Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[EscapingDelusion]

Pad gives a very fine summary. As an example, I would be defined as a hard atheist in that I will gladly assert "there is no god"; however, I cannot honestly say that "I KNOW there is no God". I find a distinction here where others, not just Pad, may not. Does this mean I'm a weak/soft atheist? Perhaps. I would also put myself at 6.9 on Dawkin's scale, but keep in mind that as far as gravity and evolution are concerned, as facts, the positive statements and proof for each should only elicit a 6.9. This means that we can 'never' be absolutely sure regarding claims regarding our environment.

The one tenth left in reserve should never be interpreted as doubt, but rather the recognition that there are facts pertaining to any given subject that I'm not yet aware of. This is why I have a modicum of respect for deists that assign the idea of god to the causal agent behind the Big Bang. I just choose to suspend judgement until more is known; this is our only difference. I have no respect for deists that insert the 'spiritual/divine/burning bosom' argument.

Should our universe be proven to have been created by an 'intelligence', there still remains the question: "what created the intelligence?". People that adhere to a particular religion now have more work cut out for them; namely, to prove that this intelligence is the basis for their special book, creed, prohibitive rules, exclusionary mandates, etc. This is the basis for my avowed 'anti-theist' religious views, not a mere hatred for codified rules.

I digress. Anti-theism is better left for another thread.

Cato123, I definitely agree with you. My problem is that whenever I have been asked, "How do you know that there is no god?" by theists (for some reason, they love asking me this), I respond honestly, "I do not believe there is a god, but I do not (cannot) know that there is no god." This is always interpreted as doubt, which annoys me to no end!