So true. I have never subscribed to a story told me, I must become interested enough to learn more about it. It bothers me to see people who want to hear what they need to hear and then hear it in a religion. They may as well invest in the easter bunny.

yes, that's the gist of it.

@TheMiddleWay that's debatable. It comes down to how one defines agnosticism and atheism. For me, its agnostic have no knowledge of God, which is a claim that goes toward a withholding of a belief and not a declaration that there is no God. Atheism is a statement that one lacks a belief, but again it's not a declaration claiming they believe there is no God. They just withhold a belief in one. All of this is missing my point. I hold myself responsible for the confusion. I'm saying among this community we close ourselves off from each other because we refuse to admit being wrong about anything I find this when liberals and conservatives talk. Truly its everywhere I see people confronting each other in an argument. For a group of free thinkers, we don't seem to be open to changing our opinions. It's that simple.

@TheMiddleWay You are incorrect. If someone says they own a pet dragon, and I say I don't believe them, I am not saying I believe they don't have one, just that I don't believe their claim. You are misrepresenting the burden of proof.
Disbelief is not the belief of the opposite. This is a semantic trick to make it sound like disbelief and belief are on the same footing. They are not.
Example: Actually it doesn't. The idea that it takes any faith not to believe something is just a semantic trick apologists use. Furthermore, agnostic tells me nothing about you other than you claim you don't know.
So, real quick, Theist = belief in god/s and atheist = does not believe in god/s. Gnostic = claims to know and agnostic = claims not to know.
Atheists don't claim there is no god, just that they don't believe the claims there is one. Example: if you are a juror in a court room and the defendant is on trial for a crime. The defendant either has or hasn't committed the crime, guilty or innocent. Now as the juror you are only asked to make a judgment on the claim of guilt, not the claim of innocence. Now, let's say you determine not guilty...that does not mean you think the defendant is innocent. That in a nutshell is the atheist position. That people make the claim "god/s exist," and atheist are saying we find god not guilty of existing. There is no claim that god/s don't exist. Just like you could say "unicorns exist," and I say I don't believe you. That doesn't mean I'm claiming there are no unicorns anywhere in the cosmos, I have no way of knowing that. I just don't believe the claim they do.
It's the null hypothesis, and it is the only logical position when no good evidence is present. If you would like my to argue my personal belief that there are no gods, well I'm happy to do that. But that is not the atheist position, it is the anti-theist proposition. Don't confuse "I don't believe you," with "I believe you're wrong." They are two different things.
Theists make a claim, and atheists disbelieve them. There is god vs. I don't believe you is not the same. One takes faith and belief and the other is the the lack of any of that. Don't confuse "I don't believe," with "I believe the opposite." That is being dishonest. Don't put me and my reason on the same shelf with your void of reason. You're shit belongs with Thor, Zeus, and the Kracken. Sorry, but you are not working on the same level of logic, no matter what you want to tell yourself. I am not the same as those who believe, and unlike them I am more than willing to defend my position, and more than willing to acknowledge I'm wrong when proved so. So, if you got something that shows me I'm wrong, then I would appreciate you showing me. I don't want to be wrong..
Great post, and I would love a response. Thank you.

@paul1967 I agree, there is this difficulty in understanding the burden of proof. Atheists claim nothing, beyond I don't believe your god claim. It doesn't go beyond that or claim anything.
Great response, thank you.

@TheMiddleWay You're wrong. Saying I don't believe something is not the same as saying I believe it is false. If you we had a jar full or jelly beans, it is a fact that either the amount is either an even number or an odd number. Now, if you tell me you believe its even, and I say I don't believe you...I have NOT said I believe that the number is odd. I also have not said i believe it isn't even. All I've said is I don't believe your claim that it is even.
This is basic logic, you can only address one facet of a claim at a time. Which is why in court we find guilty or not guilty, and we never even address innocence. So when I say not guilty its because I believe the prosecution has not presented their case, not because I believe the person is innocent.
Disbelieve is NOT belief, by definition. So, don't equate belief and disbelief as if they were the same thing.

@TheMiddleWay Also, the options are guilty or not guilty, and innocent or not innocent. If you vote reasonable doubt, you are voting not guilty. Just like theism, you either believe or you don't. You can say I'm not sure, but that is then disbelief. That is the not guilty position. You are misunderstanding, the I don't know or I'm not sure position is not belief and therefore is not theism, and therefore is atheism. From what I understand you are saying you don't believe in a god, but you don't know and are open to the concept. If so, you disbelieve. It is a binary position, you either believe the claims or you don't.
I do understand why its easy to confuse these things, but this was addressed by Plato, Socrates, and it is the basic principal Canon Law. This is the foundation of logical processes.
I thought your response was well written, but the premise is flawed because there are four options not three (guilty, not guilty, innocent, not innocent). But the belief in guilty vs not guilty is one binary position, and the belief in innocent and not innocent is another binary position.

@TheMiddleWay As an atheist, I find the evidence overwhelming that the gods and dogmas of all major religions are hogwash. That there may yet exist some sort of deity is perhaps interesting, but would be largely irrelevant because there would be no dogma or doctrine attached to them. And the revelation of said dogma or doctrine by proxy of various alleged spokespersons just doesn't cut it.

@TheMiddleWay Sorry last response, because in re-reading your response I want to make this clear. No jury ever declares innocence, and when you say "exist, not exist, and I'm not sure..." I'm not sure is not belief in existence and that is 'not guilty.' I believe it does exist is guilty. Lastly I believe it doesn't exist is innocent. Guilt and innocence must be proven. Not guilty and not innocent are the position you don't believe. Guilt and innocence are positions you believe, and therefore must be proven. You can find someone not guilty and still also hold they may not be innocent. We only address one prong of an issue at a time. Do you believe this person is guilty? We don't ask if you believe they are innocent.
And "innocent until proven guilty" is the legal system of the United States saying we don't want to convict people who are not guilty or innocent, so we'll assume the best in people until we can prove it wrong. This is a moral position and not a logical one.
Thank you for the discussion. This is fun.

@Rossy92 I agree. What frustrates me is that apologists, and a lot of agnostics, make the claim that our lack of belief is just as ridiculous or crazy as belief. And I say "no," my disbelief is not on the shelf with your irrational beliefs. Your shit goes over next to Shiva, Zeus, and the Minotuar.

@TheMiddleWay I think that's going into meaningless semantics. How sure of a god are the religious. If it's impossible to be 100% sure of a god, aren't all theists also agnostics as well. Is it possible to be 100% certain of anything. That's a rabbit hole that I have no time for.

@paul1967 Here's the concern. Do you believe in god? And this is a yes or no question. You are a theist or you are not. I don't know or I'm not sure makes you an atheist. And you can knock me for being confrontational and not changing my opinion. But I am not in the same camp of those who claim to believe and those who claim to know. And I find it offense you compare those of us who use skepticism and logic as being down on all fours with those who want to deny homosexuals their rights (see Mike Pence), those who promote genocide (See Rwanda), those who promote killing witches (see most of Africa), those who promote that condoms are bad (do I have to point this one out), those who support and protect the rapists of children, those who support racism and terrorism (see both Christianity and Islam, the FBI does annual reports), and etc. But as you complained, about changing opinion, I'm open to any proof or suggestions you have on this.

@Tyrel77 Absolutely. And then compound that with all the competing claims of different religions and denominations of the same religion, contradictions within the same collection of scriptures, and factual errors. It's just... game over!

@Rossy92 Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Not belief. And all theists are atheists in regard to most gods. Agnostic is just I don't know. It has nothing to do with belief. People want to be interesting or original without offending anyone. We want to be accepted.

@TheMiddleWay I'll use a Matt Dilahunty quote to explain. If you have a bottle of marbles and you say there are an odd number of marbles and I ask you how do you know and you reply you believe on faith that it's odd. I would say I lack a belief that the marble count is an odd number but that doesn't mean I believe it's even. I just don't believe your evidence that it's odd. I don't believe the Christians evidence that God exists, but I don't say I have any evidence that God doesn't exist.

@TheMiddleWay To clarify, while I might possibly try to put a quantification on the probability of a god existing, my belief in such is absolutely zero. To reiterate: my knowledge = not absolute, my lack of belief = absolute.

@Rossy92 So you don't believe. You're an atheist. You claim not to know. You're an agnostic atheist. Gnosticim and theism are different questions. The second is about believing, the other is about knowing. You can spin it how you want but you are wrong if you think believing and knowing are the same. But, my point, claiming there is a God is not equally valid to disbelief in that claim. Example, do you believe fairies are real? You can't disprove them. Believing in fairies is exactly equivalent to God. We can also use trolls, Zeus, Shiva, and the flying spaghetti monster. Belief doesn't require knowledge, and disbelief doesn't either. Mainly disbelief doesn't claim knowledge. I'm not sure how I can be more clear. "A" is not "not A."

@TheMiddleWay Some final thoughts: First I want to bring to your attention what you did when you wrote this:
**"a) the majority of theists are certain (absolutely or fairly) that their gods exist. Whether that certainty be phrased as "I know" or "I believe" or "I have faith", as a theist "does your god exist" and they will very likely say "yes" with no vacillation.

b) Several atheists are unsure of their belief when they make claims like "I'm 99% sure that gods don't exist" which means that 1 out of 100 times, gods do exist for them and a world were gods exist 1% of the time doesn't sound like a world "without gods" to me.**

In referring to theists you used the phrase "their gods" and "your god". In referring to atheists you used the term "gods", and though you did not use the phrase "a god", that is often used when referring to atheists. It is the equivalent (a god) to what for theists are other reIigions gods. I find that atheists are most certain that a specific god (this or that religion's god) does not exist. And theists are rarely queried or comment on gods of other religions. They are just as just as "atheistic" toward those as we are to theirs. You also concede that some are only "fairly" certain their gods exist and acknowledge that they used the term faith, which is not an absolute assertion. Yet you change the stringency of your definitions when don't allow the same leeway in language for atheists.

I also find that atheist is a very imperfect word. For a short while I thought it meant without religion, just as anti-theist means against religion. There is no word I am aware of which means without religion.

@Tyrel77 Thank you for that as I had begun to grow weary of going in circles and was content to leave TheMiddleWay with the last word for now. I have a suspicion he has some sort of investment in doing a Jordan Peterson and claiming that atheists really aren't atheist, or going for what Richard Dawkins calls the Eddington Concession:

@Tyrel77 Exactly

@Rossy92 @themiddleway Again, the lines of communication are broken down into a single point of query. The question isn't what you claim, but what you believe when it comes to theism. If you believe maybe gods exist, then you haven't said you believe they do exist. I'm not asking you about what you think is possible or what you know. Once again, if you believe god/s exist, then you are a theist, if you don't you are an atheist. I don't know, or its possible, or I want to keep an open mind...none of these tell me whether you believe or not. So, do you believe in god/s? If your answer is anything but "yes" then you are an atheist. I know you're not trying to make the claim that we're on the same footing, but you essentially are by saying there is some more rationale middle ground when there is not. You believe or you don't. 'A' is 'A' and 'A' is not 'not A.'
I'm not attacking you, but you seem to misunderstand the simple concept that I don't believe something, is not a statement that I believe the opposite or anything else. 'Not A' is not the antithesis of 'A.' It is only 'not A.' I do not believe there is a god, fairies, elves, dragons, or unicorns is not a statement that I believe they don't or cannot exist.
@rossy92 thanks for your help. I felt like I was on crazy pills there for a minute.

@TheMiddleWay I highly value clarity of words as well. IMHO your definition of atheist is highly idiosyncratic. I am quite literally "without god(s)" and recognize "no god(s)". The ONLY uncertainty lies in the impossibility of proving a negative. Either you do not understand burden of proof, or you are deliberately engaging in deceit. If you were to now latch on to my use of the word 'uncertainty' two sentences ago, pull it out of context, and claim that I am unsure whether there are gods, that would be a gross misrepresentation of my position, and you would then be engaging in what was referred to as the Eddington Concession. @Tyrel77

@TheMiddleWay I find it dishonest to give validity to a claim which is unfalsifiable. The only options are belief and lack of belief. Any who claim to absolutely know, whichever side they're on, cannot prove their claims. Therefore, for clarity's sake, this calls for a broadening of those who would fit under the umbrella of atheism. Likewise, to broaden the term agnostic would render it less meaningful than it already is, and even further reduce its clarity. Technically, everyone could be labeled agnostics, even theists. But that would render the term totally useless.

@TheMiddleWay I could take issue with the survey and the respondents, but the bigger issue is that your proposal completely disregards the issue of lack of belief. And don't try to tell me that certainty in non-existence of gods is the same as lack of belief in any gods.

It's my fault because I wasn't clear in my post. I see religion as a group of people isolating themselves from anything that conflicts with their beliefs. I'm seeing that behavior between people claiming to be free thinking individuals. So here's my question. When you're talking to someone you disagree with, how much effort do you put into openly considering the oppositions position? Do you put up a wall and wait your turn to talk or do you stop and consider or look for a bridge of commonality? Most people claim they're open and some are, I'm challenging people to stop digging in on moderate topics and start finding ways to lesson this division.

@paul1967 I appreciate and support this message.

Most often when talking religion with a theist, there is a gap either with finding common ground (belief is uninhibited by logic or reason) or interest in a dialogue at all. That can come from both sides and unfortunately doesn't help our divide.

In my experience, I am definitely willing to work with a theist on their feelings on religion and have a civil discussion. However I more often find myself simply leaving it alone as its hard to maintain or find in another in the first place.

@TheMiddleWay its not self-contradictory at all. Knowing that gods don't exist isn't a belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. The first thing you need to understand is that atheists and theists aren't opposite sides of the same coin. That's the view point that the religious community have been selling for years to claim credibility and garner 50% of the possibilities.

If you shoot at a target, are the odds 50/50 that you hit a bullseye? That's what religion would have you believe. The only difference is that they made up the entire target.

If you understand probability and how your feelings on the subject are irrelevant, you can begin to understand how religious claims are as plausible as Spiderman living at the center of Neptune. The odds of this are not 50/50 no matter how many people believe it because human feeling on the subject has no bearing on truth.

@TheMiddleWay you can't debate probabilities by using language. The inadequacy of the terminology is doing to you exactly what it was meant to; confusing you into thinking there is only for or against.

The "way you see it" is worse than limited. There are an infinite number of possibilities attached to creation, theism is telling you that one of them is true while atheism is only telling you THAT ONE is not true. Atheists are not "the other possibility", atheists are EVERY other possibility in an infinite and endless list.

Irrational is seeing this as 2 possibilities.

@TheMiddleWay

Theist - God exists and created the universe
Atheist - That answer is clearly bullshit
Agnostic - I'm not sure if that answer is bullshit or not

I am absolutely bewildered how you can see atheism as picking one possibility just because we know that theism is bullshit. Agnosticism is the weak concept that theism COULD be correct. It's one thing to be told all your life that there is a god and believe it. It's another entirely to believe that the bullshit that they believe could be true. That's not open-mindedness, that's weak mindedness if you're unable to rule anything out. If you can't rule out any possibilities I've got a bridge for sale.

Go ahead and reply if you'd like but I'm done with this conversation. It's only annoying at this point trying to explain the same thing different ways.

@TheMiddleWay you know what? You're a truly gifted troll. I had written up a long post but it's really not worth it. You are every indecisive squirrel corpse on the road and you're touting it from the rooftops as something to be proud of. Enjoy avoiding critical thinking as if it's the new bird flu but I'm officially giving up on hoping you'll ever understand.

I promise I'm not trying to be combative, this is text and you can't hear the tone of voice. You say you don't believe in anything, but you do believe that you breath air, the Earth revolves around the Sun ECT. Here is the heart of my post, Christians have Baptist, Methodist, Jehovah's Witness, Presbyterians, and dozens of other groups each believing they're right. Atheist here are isolating themselves into groups and rarely if ever getting out to discuss their views. I also see people with unpopular views getting hammered by the community. Instead of asking why do you believe that and are you open to change your views if I can offer you a different perspective. We get so hungup on not wanting to alter our beliefs regardless of the facts. We are devolving from free thinkers to intolerant, position driven, think my way or the highway people. This holds true for Liberals and conservatives. Liberals are just as bad as conservative when it comes to being closed off from one another.

@paul1967 lf you are talking about religious or spiritual beliefs, l believe in nothing. If you are talking politics I am a liberal and will remain so. I don't agree all liberal ideas and l don't think all consevative ideas are bad. Unfortunately conservatives want to get into my personal life, and too many of their ideas like denying climate change and opposition to gun control, or their love of money over pretty much everything else negates any ideas that might be sound. Conservatives live in the past, l don't. Clinging to the past is no way to govern for the future. ☺

I need to apologise it's on me for not wording this post well enough because most people are missing my point. When you discuss a topic with someone who is on the other side and it's a topic you feel passionate about, how open is your mind? Most people will claim they're very open and some are but 90% will defend their position and never consider the other person's perspective. You will see this a lot in politics. Liberals and conservatives just won't listen to each other. When one is making a point the other puts up a wall and waits for his/her turn to speak. This approach leads to isolationism and radicalicalism.