There is absolutely no problem with my assertion Frank.
There are huge problems with your assertions, Jasper...including the fact that many of what you call your assertions are not actually assertions. They are questions attempting, in an amateurish way, to be Socratic questioning...which often fail because you are not adept at using the method.
Fact is, as Izzy has pointed out, you fail to adequately establish what you are trying to establish.
It sounds to me as though you got stoned one day, came up with an idea that the buzz interpreted as "a great enlightenment"...and now are trying to show that you are further evolved than others. You do not attempt to share of the enlightenment in any reasonable, logical way...because it appears your intent is not to share it, but rather, to use it as a cudgel to proclaim your own supposed extended evolution.
Come back to Earth.
State your single most important initial premise in a way that a human can understand...and let's see where it leads.
It is possible to exist and not exist and make an assertion one way or the other.
An electromagnetic computer can do that.
It still needs to exist to make an assertion one way or the other even though it is not alive.
This is bullshit...plain and simple. You are going nowhere with this.
I am not an atheist...which is a self-applied descriptor meaning many different things. But I have known and had discussions/debates with MANY atheists over the years...and I have NEVER had any one of them say or infer that they do not exist. NEVER. Some, as with SOME agnostics and theists, aver that they MAY not exist in the sense of what most would mean by exist. (They are merely acknowledging that life/existence MAY be some kind of illusion, even if, as Einstein suggested, a very persistent illusion.)
Perhaps you have heard an atheist say, "I do not exist", but if so, you are making way too much of it.
Get away from that nonsense...and state what you are attempting to state.