thejediknighthusezni said:

       Whether I am a theist at all would depend upon how broadly one wishes to define "Theism".

       In my broad consideration, Anyone with the power to generate, sustain, and effect great changes in an entire universe qualifies as "God" over that creation. For this reason, I am not uncomfortable with being called a "Theist".

       I would consider myself a "Passive Theist" in the sense that I feel no special calling to "Win people for Jesus".

      I do tend to become militant towards the militancy of others.

      As for Passive Atheists, I am confident that any genuine atheist who would take a little time to HONESTLY examine the evidence and Logic would soon move to a position of tentative agnosticism, at the least.

This seems reasonable...though perhaps an equally fair outlining of the problem might be made as follows:

Given that the un-knowability of gods must needs be certain, is there not a strong and reasonable expectation that all should be agnostic?

However, given the propensity of hope (and its absence) to functionally focus one's outlook, is it not equally be reasonable to expect that those who might see positive reason for believing in a deity might be considered theists whilst those who might be cynical towards the very idea must become the atheists?

If so, is it not fair to consider the atheist to be little more than a cynical agnostic?

For, given agnosticism may describe knowledge, atheism must describe a lack of belief. Therefor an individual confronted with a lack of knowledge must decide for him or herself how to analyse same. Is it not likely that most might choose such a thing to magnify a personal suspicion merely human nature?