Have we got that little omission clear now?
What omission? Are we seeing things not there? What do you think an agnostic is? According to the OED:
1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God. Distinguished from atheist n.
Therefore, there is doubt, as opposed to being certain, which is the realm of the atheist. The doubt, in Tysobn's case, is, as I stated clearly:
hung-up on the idea of a omnipotent being who, nonetheless, allows natural disasters to occur.x
It's the lack of recognition that just because a god is omnipotent does in no way mean he must act omnipotently consistently; he applies the power necessary to accomplish a task. Some tasks are more easily performed than others. And that God allows suffering to occur only means that the consideration of the duration of mortal life is not a primal, necessary factor, where we [some of us] are hung-up on the idea that it must last for as long as possible. No, not necessary. Further we [some of us] consider death as some kind of barrier, as if a door that closes on our lives and cannot be overcome. Nonsense. There's not even a door, which when closed, is a wall, anyway. Through an open passageway, there is no door; it is merely an open transition between one room and another. Thus, what we call a door is just another part of a wall, when closed. When open, it is nothing at all but open access to another space. That is what death is; no barrier at all, just a transition. However, all human suffering, no matter how small or great, is covered entirely by the atonement of Christ; He paid for it all as an innocent, though godly act that covers so much more then mere sin; it covered all suffering, all disappointment, all ill feelings, all doubts. Yes, we sometimes suffer, even by loss of life, but life continues and is so much more glorious after passing through the portal of death if we have lived mortal lives of faith, hope and charity. not so much if our lives have been filled with doubt, dismissal and greed. You don 't need to preach probability to me. I happen to have been a professional in that field as a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up.
Even a 5% probability is still a factor allowing major doubt that something is absolute. You seem to have a problem with that word. Absolute is the desire of probability to be correct, completely.
Have you bothered to search the topic? I got 12,200,000 hits
Wow. Over 12M hits. That's a lot. However, my friend, what is the probability that at least one [therefore, doubt, and not so much absolute assurance] hit is an inquirer who does not accept either atheism or agnosticism, but wants to research the subjects, anyway. Yes, I have researched these subjects. Not that I agree with them, as you seem to think must be my position before looking into them, else what would spark my interest? You seem to think 12M somehow means the subjects are valid. That is, to be subtle, utter bullshyte. It's called curiosity, my friend, which is why, among the volumes in my library is Marx/Engels' Communist Manifesto, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They have been read, annotated, re-read, re-annotated, and so on.
a notable drop in IQ of theists
I was wondering when you would broach the subject of your topic. It was not evident in your #1. I did bring it up for you you in my #2 to save your arse.
I don't know about you, but I did not grow up in an idiot household such as you present. We've been given a cartoon. I'm not laughing. Worse, your topic is presented as an absolute. Sorry, it does not hold water, because there are, as well, just like theists, idiots among the atheist households. Some, but not all. So, stop being an idiot by treating those who oppose you be the too-common epithet of all being stupid. It's just what one sees in the mirror, after all, sparking the recognition.
Your problem is an all-or-nothing approach. All theists are idiots according to your topic. I've seen the survey. It does seem to have a definitive conclusion, but, there are matters apparently beyond your understanding that are faults with many published surveys: it's called Margin of Error, that is, what is the percentage of assurance that the data collected and analyzed is a true condition. Anything more than a ±2.5% begins to include doubt as to the accuracy. Take a look at your survey's MoE. If you can. Also, take a look at the number of respondents. Surveys typically short the needed number of samples in a sub-group. Third, take a look at the questions. Are they unbiased, or do are they engineered to illicit a desired response? Most do, and that invalidates the survey. How many questions? More than ten, and respondents get bored and will answer anything just to be done with what was promised as a "quick survey." All these factors contribute to a high MoE, regardless of what is planned. This IS rocket science, and most who conduct surveys don't know which direction the rocket should go.