Great, I asked a question, I didn’t attempt to disprove anything. Ironically, you took me asking a question as an attack and then explained a premise I already had to have understood to even ask the question. Afterwards, you claimed that my question made me look stupid. I’m sure you down voted me as well. Good job!

I guess I could rephrase it into, why should I believe in a magical being that ignores all scientific laws and can do whatever it wants? I feel you’d explain the premise of god and call me stupid anyway. Then you’d go on to say that it actually reasonable to not believe in god.

“Not believing in God or any other religion because it can’t be proven is reasonable. That would be agnosticism. Atheism, however, is the confident belief that no God or god could possibly exist. That certainty requires a level of belief in the completeness of human knowledge that is pure hubris. It is essentially a religion of its own, even though it does not worship.“

This paragraph is actually relevant to my question. The issue is atheist is often used to mean agnostic. Further, if I am confident no god exist because it’s never been proven to me, am I stupid? Since your definition of atheist is being confident that no god exist.

Great, I asked a question, I didn’t attempt to disprove anything. Ironically, you took me asking a question as an attack and then explained a premise I already had to have understood to even ask the question. Afterwards, you claimed that my question made me look stupid. I’m sure you down voted me as well. Good job!

I guess I could rephrase it into, why should I believe in a magical being that ignores all scientific laws and can do whatever it wants? I feel you’d explain the premise of god and call me stupid anyway. Then you’d go on to say that it actually reasonable to not believe in god.

“Not believing in God or any other religion because it can’t be proven is reasonable. That would be agnosticism. Atheism, however, is the confident belief that no God or god could possibly exist. That certainty requires a level of belief in the completeness of human knowledge that is pure hubris. It is essentially a religion of its own, even though it does not worship.“

This paragraph is actually relevant to my question. The issue is atheist is often used to mean agnostic. Further, if I am confident no god exist because it’s never been proven to me, am I stupid?

Great, I asked a question, I didn’t attempt to disprove anything. Ironically, you took me asking a question as an attack and then explained a premise I already had to have understood and to even ask the question. Afterwards, you again called me stupid. I’m sure you down voted me as well. Good job!

I guess I could rephrase it into, why should I believe in a magical being that ignores all scientific laws and can do whatever it wants? I feel you’d explain the premise of god and call me stupid anyway. Then you’d go on to say that it actually reasonable to not believe in god.

“Not believing in God or any other religion because it can’t be proven is reasonable. That would be agnosticism. Atheism, however, is the confident belief that no God or god could possibly exist. That certainty requires a level of belief in the completeness of human knowledge that is pure hubris. It is essentially a religion of its own, even though it does not worship.“

This paragraph is actually relevant to my question. The issue is atheist is often used to mean agnostic. Further, if I am confident no god exist because it’s never been proven to me, am I stupid?

Great, I asked a question, I didn’t attempt to disprove anything. Ironically, you took me asking a question as an attack and then explained a premise I already had to have understood and accepted to even ask the question. Afterwards, you again called me stupid. I’m sure you down voted me as well. Good job!

I guess I could rephrase it into, why should I believe in a magical being that ignores all scientific laws and can do whatever it wants? I feel you’d explain the premise of god and call me stupid anyway. Then you’d go on to say that it actually reasonable to not believe in god.

“Not believing in God or any other religion because it can’t be proven is reasonable. That would be agnosticism. Atheism, however, is the confident belief that no God or god could possibly exist. That certainty requires a level of belief in the completeness of human knowledge that is pure hubris. It is essentially a religion of its own, even though it does not worship.“

This paragraph is actually relevant to my question. The issue is atheist is often used to mean agnostic. Further, if I am confident no god exist because it’s never been proven to me, am I stupid?

Great, I asked a question, I didn’t attempt to disprove anything. Ironically, you took me asking a question as an attack and then explained a premise I already had to have understood and accepted to even ask the question. Afterwards, you again called me stupid. I’m sure you down voted me as well. Good job!

“Not believing in God or any other religion because it can’t be proven is reasonable. That would be agnosticism. Atheism, however, is the confident belief that no God or god could possibly exist. That certainty requires a level of belief in the completeness of human knowledge that is pure hubris. It is essentially a religion of its own, even though it does not worship.“

This paragraph is actually relevant to my question. The issue is atheist is often used to mean agnostic. Further, if I am confident no god exist because it’s never been proven to me, am I stupid?