Can anyone prove to me why atheism is true, and why I and the rest of mankind should be atheists?

Can anyone prove to me why atheism is true, and why I and the rest of mankind should be atheists?

Attached: atheism.jpg (2000x1000, 241K)

Why is this on Yea Forums

because I need smart people

I don’t like how people think they can say what’s better for other people. I also don’t like how people can’t converse with people who have different opinions.

No

Attached: Chris Langan's answer to Is Atheism as indefensible a position as believing in God is, from a p (648x1142, 131K)

youre in the wrong place chief

Wrong board lol. Lit is definitely in the top 5 dumbest boards on Yea Forums. Everyone here is delusional and thick as a brick.

That proved nothing, I need facts and evidence.

lit is a swedenborgian board, sorry sweetie

No atheist would tell you that everyone should be atheists, they just don't think people should define god by what someone else told them god is. It's a perversion of what spirituality should be to just turn your brain off and take another man's words for gospel. We're not NPCs, we should each find our own meaning of life and go through our own unique struggles to find who we are.

What an idiot lmao. This is why sci laughs at lit

>illusion
>delusion
Prove it.

I’m just on a different level dude

Attached: 03B673F2-A3D4-47E0-BDEC-A01393AC0BAC.jpg (750x1036, 148K)

not a lot of facts here, just opinions.

Stop saying this. If you don't actively believe in the non-existence of God, you're not an atheist, period. The burden of proof therefore lies on the atheist to reinforce his position.

What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? Obviously, in order to distinguish between an atheist and a non-atheist, two questions must be answered: (1) “Do you believe in the existence of God?”; (2) “Do you believe in the nonexistence of God?” An agnostic answers NO to both questions; an atheist answers NO to 1 and YES to 2. Failing to answer YES to question 2 while calling oneself an “atheist” amounts to declaring oneself both an atheist and an agnostic; the terms become effectively redundant. This fails to provide enough information to determine one’s theological stance vis-a-vis the existence of God. The only way around this is to claim that an atheist differs epistemologically from an agnostic, somehow “knowing” that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God can be conclusively established. However, this too entails a burden of proof, and we don’t see this burden being met.

So the bottom line is that if you want to call yourself an atheist, then you must believe in the nonexistence of God, period … and once again, you have a burden of proof to that effect. Otherwise, you’re just a garden variety agnostic, and in that case, you shouldn’t be butting into theological discussions as though you have anything definite to say. Nor should you be claiming the rational high ground without rational justification of your own.

I believe in God but it's not a moral one

Material reality is just reality. And people are not religious just because it gives them meaning, thats retarded, people actually believe the claims made by them because they believe it best describes the reality around them. Everyone should be atheist because no one should be delusional. And sure, im not advocating for state enforced atheism, just that it would be better if everyone was atheist. I also smoke cigarettes but im not delusional.

Wow, so youre retarded autist AND a kid. Nice.

>Material reality is just reality.
How do you know?

you guys are stupid

Yeah, well, at least I have an argument. Or is your default position that there is no objective logic or truth and everything is random?

mentalgymnastics.txt

We cant see EM waves but theyre still part of material reality. Everything thats real is part of material reality. If god was real it would be part of material reality. People claim things outside the realm of material reality if either they dont understand it or if its something they came up with, aka make belief.

What we think of the universe is in reality just the gut flora of an unfathomably large member of a race of titans, who are themselves residing in the bowel of a larger being, ad infinitum. Prove me wrong, christfags. Protip: you can't.

I'm asking you to provide some evidence that the material world exists, physically, outside of your mind.

>Everything thats real is part of material reality. If god was real it would be part of material reality.
Proof?

Why does the infinite chain exist? What is the reason behind it?

Lmao. All you did was redefine the word god and claimed victory. Jesus christ youre even more retarded than I thought if you still dont realize how shit your "argument" is. I would suggest you to read up on basic logic but clearly youre a lost cause. People like you is the reason i come to lit, youre so retarded it makes me feel superior to you and provides me with a lot of entertainment.

God is either a null entity, one with no deterministic physical consequence and thus no possibility of evidence or specification as to its nature, or God is simply the universe itself, all of its physical states and natural laws, due to the preconditions of being omniscient/present/powerful.
Religious gods that are derived from and defended by man in all their diverse forms solely are elaborated to cope with a finite perspective of the universe in both time and space, often leading to highly culturally and ethnically specific systems that state moral and epistemological axiomatic nonsensicals of an innocent or malicient variety.

Atheism is merely the realization that belief in God is inconsequential to the universe and natural forces at large. Religion and spirituality have never been about truth or fact, and neither is irreligiosity and atheism. Its up to you, but if you choose religion then you are on the wrong side of history.

ITT retarded christcucks seething and grunting, reciting arguments made 200 years ago that have been debunked numerous times. Funny, I laugh at people like you every day.

>I can't prove that it exists but it does
>I can't prove that it doesn't exist but it doesn't
>repeat for millennia

humans are really just dumb

>he didn't get at least a 12 on the writing section
this board isn't for crayon-eaters. please go

>ITT retarded christcucks seething and grunting, reciting arguments made 200 years ago that have been debunked numerous times. Funny, I laugh at people like you every day.

Attached: yQAwkHn.png (900x900, 727K)

Thats self evident.
Its the definition of material reality. It should be self evident, what i said. How do you define it then?

>What is the reason behind it?
Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.

God is I Am, as the Bible says. He necessarily exists, containing everything, all truths, the cause of everything. If anything necessarily exists, it is that which is the cause of any existence: Truth or reason. God is Truth. Without some necessary cause, then what is the explanation of existence? Why do natural laws exist necessarily? Again, as I said, even if your argument is that everything randomly arose from nothingness, then this process is actually logical. For example, there is the argument that since nothing prevented existence from arising, it can happen, and it did. But is this not a reason, and therefore a cause of existence? So this logic or truth necessarily exists. If nothing necessarily exists, then nothing will exist. What do you think necessarily exists, and why?

>Its the definition of material reality
What is? Who defined it? Why do you believe it?

The senses provide a very accurate evidence of a part of the material reality, others parts are not very apparent by sense-data alone and have to be deduced by reason, this latters parts of reality are not product of the mind because they were here before any mind sprang from existence, and will be after..

Your evidence is "it's self evident". Woah................................. so.... this.......... is the power of materialism.................................

>He necessarily exists, containing everything, all truths, the cause of everything.
Even evil, heretic?

Isaiah 45:7
Corinthians 1:16

It's your journey, faggot. Figure it out on your own and use what works for you.

Show us how you look then, chad (with a timestamp). Oh, you wont? Not photogenic today huh?
Define materialism, incel larper.

Existence is much different than what you may think.

I know what doesnt exist: a brain in your head

What piece of literature are you referring to?

The burden of proof rests with theists, since they assert an existence. A god can be added to (or removed from) your picture of the world with no difference in its intelligibility. The better our ability to model the world's behavior, the more any god's causal power has to be relegated. They don't cause crops to fail, weather and climate do, etc. The only remaining realm that any god can act in is morality, and it should be clear that no world religion claiming the existence of God(s) provides a perfect moral system. said it better.

The world is spooky and hard to understand. Some process created the universe, and we don't know what it was. There's no need, though, to invent ghosts. I'm interested, what do you mean by God? What do you think God can do/does?

I don’t doubt that you believe that. Anyone who rejects truth will believe in anything, after all.

>Material reality is just reality.
Not quite, quantum physicists will tell you it's not. It would be irrational to believe everyone on earth could subscribe to one version of reality because everyone experiences life differently. Go tell /pol/ white privilege is real or that cops are bad and always have been and see how that goes.

>And people are not religious just because it gives them meaning, thats retarded, people actually believe the claims made by them because they believe it best describes the reality around them.
Don't kid yourself, you and I both know people would still believe in the Bible even if we had conclusive archaeological evidence to contradict every single word in it. Sure some people consider the Bible as historical fact, but you can't say they all do.

I don't care. I'm just saying there's insufficient evidence that a god exists and that's all that anyone should care about. Agree or disagree?

>Quantum popsci mumbo jumbo
This is the final move of the incel christcuck larper. No more arguments to defend your position? Aim to confuse your opponent by muh quantum. Deepak Chopra would be proud.
Most nonsuperficially religious christcucks believe it as historical fact. If they reject archeological data, they are just being delusional, theres nothing you can do about it. Thats why being a christcuck is so bad: it clouds your thinking. You seem to actually be just a larper, not an actual christian. Kys

Dude you just said our understanding of reality changed with technology. If there are things outside of our senses that exist, who's to say there is not some supernatural entity we just can't observe yet or ever will?

>quantum physicists will tell you it's not
What do you mean by that? I wonder if you're misunderstanding how you should apply spooky results like tunneling or entanglement to a picture of reality. It's not that those imply something "beyond" the material, it's just that the material is a little stranger than we expected. If you're echoing Deepak Chopra memes, he does not know what he's talking about and you should not look to him for interpretations of quantum physics.

An umbrella term so strictly speaking saying there's no evidence for god has to either be admitted to not be well defined or that there's some interpretations of god that exist like George Carlin's sun worship, if you really wanna stretch it. That said, the gods most people apply that label to don't have sufficient evidence. The philosophical concepts of him don't, besides perhaps a Spinoza type one, and the religious ones don't.

>The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.

>just that it would be better if everyone was atheist.
inside a system founded entirely around christianity? sure

What system, retard? Liberal democracy?

My God is the cause of all things. I don’t know who you’re worshipping or what Bible you’re reading.

any literature you can use to prove atheism

>However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

>what Bible you’re reading
the correct one

then what does it mean, huh

it means I'm gonna pin you to the floor and fire a fat deuce straight down your throat

>why atheism is true
because there are atheists

but is it the true path?

This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen on Yea Forums, like worse than Baneposting and gore threads

Maybe religion was never about god

What's it about then?

If god can't possibly be proven then how is god even what religion is about? What it's about is godliness through the practice of religion.

obviously god does not exist, but all of mankind should not be atheists. I wish I was religious then finding answers and meaning wouldnt be so damn hard.

>obviously god does not exist
prove it then, if it's so obvious. right here, right now.

He can't, but it doesn't really matter because there's insufficient evidence that a god exists.

/thread

you're forcing an answer unjustifiably

Yes except that's like saying aleprechaunism (or any conceivable metaphysical conception) is an irresolvable paradox. Goddamnman how can you not see that?

Religions satisfy their followers. They give you a sense of meaning, comfort with your mortality, community to reinforce their convictions. They're all limited to the knowledge of their creators and the knowledge of their time, obfuscated through iterations, yes, but still incapable of withstanding the modern revelations of our developing scientific theories.

You're just a follower because it pacifies you and your family or friends pushed it on you. None of your own mind has gone into what you believe only your ignorance. Religion feeds on your inherent selfishness.

People are satisfied without religion... they just make up their own. Religion directs you to good..

Why is something good? Because god says so, or regardless of god's opinions?

>he doesn't unironically worship the Moon
möl ksaokre kus cawjyarö, owotyöjya

Attached: 1550629358128.jpg (461x461, 34K)

neither

Good is morality, god is morality personified, religion is god organized

Are the conduct and character of god considered the epitome of morality because they are his, or are his conduct and character his because they are the epitome of morality?

The epitome of morality is considered god, so the latter

The first case states that god's having of a characteristic causes that characteristic to be good. The second case states that god's having of a characteristic was caused by the characteristic being good in the first place without him. In that case, god just happens to instantiate ideal morality and humans can learn to be maximally moral independent of god. At best god can act as a wise teacher who leads you down the right path, but the path is not one he himself created.

>nobody is acknowledging Moon worship, even after I brought it up
Yea Forums zok üv

How can I prove that God exists if I can't even prove that I exist ?

>"I think therefore I exist"

Seriously, you haven't heard of this, how old are you?

Because this is the philosophy board (/his/ sucks and anyway this fits here better IMO).

I know they're repeated ad nauseam and have the r/atheism reputation, but the problem of evil and Russel's Teapot are the best arguments. I've never heard a sound response to either of them.

You cant disprove subjective belief because it is not based on facts or evidence to begin with
End of discussion
Lets stop doing this retarded charade

As I said, god is good organized, without a unifying morality there is no morality

Agreed, God exists; let's move on.

Present sufficient evidence that a god exists and we will.

The irony is that Descartes unwittingly thus began the case to remove god.

God being good organized implies that without god, there is good, it's just disorganized. What's the difference between organized and disorganized good?

How can I prove that God exists if I can't even prove that my brother exists ?

sure, here you go

Attached: 1559951108882.png (1700x4400, 367K)

>attempting to define God into existence
when did Christianity become so soi?

Not him, but why do you insist that theists are the crazy ones when no athiest has been able to come up with a real counter to Anselm?

Attached: 1541582623979.jpg (800x450, 38K)

I never said theists are crazy. for that matter, I'm Christian. my question was why people think that the argument of definition is ever going to be remotely effective in convincing more atheists and agnostics, not why theists are supposedly stupid

The point is that God can be deduced by logical means.

>God wants you to have faith in Him
>but He can also be defined by logic, which is counter to the idea of faith

Attached: 1546899899285.png (358x272, 124K)

In that case anything can be deduced by logical means.

The argument is exclusive to God.
I have faith in God even if I can know he exists.

>maybe if I couch my bullshit in 20$ words people won't notice I'm really stupid

Attached: abomination.png (680x789, 715K)

Still no solid proofs for atheism being the truth.

Prove God exists. Not just any God, the Christian God.

Well, that's oddly specific.

That's what you're asking me to argue against. So argue for it.

Many athiests think that, and conduct themselves accordingly.

I'm not asking you to argue against the Christian God.

So what am I to argue against?

I dunno, argue against the existence of algebraic functions

Any documented proof of atheism being the true path? this is getting silly.

Are you retarded or has spending time on an Estonian Goat Herding Forum dulled your brain?

Prove Atheism is true right here and now or be square

The proof that atheism is true is simply the lack of proof of religion being true.

Prove God is real.

So you can't prove atheism is true? Got it.

Prove Santa Claus isn't real.

Langan is fucking stupid. Atheism is not the belief in the non existence of god. Rather it is the belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in god. It's literally in the etymology of the word: a(without)-theism(belief in a theistic god)

woah....... so this..... is the power.... of atheism......

Yeah. Prove to me the Tooth Fairy isn't real.

Prove atheism Is the true path right here and now or be square.

You can't prove the non existence of something unless you show it to be contradictory. In the case of the Christian god we can say for certain that he does not exist because the trinity is a contradictory teaching. In the case of other religions we simply say that there isn't enough evidence to believe in god.

The tooth fairy has more proof than the belief of atheism.

prove atheism is the true path to take right here and now sissy.

Any atheist who responds by saying that his “good reason” for not believing in God is that “there is no evidence for the existence of God” merely incurs another burden of proof, this one epistemological: he needs to prove (or at least confirm) that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

So, what have you got to offer?

Attached: christopher-langan.jpg (339x382, 25K)

atheists take by faith that their belief is right and all others are wrong. Atheism seems borderline religious

The trinity is contradictory to what exactly?

It doesn't work that way you pleb. If I say I don't believe in blue and green ravens the onus is not on me to round up every single raven and show that proof of one does not exist; rather it is on the blue and green raven believer to present his evidence for blue and green ravens.

prove that atheism is the 100% true path, and why theists are all wrong

One thing is three things

Obviously, but that won't stop him from shitposting here

No. You're claiming that God does not exist. The burden of proof is on you to support this claim, period. Present your evidence of absence.

Only the fringe believe that. Even Sam Harris says that Jesus "almost certainly didn't" rise from the dead. You're asking for a degree of certainty that nobody has. Let us say this: I believe in the existence of a theistic god as much as I believe in unicorns. No evidence has been given for either of them.

What kind of God do you believe in that would not consider you being complete cretinous shitposters on a Laotian Show Throwing Forum as worthy of damnation?

Then you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic. You don't hold the position that god does not exist.

Yes, I don't hold the position that your strawman of atheism holds.

Here’s what amounts to a mathematical proof that atheists actively disbelieve in God. The word atheism can be etymologically deconstructed in two ways: atheo + ism and a + theism. The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God” (active disbelief in God), while the second means “nonbelief in the existence of God”. But the second definition is not yet complete, because it fails to specify whether or not one believes in the nonexistence of God. If one does not believe in the nonexistence of God, then this amounts to plain old agnosticism, i.e., believing in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Only if one actively believes in the nonexistence of God does the second definition cease to equate to agnosticism.

You're a retard.

You don't need smart people sweetie. You need to find something to do. Go try something., it could be anything. Try to make it enjoyable, maybe you might like offroading or bicycles,

>Religion and spirituality have never been about truth or fact,
Imagine being this retarded. Have you even heard of scholasticism and humanism?

>You're a retard.

Attached: 1506274633541.png (645x729, 51K)

It comes from the words a(Without) and theos(god). Agnosticism is the view that we can have no knowledge about god, while atheism goes a step further and asserts that a theistic god probably does not exist. It's really not that hard bro.

Attached: Capture.png (613x451, 31K)

>problem of evil
Doesn't contradict the existence of God.
>Russel's Teapot
Literally just a shitty false equivalence. Teapots are man-made objects that only go where man takes them. God is something far more complex.

How does this refute what I said?

Are you retarded my man? How can you misinterpret Russel's teapot this badly?

So what is atheism in your opinion? Be succinct

Believing in the nonexistence of God.

so atheism is a belief (or faith) that there is no God?

Read a book on geology, one on astrology and one on biology. Pay close attention to the time spans and distances involved.
You'l notice that they don't fit the narrative of humans as special in any way. The conclusion is clear, that every major human religion has got it wrong.

>The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God”
No, it means without god. I.e. without belief in god.
>If one does not believe in the nonexistence of God, then this amounts to plain old agnosticism, i.e., believing in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God.
Agnosticism says that we can have no knowledge about the existence of god. Atheism is simply the belief that there isn't enough evidence to believe in the existence of god. Minor distinction and a lot of overlapping but they are not the same.

No it's not. I know you're trying so hard to make it so it is a belief system, but it's not: it's a rejection of a belief. You don't call people non-communists, or non-libertarians or non-golfers.

Nigger he literally says we can't prove their isn't, but we easily can. It's an absolutely terrible analogy, certainly not a solid argument against God. God isn't a physical object. Only retards bring up his garbage analogy rather than any specific argument.

Yes

Believing that something does not exist is a belief.

So prove to me God exists then.

Holy shit my guy you are so adamant to defend your strawman of atheism it's embarrassing

Believing the Easter Bunny and the Boogeyman don't exist is a belief now? What about Poseidon? Or Wotan?

>shifting the burden
Fuck off and come up with a better argument against God, dumbass.

I don't have to, as long you don't prove He exists.

Ok...define god for us then. What exactly are we supposed to disprove?

I dunno user, you're the one with the "two best arguments"
Not the point of the thread. Stop shifting.

Yes sweaty, just like believing that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

Prove to me Poseidon doesn't exist.

Atheism is the dumbest religion.

So you can't define something you want me to disprove. Exquisite.

Do you have valid proof for atheism? or are you just another atheist zealot?

You said you can disprove it. Surely you knew already what you were disproving when you brought up two "arguments"

Im conflicted who's more retarded in here, OP or the guys still trying to debate him.

i think we both know we're done here user. You completely avoided to answer or define anything I asked - it was expected of course - but this dance of ours is getting boring. You're a retarded fag and would be laughed out of any room.

Attached: midget.jpg (640x619, 196K)

I'll just disprove Athena then.

Ahem...
I have an announcement to make!
Fuck Athena. Strike me down, I dare you, you controlling bitch. Dareius should have killed every single Greek buttfucker. Your city sucks, Sparta is way better. I hope your statues get toppled by roving Nubians plundering Athens.

>Not the point of the thread. Stop shifting.
Yeah, it is. You've constructed a strawman of atheism and refuse to let go of it. Atheism has never been the belief in the nonexistence of god. Even the New Atheists don't believe that. Atheists simply say there is no evidence for a theistic god. Present your evidence or you're just in the fields fighting strawmen.

Is this really all you can muster? "Prove to me Santa Claus/Poseidon/The Easter Bunny Leprechauns" don't exist? If anything this supports my position. You just keep spamming the same lines - "Prove to me Santa Claus/Poseidon/The Easter Bunny Leprechauns" - if you think that it is absolutely impossible to justify the belief in the nonexistence of something with any sort of proof, then why believe in it?

Prove that atheism is accurate and true or be square.

I'm agnostic, which to me is the only sensible position to have on religion. You cannot prove that god exists or doesnt exist. There is no argument to be had. I dont know if god exists but I remain optimistic that something immaterial exists.

That’s what prophets do. They prove God exists.

I am currently proving God exists :3

Not Yea Forums but if everyone became atheist, we might as well end it all

>you
I'm not OP. The thread is about arguments against God, that's why I replied to a person about his bad arguments against the existence of God.

the atheist defense mechanism is just to call people who want prove of atheism retarded without giving any proof for their claim that atheism is true and non atheists are wrong. Quite childish and ignorant.

You know that our perception of perfection is subjective and derived from natural laws? If our world were a different one, we'd value other things as perfect.

Atheists are way too supersticious. Blind faith in atheism with no facts to back up their unreasonable beliefs. The only thing atheists have said on this whole thread was " Prove to me atheism is untrue by proving X is real"

What are you talking about

>Can anyone prove to me why atheism is true
I don't think you can prove it either way, which is why I'm an atheist.

At least you admit that theres no proof that your belief is 100% true

>I don't think you can prove atheism is true, which is why I'm an atheist.

Exactly. If I can't prove the existence of a God, I'm not going to believe in it. I don't need to prove that one doesn't exist. It's certainly possible, but I have no way to know.

atheism is true if you worship the devil

you should be an atheist if you want your soul to be eternally punished

Atheism is a joke, you should be ashamed if you're an atheist.

then youre agnostic if you admit that you believe god could exist

>I don't need to prove that one doesn't exist.
If you're an atheist, yes you do.

Thanks for warning me! I don't want to be eternally punished!

I don't believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist. The meaning of the term is clear.
No I don't. If it is proven to me that a god exists, I will believe in it. If it is not proven to me, I won't believe in it. It has not been proven to me, therefore I do not believe in it and am therefore an atheist. It's not hard to understand.

I just gave you the weakness to every single perfection argument. Perfection is something we humans define. There was a time for example, where celestial bodies were thought to travel in perfect circles. When it was proven that they in fact run eliptically, there was a huge amount of resistance, because eliptic was thought to be ugly...imperfect.
Same deal with every argument out of supposed perfection.

If you don't believe in the nonexistence of God, you're not an atheist; as I've already explained.

>Here’s what amounts to a mathematical proof that atheists actively disbelieve in God. The word atheism can be etymologically deconstructed in two ways: atheo + ism and a + theism. The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God” (active disbelief in God), while the second means “nonbelief in the existence of God”. But the second definition is not yet complete, because it fails to specify whether or not one believes in the nonexistence of God. If one does not believe in the nonexistence of God, then this amounts to plain old agnosticism, i.e., believing in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Only if one actively believes in the nonexistence of God does the second definition cease to equate to agnosticism.

So I get banned for a month for trolling butterfly, but this faggot gets to keep his thread? Nigger janies.

so you're an atheist till someone proves to you God exists? admitting that youre open to being a theist under right circumstances of facts and evidence. But you're an atheist despite you not being 100% sure that atheism Is the only true belief compared to theism? then why not be agnostic.

Sucks for u (lol)

Your comment has been refuted on this thread before. Agnostic = can't have knowledge about god. Atheist = don't believe in god. Atheos = without god. So fucking simple my dude.

Didn't read. I don't care to argue semantics with you. If you want to call me an agnostic that's your prerogative, but I am specifically telling you that I do not believe in the existence of a god and explained my position. If you want to tell me that doesn't make me an atheist, go right ahead.
I do not believe the term "agnostic," when used in this sense, has any substantial meaning. If I am "not sure," then that means that I "do not believe," and that thus makes me an atheist. If you cannot positively claim that you believe in a god, then that means you do not.

Agnostic = can't have knowledge about god.
Agnostic = don't believe in god.
Atheist = can't have knowledge about god.
Atheist = don't believe in god.

This only proves my point, it amounts to declaring oneself both an atheist and an agnostic; the terms become effectively redundant. This fails to provide enough information to determine one’s theological stance vis-a-vis the existence of God. The only way around this is to claim that an atheist differs epistemologically from an agnostic, somehow “knowing” that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God can be conclusively established. However, this too entails a burden of proof, and we don’t see this burden being met.

1. My position regarding whether a god actually exists -- I don't know
2. My position regarding whether we can know that a god actually exists -- I don't know
3. Do I believe in a god? No.
Therefore I am an atheist. The third point is the only relevant one to establishing my usage of the term.

What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

You're lying. Atheism is not the belief that you can not have knowledge about god, that's agnosticism. Also people are not limited to one or the other; a lot of atheists do call themselves agnostics. Sam Harris, radical atheist, has himself said that Jesus "ALMOST CERTAINLY did not" rise from the dead. Very few atheists have the certainty that you're demanding of us.
Now instead of arguing semantics and trying to tell atheists what they believe why don't you make some substantive arguments for the existence of god otherwise you're just fighting strawmen.

You are legitimately autistic. Atheism = I no believe god. Agnosticism = I can have no knowledge of god

Atheist -- someone who does not believe in a god, for whatever reason
Agnostic -- a meaningless term used by atheists who want their lack of belief to sound more open-minded and sophisticated

Atheism is a firm belief there 100% is no God

Agnosticism is a belief there might be a God

This.

no.

>atheism is a firm belief there 100% is no god
I'm not sure on whose authority you claim this definition, but it does not reflect the true opinion of most people who call themselves atheists. Ultimately, you are engaged in a semantic debate that serves the sole purpose of straw manning atheism.
>Agnosticism is a belief there might be a god
Wrong. Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of God's existence or nonexistence is not possible.

all atheists ive come across tell me it's proven there is 100% no god.

That's a lie.