its completely up to your self what you identify as. from the day I identified as agnostic to the day I called myself atheist, very little had changed. one to many theological debates I guess.
I would imagine it would come down to this, (only based on the way I see the two states of scepticism) do you think that there is a real possibility of the supernatural, but you don't necessary believe in it? (agnostic), or that you just cant rule it out, but your convinced that the lack of evidence means by all intents and purposes its a man made construct? (atheist)
either way, its up to yourself, and its not like you have to commit to anything or you cant change your mind by just picking one. or, of course, you could just say your between them :P I wouldn't worry to much anyway, you don't feel any different either way.
If we could define god, we would not be having this discussion. As it is, the word god on its own is ambiguous until someone attaches attributes to it do we get to have an idea what they mean.
You say you are an agnostic- to what extent and what extent of topics?
I don't want to sound in any way arrogant here, but as 'god' is a word, we can and do define it. maybe once upon a time, the word 'god' didn't come with a pre association to the supernatural being in religious books. Unfortunately these days, you kinda have to specify if your not talking about a supernatural being in the sky.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition -
I don't see where I wasn't clear. You have gone out of your way to copy several definitions of what the god is. I said before we attach any attributes to it, it's an ambiguous term and will mean whatever you want it to mean. All you have done is to lists specifics that allow us to infer what a person could be talking about when they talk about god but as a generic word, it is ambiguous and without meaning.
"If we could define god" key word - 'define'. I defined.
I did not list what 'god' is, I listed what the word 'god' means.
"it is ambiguous and without meaning." It is clearly not, as a word, ambiguous or without meaning. How you personally view 'god' as an entity or belief may be that, but the definition of the word in unarguably not. And you questioned the ability to 'define' not the ability to properly understand.
I think that really depends on what you consider to be the definition of atheist. I see it as a binary situation. You either are an atheist by having no positive beliefs concerning one or more deities or you are a theist by having positive beliefs about one or more deities.
I don't know if believing that a creator "god" is a vastly technologically-superior alien being constitutes as being a theist simply because all theistic beliefs include the use of the supernatural meaning that a being's power and energy doesn't come from this universe even if it can affect it.
Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive, of course.
Gnosticism is simply "to know" and I would argue the "stronger" atheists better described as "gnostic atheists," though I have seen others argue otherwise.
as Sagacious Hawk mentioned, there is also Theism vs Atheism.
I think rather than "god" being defined, we should look at "belief." For me, my beliefs have always been closer to speculation about possibility and personal hopes than concrete dogma, and for that reason I called myself agnostic. Since then, I have had personal experiences, and think I would consider myself an "Agnostic Theist" having myself now a positive belief in one or more deities (formerly only ambiguous speculation).
I also think a natural species with advanced enough capabilities could easily be mistaken for a god.
finally, I don't buy into the judeo-christian notion of God or faith, and pay much more attention to more obscure spiritualities. Im not Judeo Christian, but nor am I atheist. I am agnostic though.
"I would consider myself an "Agnostic Theist" having myself now a positive belief in one or more deities"
"one or more"? Which God(s) do you now have a positive belief in? Why?
I have experienced feeling another's energy beside me more than once. There have been more than one "being" of energy. I have seen scientific experiments able to reproduce these types of perceptions using a special helmet (I love the Science channel!)
I am a discordian, and I think it plausible that Eris and other "deities" could be misunderstood beings. I also discuss similar encounters with other people and have heard account of Bastet seemingly helping a child in danger.
The child was being abused, and had an out of body experience, being guided by a figure resembling Bastet's traditional form. it was not until after the incident that the child discovered who the figure was.
I can barely tolerate the din of the accordion. I dare not contemplate what a discorrdion must sound like.
Discordian is more of a "religion" than a "theology" and it is on par with satirical religions like Pastafarian. As to whether Discordian is a parody of religion or a religion of parody, I'd have to leave that up to the individual interpreting.
I hope you don't take any of this as an attack. I'm not 100% sure I understand your thesis so this is just exploring to be honest, and I will mention some things that are not directed at you or at de bunking your statement.
You have a very reasonable thought progression. But, I'm sure we can think of any other reasons a child in duress may experience hallucinations, video, audio or otherwise. Or even out of body experiences.
I have no doubt, I would believe in aliens, or unknown natural beings, long before I'd believe in the supernatural/'god(s)'. But if such beings were to come across the galaxy, pay enough attention to us to see a child in danger, and then want to help that child for some reason, why would they stop at visions and slightly more favourable experiences? why not help the child in a much more literal way? removing the child, removing the danger for example. Though I'm sure they would have many more ideas than me
Ok, Heres where I go a little abstract about the idea of aliens on earth, so please don't take this as a comment on your thoughts-
I think the word 'aliens' had been twisted over the years, and that in cretin context it makes sense. I just never understood the thought that aliens would come to our world, take interest in us, rape red necks, but no one else, come repetitively for temporary test subjects instead of just taking a batch of 50 or so home with them, and only ever be featured in extremely fuzzy photographs. I would believe the is aliens out there, but if they took an interest in us, I feel we'd know about it by now, or be dead for it.