I guess I was thinking about labeling others, and if there could be no theist with knowledge of god, then all theist would have to be assumed to be agnostic, but, looking at it as a theist acknowledging themselves that they cannot 'know' but only 'believe', then this label does have meaning. And the same could be said for someone calling themselves an agnostic atheist as an acknowledgement that they 'believe' there is no god, but do not actually have 'knowlege' that there is no god.There cannot be such a thing as knowledge of God, so the term theist means nothing without it also being agnostic.
DWill
I think that an atheist can be at zero, or neutral, about belief in god, but not neutral to the effects of the belief in god has on his world. Barker's life was so controlled by his beliefs, that his zealousness to save others from what he perceives as false beliefs comes from the deep resentment he feels for his indoctrination. I have met many people who, when asked, refer to themselves as atheist and seem quite neutral about it, but they are not writing books, trying to change the views of others nor do they feel threatened or controlled by the religious views of other. If these atheist lived in a society where their rights were being challenged then I am sure they would not be so neutral.My reaction to his assertion that an atheist merely starts at zero, has no orientation one way or the other, is that in the sliver of the real world that I know about, this doesn't seem to be so. Isn't an atheist usually someone who considers his or her atheism to indicate belief--belief in science, rationality, and materialism? They aren't just neutral about God, in my limited experience, but feel that non-belief would a better way for everyone to think (just as the religious feel this way about their beliefs). It's very hard, probably impossible, to be neutral about anything one believes rather passionately. I haven't read any of this book, but it seems clear that Barker is one such passionate proponent of atheism.