Bevoir, it is understandable your efforts to save-face, nor is it my intent to bask in the glory of a debate win, but this has not been about winning or losing, merely about correcting misnomers and directing the discussion to the probable vs the improbable. For all intensive purposes, 100% atheism does not exist. For all intensive purposes, 100% theism does not exist. For all intensive purposes, blue fairies riding unicorns does not exist. The inference of absolutism in the term, "non-existent" is a practical interpretation, not a literal one. The laws of probability does not disallow the possibility of something having existed, existing, or will exist, it merely points at the astronomical improbability that, for all practical purposes, leaves us to conclude non-existence in a reference on par with absolute.
Bevoir, that leaves us to discuss that which does exist. No fairies, no unicorns, no 100% athiests, nor 100% theists, just common sense and a reasoned perspective on the issues before us. I wish for all of us here to have reasoned, logical, productive dialog on topics, not mentally masturbate in the company of a bunch of other guys. But if that will not occur, because of a dogmatic resistance to closure on an unrealistic tangent, then we have nothing else to discuss.