is a fact"

I have no interest in joining a debate on defining Atheism, whether it is a faith or not, or what it contends to be a fact or not (though some seem to have such an interest). I feel it has been beaten to death, and see it as pointless, as I would see a debate on what theists believe or not.

My interest is investigating the logic in statements that seem to say a belief in a God is a fact, or not so, and statements that (sometimes at the same time) that the existence of a God is "probably" a fact, or not. It puzzles me why one would add this important word, "probable" in some cases and omit it in others?

I also feel, for accuracy purposes, it is important to add that it is based on current knowledge. To me, whether scientists feel researching a belief in God is important or not is not important to this matter.

I note that people frequently seem all "fired up" and defensive (and sometimes nasty) when one raises a question. Be assured, I am in no way trying to change (or take away) anyones belief, (or lack of one) or opinion (or conclusion) on what they see as facts.

Just trying to get closer to a statement that seems logical...which I suspect some others are doing, maybe in a different way.