[Frooxius]

@Ergo Proxy: I would definitely agree (with the addition of agnostic theist, because they still believe something without evidence). The idea of absolute certainty is just nonsensical. We can't know a lot of things with absolute certainty, although we can have reasonable certainty.

My own position is a bit more complicated, because regarding certain deities, I am quite certain that they do not exist. It's not 100 % certainty and I can't claim that, but their existence is extremely improbable, given all the contradictions and what we know about how the beliefs and the religion came into existence.

My exact position depends on the specific deity claim, although I don't believe in any of them (the ones I encountered at least).

The thing is that given what we already know about the universe, there's just no reason to believe there has to be any god involved. In fact physics even has some understanding how the universe could (they don't know for certain, but there seem to be possible mechanisms) came from nothing and galaxies, solar systems, planets and life developed completely naturally, following simple laws of physics.

Any deity would be superfluous. In fact, problem with deities that are used as explanations is that they actually don't explain anything, but just add more questions. Science has shown how can complexity arise from simplicity. Proposing a god (as in some super intelligent being) only adds more questions - you can't answer a question with even a bigger question. If we trace the universe back, we're getting to higher and higher simplicity, yet someone claims that outside of this simplicity exists something that's even more complex than us?

You're (not you, but people who make these claims) trying to explain complexity with even bigger complexity. Where did this complexity come from? How can we know anything about it.

@Ergo Proxy (second message): Sure. I require sufficient evidence for any claim (or at least, significant claim). If someone said they believe unicorns exist (as in, actual animals) then I would like to see some evidence to believe that claim, so you could technically call me "aunicornist".

I don't see the reason to make a list - I don't work by thinking of all possible things I can that I don't believe, I evaluate each claim that I come by. And there's finite amount of claims.

Some of the claims are more significant and some are less. There's very little people who believe in unicorns and it's not an issue in the society, so I wouldn't normally call myself "aunicornist".

However if large chunk of the world population (or at least area where I live) believed in unicorns and even based their decisions or even laws on that belief, I would definitely be active "aunicornist" and more like "anti-unicornist", that is against people making irrational decisions based on given belief without evidence and even manipulating others.

I would still also be skeptic and rationalist and science enthusiast (and my atheism stems from that), which are more positive positions (as in not rejection of some claim, but active philosophy and way of working with information and interacting with the world).