Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Simon Moon]

Well then I think basically "atheism" in your definition is useless as the lack of evidence for a god has absolutely no "proof" that there is not one.

This is exactly why atheism is NOT the claim that there are no gods. Atheism is the lack of BELIEF that gods exist.

Most atheists are open to the possibility that a god exist. What our position actually is, is that there is insufficient supporting evidence to justify BELIEF that a god exists.

Do you understand the difference?

Any number of examples of things which are now known to be true, but previously had no evidence, abound.

True. But until the evidence was found for them, there was no justification to BELIEVE they existed.

If demonstrable evidence is found to support the claim that gods exist, you know what I'll do? I'll alter my view and be compelled to accept their existence.

I guess faced with that definition I would have to join Sagan as an agnostic.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.

I appreciate where you are coming from but when you have people pushing their theology who are proven liars and scoundrels, you need a little more than just atheism as you define it.

I am also am anti-theist.

Atheism defines my position as one that lacks belief that a god exists. That is all that it is meant to define.

Anti-theism defines my position as one that hates dogmatic theistic beliefs, and their negative effect on the planet.

Agnostic defines me as one that does not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist.