You make the assumption I am an atheist. If atheism could answer all my questions, I would probably be an atheist. It can't so I'm not. I am agnostic. Mankind has been pondering this question for as long as humans have had the ability to ponder. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a provable answer. The late Dr. Carl Sagain, who was also an agnostic, said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position on religion.
No, I don't assume you're an atheist. I say that your method of arguing your LN position is consistently the same as the internet atheists' method of arguing theirs.
As applied to religion, Carl Sagan's statement is unworthy of a serious thinker. Sagan in fact said some remarkably shallow things. I would love to "know" too, but we cannot know the ontological truth of something like the existence or nonexistence of a deity because the answer, whether yes or no, must be found outside the human frame of reference. The domain of science does not extend beyond the natural order. All we can do is inform ourselves as diligently and thoroughly as possible and arrive at some level of conviction. That conviction, be it theistic or atheistic, cannot possibly be free of all doubt and cannot possibly rise to the level of knowledge. Agnosticism is fine if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue and concluded it is impossible to reach any level of conviction one way or the other - but only if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue. Otherwise, a claim of agnosticism is just a cop-out: "The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be known with certainty, and therefore I don't concern myself with the issue and call myself an agnostic." Sagan distinguished his "I want to know" from "blind faith" - but only mindless theism or atheism is a matter of blind faith, so Sagan was guilty of setting up a false dichotomy. Famed New Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins makes precisely the same mistake, having so little understanding of the religious position that he equates all religious belief to mindless blind faith. One can certainly say "I don't think the answer can be known, so I don't bother with the question" - but this is not a true agnostic position and, if certain religions are true, could have unpleasant eternal consequences; indeed, it could have unpleasant eternal consequences even if some species of atheism are true. Hence, I believe the quest for convictions is one of the central purposes of my life.
As it applies to the JFKA, I KNOW that Oswald was the assassin. I BELIEVE he was acting on his own behalf but because I can't prove a negative, I can't logically say he had no accomplices. Only that I believe that to be highly unlikely. Ditto for the two shot scenario. There is ample, highly compelling evidence of three shots, both forensic and earwitness accounts. The WC recognized the theoretical possibility that Oswald could have started with an empty shell in the chamber and only fired two shots, but I find that to be highly unlikely.
No, you have a high level of conviction that Oswald was the assassin. Your claim of knowledge is also frequently encountered on religion forums, where folks claim "knowledge" when in fact what they are expressing is a high level of conviction. Typically, it is believers who do this, as though their God might be offended if they acknowledged even a kernel of honest (and unavoidable) doubt. Many CTers have a high level of conviction in the opposite direction. Since you are watering down your assessment of the two-shot scenario to "highly unlikely," on what basis is Jack Nessan a troll for defending that position? The fact is - and it's quite striking - that much of the JFKA debate is conducted at a quasi-religious level, not a search-for-historical-truth level.
