God is not an object of “knowing” or “not knowing”.
You can no more “know” that there is a god than you can “know” that there is not a god.
When it comes to the subject of a god, “knowing” is irrelevant.
One thing you do know, however, is whether or not you posses faith in the existence of a god.
If you know you don’t have such faith, then you are an atheist.
Why, then, inject the unnecessary, fence straddling, uncertainty of agnosticism?
No such thing.
Asa, no such thing as an agnostic atheist?
I reckon you're describing the world you know.
In the world I know, there are faith-based (dogmatic?) atheists and agnostic atheists.
Also in the world I know, physics is uncertain, mathematics is undecidable, and language can be deconstructed.
I still don’t know how one can be an agnostic and an atheist, much less get through the terminological abstruse esoterica created by those who think there must be something about atheism that is as complicated and convoluted as the history of Christian theology.
I am working to accept the fact that the simplicity of atheism is just not acceptable to my fellow atheists. That atheists must compete with religion by creating its own extensive lexicon of hair splitting theological style terminology that is the very essence of the history of religion.
I’ll have none of it.
I will, instead, wallow in my simple lack of faith, while the rest of you can complicate your lives by pondering how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin.
Asa, can three atheists dance on the head of Aquinas' pin: an agnosticism-based atheist, a faith-based atheist, and a knowledge-based atheist?
Not binary thinking (formerly known as black and white thinking), but trinary thinking. I won't complicate my life by pondering the many shades of gray.
Nope, you're boring.
Hey, futilethewinds, is he boring or are you bored?