You may want to read this article.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

"knowledge" plus the "alpha privative", which negates, if you're curious.

But probably not! Find me one that can.

Personally, I can't say there is definitely no Santa whatsoever. It's pretty much the same thing.

What, not being allowed to post in one forum out of a whole bunch on a privately run atheist community site?

      I am an atheist, I'll tell anyone that. As for "what if?" ,   well I am willing to hear any evidence about their god or any god for that matter,  and I do mean evidence.  After 50+ years of listening I  haven't heard any evidence yet.  Maybe someone will surprise but I doubt that very much.

You have just restricted yourself to deism and atheism. As far as I know there aren't any other options. You're a dirty fence sitter. Pick a side! We're at war!

Bonus cool points to any one that got the reference.

I also dislike that the criterion by which one is excluded from the forum in question is that of "theist". A forum devoid of the crapology which theism engenders is a fine facility to provide, but it should also be requested that all people who entertain delusional fantasies desist from contributing.

Steven Tyrone Colbert (Dr.)

One of his favorite lines when doing interviews. It's an easy one to work into a conversation, he just needs a setup that can be made into a false dichotamy, and since his improving the interviews you can tell how he uses it when he needs a laugh from the audience. Not that that's a bad thing. Colbert rocks.

And to the OP, as has been said already, agnosticism refers to knowledge, atheim to belief. If you don't KNOW wether there is something out there that we humans can't understand then you are in the same boat as everyone else. The unknown wouldn't be unknown if it was known now would it?

If you BELIEVE that there is something: unicorns, faries, E.T, or Gods, then you are a believer, and if gods is one of the things you believe then you are a theist. Otherwise you are an atheist. You can still be an agnostic, since you don't KNOW wether there is a God, you just don't BELIEVE there is.

And finally, if you really DO activily BELIEVE that there is some sort of "ultimate authority of the Universe", but you don't have any opinion about what exactly that authority IS, then you can probably rightly call yourself a deist.

There's the terms for you in a nutshell.

Please check the size of your forum avatar.  It seems to be too wide.

Yeah, your a wishy-washy Agnostic.

You'll "get religion" before you die, just to be on the safe side.

Aside from the article JillS suggested...

Consider this...

Theists made a claim that god(s) exist.
The Scientific Method calls for Empirical evidence, which they've not provided, AND
Logic demands that having made a claim, the burden of proof falls on the Theist.

I say you've got a blue haired invisible monkey that just took an invisible shit on your head.

Why the hell should you believe me!
In as far as my assertion goes the burden of proof falls entirely upon my shoulders.

My point is simple: the Agnostic fails to understand the basis of Science and and the basis of Logical analysis.

Soz, but I can't offer you any empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method, (numerous times and iin various ways) as proof of what I said about invisible shitting monkeys.

Do you "get" where Atheists are coming from?

I do not accept on faith that there are god(s).
I do not believe a rational discussion of a myth is worthwhile.

Instead, let's consider for the sake of argument that the burden of proof for making such a claim, rests upon your shoulders (as it does).

Let's carry on from there ... with you providing empirical evidence which you then explain how you plan to test, via the Scientific Method.

(I've posted it half a dozen times. When counting integers on ascending order 1 must precede 2. You can not say, "for the sake of argument let's say that 1 does not exist, and then start talking about your new numerical system which
begins with 2. --- Anyone whom accepts such an absurd
basis for discussion, debate, etc. is a fool, and will be proven to be a fool by whomever they are conversing with.)

Soz. No go. You first, and start with 1, not 2.

Did you not see my final statement, which completely summed up my argument?

My entire post was based on the idea that even if one concedes the existence of a creator to a theist, their religious beliefs and anthropocentric attitude still make no sense when compared with our natural world. Lets use your nice numbers analogy. Theists hold beliefs at 3. I was trying to say that even if we give them 2, 3 is still bullshit. I do not under any circumstances actually accept this basis, but once again, I am saying that EVEN WITH THAT BASIS, theists still fall short. The point was that even if the original poster does not accept religion now, but wants to believe in a creator, then he would be unjustified in going over to religion again, because it still requires another jump of irrationality and completely contradicts what we know about the natural universe. This was argument used rationale somewhat in line with God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Actually that is not quite correct. 

We start with observations, which are Facts.

Then we propose Hypotheses to explain those observations. If after testing, a hypothesis survives, it is regarded as a valid Theory. It does not become a fact in itself. They may well become so thoroughly verified as to approach the certainty of a Fact, but it is important not to lose sight of this distinction, since even the most well-entrenched Theory may be overturned by a fresh insight, but the observations, the base Facts, remain.

The Law of Gravitation amounts to the statement that masses behave as if there was an attractive force between them proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is a description of what is observed. It stands, regardless of whatever theories are current. More detailed and accurate observations have revealed small adjustments to the observational data.

Theories of Gravitation attempt to explain what gives rise to this observed fact about reality.

Soz. As a rule I don't engage in what could be called hypothetical science or illogical logic to hypothetically discuss reality. Engaging in such a discussion of such is pointless, and too silly, even for me.

A few post ago, I didn't say you're an agnostic. I simply said you're wrong and explained in detail why I said it. I can't make it much clearer than I did above. Soz.

You might well be an agnostic or Atheist, or Theist. I don't know. However, I do know that what you said is not true, and (as I just said), explained in detail upon what basis I believe I correctly said it.

Of course - I was taking it for granted that you understood I was referring to observations that had been checked out. Even so, as long as we have the raw records of what was observed adequately preserved, that is still a set of facts, even if there turn out to be different ways to interpret them.

But the distinction remains between 'facts' or data, and 'theories'. And NO theories actually get changed into facts, even if they approach the same degree of certitude as confirmed observations and/or measurements.

"But I find myself constitutionally UNABLE to say "there is NO Higher Power in ANY form WHATSOEVER"."

Same here, but I'm still an atheist because I don't believe in one.

There is so much confusion evident in this thread on the part of some contributors which a clear and precise use of language would clear up immediately. I find with discussions of religious themes that this is nearly always the case (religionists have in fact a vested interest in semantic obfuscation, but that's another debate).

The concept of a "higher power", for example, makes sense only if one imagines a hierarchy of "powers", and if one does that then one has to say just what one means by "power" in the first place. It suits the theist to keep it vague, but for the purpose of meaningful debate an agreed definition must first be arrived at before any discussion of anything's place (real or imaginary) in a hierarchy can proceed intelligently. The religionist will normally associate the concept in part (but critically) with sentience subjectively and undemonstrably ascribed to an imagined entity. The realist will demand that the definition be restricted to physical cause and effect, and ability expressed in this context. The result will be an impasse - and rightly so. Such impasses, if honestly recognised and admitted to by all parties when they are encountered, will in their frequent regularity alert religionists of all but the most stupid disposition that they base their understanding of reality on traditional but arbitrary assertions which in fact deny reality. This glaringly obvious fact should underlie - and be seen to underlie - all subsequent assertions they make, even (and especially) by them.

If the impasse is not recognised the discussion breaks down into a morass of misinterpretation and semantic vagueness which allows the religionist to persevere in the assumption that his or her assertions carry the same weight as reality-grounded deduction. And so the meaningless discussion is perpetuated, the religionist feeling validated in his or her delusion and the realist simply left boxing shadows - a pretence of real data which would never even have been discussed had their false foundation been exposed at the start. And so it goes on.

On the subject of "agnostic" and "atheist" etc, a theme much discussed on these boards, it helps enormously if one jettisons the associated concept that the term identifies one as belonging to any group which subscribes to any hard and fast definition of "god" beyond the definition proposed by theists. Since theists themselves have not produced a common definition to which they all agree except in extremely broad and insubstantial use of language, there is no compunction on anyone else to sweat over which word best describes their refusal to share such unwarranted certainty in an obviously empty semantic assertion. Admitting one does not know is a valid and honest stance for some people, but that does not mean they have to call themselves "agnostic" - or anything for that matter. Likewise, professing a certainty that the theist is wrong based on his or her inability to ever proceed beyond assertion does not make one an "atheist" either. In fact such a label is counter-productive in terms of semantic realism, since empty assertions of no real substance are ironically reinforced when one describes oneself in a term which nominally employs one symptom of such erroneous thinking.

Other semantic minefields which protect the theist's particular delusion are terms such as "spirituality", "soul", "divine" etc - in that they are products of the delusion and defy realistic definition. In addition a whole plethora of words with simple and realistic applications have been intentionally imbued with semantic vagueness by religionists over time. These include "sin", "after-life", "morality" etc.

When faced with the prospect of a discussion with theists, and especially in discussions which use any of these terms (or similar ones) as their starting points, it is absolutely necessary to engage first in an attempt to nail down the definition before anything else is said. If the theist cannot contribute anything meaningful to that requirement then the discussion is in fact over, and the obvious lesson to be learnt by the theist has been made evident, should they choose to see it or not. But most importantly when dealing with delusional people, no validation - even inadvertently - of their false assertions has taken place.

Needless to say, if the discussion is between two realists with no religious delusional tendencies, the requirement to be specific right at the outset is even greater. Obfuscation is the enemy of rational thought. Engaging in it contributes to religionists' delusions. All ignorance contributes to religious belief. The duty of the anti-religionist is to counter ignorance first and foremost, not feed its progress.

My point was quite simple ...
I don't engage in "thought experiments, let us consider what God would likely be like if he existed", as theists have shown no empirical evidence to test any gods exist.

In short... it's irrational to accept what is irrational,
and then discuss what is irrational, given that we accept what is irrational.

Get it?

Let's back up to your 2nd sentence which I reposted directly above.

"observations" we know, and the Scientific Method doe
not state that when
we start and make observations, that our observations are "facts".

It is not until MUCH later in the Scientific Method that a
Theory can even be referred to as a fact.

In fact, that remains why we STILL refer to Einstein's Theories, NOT Einstein's Laws.

Note the difference in what are referred to as LAWS and what is referred to as Theories (as an example in Physics).

We refer to something as a fact very long after we start research with our observations.

I'll try 1 last time one that issue...

It is not legitimate or rational to accept on faith that gods exist, and then proceed, after having accepted that as fact, to have a "legitimate" or "rational" discourse, based on what is not fact , as fact.

I WOULD agree that "It is an entirely legitimate and rational" to discuss some HYPOTHETICAL circumstances. However, that's not the case when one is told to accept delusions
as facts, and having done so,
then accept that the discussion is "legitimate and rational."

I can't attempting to clarity my point any further
would be futile, as (I refuse to be assimilated into the hive, and) it would appear that a circular argument on that point would be taking place.

The above is once again a 2nd re-post of your own post.

I'm but sorry when we start making our observations
they are very far from being referred to as facts.

One can only refer to a theory as a fact after it has undergone rigorous testing by
a multitude of scientists, and that may take many years.

Observations and even Theories are not referred to as "facts". However, in a field such as Physics, we may refer to a Law as a "fact".

Theories are Theories because they are not "Laws", nor have they been established as facts.

Again, as to this point, I can not be more clear, and entering into a circular argument is futile. As suchI won't respond further to any response on this point.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Please pay close attention to the words used regarding
Step #1.

An observation is a fact - did the apple fall from the tree? Yes. The observation is fact.

Why did the apple fall from the tree? That is when we get into Thesis, then Theory, then Law.

So, the progression you illustrate with the falling apple isn't entirely correct.  I suspect that the scenario goes more like this:

An Observation is a fact - did the apple fall from the tree?  Yes.

Why (which is, 'By what mechanism') did the apple fall from the tree?  That is when a mathematician hypothesises a mathematical law and works to produce a formula that can be tested for validity against other empirical observations it should predict.

Not to nit pick, but it seems the distinction is important.

I need to pull you up a bit on your explanation, my fault I should have made the process clearer.

Observation - the apple fell from the tree.

Why did it occur? We start with a Thesis. A thesis is simply an idea, completely unproven and untested but something that may explain why the event occurred. Experiments are conducted (mathematical, mechanical and chemical depending on the Thesis being tested). If the experiments are successful the Thesis becomes a Theory. If they are not, throw it out and come up with another one.

Now we are at the Theory state, experimentation continues. If the Theory can be tested in a controlled environment and work 100% of the time it becomes Law. There ar some Laws in the scientific world, though not many - the Law of Gravity is one of them, not because it can be disproven but because it can be proven. The Law applies 100% of the time. If you cannot prove a Theory to be correct 100% of the time, it cannot progress to becoming a Law

Other scientific breakthoughs that remain Theory (highights include the Theory of Relativity and the ever popular Theory of Evolution) because while they may appear to be correct mathematically, they cannot be proven. We cannot produce a speed equal to the speed of light x the speed of light. We don't even know if that's possible but Ernest Walton and John Cockroft showed that it was likey by splitting the atom. This example may never become a Law because we may never be able to prove it works 100% of the time - at the same time it cannot be 'disproven' so it remains a Theory. Same goes for Evolution, it cannot be proven - yet - and it will remain a Theory until it does.

The process is not limited to mathematical evidence, in fact the majority of the time the mathematical component is the Thesis, it's the combination of the mathematical with the experimental (or the theoretical vs the physical) that may (or may not) eventuate into a Law.