Bingowings said:
As there is no evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural beings any position on the subject is a belief or at the very least an unsubstantiated opinion.
By that logic, there is no evidence for or against tiny little men who come into my kitchen at night and nibble at the bread I left out on the counter. But still, I have no reason to even consider the possibility of them. Especially when what are clearly mouse droppings found on the floor lead us to a much more plausible and reasonable explanation for the nibbled bread.
I feel like lack of evidence for or against kind of cancel each other out. If there is no evidence for or against, why is it even a consideration or a question? I could come up with an off the cuff ridiculous hypothesis (like two races of aliens fighting each other into extinction in just the next system over), and claim it to be true, so long as it is unable to be disproven. I might even go out and spread the word about these poor aliens who are misguidedly bringing each other to the verge of extinction and try to convince the world we need to start putting time and money into ways to send them a warning and tell them we have plenty of room for them on our planet (after all, it is a resource war. These poor things share a tiny planet that is only a few hundred square yards round. Fortunately, these aliens are only half an inch tall at their absolute tallest, but still, the planet has been overwhelmed by too many of them. If only we could go rescue some of them and bring them to earth, all the violence could stop!).
Nobody could prove me wrong (because my planet is too small to be seen through a telescope, and in fact, this planet doesn't reflect light somehow, so a telescope could never see it anyway), but still, nobody would believe me. There is simply no reason to. "No evidence for" + "no evidence against" = "no evidence for"
A true lack of belief/unbelief in God is Apatheism.
That is not accurate. You are kind of mixing concepts of ideologies with concepts of philosophies and forcing one to be the other.
Atheism plain and simple describes the lack of belief in a god. There are many types of atheists who are atheists of varying degrees, but in the end, someone who ascribes to atheism denies the existence of at least one or more gods.
Apatheism on the other hand, is a lack of interest. An apatheist might be an atheist, but beyond that, they really couldn't care less and don't really think the existence of a god really even matters or is of any sort of consequence. I'd call an apatheist more of an agnostic who couldn't care less. To an apatheist, whether god exists or not couldn't possibly be of any importance.
There are plenty of total atheist (believing adamantly that no gods exist) who find the lack of existence of deities to be of extreme importance, which would place them far from being apatheists.