What "-isms" are these a definition of?

[poolboyg88]

Term 1 = There is no evidence of a god (most popularly defined) as having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

Term 2 = There is no evidence of a god (most popularly defined), as having existed, or currently existing. HOWEVER, there is evidence that a god could exist. There is evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

I don't think the first definition is "atheism" because the definition of the word doesn't rely on evidence. The word may have been re-defined, perhaps? I'd think the term would be something like "evidentialism", views based on evidence, through testable, demonstrable, predictable practices, etc.

 

[Balerion]

These aren't definitions of any "-isms" themselves, but rather the rationale given by those who subscribe to such "-isms". Atheism is either a lack in belief of god, or the belief that a particular god does not exist; atheists reach this conclusion based on the fact that there is no such evidence for a god, or that there is evidence against its existence.

Term one could be applied to atheism, but term two is unfamiliar to me. There is no evidence that a god could exist.

 

[Sarkus]

Term 1 = There is no evidence of a god (most popularly defined) as having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

If by evidence you mean knowledge, then this would appear be strong agnosticism - at least with regard epistemological position of God.
But its stance on "evidence" suggests some form of materialism as well.
This position may lead someone to take a strong atheist position: "God does not exist."

Term 2 = There is no evidence of a god (most popularly defined), as having existed, or currently existing. HOWEVER, there is evidence that a god could exist. There is evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

This seems another form of agnosticism - weak - i.e. the individual has no knowledge, but it is possible to know...

I don't think the first definition is "atheism" because the definition of the word doesn't rely on evidence. The word may have been re-defined, perhaps? I'd think the term would be something like "evidentialism", views based on evidence, through testable, demonstrable, predictable practices, etc.

It's often difficult to conclude on any single -ism for a philosophical position, as such -isms cover not only our underlying premises but also the processes with which we build upon those.

With regard the first case, for example, Evidentialism would seem to fit with regard the process adopted to justify beliefs. But this might also be rationalism.
Another -ism might define what one considers to be evidence - e.g. materialism, empiricisim, or combinations thereof.
Then there are -isms with regard how this plays out with regard God... such as agnosticism.

There is (often) considerable overlap between -isms - and the overlap might vary depending on the specific case.