Both people who don't know and don't think they can know are agnostic. If you cannot claim knowledge about the non-existence of god, and you don't believe in god, you are an agnostic atheist.
"You can't disprove God."
Celestial teapot, mate.
I like Russell's quote and am reposting
Tea cups are possible. Gods are not. I will not say there isn't a tea cup between Earth and Mars. There totally could be. There is probably not, but I don't know. It's different than mysticism.
You never have to prove a negative statement... e.g.--"The moon is not made of cheese." Does not have to be proven.
The positive statement ...e.g.--"The moon is made of green cheese" requires empirical proof before accepted as fact.
"There are no gods" is a statement that does not have to be proven in order to be factually correct.
"There is a god" requires proof before it can be epistemologically correct. Which has yet to be given.
Since there is no proof, there can be no epistemological truth about gods.
""There are no gods" is a statement that does not have to be proven in order to be factually correct."
Actually, it does, you're assuming the burden of proof by framing the negative statement (<-no gods) as a positive claim (there are->).
I have to give this a little practice:
I don't love you.
I don't hate you.
The earth is not 6,000 years old.
Dinosaurs and humans did not walk on earth at the same time.
There is no god.
There was no Jesus.
There was no Noah.
There was no virgin birth.
Jesus was not god's son.
OK, I think I've got it now.
This cannot prove a negative stuff is inaccurate. Knowledge is contextual. If I have knowledge that I am in Chicago, then I can know that I am not in Miami (because of the valid self-evident axioms of existence, consciousness and identity). Similarly, if I know that contradictions cannot exist and something must have an identity that affects the causal chain to exist, then I can know that gods don't exist, for they are either contradictory or metaphorical or unable to define (lack concrete essential characteristics). All things in these categories are impossible and are already proved so, without having to actively demonstrate something's non-existence scientifically, which is impossible. We use reason for that. Science doesn't help negate the existence of what we already define as supernatural. Science only tells us about what is, here in the real world. And we can reasonably prove, with reason and logic, that gods don't exist.
And we can reasonably prove, with reason and logic, that gods don't exist.
I agree, …but the question isn't about, "reasonably prove", …it's asking for "100% positive", which (to me anyway) implies 100% certainty.
I wasn't answering that question, but responding to multiple comments made. But, I do think that atheism is valid contextually and we can be certain. If something has no concrete noncontradictory essential characteristic, then we can be certain that it does not exist. If anything is proved, we can be certain of it.
Just curious, ...what do you think of Ayn Rand?
When I first read her account of epistemology, which I find remarkably consistent with modern cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence, I was able to finally shed the remaining mystical indoctrination attempted by mainstream education and media and, well, really the rest of society. Ideas in physics/metaphysics, ethics and politics that I once struggled with became clear. I give her credit for, far more than any other single source, showing me what is true, how to tell, and helping me to refine and focus a contextually comprehensive noncontradictory morality and worldview. This is not to say that I do not think she didn't make mistakes. There are a few things that she wrote that I do not approve of or think are accurate. Personally, some things I really like about her, others I don't.