Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
They recognize the probablity of there being any God as quite low.

They recognize the probability of any one religion being "correct" as even more remote.

They recognize that if there is a creator, he may very well be a disinterested one.

They also don't make the assumption that the existence of a creator doesn't necessarily mean life after death for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people who call themselves atheists also agree with all of the above. The position pretty much boils down to, "There is not enough reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God, so there's no reason to believe in one." The few negative statements regarding God are of the form "There is no God with property X because that is a logical contradiction," which is hardly the same thing as religious belief because it comes in the form of claims that can be tested or disproven.

Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the things in atheists minds take more faith to believe than Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Examples ?

Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

You've come a long way from that first day.

Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

"Actually, according to the most hardcore skeptics, you don't know anything with 100% certainty"

This is not true. You know for certain that you exist, and if somebody were to say that you do not exist, you would know with 100% certainty that they are wrong.

And apparently hardcore skeptics know with certainty that you cannot know anything with certainty, so they are contradicting themselves.

Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in God is as reasonable as believing in Napoleon.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that there is no direct empirical way of knowing with absolute certainty that any historical figure has existed. They could all just be made up stories or an elaborate hoax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand that god isn't a historical figure?

Re: All Christians are Agnostics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. You know for certain that you exist, and if somebody were to say that you do not exist, you would know with 100% certainty that they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone were to say I did not exist, they would have to state it in a way that it can be critically analyzed for truth, otherwise I would simply disregard it. In this case, when I "disbelieve" I'm not saying it's false, only that it's unprovable and useless so I won't incorporate it into my perception of reality.

[ QUOTE ]
And apparently hardcore skeptics know with certainty that you cannot know anything with certainty, so they are contradicting themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much a certainty as a supposition. I don't know exactly what my "flavor" of skepticism is called, but the way I look at it basically comes down to accepting the few assumptions required to function in life, and no more.

It's kind of like how in a math proof you need a certain set of propositions that are accepted as true before you can actually determine the truth of whatever is being proved. There are a few assumptions that without which any kind of rational thinking or indeed life is impossible, so I "believe" them in the sense that I accept them as true unless someone can come up with a better alternative.