I'm not quite sure what point you're making.  If I wanted to make a label for "everyone who doesn't play games" (let's say non-gamer), then that would have to exclude cactii.  Because a cactus isn't part of the set of everyone.  

And if we wanted to create that label non-gamer (which would be different from not a gamer) wouldn't it make sense to define the label in such a way that it would only apply to those with the capability to play games?  Would it be useful or sensible to apply that sort of label to a cactus or a cloud? (although pigs actually can play videogames.) Probably not.  So it would be better to define it a way that would limit it to those with the potential to play video games.  Similarly, I think atheist should be defined in a way which would only apply to those with the capacity for belief.

Atheist is not a label for describing a certain theological position.  That's atheism.  Atheist is a person who holds that position.  If we define it like that (which I would say is probably a good definition), it would exclude cacti, pigs, and babies, as none of them could be demonstrated to hold any position.  

Because a Sandwich isn't capable of thought.

But your definition says nothing about being capable of thought.  It says lacking a belief in god.  So, you need to refine your definition.

So then, an atheist is something that is capable of thought and lacks belief in god?

How about an ant?

At this point, I am wondering if you are taking the Micky out of me.

For something to have a belief or lack-there of... It needs to have some kind of cognitive capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I'm aware that the things I'm saying are absurd, and that's the point.  They are the logical conclusion to the position you're holding.  If the only qualification, is lacking a belief, a sandwich would qualify.  If you object on the grounds that a sandwich is inanimate, then a cactus would still qualify.  

So, now you're adding cognitive capability.  But, an ant definitely has some kind of cognitive capability.  So, unless you believe that ants are atheists, then your definition is still not specific enough.  How much cognitive capability is required?  Where are we drawing the line?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain - without using conjecture to fill in the blanks - how it is that GOD has to exist.

Nobody has even attempted it in this thread and the only person who claims to know is just throwing books at people that apparently justify his misplaced arrogance on the topic.

Yet another god thread where none of the theists have defined god, nor brought anything new to the table. I mean, most of them are bringing arguments from the 16th century. Not a single one has bothered to address the most famous argument for god to have graced the human race in the past century with Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument.

It just goes to prove the oft-uttered phrase "you cannot reason someone out of a position who did not reason their way into that position"

I almost feel bad for theists these days. It's tough being so obviously wrong, yet having to stalwartly defend your position to save your own sense of identity.

No. A sandwich wouldn't qualify as it is an inanimate object.
Hence your argument is absurd... You are using conflationary tactics.

And if you think you are going to try and run some weird-ass circular logic, then you are highly mistaken... At this point you haven't offered a compelling argument.
It is also not my definition.

A-Theism. Absent-Theism. Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that... Thus a new-born baby would fall into that category as per my original argument, it's only later in life that it is indoctrinated into various religions/cults/beliefs.

If you disagree with that, then fine, but this never ending back-and-forth is going nowhere and has gotten rather droll.

I feel even worst for Flat Earthers... Seen many that tend to leverage the Bible to justify their absurd position.

No, not really. I was very clear and direct. And i quote:

If you dont have any idea whatsover shouldnt you refrain from making any fantastic assumptions? Not very sciency, is it? Not... rational. No, not at all.

Science isnt standing still, yet you act like it has come to a dead end and with it religion. And i ask again, who is my God and what is my religion? If your reply as before. And what did i reply to your response? Exactly. 

But to quench your curiosity: Hardly. Since science isnt anywhere near solving the mystery of existence. Secondly, importantly, whatever the outcome, that is my religion. Muahahaha!

Correct. Einsteins and my views on religion and spirituality are identical.

"So far, anyone claiming that there is a god had been unable to demonstrate it.  If you think you can, go for it. 

O really? So, when you demanded from some left over aztecs to summon their feathered serpent god with a pompous ritual, they failed to do so? Intriguing, intriguing very much.

The title of the thread is: Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

But hey, let me give you back a question:

From your perspective, what happens to the Universe (spacetime) when your body ceases to exist (death)?

I personally don't wanna even take part in this conversation, because it's simple semantics. 

In the end it comes down to this:

Do you believe in any Deity? 

No -> Atheist

Yes -> Theist

I don't care -> Atheist (More accurate label is Apatheist)

Who? -> Atheist 

Atheist definition: 

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist

Does a Baby believes in a specific God? Or any God? Does it know the concept of a God? 

No. If you never teach this child the concept what a God is it will never believe in one nor it will be aware of one. It will lack the believe in the existence of any deity. By default, no one actively believes in any deity regardless of where they are born or in what kind of family they are born into. 

The example with the cactus was kind of meh. But if it comes down to it, a cactus can't play video games. So can I call it a non-gamer?