Lame.

Flame.

I would answer "maybe, probably not the one you're thinking of though..."

I demand to see their research!

Seriously though, does it seem a little pretentious to anyone else for scientists, who deal with the way the physical universe works, to be making statements about God, whose very concept exists on an entirely seperate plane? They may be incredibly brilliant scientists, but they're not qualified to talk about god or religion based on those credentials. (I know this site's a joke, but you see this sort of thing all the time (or its inverse where religious figures try to used science to "prove" the existance of god.))

How exactly is anyone else any 'more' qualified to make statements about God?

No blasters!

No blasters!

...then who are?

Philosophers?

How about no one? No one can say god does exist and no one can say he doesn't. Imagine a world where such opinions were kept to themselves....

*sings John Lennon*

if only.

I haven't read the link in the OP but I was singing this song in my head so

I don't think Lennon was singing about self-censorship, ignorance or intellectual supression.

I don't think my post was entirely serious either

It still holds true that you cannot make a definitive statement about the nonexistence of something.

Batman does not exist.

Pretty much. Agnosticism is the only belief system that is compatible with the scientific method. Atheism is a religion for the exact same reason Christianity is one: it's a positive belief about something that is unprovable.

People who try to use science to explain their religion are all universally bad people. It's the last resort of the weak of faith.

you would probably have an easier time proving Bruce Wayne (the as being the man behind the mask) does not exist. after all, a figure called "bat man" can be found walking the streets of downtown Hollywood.

Also, even though Batman is a fictional character he does have a very real impact on the world. Such as the fact that Batman has probably made as much money in real life as Bruce Wayne has in the comics.

Semantics!

While it is true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and thus I can't say that I *know* God doesn't exist, it only means that belief in him/her/it is on par with other things which have no evidence of existing - fairies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible dragons, the millennium falcon, etc.

Liar.

I'll liar you in a minute!

do it

Atheism and agnosticism are different things entirely. Atheism concerns what we know. Agnosticism concerns how we know it. Agnosticism answers the epistomological question, while atheism answers the theological question; agnosticism addresses the question "Can you know?"", while atheism addresses the question "Do you believe?". You may well answer the first "No! You cannot know whether there is a God!", but that doesn't answer you believe. What do you do with that (lack of) knowledge? Pretty much everyone is agnostic to some degree, the theological question is what your default setting is after that (and why it is so).
I don't know that there isn't a flying teapot around the Sun. I don't know that there isn't. Do I believe that there is a flying teapot around the Sun? No, of course not, because that would be ****ing ridiculous.

In science, you're never to have all the information, but you still have to make some sort on stance using the information you're given. We do not have evidence for the existence of tachyons, so it makes sense to say that, as far as we know, tachyons do not exist. That statement "as far as we know" is implicit in every single thing you say, because you clearly can't know any more than you know. The same applies to God. We do not have any evidence for the existence of God, so, as far as we know, God does not exist.

Atheism making the statement "There is no God". The phrase 'as far as we know' is implicit, because the only way for someone to know without doubt that there is no God is for them to receive that information from God - and hence, there would be a God. If there is no God, there is only collective human knowledge and experience on which to base anything on. If you consider atheism a 'religion' (which is really entirely a semantic issue over how to define 'religion'), then it is quite a remarkable religion as it is the only religion in existence that doesn't require any belief in the supernatural.

People who describe their religion as 'agnostic' are weak of faith (or intellect), as they use the label as an 'atheist lite' to excuse themselves from having to question anything.

You're missing a very important distinction. Those other things you describe, fairies, unicorns, etc, are supposed to exist in the physical world. Thus we can catogorically say they do not exist physically. God exists in the spiritual world, which is one we cannot poke and prod with a multimeter.

The "spiritual world" is just another thing of which there is no evidence of existence.

I never said there was evidence. :p

why do people enjoy bringing down others beliefs? i dont get it.

I do think that in many cases, atheism has become a religion.

So what term are people supposed to use when asked their religion, should they not fall into one of the traditional sects? Atheist wouldn't be correct, as saying "I don't believe there is a God" is not the same as "There is no God." I guess it would be fun to respond to "What is your religion?" with "I am."

How exactly are the two statements different? "There is no God" is implicitly saying "I believe there is no God". You've simply removed the phrase 'I believe' because it's entirely redundant. The statement "Ice-cream is nice!" conveys exactly the same information as "I believe ice-cream is nice!"

Agnosticism is not some 'alternate' belief system for people that don't follow 'mainstream' religion. It is a statement of whether you can (or otherwise) know of something. You still need to choose whether to believe based on something you cannot know (faith), or something you can (evidence). Agnosticism doesn't answer that question.

one makes it personal and the other makes it a statement

But my question remains unanswered. What else would you have the group of people call themselves? They don't fall under the atheism blanket. I like "Undecided."

Better yet, is there a platypus?

I know that you're not serious, but how about everyone is just tolerant of what other people believe and don't try to argue/force stuff on them?

it's p. fun

Oh man this reminds me of squirrels on islands.

Nothing, because they're not a 'group'. Some of them probably are atheists and are just too frightened to use the word, while most of them are probably still theists despite not knowing whether God exists or not. That's precisely what faith is.

Well, because, if I'm Christian and I like a non-Christian, I might be worried about them going to hell. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to care about. If I'm an atheist and befriend a Christian, I might be worried that they're wasting their life and resources on some bizarre fantasy cult. That seems like a reasonable thing to care about too.

Or alternately, some people enjoy befriending people that can engage in intellectual conversation and are generally bored by the hopelessly apathetic that can't be bothered thinking about the world.