That by definition is agnosticism.

Agnosticism

If your belief about the absolute knowledge of God is uncertain (i.e. that you have any amount of uncertainty, even 0.10%), then you are technically agnostic in regards to the existence of God.

I agree with you that this is functionally restrictive, and subsequently increases the groups of thought that commonly wouldn't be placed in the category of agnosticism. But that's the textbook definition of an agnostic.

What you suggest would destroy the fundie movement. Putting thought into something goes against their religion.

Well, thank you for clarifying.
When you are admittedly bashing people, calling them ignorant and stupid, while using broad general classifications like "monkey" it's anything but clear where you are headed with that.
The qualifier that you are not attacking Evolution or defending Creationism doesn't go far when you are slinging around phrases like that.

fundamentalism is the most horrific monster humanity has ever created. kill it with fire.

This is faith in the less restrictive sense or lay usage if you will. It's not the same as the more restrictive usage of faith (or Faith as you say). Comparing the two is kinda silly.

But more to the point, saying the restrictive usage of faith (or Faith) equals a religion is equally as silly. I think the problem is that because some people associate Faith with religion, you think that all people do that, and it's silly. You know my personal feelings on the subject, but placing atheism in a category of Faith does not automatically mean that it's being relegated to the category of religion. Religion is a social organization. Atheists are faithful to a belief, but if they're not organized, then they're not a religion. Faith does not require religion, and from a social perspective religion really doesn't require faith.

But he's right, those people do exist whether they understand science for what it is or not, and he's also correct that those people are practicing a faith in science.

HEY !!
I thought you said it was not for you to tell anyone whether they were Atheist or not ??

Agnostic Atheist ?

And I thought we spent a lot of time yesterday determining that there is a hugely varied " text book " definition of Agnosticism ?

I am going to stay away from defining malkav11s personal beliefs.
BUT as I've repeatedly said now, Atheism is defined by a simple lack of theistic belief system. You can still have all the uncertainty of an Agnostic and be an Atheist. The idea that it's so black and white that if you have .01 % of uncertainty you are an agnostic is ludicrous.

As I mentioned above, being an Atheist does not preclude having any beliefs or faith. It still does not make Atheism A Faith in a religious sense. Which is the definition that we are trying to distinguish.
If you say that Atheism is A Faith, that is wrong, and somewhat offensive to Atheist. If you say an Atheist has faith, thats perfectly acceptable in the context.

I'm just saying that's the technical definition. It really isn't for me to tell someone else who or what they are.

Certainly...

There certainly are, what I defined above would be the broadest all encompassing category. Like we said, you could go on to further divide that into categories.

Technically (again technically) that is untrue. Atheism is the "belief or doctrine in the absence of God". According to the dictionary it's a belief system, not the absence of a belief system (not that I really think there is a practical difference.

That's the technical definition. I also said that it's functionally restrictive (the bottom of the comment you responded to). Meaning essentially, that it's not really useful in categorizing groups of thought/belief. So yeah, it is a bit silly, but it is what it is. Blame Webster.

yes, i know, which is why i went into what science is (from my perspective and a simplified version of what most scientists would describe it as), in the hopes one might seek to enlighten others in the future.

it's what i do, at least.

I thought he was pretty clear.

"monkey" is not a "broad general classification", it is a pretty specific term, meaning a group of families of the primate order.

To state that humans evolved from monkeys is simply wrong, and unsupported by any evidence or indeed any theoretical framework. It demonstrates an ignorance of what how evolution works, and how our classification of species relates to our understanding of evolution.

That said, I do disagree with motorfirebox's basic point that ignorant/unquestioning belief in religion and similar belief in scientific explanation are equivalent. They are certainly both frustrating. But, where former is the ultimate end of religious belief (ie to test, question and be sceptical is discouraged and destroys the belief itself), in the latter even the ignorant "believer" is basing their knowledge on a system which is subject to scientific rigour, and revision, even if they themselves do not take the time to understand all, or even basic, aspects of it. The fact that others do, though, validates their position. They can, when challenged, refer to others, whose understanding of the evidence is better, and meaningful discourse and enquiry can result in the either the revision or reaffirmation of the challenged idea, depending on the evidence.

When a religious idea is challenged, it makes little difference if the defender is a professor of theology or a nutcase, the argument will end with core religious beliefs, which are by their nature unchanging and will not be swayed by new evidence.

Well, IIRC my comment which sparked this whole discussion was that atheists have just as much faith as a theist (if not more). I'm not concerned with whether or not they're considered a Faith or a religion. One could argue that having faith in a belief means you're part of a faith system, or a Faith, and for the sake of my sanity I'm not going to (which still doesn't mean it's a religion). But yeah, Atheism is not a religion, and if you use the term Faith with the connotation of a socially organized belief system, then you'd be incorrect.

And that's why I love you. I was a little confused, just figured I'd clarify, because that's what I do!

I'm not at all sure that having Faith as defined by religion could possibly be construed as less demanding a standard than having faith in observable factual evidence or that the two are even remotely equal but. . . you are welcome to your beliefs.

Honestly, I don't. I was just observing the logic that you can't prove a negative (God doesn't exist), whereas you can prove a positive (God does exist). According to the rigors of logic you can find proof that God exists, whereas you can't find proof he doesn't exist. Thus, it would seemingly be easier to believe in God. Like I said, I don't really believe that. I think practically they're probably equivalent. You could examine it from a psychological perspective, but I have neither the time nor the desire to do that.