Well… as long as you stand … else you fall for anything (like everyone else). 
So I guess that you can agree to this statement:
No kidding. The latter is the negation of the former.
You cannot know that you know something?
That’s weird. 
To a point yes and to a point no. The word theist and atheist and agnostic have different meanings to different people. You have a god, you have religion, you have no god, you have no religion, you have inbetween , you actually have religious atheists and non religious theists…
Do you not believe that there is very much lie, hypocrisy, blatancy, bravado, showing-off, just exhibitionism when some people behave, speak, think about anything and everything that has to do with “θεός”, “theós”, thus with God, with theology, with antitheology, with theisms, with antitheism, etc., often even then if those people “believe” (!) that they are “atheists”, so that it is difficult to say who is more theistic - the theist or the antitheist or even the atheist?
What I was trying to make clear.
It is not possible to „know“ God because if it were the belief in him would make no sense anymore. Those who just want to oppose the theists say that they „know“ that God does not exist, although it is impossible to know that, and when they say „know“ they mean „believe“, so that one can never know wether the atheists or the antitheists are the real deists, the real believers in God respectively substituted God.
Myth: Atheism is a faith based religion
Atheism - The absence of belief that any deities exist.
Atheists do not inherently define god as non existent and impossible.
Thus, you are wrong.
As everything else is founded on this, your thread’s wrong too.
A cow is an atheist. A cow doesn’t define god as non existent and impossible.
Case in point.
/thread
James is right, and you’re wrong Ben, AGAIN. This is like the second time in two days now, what’s up? You need to start scoring some points.
Define god, right now.
We already had this discussion in the other thread, James.
But you’ll never learn. Black hole.
Atheism - The absence of belief that any deities exist.
(Keep hiding in James’ noise, Wizard)
EDIT:
/thread
Most of the atheists, or at least many, are of the view that they would not believe the God unless they would not get any proof of that. That is fine and seems reasonable too, but they seem to forget that it is the position of an Agnostic, not an Atheist.
It is mere present belief that makes one theist or atheist, not pending judgment.
Anyone who says that - We will look into the matter and decide when the evidence would come is not Atheist but Agnostic.
To be a true Atheist, one has to say that it is my belief that there is no God.
Lacking of surity is the very cornerstone of Agnosticm.
And, most of people, who consider themselves as atheists, are not atheists in true sense, but Agnostics. They got the definition of Atheism wrong and confuse it with Agnosticm.
Any one, who does not have the belief that there is no God, cannot be called as an Atheist.
Present belief - Theist, Atheist.
No belief, not sure, pending judgement - Agnostic.
with love,
sanjay
Agnosticism isn’t an alternative to atheism.
One can be both, one, or neither.
One can be a theist and agnostic.
I’ve given you the clear definition of atheism.
All you’re doing is misrepresenting it.
Allow me to requote:
Stop misrepresenting atheism.
Ben, for sake of political propaganda, you are trying to change the definition of a word to what the leaders of that party want the word to mean. You might want to ask why they insist on changing the word. Why don’t they just use the right word for what they believe?
This is a philosophy sight. Political word games don’t really go over that well around here. You can convince a bunch of over-worked naive people whatever you like. But on this sight, it just isn’t going to happen.
Agnostic means that the person simply doesn’t know.
Atheist means that the person believes that there is no God.
And beyond the simple and obvious definitions of the words, it is extremely obvious that those representing atheism here believe that there is no God. So merely going by the members here, “Atheism = belief that there is no God”.
So either way…
And frankly watching a bunch of pathetic pansies denying the meaning of a word out of their fear of what people think is a little vulgar.
I’ll go with that. I would say also that there is a distinct real probability that evolved sentient beings exist. Beings not what we call gods. Calling such a being god is giving that being an ownership over the human.
Now, you can also see the word god as parental. The view of the word god is crucial to understanding each view, theist/ atheist.
My view is : Gods do not exist as a god is an unknowable. Beings evolved to the point of energy can be known.
To the short: A god is a superior being to us. An evolved being would be as an older sibling, not superior just older with more accrued knowledge.
Don’t be so hard on yourself, bro.
I forgive you.
=
The meaning is obvious.
An atheist can believe and do lots of things, but it is a reflection of the individual, not atheism.
Threads like this highlight the gross misrepresentation atheists receive from theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
Atheism - The absence of belief that any deities exist.
/thread
No thanks required.
I agree, I just can’t figure out who is more THEISTIC, a THEIST or an [size=200]A[/size]THEIST
Still thinking about it, let me know if somebody figured it out.
This is why atheists laugh at theists. Ontological argument for everything conceivable 
And then they expect us to waste time seriously addressing it.
The Ancient Greek morpheme “a” means “not” / “non”, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme “anti” means “against” / “contra”. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).
But how or with which weapons do antitheists oppose, fight against theists, theism, and their god(s)? They do it with their own theism, the antitheism, their owm god(s), the antigod(s).
The most atheists are merely antitheists because they can’t ignore theists, theism, and their god(s).
Wrong. Atheists have no reason to define a thing they do not accept exists. That job goes for Theists.
So what you are saying is. Define the impossible - isn’t that what you say atheists are really doing?
Please make an attempt to distinguish fantasy from reality. An idea of the thing can exist as an idea, but not actually.
This is so far from the truth as it is possible to exist. I can think of an ice-cube on the sun. I can imagine having the power of flight, or breathing under water. Have you ever heard of fiction?
Anything can exist in fiction. We can travel faster than light, disappear, time travel, and live forever.
What is it like to live in your world?
James is wrong, as usual and Ben is spot on!
I think it might be your job to define God.
Mine is “A confused and incoherent set of claims about the existence of a collection of supreme beings; asserted individually or collectively, for which precious little, and certainly no conclusive evidence exists.”
Supernatural - Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. + Of or relating to a deity.
God loves us and has infinite knowledge? God exists outside the natural world?
According to James, god is merely a principle or law.
Do laws/principles have infinite knowledge? Do laws/principles love us?
Na uh.
=
Don’t worry.
We’ll receive some obscure definition.
Better than what Wizard can do, however. Doesn’t define his words. (pleads the 5th?)
The Christian asks the atheist to define god for him. That’s rich.