But I have just proved to you that NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE ATHEISTS!
Some of them are Christians.
You did not talk about communist regimes in making your statement. And I’m not even sure if all communists regimes were anti-religion. Communist Yugoslavia doesn’t appear to have been particularly so.
This is where your logic fails… if you dont believe statement A is true… it means you believe it is false.
Thats the difference between knowledge and belief.
Refer your example about your house being on fire… you can believe it’s on fire… yoi can believe it’s not… there is no third option…
However, with knowledge, you have three options… knowing something is true, knowing something is false… not knowing.
You are not making any logical sense here.
Positive Atheism, also known as Hard Atheism and Strong Atheism. You could get all this if you just could be bothered to read the Wikipedia article.
I am trying to understand the logic…
It seems to me that there is thiem, agnosticism and positive athiesm as three logically possible positions.
The definition of athiesm you and @T_aquaticus looks totally illogical to me.
No. You may simply be of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to believe that A is true. I don’t believe that alien visits to Earth have happened during human civilisation. But I don’t actively disbelieve in it either. I’m happy to simply passively disbelieve until I come across evidence to the contrary.
Atheism can be, and often is, a PASSIVE position.
This is not belief. The two possible alternatives are -
What you are saying is that you cannot come to a conclusion based on evidence. In the case of God, that’s very similar to agnosticism.
What you are saying is either
a)you don’t know whether aliens visited earth
Or
b) You dont believe they came to earth.
(You might have reasons for your disbelief such as lack of evidence. But that doesnt change the category of belief).
So pick one… you either believe or disbelieve…
Or you dont know.
No. I am saying that I have come to a provisional conclusion, based upon lack of evidence. It is the same provisional conclusion I have come to about alien visits, unicorns, Bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster, and all sorts of other things. I do not have proof-positive that they don’t exist, but I have no good reason for believing in them.
Differentiate between “provisional conclusion” and “belief”…
The last time I checked belief was something less that “proof positive” and involved a conclusion.
You have it wrong. If I were on a jury in a murder trial and had not seen any of the evidence I would not believe the defendant is guilty. I would also believe that the defendant could be guilty. In the same way, I don’t believe gods exist but I keep open the possibility that they do.
I can lack a belief my house is on fire while also admitting that it could be on fire. That’s the third option.
As an agnostic, I don’t believe that either. I allow that there might have been a god that created the universe. Or maybe not. The origin of the universe is an unanswered question. And then maybe there was no origin of the universe. Maybe the universe always was, so did not require an origin.
I’m agnostic, because I doubt that there are answers to such questions.
The logic has to do with the burden of proof. The person making the positive claim needs to provide the evidence to support that claim. Lacking such evidence the claim has not been proven. However, that does not mean the claim is false. All it means is that the claim lacks evidence.
Atheists have not seen evidence to back the claim of God’s existence. They have not been convinced, and therefore lack a belief. That doesn’t necessarily mean the God claim is false, only that it lacks evidence. Some atheists think the evidence should have been found by now, and so they go one step further and conclude God doesn’t exist. Other atheists, like myself, take the more logical route. We understand that a claim lacking evidence is not necessarily false, so we don’t make the logical error of saying it is false.
The fact that, as I said, “I do not have proof positive”. Therefore I passively lack belief, rather than actively disbelieve.
I see atheists organizing meetings, writing books, giving lectures.
I have zero interest in attending those meetings, and I have zero interest in reading those books. I have listened to occasional lectures, because I can enjoy the wit of someone like Christopher Hitchens. But I don’t go out of my way to find those lectures.
That’s why I prefer to call myself “agnostic” rather than “atheist”. I just don’t find any attraction to atheist groups. But perhaps “apatheist” would be a more accurate term than “agnostic”.
I’ve never been to the meetings, read the books, or watched the lectures. But I see myself as an atheist, albeit an agnostic atheist. Although have no desire to allow myself to be lectured at, I do see myself as a fellow traveler of theirs.
Your pathetic jocularity cannot compete with Ashwin’s Atheist New Order. All resistance (whether from theists or atheists) is futile. You will be assimulated. 
“Agnostic” is a confusing word because people do use it in a wide range of senses. The most common modern usage, among those who don’t fret about definitions much and who are not trying to distinguish knowledge from belief, seems to mean “a person who is unsure whether there is a god.” I don’t like that usage, but it’s very common which is why there are so many discussions about the definition!
The word was coined by Thomas Huxley, whose pronouncements upon it did vary slightly from time to time, but what he usually meant was a view that the existence of a god was unknown and – at least on the evidence available – unknowable. Sometimes he seems to have meant that it was not only practically unknowable but also unknowable in principle.
At the time, people do seem to have understood his meaning. A marvelous and funny example is Henry Wace, an Anglican cleric who really walked into the buzzsaw by starting an argument with Huxley; he fell apart so badly that I suspect he must have managed to de-convert a few people who had been living under the impression that the Anglican church was in possession of at least a lick of sense. Wace understood, though, clearly enough, that agnosticism was a statement about knowledge, not about belief.
Anyhow, if one uses the term “agnostic” in that original Huxleyan sense, it’s clear that one can believe in a god and be an agnostic, or not believe in a god and be an agnostic.
Ok let’s list out the options:
A. You believe your house is on fire.
B. You dont believe your house is on fire.
C. You don’t have an belief on the subject as you dont know enough.
If an athiest holds to option C on God, then he/she doesn’t lack belief. He/she just haven’t come to a conclusion on the subject.
If you insist you dont believe in Gods, then its option B.
Show me a theist who claims to have "proof positive about their faith.
The best they would say is that they have come to a conclusion supported either by their experience or available evidence. Belief involves a strong conviction
that something is true even though “proof positive” is not available. People can and do change their beliefs… so it’s something provisional in nature.
You are just describing belief in different words.
Yes, that condition is described as not knowing.
You must have seen this in questionaires:
For example:
Pick one of the below:
Trump is a good president.
Trump is not a good president.
Dont know.
What you are describing is a third position where people are yet to come to a conclusion. It’s not about belief, it’s a statement about knowledge.
Edit: If you took the position that it would be impossible to come to a conclusion about God’s existence based solely on evidence… then you could graduate to becoming an agnostic.
As of now, you seem to be in the “inconclusive” camp… Thats the way it looks like to me.
Considering your beliefs (or lack thereof), i don’t get your apathy regarding whether God exists… surely its not as trivial as “Bigfoot’s” existence?