That sounds more like agnosticism, which to me is more logical than atheism, but it also implies to me a faith/belief/trust in naturalism and purely natural explanations.
(I know some non-theists don't like to be accused of having "faith" so I use other terms like belief and trust.)
Don't make mistake of thinking agnosticism is a midpoint on a spectrum between theist and atheist. Most atheists have a strong appreciation for science and healthy skeptical thinking, thus an aversion to 100% certainty about anything, therefore most would fall into the category of "agnostic atheists".
Conversely, the very nature of religious faith, would mean most theists should be, or perhaps our commanded to be, gnostic theists. #themoreyouknow
Thanks for sharing this chart. I see an agnostic and an atheist as different things. The agnostic says they don't know whether there is a God, while the atheist claims to know for certain there is no God (something no atheist can have enough knowledge to know).
I think God's goal is for us all to eventually become 100% certain He exists, and He could have easily done that in so many different ways, but then there would be no place for faith, which the Bible says pleases God. I know that many theists may claim 100% certainty that God exists or to definitely know Him, but I'm not sure one reaches 100% certainty until you see Him face to face. According to the Bible, there were some people who had direct, physical encounters with God, so they would certainly have 100% certainty, but that is not the experience of most humans, including theists.
###
Don't get bogged down in semantics. Anytime spent arguing about definitions is wasted. Frequently, it's merely a distraction from having a meaningful conversation.
I like Ray Comfort's question.
> Do you believe in the scientific impossibility that nothing made everything?
Now, you're not arguing definitions and the person is forced deal with the implication of their worldview.
Meaningful conversation is definitely a better way to go, but a good conversation can't get started unless terms are defined otherwise people end up talking past each other. Moreover, Ray Comforts question is worded dishonestly, and designed to trip people up.
What ray is getting at deals with quantum mechanics so it's not surprising that many people including him misunderstand completely.
Short version: https://youtu.be/JIDmzLfk0K0
Long version: https://youtu.be/YUe0_4rdj0U
Thanks for sharing those links. I did watch the shorter of the two videos. This podcast (audio/transcript) where William Lane Craig responded to Lawrence Krause's arguments underscores the importance of how words are being used. I think Craig does a good job of explaining how that Krause's "nothing" from which he alleges the universe came into being is not actually nothing:
"He ignores the philosophical distinctions between something and nothing, and says science is going to define these terms; it's going to tell us what nothing is. And what he winds up doing is not using the word nothing as a term of universal negation to mean not anything, he just uses the word nothing as a label for different physical states of affairs, like the quantum vacuum, which is empty space filled with vacuum energy, which is clearly not nothing as any philosopher would tell you. It is something. It has properties. It is a physical reality. ...So when he says there's not a great deal of difference between something and nothing it's very evident that he's not talking about nothing in the sense of universal negation – not anything. He means the quantum vacuum or a state of affairs, a physical state of affairs, where classical space and time don't exist."
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/a-universe-from-nothing
It's important to keep in mind the context about which we're speaking. Krauss is an astrophysicist. He's referring to nothing as the "cosmic soup" of virtual particles from which a big bang event could occur. In fact it may be the case that his version of nothing is the only type that can exist at all. That would mean absent all of the "stuff" that we know makes up a universe, a big bang would be inevitable. The implication that Krauss shows, is that a universe can come from nothing, no creator necessary.
#### Do what
>... Ray Comforts question is worded dishonestly,...
Can you explain that?
##### Krause
Krause is being dishonest when he uses the phrase "nothing". It doesn't take a scientist to know what nothing is. That's why they laughed at him. He tried redefining the term to mean something.
