wow. this guy.

this link is for bearblast.

...Zen, so we can get our Karma back!

:cheer

dembears;842024589 said:

---

wow. this guy.

this link is for bearblast.

---

Lololol.

bearblast;842024439 said:

---

no, just a belief that there is a God. I have never met an atheist without an agenda to eradicate the idea of God from other people's minds. A true atheist would probably prohibit players from kneeling and praying, because they are offended by the idea that anyone believes in a God. Just my opinion. I have found that a religious man, Jew, catholic, christian, mormon, tends to be far more tolerant than an atheist. By the way, is everyone aware that Cal has a Christian team chaplain that travels with the team on the schools dime. I think that is a great thing, he is a counselor to the young men who need someone to talk to.

---

You'd have to be an atheist to be a be a Cal fan. Otherwise, how could you reconcile the vast amount of evidence that god must hate Cal Football? Or maybe he loves it like he loved Job.

bearblast;842024439 said:

---

... I think that is a great thing, he is a counselor to the young men who need someone to talk to.

---

Someone to talk to, eh? In this Twitter and Facebook era?

Cal needs to replace this guy with someone who can teach/get those kids who believe in Woody's adage--that "90% of success is just showing up," back in the classroom and get a degree before they matriculate...

Quote:

---

This message is hidden because bearblast is on your ignore list.

---

BerkeleyChris;842024474 said:

---

Got any evidence to back up that assertion or are we just going to spit bullsh!t in this thread? Either you're a troll or an idiot or both.

---

+1

my vote: both

bearblast;842024467 said:

---

you have said it right. He does not need to be religious, but not being religious is different than being an atheist. He can ignore or neglect God all he wants and still win us a Rose Bowl. But an atheist is an activist, he seeks to eradicate belief in God by others. An agnostic is fine, but not an atheist, he will not be able to concentrate on football because the religious kids on the team will drive him crazy.

---

This has to be one of the worst posts I've seen on BI. You claim Atheists are activists with zero evidence. By your standards, Christians are the KKK and Muslims are Al Qaeda.

It's sad that a top notch education in a wildly diverse community could produce such ignorance and intolerance.

bearblast;842024467 said:

---

you have said it right. He does not need to be religious, but not being religious is different than being an atheist. He can ignore or neglect God all he wants and still win us a Rose Bowl. But an atheist is an activist, he seeks to eradicate belief in God by others. An agnostic is fine, but not an atheist, he will not be able to concentrate on football because the religious kids on the team will drive him crazy.

---

Are you kidding me?
I'm an atheist, and I couldn't care less what God(s) (or the lack thereof) anyone else believes in.

bearblast;842024451 said:

---

True, but the probability of morality is hihger with someone who holds to a belief in God than with an atheist.

---

How do you explain the fact that homicide rates in the US, a deeply religious country, is nearly 4 times higher than in France, a country where only 4% of people ever attend church?

Quote:

---

I have found that a religious man, Jew, catholic, christian, mormon, tends to be far more tolerant than an atheist.

---

So we can imply from your post that catholics aren't christian, and that moslems aren't tolerant, since you haven't included them. So much for tolerance...

both...he's an ass.

bearblast;842024451 said:

---

True, but the probability of morality is hihger with someone who holds to a belief in God than with an atheist.

---

So I'm immoral?

BearlyAggie;842024705 said:

---

So I'm immoral?

---

Yes, you are and so am I.

Atheists have killed millions over the course of history because of their lack of religious beliefs... :sarc:

BMroom;842024626 said:

---

+1

my vote: both

---

I don't think bearblast is a troll.. as the thread progressed his viewpoint became clearer, and it's one that is shared by a lot of religious conservatives in this country, which is this idea that Christianity is under attack (because the nativity scene they've been staging in front of city hall for the past thirty years is suddenly being questioned). a couple of the most visible promoters of church-state-separation court fights have been atheists, so this becomes an atheists-against-Christians thing. I suspect that many theists don't feel like they know many atheists, because many people aren't open about it or even self-identify as such. This all gets wrapped up as "Atheists are activists."

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

chitownbear;842024519 said:

---

What ridiculous hogwash. As are ALL your comments in this thread about religion and atheism.

As for Mormons, they are no more or less "moral" than anyone else. I knew an upight Mormon couple who stole money frm his dying mother. That doesn't cause me to think all Mormons are embezzling, cold-hearted thieves. No, they're just human, and some of them are as rotten as any godless Stalinist.

---

exhibit A

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

Diversity is diversity is diversity. On just the subject of "diversity," why exclude 15% of our population?

That said, What does belief in a divinity or non-belief in a divinity have to do with a game called football?

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

Would you say that we Americans live in a Christian nation?

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

I guess that makes you "athiestically intolerant." I am not religous and I really don't care what you do with your Sunday mornings. Just don't make me do it, too.

I love the idea of "true atheists." Religous believers defining non-believers in religous terms. Atheist - someone who believes there is no god. That definition only makes sense to people who believe there is a god. It is true, I don't share that belief with you, but I am sure there are things I believe that you don't.

If I believed in little purple goats, and then defined you as someone who didn't wouldn't you think that was absurd, not offensive, but certainly absurd?

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

That only happens when you force your religion down to someone else's throat.

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

Seriously, I'm not getting this notion of "true" atheists. It is frankly bizarre. There is no doctrine. You are atheist if you don't believe in god. That is it. Most atheists simply don't care what other people believe in. It is like you are saying "In order to be a true atheist you have to be a militant jackass. So all true atheists I've met have been militant jackasses." There is quite a significant percentage of atheists around. If we were all like that, we would be making life miserable for religious people all over the place. Yes, there is a political issue that some atheists (as well as members of religious faiths) take a restrictive view of what government institutions should do in the area of religion. Historically, though, you'd find that it was more often other faiths that take issue with things like Nativity scenes in the town square. Yes, there are a few attention seekers that make issues out of the pledge or things like that. My experience is that most atheists roll their eyes at them. I know I do.

Would you appreciate it if I defined the only "true" Christians as the most extreme in the group and then called Christians extremists?

BeachyBear;842024719 said:

---

I'm with bearblast on this one. In my experience true athiests are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered. One thing we need in a coach at Cal is respect for diversity, and that means accepting forms of religious expression, not seeking to suppress that expression out of some weird insecurity in one's non-belief in divinity.

---

What about the many atheists you've met who didn't care what you believed, and made no attempt to suppress your right to express yourself? You would not be able to identify those "true" atheists any more than you could say what color underpants they were wearing. If I put on a green necktie and punched you in the face, you would conclude that A) people in green ties are violent and B) people in red ties are peaceful.

OaktownBear;842024789 said:

---

Seriously, I'm not getting this notion of "true" atheists. It is frankly bizarre. There is no doctrine. You are atheist if you don't believe in god. That is it. Most atheists simply don't care what other people believe in. It is like you are saying "In order to be a true atheist you have to be a militant jackass. So all true atheists I've met have been militant jackasses." There is quite a significant percentage of atheists around. If we were all like that, we would be making life miserable for religious people all over the place. Yes, there is a political issue that some atheists (as well as members of religious faiths) take a restrictive view of what government institutions should do in the area of religion. Historically, though, you'd find that it was more often other faiths that take issue with things like Nativity scenes in the town square. Yes, there are a few attention seekers that make issues out of the pledge or things like that. My experience is that most atheists roll their eyes at them. I know I do.

Would you appreciate it if I defined the only "true" Christians as the most extreme in the group and then called Christians extremists?

---

What an interesting thread, and as I'll get to, not really off topic even if it has been moved to Off Topic. It requires at least a 100 page paper, and even that would oversimplify, so I'll just oversimplify while still being long.

As you note, we have an interesting problem one of definition. If you define a "true atheist" as one who doesn't believe in the existence of God or any diety AND is incredibly intolerant of anyone who has faith in a deity or deities, then I would agree that they are religiously intolerant (and how can I not agree with that tautology, eh?), but even then, I can't say they are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered, because I've encoutered people who claim to profess the same faith I do who are certainly AS religiously intolerant as anyone I have encountered. Except perhaps where tolerance of other faiths is part and parcel of the faith, no faiths are without SOME people who are totally intolerant of other faiths, and how you get MORE intolerant than that? Maybe BeachyBear has been lucky, and hasn't encountered the totally intolerant among Christans, Jews, and Muslims.

There are those in this thread who have tried to distinguish between agnostics and atheists. This is a bit of a problem, however, because as the man who coined the term "agnostic" said, agnosticism isn't a creed, it is a method. In a lot of ways, distinguishing between belief and knowledge. Taken to its extreme, agnosticism suggests that other than a tautology, there cannot be absolute certainty in any statement.

I suspect that in this thread, most of those who claim to be atheists are "agnostic atheists" -- they do not believe in the existence of a deity, but do not claim to know with certainty if a deity exists or not. Many people of faith are like I am, an "agnostic theist" - one who does not claim to know with certainty of the existence of any deity, but nonetheless believes in one. Certainly some theologians and religious hierarches try to claim that God is "knowable" in a sense that would reject the concept of being an agnostic theist, but many followers of those religious hierarchies nonetheless would consider themselves to be "agnostic theists." Then there are those who are "agnostic" in the sense that people tend to talk about when they talk about "agnosticism" as a belief or creed as opposed to a method as originally intended, that would be an "apathetic agnostic," one who is open to the existence or non-existence of a deity, and doesn't have a belief either way. That is really the kind of "agnostic" that I think Bertrand Russell referred to in his 1947 writing, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?"

Perhaps by "true atheist," BeachyBear meant one who claims to know with certainty that there is no deity, throwing out "agnostic atheists" from the definition of "true atheist." Those with such a belief are as irrational as those who claim to know with certainty that there is a deity. It does, however, seem to be a silly and incorrect generalization to say that all "true atheists" under that definition are religiously intolerant, just as it is incorrect to say that all those who claim to know with certainty that there is a deity are religiously intolerant.

Interestingly, many religious and spiritual belief systems accept atheism. One does not need to believe in a deity in order to be religious or spiritual. It is inconsistent to be atheist and a follower of one of the religions of Abraham, to be an atheist AND a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim. You will not have a hard time, however, finding an atheist among, for instance, Jains, and I believe you will not find many Jains to be very religiously intolerant, it is generally inconsistent with the belief system. So are they not "true" atheists?

I find it interesting to see an outsider trying to distinguish between a "true" atheist and someone who merely labels himself as atheist but isn't really one. Usually, the "true" label is used by one who belongs to a faith and wishes to deny that those who have a differing perspective within the faith are "true" followers. Among Christians, many in the "right wing," who are frequently self-professed scriptural literalists, often want to label those who do not hold their views of Christianity as not being "true" Christians. Meanwhile, many "progressive" Christians think scriptural literalists manage to ignore the most crucial literal teachings of Jesus in the Bible and believe it was the scriptural literalists that Jesus was fighting against and were responsible for putting Jesus to death, and think there is great irony in Christians who are scriptural literalists. In their own professed tolerance of other beliefs, progressives mostly struggle to avoid saying that scriptural literalists are not "true" Christians. Many try to avoid labeling right-wingers as not "true" Christians by going to a different label, saying there there are "journey" churches and "answer" churches, and, of course the progressives consider themselves to be "journey" churches and the right-wing churches to be "answer" churches.

But NON-Christians rarely get into debates about who is a "true" Christian and who isn't. Interesting to see a non-atheist try to suggest that some professed atheists are not "true" atheists.

In the end, a belief with respect to deities is irrational. The only truly rational belief in this arena comes from the apathetic agnostic, with no belief in the existence OR non-existence of a deity or deities. There is, however, rational process applied to irrational belief, the understanding that the irrational belief is not known with any certainty, i.e., the understanding that the irrational belief is irrational.

It is, however, human nature to be irrational. Love is irrational. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with having an irrational belief regarding a deity or deities anymore than having an irrational affection for the California Golden Bears football team.

Why do we follow the Bears? Why do we love the Bears? Because it makes us happy? Wow, if you pay much attention to these boards, it is clear that FAR too much of the time, it makes us unhappy. The fair weather fans are far more rational than us, they just leave when things are going poorly so as to avoid unhappiness. So what is wrong with the rest of us here? We irrationally love the Bears, but why? Why do some of us have faith in a deity when it is irrational to do so? Are the answers to these last 2 questions the same?

Is it bad to have religious intolerance, yet OK to have college football team intolerance? We should tolerate all faiths yet we should not tolerate fans of USC and Stanford? What about people who don't believe in college football at all? Are they better or worse than USC or Stanford fans?

In the end, being a Bears football fan really isn't any different than being a follower of a faith, so how the heck is this off topic, why isn't this still on Growls?

How is this BS thread the most popular one on BI today?

Cal8285;842024909 said:

---

What an interesting thread, and as I'll get to, not really off topic even if it has been moved to Off Topic. It requires at least a 100 page paper, and even that would oversimplify, so I'll just oversimplify while still being long.

As you note, we have an interesting problem one of definition. If you define a "true atheist" as one who doesn't believe in the existence of God or any diety AND is incredibly intolerant of anyone who has faith in a deity or deities, then I would agree that they are religiously intolerant (and how can I not agree with that tautology, eh?), but even then, I can't say they are the most religiously intolerant people I've encountered, because I've encoutered people who claim to profess the same faith I do who are certainly AS religiously intolerant as anyone I have encountered. Except perhaps where tolerance of other faiths is part and parcel of the faith, no faiths are without SOME people who are totally intolerant of other faiths, and how you get MORE intolerant than that? Maybe BeachyBear has been lucky, and hasn't encountered the totally intolerant among Christans, Jews, and Muslims.

There are those in this thread who have tried to distinguish between agnostics and atheists. This is a bit of a problem, however, because as the man who coined the term "agnostic" said, agnosticism isn't a creed, it is a method. In a lot of ways, distinguishing between belief and knowledge. Taken to its extreme, agnosticism suggests that other than a tautology, there cannot be absolute certainty in any statement.

I suspect that in this thread, most of those who claim to be atheists are "agnostic atheists" -- they do not believe in the existence of a deity, but do not claim to know with certainty if a deity exists or not. Many people of faith are like I am, an "agnostic theist" - one who does not claim to know with certainty of the existence of any deity, but nonetheless believes in one. Certainly some theologians and religious hierarches try to claim that God is "knowable" in a sense that would reject the concept of being an agnostic theist, but many followers of those religious hierarchies nonetheless would consider themselves to be "agnostic theists." Then there are those who are "agnostic" in the sense that people tend to talk about when they talk about "agnosticism" as a belief or creed as opposed to a method as originally intended, that would be an "apathetic agnostic," one who is open to the existence or non-existence of a deity, and doesn't have a belief either way. That is really the kind of "agnostic" that I think Bertrand Russell referred to in his 1947 writing, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?"

Perhaps by "true atheist," BeachyBear meant one who claims to know with certainty that there is no deity, throwing out "agnostic atheists" from the definition of "true atheist." Those with such a belief are as irrational as those who claim to know with certainty that there is a deity. It does, however, seem to be a silly and incorrect generalization to say that all "true atheists" under that definition are religiously intolerant, just as it is incorrect to say that all those who claim to know with certainty that there is a deity are religiously intolerant.

Interestingly, many religious and spiritual belief systems accept atheism. One does not need to believe in a deity in order to be religious or spiritual. It is inconsistent to be atheist and a follower of one of the religions of Abraham, to be an atheist AND a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim. You will not have a hard time, however, finding an atheist among, for instance, Jains, and I believe you will not find many Jains to be very religiously intolerant, it is generally inconsistent with the belief system. So are they not "true" atheists?

I find it interesting to see an outsider trying to distinguish between a "true" atheist and someone who merely labels himself as atheist but isn't really one. Usually, the "true" label is used by one who belongs to a faith and wishes to deny that those who have a differing perspective within the faith are "true" followers. Among Christians, many in the "right wing," who are frequently self-professed scriptural literalists, often want to label those who do not hold their views of Christianity as not being "true" Christians. Meanwhile, many "progressive" Christians think scriptural literalists manage to ignore the most crucial literal teachings of Jesus in the Bible and believe it was the scriptural literalists that Jesus was fighting against and were responsible for putting Jesus to death, and think there is great irony in Christians who are scriptural literalists. In their own professed tolerance of other beliefs, progressives mostly struggle to avoid saying that scriptural literalists are not "true" Christians. Many try to avoid labeling right-wingers as not "true" Christians by going to a different label, saying there there are "journey" churches and "answer" churches, and, of course the progressives consider themselves to be "journey" churches and the right-wing churches to be "answer" churches.

But NON-Christians rarely get into debates about who is a "true" Christian and who isn't. Interesting to see a non-atheist try to suggest that some professed atheists are not "true" atheists.

In the end, a belief with respect to deities is irrational. The only truly rational belief in this arena comes from the apathetic agnostic, with no belief in the existence OR non-existence of a deity or deities. There is, however, rational process applied to irrational belief, the understanding that the irrational belief is not known with any certainty, i.e., the understanding that the irrational belief is irrational.

It is, however, human nature to be irrational. Love is irrational. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with having an irrational belief regarding a deity or deities anymore than having an irrational affection for the California Golden Bears football team.

Why do we follow the Bears? Why do we love the Bears? Because it makes us happy? Wow, if you pay much attention to these boards, it is clear that FAR too much of the time, it makes us unhappy. The fair weather fans are far more rational than us, they just leave when things are going poorly so as to avoid unhappiness. So what is wrong with the rest of us here? We irrationally love the Bears, but why? Why do some of us have faith in a deity when it is irrational to do so? Are the answers to these last 2 questions the same?

Is it bad to have religious intolerance, yet OK to have college football team intolerance? We should tolerate all faiths yet we should not tolerate fans of USC and Stanford? What about people who don't believe in college football at all? Are they better or worse than USC or Stanford fans?

In the end, being a Bears football fan really isn't any different than being a follower of a faith, so how the heck is this off topic, why isn't this still on Growls?

---

The agnostic atheist argument, IMO, is often use to muddle things with semantics. Am I dead certain? No. To me, their is an unanswerable question - why does anything exist at all? Science can answer how the universe was created back to the big bang. Can it answer further? Maybe, but it will never be able to answer whether our knowable current universe "just exists" or whether there was something that preceded it or that maybe created it.

But I don't believe there is a god the way that man conceives of a god. I believe if there is something out there beyond our knowledge, it is not going to be anything close to what any of the religions describe. Is it possible? Yeah because it can't be proven. But I can't prove that Big Bird didn't create the universe. My saying that doesn't make me an agnostic Big Birdist. Essentially, the person claiming I'm an agnostic atheist is in the position of impersonating Jim Carrey saying "so you're saying there's a chance".

I'm as certain as I can be about anything. But I also acknowlege that there are billions of people who are equally certain in beliefs that are inconsistent with mine. I try and respect that. But I'm not more or less firm in my beliefs than people of various religions just because I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in my certainty.

foggybear;842024901 said:

---

What about the many atheists you've met who didn't care what you believed, and made no attempt to suppress your right to express yourself? You would not be able to identify those "true" atheists any more than you could say what color underpants they were wearing. If I put on a green necktie and punched you in the face, you would conclude that A) people in green ties are violent and B) people in red ties are peaceful.

---

I don't know about peaceful; we do know they're generally douchey

#fervently upholding growls family values.

BMroom;842024626 said:

---

Quote: [This message is hidden because bearblast is on BMroom's ignore list.]

---

There's an idea there somewhere BMroom.

#sneaks off to add bearblast-r to sinical's ignored list too.

Cal88;842024692 said:

---

How do you explain the fact that homicide rates in the US, a deeply religious country, is nearly 4 times higher than in France, a country where only 4% of people ever attend church?

---

Sorry to up the chance of the thread getting moved to OT/Trashy.

#too late?? DARN!

OaktownBear;842025025 said:

---

The agnostic atheist argument, IMO, is often use to muddle things with semantics. Am I dead certain? No. To me, their is an unanswerable question - why does anything exist at all? Science can answer how the universe was created back to the big bang. Can it answer further? Maybe, but it will never be able to answer whether our knowable current universe "just exists" or whether there was something that preceded it or that maybe created it.

But I don't believe there is a god the way that man conceives of a god. I believe if there is something out there beyond our knowledge, it is not going to be anything close to what any of the religions describe. Is it possible? Yeah because it can't be proven. But I can't prove that Big Bird didn't create the universe. My saying that doesn't make me an agnostic Big Birdist. Essentially, the person claiming I'm an agnostic atheist is in the position of impersonating Jim Carrey saying "so you're saying there's a chance".

I'm as certain as I can be about anything. But I also acknowlege that there are billions of people who are equally certain in beliefs that are inconsistent with mine. I try and respect that. But I'm not more or less firm in my beliefs than people of various religions just because I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in my certainty.

---

I think you are confused by the semantics, and the Big Bird argument helps show why.

Your Big Bird argument is similar to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. If Russell claims that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, he shouldn't expect you to believe him just because you cannot prove him wrong. You are not an agnostic teapotist, because you are not a teapotist, you don't believe in the teapot, you are an ateapotist, but since you acknowledge there is a chance, you are an agnostic ateapotist. When you don't believe Big Bird created the universe but, in best Jim Carrey fashion, you are saying that there's a chance Big Bird created the universe, you are not an agnostic Big Birdist, rather, you are an agnostic aBig Birdist.

I think what muddles things is trying to say that one is either a theist, an atheist, or agnostic, when it may be better to say that one is either a theist, atheist, or apathetic. And there is probably a better word than apathetic, but I don't want to take the time to figure out the best word.

Even Russell muddled things at times by saying in connection with the teapot example, "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist," because he thinks that the chance of there being a Christian God is the same as the chance of there being a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. The problem is that Russell is both an atheist and an agnostic, he shouldn't be suggesting it is either or when, at least by the definition of Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the term, in Russell's case (and apparently in yours) it is both.

An enormous percentage of Christians, including an enormous number of Christian theologians, can properly be called agnostic Christians, because they acknowlege a chance that the whole Jesus thing is hogwash. Many of those are also agnostic theists, because they acknowledge a chance that there is no God.

If we consider agnostic to have the meaning intended by Thomas Henry Huxley, then in my perhaps not so humble opinion, all persons of intelligence should be agnostic. Being agnostic really just means acknowledging the unknowable -- don't pretend conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

You agree with many theologians when you say there is an unanswerable quesion -- why does anything exist at all? Most of those who firmly believe in God think that is an unanswerable question, because even if "God" is creator of the known universe, we still have the question, why does God exist? It doesn't matter whether you pursue science or faith, there are unanswerable questions.

You also agree with many theologians, both Judeo-Christian and otherwise, when you say, "I don't believe there is a god the way that man conceives of a god. I believe if there is something out there beyond our knowledge, it is not going to be anything close to what any of the religions describe." Now, those theologians don't put it the way you do, because they do believe in the existence of a god. But those theologians do believe that no matter how we try to conceive of God, we aren't close, God is beyond our knowledge. Humans have a need to make God understandable, and God isn't understandable.

There are theists who are more certain than you, because they won't even let Jim Carrey's quote in the door, then there are all the agnostic theists, some of whom are as certain as you, but based upon the level of certainty you seem to express, there are certainly hundreds of millions, if not billions, who are far more uncertain than you. That shouldn't be a shock, because rationally, the atheist position is more tenable than the theist position. Thus, on the whole, theists are more likely to be uncertain in their position than atheists. Doesn't mean those hundreds of millions or billions aren't firm in their positions, it is just a firm position that acknowledges doubt.

Indeed, there are many theists who believe that without doubt, there is no faith, but that is a completely different discussion.

There is another question here, that is the question of motivation. People of faith [U]want [/U]others to at least acknowledge the possibility, even if they don't believe in god, Christ, the bible, etc. Because then they can say, "So even you acknowledge there is a chance," thereby strengthening their "faith."

(You don't have to win the argument if your opponent stipulates to the possibility of you being right even when they believe you are wrong.)

The "atheist" doesn't need/want/care if the faithful allow for the possibility that God doesn't exist. The "atheist" doesn't care what the faithful thinks about god, an idea that the "atheist" rejects in the first place. Thus, your use of the word "apathetic" is very close. Perhaps "indifferent" might convey it better.

Only the faithful are interested in whether someone allows for the possibility of the existence of god. The non-believer does not care about this distinction and therefore doesn't see the need to use it. I would take it a step further and say I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist. I would say I am not religious. These other terms are only meaningful to people who are religious, and then only used to identify me as different from them. I have no use for these terms. The only time I use them is for the benefit of a religious person because I know they will understand.