To quote Dawkins, in The God Delusion:
Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgments about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very undertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I agree with Dawkins here. I, like Dawkins, identify as a six. By definition, all numbers 2-6 could be considered agnostic, but it's pretty fair to say that anybody identifying as an agnostic falls between 3 and 5; in most cases, 4. Like Dawkins then goes on to say (in reference to a Douglas Adams quote) "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
In my opinion, if you believe in the supernatural, however you justify it, you are not agnostic. But that's me.
"4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'"
If a person was an agnostic in the sense that Huxley used the term, they may very well fall into the '4' category, but would probably not describe the propositions as 'equiprobable'. Probability shouldn't apply to the situation.
Well, perhaps I should have been more clear.
The way probability is used on that scale seems either incorrect, or not compatible with agnosticism. An impartial agnostic isn't sitting at a 50/50 stance; they would be claiming that both propositions are inherently unknowable. The probability of either position would always be undefined, not 50/50. This is the exact middle ground between those who ascribe to gnostic theism or agnostic atheism.
If someone characterizes the odds as 50% for either proposition being true, I have to ask by what method is this probability being calculated? There is a difference between saying, "I have no means of knowing which position is more likely, and therefor favor neither" and saying, "Both positions are equally likely, and therefore I favor neither".
I recall Dawkins dismissing 7 as unscientific, arguing in the lines of: "A scientist can never fully dismiss anything". It rests on the argument 'Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack', though pushing this too far leads to a logical fallacy.
There is currently no evidence of anything supernatural (as in something being, and forever will be, unexplainable). Seeing as defining something as unexplainable can only be done once we have achieved knowledge of everything, I postpone my judgement of anything supernatural existing. But I do live with the presumption that there is nothing, and can thus define me as an atheist.
I do have a bit of trouble understanding how you can believe in spirits or reincarnation without there being something which you deify - be it nature, humanity, the planet, or something else.
I do not believe in deity
Then you are an atheist. See, wasn't that simple?
For the clarification you seek: Gnostism refers to knowledge, or what you KNOW to be true. Theism refers to belief, or what you BELIEVE to be true. To be an a-gnostic is to "lack knowledge." In other words, you have no direct knowledge that there is a god. To be an a-theist is to "lack belief." In other words, you have no personal belief that there is a god.
Most people who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic are, in fact, both. In common parlance, agnostic is generally used to mean "I'm not sure, so I take the on-the-fence position." If you can state outright that you do not believe in a god or gods, then you are an atheist. You made exactly such a statement.
As for the other stuff you mentioned, such as various supernatural elements, I don't think you'll find many here who share in those beliefs and, be forewarned, most consider such beliefs to be just as false, outdated, and "silly" (no offense) as a belief in a god. But I think you'll also find that as long as you don't expect others to abide by your own beliefs, we atheists really don't care so much what you believe. Welcome to T|A :)
Galen handled your atheism/agnosticism question quite nicely but i'm curious what your opinion is of religious people who when asked why they believe respond "i had a experience that confirmed for me that Jesus is real and he is god"
i have to think, if you don't believe in deities, that you would reject this as justifying a belief in the existence of god and yet you're doing the very same thing regarding paranormal nonsense. why the glaring inconsistency?
you do realize how truly terrible a guide to ultimate truth is personal experience right?
you said in response to your own question "could these be neurological events instead of supernatural"- i suppose. but i would ask you, do you really think it's MORE likely that these events were supernatural than that they were completely normal psychological cognitive neurological goings on?
@Nelson.....no, at this moment, I'd have to say I feel my experiences were supernatural. I am trying my best to read up on subjects such as Neuropsychology, and Quantum Phy...so I can get an idea whether or not the things I've experienced "were in my head" so to speak. Science knows that everything is made of energy correct? So do Witches...that's what being a Witch is about..manipulating energy. We can "see" some forms of energy...as well as feel them.
I think that just because there is no god or higher divine force, that it doesn't mean there can't be other forms of "energy" in other planes and all around us. Nature is all about energy...so, spirits are....energy. Does that make any sense?
energy is energy Alayna. it isn't mystical. you can't "see" energy and nor can you manipulate it. that's nonsense. just because you think you can doesn't mean it's true.
this is what i mean by being consistent. you didn't answer my question so i'll ask it again: when a religious person says they believe their faith is true because of personal experience why doesn't that make you think that their faith is true when you're saying that your personal experience leads you to believe that this supernatural nonsense is true? why do you think that personal experience is a valid path to discovering the nature of objective reality when it comes to your experiences and supernaturalism but not when it comes to the experiences of others and god?
"Nature is all about energy...so, spirits are....energy." does that make any sense? no. not even a little bit.