Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[mayor of simpleton]

Agnostic atheism seems to stem from a need to express an intellectually honest approach, in that we cannot know anything 100% unless we are ourselves omniscient.  

I think you have touched on something here that is maybe worth investigating.

Why is the criteria of "knowing" founded upon 100% knowledge of all possible case scenarious past present and future?

example...

I am fully aware of the effects of gravity. I am not fully aware of all case scenarious of how gravity may or may not effect events, past present or future.

Is it possible to take exception the "knowing" that if one jumps off the top of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, without a parachute or anything else to hinder one's fall, that one will fall to the ground below?

Is it possible to "know" that such a fall will indeed cause death?

I can certainly go to the pains of placing here a mathematical equasion to verify that the physical body cannot withstand the impact of such a fall and there is no chance of surviving such a fall. (I choose this rather than falling into a wood chipper, as that requires even less math to figure out... I wish to give the "neh sayers" a bit of a chance here)

I am not aware of the effects of gravity in all cases from all buildings and all altitudes, but I can certainly say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if you care to jump off the top of this building, you will fall to your certain death.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt"...

Some doubts are reasonable, but others may well not be. Do we have any doubts that there is not such thing as a square circle? Just because one can say the term"square circle", does not make it a reality in the empirical/physical sense of the word, other than being a "figure of speech".

A deity of theism = supernatural being
Proof of such a deity comes from our experience = experience of the natural

Natural proves supernatural?

Such misappropriations of natural evidences to confirm a supernatural whatever do provide very reasonable doubts; thus the dismissal of them being so. The possibility of natural evidences cannot logically include the wishful imagination of supernatural whatevers. Just as, the possible figures that one can draw on a piece of paper will never include a thing that is a indeed a square circle. No amount of physical probability can support superphysical wishful thinking. This can ideed be "known" and "known for sure".

Knowing is not an issue of being omni-whatever, but simply an act of knowledge... not an act of faith.

Again... let's not mix up empirical evidences with intuitive notions.

Just as one cannot hold faith up to the standard of empirical evaluation; one cannot invalidate empirical investigation with the whims of intuitive wishes.

Meow!

GREG