Not faith, logic. ?

I am agnostic and I say the same thing.

Firstly those making the claim would have to define what they mean by god, but yes: anyone making the claim would have the burden of proof, yes.

I don’t think an agnostic would suggest there is no god, by definition of the word: agnostic.

If I tell you I can fly and you say 'no you can't' do our opinions have equal validity? Until proof is produced it's a fact there is no god- the same standard I'd hold for the tooth fairy.

I really don't think so. There is substantial evidence backing up the evolution based theory of how we came to be (among other things). If it is true it directly contradicts the way this is explained in any religion that I know of. I am fairly certain in my conviction that there is no higher power controlling any of this at least not any of the ones humanity has dreamed up or anything similar to them.

If there is nothing to think about, there will be no conflicts about it... agnosticism and atheism are one way streets...

Um... It's safe to say unicorns do not exist right? Flying jellyfish? Birds that have no wings and are instead propelled through the air by farts?

Edit: flying sea jellies.

As an atheist, it takes no "faith" whatsoever to say "there is no god". All it takes is a complete lack of credible, verifiable evidence. That's all. No faith required.

How about Spider-Man ?

Just because people can think of something like a new God, doesn't make it real. Requiring evidence to believe in something is just smart, especially when there should absolutely be evidence.

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no logical explanation. I think that this takes agnosticism or atheism out of the equation.

Evolution does not logically kill the very idea of God, but it is his redundancy notice.

I am Agnostic because that term best describes me. If there was a " I DON"T GIVE A SHIT" I would be there. I have made my way through life, on my own. ON MY OWN!! And when I effed up I suffered the consequences.

"I see no evidence for a god or any supernatural phenomena." That is a true statement for me in that I am going to base my decisions and actions on it. This is basically what Neil De Grass Tyson says. He does not use the word "atheist". Atheist is an interpretation of the above true statement, and belongs in the discussion section of any scientific paper, not in the results. Agnostic is an interpretation also, and says there is no evidence for a god but we cannot absolutely it out.

I think what one can say with some validity is that there is no evidence for a god that interacts with humans in any way. There may be a god and we are such trivial blobs of protoplasm that he/she pays no heed to us and is involved in much more important things, like making parallel universes perhaps.

Well, I'll start off by saying that I'm an atheist since I don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is fundamentally. A further step is to say definitively that there is no god. I suppose there could be gods, so I won't make a definitive statement that there aren't any. Evidence does not point to the existence of gods thus, I have no good reason to believe in them.
At any rate, it doesn't take faith to believe in a negative, not really. If you have no good reason (i.e. evidence to back it up) to believe something, it's not really faith so much as a lack of credibility to the belief.

I always interpret the word faith as another way to say you really really "hope" but you don't know for certain. I just really can't place my hope into anything with out evidence. It would take much more effort for me to place hope in something without supporting evidence.I do say that I am agnostic only because I do not believe in any god defined in religious terms. Its all a matter of interpretation and definition. If you define a god as a entity of power, all knowing that sort of thing...we all are using that power now, we can summon it almost at will, right in the palm of our hand! The power to connect to people all over the world, and acess to all the known knowledge of mankind via internet! Technology and science is a higher power if defined in proper context.

As an Agnostic Atheist I do not believe in any god, because I've seen no proof of one. However I won't assert that I "know" there are no gods at all of any kind because that would be silly. Kind of an oxymoron if you think about it... For someone to"KNOW" there are no gods of any kind, you would have to be omniscient, hence a god in your own right.

However...I will say that I do positively believe that the Christian God, at the very least, does not exist. Simply because I've read the book, which is the only solid information we have about it, and there are way too many inconsistencies, contradictions and proven falsehoods for it to exist as described.

I won't argue that there is NO "creator" or "higher power" because I'm just smart enough to realize that my knowledge is tiny compared to the vast possibilities of the universe. (Even though I believe there is none)

But I will state outright that there is and never was a magical Jesus, or YHWH of the Bible, because that's just silly fairy tale bullshit ?

Yes it does..its no easy thing to abandon all previous..once dearly held beliefs. Furthermore you may face consequences for opting out of and completely abandoning all things religious.
From family friends and your community. You let go of Christian comfort for accepting truth and reason..because deep down it feels right to you.

Nope.

Faith is belief without regard to evidence.

I would have to disagree. It takes faith (belief in the absence of knowledge) to believe in a deity. All it takes to not believe is an examination of the scientific data provided. No scientific data actively supports the existence of a God or supernatural phenomena in a way that holds up to the burden of peer review or meets the standard of experimental replication. Science has largely separated itself from the question of religion because it exists beyond the scope of reliably observable information. I will concede that advanced sciences do require that lay-people possess a certain degree of faith in the academic community, in the scientists who do the math, and in the adaptability of science as new information arises, but the scientific community as a whole does not just accept by merit of pure ethos what any one member or hypothesis claims.

Faith is believing sans any proof. Religion is a method of controlling large masses of people.
To say there is no great creator is confirming science, unless the big bang or the big crunch is the creator one is referring to. Admittedly science is not all knowing as a god would be in current doctrine. Cultures are uncomfortable without answers to humankind's questions. The attempt to answer them results in mythology of which religion is part of. As yet for me there is no proof of a grand creator plotting the future. So without evidence I have faith that there is no god(s).

Religious faith is based on what if rather than what is.
Once the door to what if is opened, anything goes - got this invisible Dragon in my garage....says it created the universe.
The atheist/agnostic/believer game is a paradigm most can't get past as most are trained not to, rather to swirl in its circulatory, debating fiction as if it were real.
Cast the nonsense aside.
Evolution demands it.

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 there 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 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.
Secondly, faith is belief without good evidence. Saying I don't believe require no faith or evidence. The person saying they believe needs to be able to explain why if they want to convince others. I don't have to give a why for not believing. It's the null position. Now if someone provides good evidence and I reject it, then you can ask me why I reject this good evidence. That would be justified. If you provided me with proof of gravity and I reject your proof, I would need to explain why, and we can look at the evidence and find out if your proof is flawed, or I'm maybe not viewing it correctly. But no faith is required for disbelief. This is just something apologists and religions use to say we believe in a magical sky wizard, but you don't (which mean you are saying that there is none and it cannot exist even though you didn't say that) and both positions take faith so we're all on the same footing. NO! You don't get to put your irrational faith on the same book shelf with my rational beliefs. You're junk goes over on the other shelf with Zeus, Thor, and the Shiva. To quote Bill Maher "its from the great intellectual tradition of I know you are but what am I."
I would say, and I'm not most atheists so don't put this on atheism, that I'm certain there are no god/s. The evidence for this claim is circumstantial. To clarify, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. As my father used to say, "if I wake up and look out my window and see snow on the ground, I can't prove it snowed but I'm justified in assuming it snowed." Now everyone disbelieves in some god/s. Nobody believes in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Odin, the flying spaghetti monster, and etc at the same time. So, now the question is, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out "did god/s create man, or did man create many gods." Everyone knows the latter is true because there are some gods everyone believes are fictitious. If you find someone who believes in all gods ever, I'll make one up they don't believe in. Therefore we have countless examples with good evidence of gods that are made up, but no examples with good evidence of god/s that exist or did or created anything.
So to conclude, I am not working on faith. I have no faith. I don't believe things without good evidence. And when I have to make a decision without evidence on that decision, I don't make any suggestion that I'm doing more than guessing. When it comes to agnosticism, we all claim not to know about mystical things, which is the definition. When it come to atheism, we are all atheists in relation to most gods. Why, I'd say, because there is no good evidence. Ergo, not guilty.

Is it faith, or acquired knowledge from conscious to unconscious sources?

I disagree.

Faith is a belief in something where there is no justification for that belief except that you want to believe it.

As an atheist, I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that a god/s exists. However, I do also appreciate that an absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, unless of course there is a lack of evidence where you should expect to find evidence. For example, theists claim that their god answers prayer, yet study after study has shown that prayer has no better success rate that would be expected by pure chance. Holy books are at best ambiguous and at worst downright wrong.

The time to believe something exists is when their is evidence to support that belief. Not before.

As an atheist I do not say that there is no god. I say that I do not believe the claims that there is and that doesn't take faith.