It is possible that not making the 100% claim is a social aspiration to avoid both the complete rejection of the believer and to not be rejected of the believer; furthermore, religion has a historical precedence that lingers into our modern times because it was the beginning of assimilating our place in the universe as we became self-aware from a position of ignorance that continually evolves towards understanding with our growing collective-body-of-human-intelligence. Those who have a limited access to knowledge tend to without education cling to religion as if intellectually un-evolved as our ancestors where -- repeating the same evolutionary patterns of humanity. Perhaps humans and information as a collective-body-of-human-intelligence has evolved differently such that education brings a person into the modern time and lacking that education leaves a person less evolved intellectually. Perhaps education is all that separates unfounded belief systems from the rational search of reality and reason. Maybe denying anyone an education is denying them evolution. Yet vainly with our knowledge we attack the ones denied intellectual evolution frustrated with their humanity that is similar to our own. It is possible that the uncertainty is a means by which we do not reject our own humanity which was founded on uncertainty.
I find the evidence in favor of god or gods to be unpersuasive. And I find the burdens on one's lifestyle, world view and self-image resulting from a belief in god, to be untenably onerous; for theists, "belief" alone is never sufficient; what is required is worship, obeisance and fealty to this "god". If there does turn out to be a god, he/she/it/they has done a miserable job of stimulating our human intelligence with reason to believe in him/her/it/them. Am I 100% certain, or 99% certain? No. Percentage of certainty implies a means of conducting careful, quantifiable experiments - and in the hunt for god, "careful and quantifiable" are not attainable adjectives. I live my life in the conviction that physical nature is all that there is, and all that is possible of being. Some facts about nature may be too recondite or complex for human knowledge to partake, but that is a limitation of humanity, and not of the facts. And if, by some imponderable quirk, there is a genuine "god" hiding under the mantle of those facts, I would dishonor my humanity by entertaining such belief, by craven hedging against one's own better nature.
I'm 100 percent certain that god fucked up.
Yeah, Aaron, a gnostic who's an atheist.
Thank you, and agreed. Deep down they know.
You're an agnostic. You can't simultaneously hold the beliefs that there exists gods or no gods. It's a contradictory stance.
It's like saying I believe that there exists unicorns or no unicorns. It doesn't really mean anything. Why not just say you believe in anything ever posited and call it a day?
And yes, the idea of god's existence is bat shit insane.
I was referring to his statement, "I do not believe there are no gods or gods."
That sentence means nothing. You can't both believe in gods or no gods. This is of course, separate from knowledge. As far as I know, Dawkins or Bertrand never once said, "I do not believe that there exists no god or gods." That's a confusing statement but when you correct it, it results in: "I believe that there exists a god or gods." which is contradictory to his statement which came before: "I'm an atheist because I simply do not believe in any god or gods."
Please try to keep replies to my comments within the parameters of my comments. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. I can't make you misinterpret my words.
Theism and atheism are about belief. Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowing. Someone who claims knowledge that there are no gods, like myself, is a gnostic atheist. Someone who doesn't believe in gods, but erroneously thinks we cannot ever know, is an agnostic atheist.
But you are gnostic that your socks are of a certain color, right?
I don't necessarily think the gnostic position is stick to a position barring evidence to the contrary.
I personally feel that unicorns do not exist. If one ran through my backyard and stopped long enough for me to ensure that it was not just a horse with a long object glued to it's head or something, I would change my position, but I feel confident in saying that unicorns do not exist.
I feel the same way about gods.
Like I've said before, having to reserve possibilities creates a slippery slope in that anything I utter out of my mouth, you have to make concessions for the possibility that it exists.
For instance: The Garbyglop. I just made that up. It's a globulous creature made up of bacon flavored jello. It has fifty eyes, 300 legs, and two mouths. It's also a god and creator of everything.
I can be gnostic of it's nonexistence. I am gnostic of it's nonexistence. However, someone who is an agnostic atheist, if they are consistent, has to make room for the possibile existence of The Garbyglop. And as much evidence exists for the existence of The Garbyglop as there does for the Christian God.
Both people who don't know and don't think they can know are agnostic. If you cannot claim knowledge about the non-existence of god, and you don't believe in god, you are an agnostic atheist.
"You can't disprove God."
Celestial teapot, mate.