So, atheists deny that they have beliefs of a religious nature?

A couple of points.

1) "Agnosticism" is the stance that certain things cannot be known.

2) Atheists do not know for sure that "God is imaginary". Rather, they reject the God hypothesis because of lack of evidence. It is no more real to us than say, invisible pink unicorns or Russell's teapot. (might want to look that last one up on wikipedia)

3) Combining points 1 and 2, most atheists I know are agnostic as well. The two don't conflict. (Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism about the existence of god/gods.)

Agnosticism and atheism are not the same metric and are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism is about epistemology, theism is about belief. You can be an agnostic or gnostic theist or an agnostic or gnostic atheist, This is an important distinction. The level of gnosticism indicates level of claimed knowledge, the level of theolgism indicates the level of belief.

If you state "I know there is or is no god," then you are claiming knowledge. If you say "I believe there is or is no god," then you are making a statement about belief. Religion is something different from belief. Religion has to do with dogma; that set of common beliefs that you and some set of others can agree upon. Atheism is not a religion because there is no common set of beliefs. As an example, it has been argued that Buddhism is an atheist religion, but not all athiests are Buddhists.

Whether God is real may or may not be falsifiable by the scientific method depending specifically on how you define God. If for example you say "God answers prayers," science certainly can and has been used to validate this (negatively - God doesn't answer prayers to any degree higher than chance). However if you say "God simply created the universe",(the deist god) that is unfalsifiable and so science has nothing to say about it, though the irrelevance of that type of God is a valid criticism.

While you are technically correct atheism is not essentially lack of religion, as several religions are atheistic in nature, atheism is most certainly the lack of belief in any type of god or deity. Since gods are the focus of theistic religions, it is not entirely incorrect for an atheist to state he or she is without religion.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does not mean to be without religion; rather, it means to be without knowledge. An agnostic can be either atheistic or theistic...there agnosticism would stem from the fact that he or she does not have verifiable, empirical and visible knowledge of their position. Remember, both atheism and theism spring from the same point: an individual's interpretation of the events, experiences and phenomenon of that individuals life.

Indeed it is neither logical nor scientific to declare either way since neither position can falsified. In fact, neither can be viewed as being verifiable, testable or even observable. However, for a claim to be viewed as scientific or logical, it must be able to falsified. If it exists beyond the ability to be falsified, then it cannot be scientifically rational.

?????

A religion is a set of beliefs that involves supernatural stuff. Thus, I lack any such beliefs; I lack religion.

????? Uh, where does any dictionary define atheism or godlessness as a religion?

"Know for sure"? Hardly any atheist makes that claim. You're criticizing us for something we don't say.

The concept of supernatural stuff is incoherent, and there is NO credible evidence for any of it; thus, believing in such things is irrational. There's nothing religious about that statement.

???? What does "Any science texttbook will that you that his is" mean? Perhaps you should post in whatever language you speak fluently -- what you write isn't intelligible English, but makes no sense.

???? Uh, yes, the claim that God doesn't exist IS falsifiable. ANY evidence there IS one would be some amount of falsification.

Just as there could be evidence that, say, evolution is false. It's just that no such evidence exists. Thus, although evolution is falsifiable, it has never been refuted or falsified.

You are confused. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God can never be proven nor disproven. Atheism is the belief that no deities exist. Without deities religion is pretty much a non-issue there. Atheism is as scientific as logic, which is the basis for atheism. I do not have to see proof that Santa Clause is not real to make the definitive claim that I do not believe him to be real. And, in fact, most atheists will say that it is "improbable", not "impossible" for God to exist.

I am not most atheists. There is no God. God is a figment of the human imagination. Can I prove this? No. I don't need to. If it were not for a moldy old book and word of mouth none of us would believe in it. No, since you outright dismiss all other belief systems handed down through moldy old books and word of mouth, such as the Native American spirit guides, Godess, Zeus and the lot, I can make that same claim of understanding with your religion that you make of all others. My disbelief in your god is no different than your disbelief in any other god. Unless you're willing to entertain the possibility of the existence of Zeus, then you, sir, are a hypocrite.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect on several points.

1. Atheists by DEFINITION do not claim to know anything "for sure". They simply and solely claim that they do not believe in a god or gods. That's how atheism is defined.

2. Lack of falsification does not a scientific claim make. Proof does. One cannot and does not have to prove a negative.

3. There is no falsification incumbent on the disbeliever regarding the proposition 'god is real'. It is the responsibility of the individual making the initial, positive assertion to either prove his assertion or do admit he cannot.

And that, my son, is why you fail.

Atheist refers to one's lack of belief in the existence of deities, that is all. [It says nothing of other beliefs.]

Theism/atheism refers to belief [or lack of] while gnosticism and agnosticism refers to knowledge. An agnostic is one who believes it is not possible to know if there is a god, a gnostic believes it is possible.

It is you who needs to consult a dictionary because you lack comprehension of the words you use.

The word you are looking for is irreligious; that would be someone without a religion.

Also, "a belief" does not constitute a religion by any stretch of the imagination. A religion is defined as "a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life..."

Atheism is no more a religion than not believing in leprechauns is a religion.

We view God not as a religious figure, but as a mythological figure...just like we view leprechauns, fairies, mermaids, or unicorns. It's theists that build religions around the mythological figure of God.

Us not believing that theist's claims that God exists is true is not a religion. Our stating that God is a mythological figure is not a religion, nor is it any more dogmatic than our claiming that leprechauns are mythological figures.

There is NO evidence whatsoever for the existence of such a thing as "God". There is no dogma required to not believe those who tell us that "God" exists. It is not dogmatic of us to doubt that you or the Pope or any other theist know something that we don't about the "secrets of the universe" or the existence of invisible, magical beings.

Funny, my dictionary says that agnosticism is made up of "a" for "no" and "gnosis" for "knowledge." Which means that agnostics don't believe that it's possible to know whether or not there is a god.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, not on religion. Atheism is still a lack of religion, no matter how much you want to make up your own definitions for words.

if youre going to be pedantic then yes the majority of atheist are agnostics - but the distinction that is drawn by using the term is that atheist believe that there is no logical/scientific basis for a belief in a god whereas the modern use of the word agnostic seems to be less extreme