re: #126 b_sharp

A little more.

An agnostic says we can never really rule out the existence of a god because we cannot logically prove a negative so I will live my life as though there probably isn’t such a thing, but I’ll reserve a bit of space in my mind for a god just in case.

An atheist says we can rule out the existence of a god even though it is not possible to logically prove a negative because the preponderance of evidence shows a god is not only not necessary but not possible given the physical laws as we understand them. I will not bother reserving that bit of space because it would be a waste. However if the evidence changes, I will then make room, but the evidence will have to be spectacular and overturn all previous evidence against. I do not expect that to happen.

An atheist is closer to science than an agnostic.

That a bit of arrogant presumption on your part. A literal version of God as presented in various religious texts might fall into that category. Outside of those definitions we can narrow it down to a force/entity responsible for creation of reality/the universe/etc. That is likely to be something that is beyond human comprehension (much as quantum mechanics would be to a lemur), for which you don’t even know what evidence for it would be. Such a thing cant be matter-of-fact said to be impossible due to physical laws.