Well that’s still a physics question, even if it is beyond physics as we know or understand. I’m talking about true metaphysics.
I can’t say much about how people with faith think, having none myself.
Deists seem to me to be people with a desire for the universe to have a meaning. That it the unreasoned part. But then they look around, see no obvious evidence of any gods, and so make the cause the Universe or something which never interacts with us. That’s the reasoned part - reasoned because it does not contradict any facts. How much faith is involved is beyond me. I personally have no problem with the universe and life having no meaning, so deism does not appeal.
If you say “it’s etymology is X, therefore it means X” you’re making the fallacy. I’m not saying that. I’m just explaining why appealing to etymology doesn’t work even if you think appealing to etymology isn’t fallacious.
I’m an atheist and I agree that defining “atheist” to include babies and agnostics isn’t very helpful, and isn’t how the word is typically used by theists or atheists except when it scores them a rhetorical point to do so. Of course, in most cases it doesn’t come up and one definition is as good as another. But lets be clear that not having an opinion (or the capacity to form an opinion) on the existence of a god is a distinguishable phenomenon from having the opinion that gods do not exist. Everyone who has ever self-identified as an atheist has been part of the latter phenomenon. The same is true of almost everyone who has ever been referred to as an atheist. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I have never in my entire life heard someone with no opinion on the existence of gods referred to as an atheist except when the topic of discussion is the definition of “atheist” or some related purely rhetorical point.
Also, note that knowledge is not identical with certainty; belief is not identical with certainty; lack of opinion is not identical with uncertainty; and positing something or “holding a positive position” about something is not the same as being positive about something.
Who says that is the original definition?
That is the definition I encountered in grade school. I thought about it for weeks. I decided it was stupid.
Agnosticism is not a belief it is merely an admission of ignorance.
Believing it is impossible to know something when we can’t even get out of the solar system and the universe is billions of light years in diameter is absurd. What if god (of some kind) has been hanging out in the Andromeda galaxy for the last 5,000 years? What if She zips around the galaxy at FTL for kicks?
Atheists seem to be mostly anti-religion enthusiasts, at least the vocal ones, and expect everyone to give a damn about religion as much as they do.
I am a Transcendental Agnostic. That is when I am not being an Apatheist. I presume that if there is a god S/He has a lower opinion of religion than I do and pays no attention to it.
But what is the definition of BELIEF?
The dictionary definitions are kind of dumb. Like what is the difference between a proof and an absolute proof? That implies there are degrees of proof. There are degrees of probability not proof.
My definition of believe is to accept something as true or false without sufficient evidence. Therefore belief is stupid by definition. But any human being that thinks for himself must decide for himself what is sufficient. That is always the problem, ain’t it? 
psik
That doesn’t make any sense. The whole point of God is that it transcends the world of phenomena. God’s existence, whether there is one or not, is incomprehensible to the human mind.
That is a convenient belief held by some sects, yes.
Whether it’s convenient or not is besides the point
If they believe it because it is convenient, it is not beside the point-it is merely the final step in the “God of the Gaps” dance.
Given there is no evidence for god, only people who claim it exists…So the agnostic position is that people who made god up out of whole cloth might be right. This is exactly like believing in the FSM, the IPU, the Teapot. Why would you be agnostic about god and not leprechauns?
I agree. The problem is that those circumstances where the definition of atheism comes up, is usually in the context of someone claiming atheism is a faith, or an axiom or some other nonsense.
It’s understandable that atheists wish to distance themselves from this. Personally I like to state that I feel the same way about God as I do about Godzilla. I’m not on the fence – I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist. But I don’t claim to know it doesn’t exist.
New empirical data could convince me of its existence, and the same goes for self-consistent gods.
I am totally stealing this!
Another Godzilla-fearing atheist 
You’re angry at Godzilla?
Well of course, have you seen what he did to Tokyo?
I’ve never seen god walk out of the ocean and trash a big city, but Godzilla? Oh yeah.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t know how much you know about Confucianism, but the philosophy (I consider it too worldly to fit the definition of a religion, and even the Chinese Communist Party considers it a philosophy and not a religion) makes it clear that while people should be skeptical of the existence of metaphysical beings, they should still be treated with respect.
There’s final step in the “God of the Gaps” dance?
Hallelujah!
Yep-it’s “You can’t find Him because you’re not supposed to find Him!”, which allows them to smugly disregard all queries as to their god’s location. It may be a final step in the dance…but that final step is a stomp on the foot without explanation or apology.