Sorry Pericles, it was just a silly play on words.
I take it then, you would be offended if I were to suggest: "Pericles believes in no Gods"?

You have it all arse-about, Luciferase.

You don't appear to understand the philosophic burden of proof. But since you don't like using the word “proof”, we'll call it “the burden of evidence” for the sake of this little exercise - it makes no difference to who bares the burden.

The burden of evidence is on the party making the positive claim (i.e. there is a God). Those sceptical of the claim do not have a burden of evidence until at least some evidence in the affirmative is provided; thousands of years later and we're still waiting for something from theists.

Theists believe in a God (or Gods), everyone else is an atheist and even the 'strong' atheists, who state that they don't believe in any Gods, don't have a faith because faith is an existential belief in something without any evidence.

Something else that can be added to the mix; or if you prefer the mix-up…

In the total recorded history of humankind the entirety of gods and God have without exception always been within human conception, description, perception and/or deception.

Not one – ever – has been outside the possibility of human imagination.

I'd also maintain that not one – ever – has been outside the product of human imagination.

In relation to the discussion between the ancient greeks, Pericles says: "So the starting point is that you see a light, and I don't see a light."

No, if you read again the the starting point is "I believe there is light we can not see" in the vein that I may say I believe there is a god we can not see.

I may proffer a reason for holding my belief or I may not. It's irrelevant to the process

You challenge me to, "Support that"

I say "I have no way to do so"

You say, "Therefore I am unconvinced".
This is an agnostic statement until you take the further position that I am wrong, the atheist (or aluminal position in this case), then the onus of disproving my belief shifts to you.

As it turns out in the example using light, several millenia later we have the means support the hypothesis. I could have chosen the belief that matter is made of atoms, which we never have and never "seen" in the visual sense. We can only support belief in them, not prove their existence

Luciferase,

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive and as I alluded to when I said, “…everyone else is an atheist”, “I am unconvinced” is also an atheist position to take. To be specific it would be an ‘agnostic-atheist’ position.

Theism and atheism go to what you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know. Agnosticism isn’t some sort of middle-ground and there is nothing within atheism that says one must convinced or certain of anything.

You’re extremely confused, Luciferase. Are you sure you’re really an atheist? Because you’re making all the classic mistakes of a theist.

AJ, do you know that atoms exist or do you believe that they do?

By all means, choose not to believe in God (capital used to respect others beliefs here) but do not claim to know He doesn't exist.

Your argument around the point of belief vs knowledge is thin indeed and actually not worth getting worked up over, IMO. I'm happy to live in a world of believers and non-believers, or knowers and non-knowers (yes I realize there are bigger words I could use), as long as I am left alone respectfully to my own considered position.

The topic is not entirely academic, of course, and when I feel my atheistic outlook is challenged by issues such as euthanasia and abortion, for example, I participate in our democracy to achieve an outcome based on my beliefs, as do theists.