So I've been reading about different terms and it seems like "Atheist" refers to someone who is DEFINITELY positive that no God or other supernatural beings exist. So I'm not sure if I would qualify as an atheist or not... Here is what I believe that could make me not be an atheist:
-I believe that nobody (including myself) is ever 100% correct in the general sense. You can be 100% certain something is true from your perspective, but never from the 'general' or 3rd person perspective.
-I believe that similar to how most animals don't have contentiousness and comprehend reality differently then we do, we are limited to the reality we can comprehend and hence we can never really understand what reality/existence really is.
-Since where we come from, meaning of life, our creator/creation/existence, etc. is not comprehend-able by us any idea is a good idea, so as long as you don't say you're 100% sure, then you are correct and should believe in whatever keeps you motivated.
-Personally speaking, I would say there is about 0.00001% god exists.
So... Would I technically be considered as an Atheist?
I would go with atheist if I were 0.00001% sure, but if you’re not comfortable with that use agnostic. You fit in the agnostic category for sure.
All agnostics are by definition atheists, but you can define yourself any way you wish.
I know this has been done to death, but agnostics are not 'by definition' atheists. Many (though certainly not all) agnostics are de facto atheists, but even then, that de facto atheism is not always a useful or philosophically significant statement.
More importantly, agnostic theists, are, by definition, not atheists.
An Agnostic believes that we cannot know. The Atheist lacks a belief in god. It seems obvious that you believe that we cannot know if god exists, which would render you an Agnostic. However, if you also lack a belief in god(s) then you would also be an Atheist.
Many Atheists that I know have decided to forgo the label and instead choose to call them things things like Humanist, Physicalist, Naturalist, etc... so that instead of being defined by what they don't believe in, they define themselves by what they do believe in.
That's true, I guess I've been looking for the right term that describes my entire perception of reality rather than just my religious views so using terms such as Humanist, Naturalist, etc may make more sense, thanks!
Atheism is about existence. Atheism rejects the notion that God exists. Agnosticism is about knowledge and it can range from "It is impossible to know if God exists" to "I don't know if God exists." Thus, agnosticism is a little more complicated than you imply. One thing is clear, the agnostic's mind isn't made up about whether God exists or not.
According to Wikipedia, "Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence." So if you reject all beliefs that have no evidence, you are an Atheist.
Agnosticism is of two types. With respect to the question of God their meanings would be:
Strong: The stance that God is currently unknown and is unknownable.
Weak: The stance that God is currently unknown but may be known someday.
The only problem is see with Agnosticism is that you have to first define God which by itself is an unverifiable proposition.
If you think that there is a 0.00001% chance that God exists, you are proposing a probable idea of a God which is unverifiable and hence non atheistic view. You may call yourself a weak agnostic.
Atheism is simple.
if evidence == nil
BBcode. It's light, easy to grasp, and lets you get by while having to do only minimal reading or comprehension. Even so, most people won't even do that minimal amount of reading, and will pick and choose the select points that suit their needs. It's well understood that this markup code is extremely limited and does nothing to explain or further advance the larger code that makes up the site hosting the bulletin board, but most people don't seem to care.
You don't verify definitions. Take this definition: "Water, or H20, is that substance or molecule which is formed when two hydrogen atoms bond with a single atom of hydrogen." That is a definition. To "verify" it is to misundstand its function in the language.
I agree with what you said but can I just be as blunt as to point out that your second mention of 'hydrogen' should be replaced with an 'oxygen'? (i'm assuming a typo)
Hahaha. I meant "oxygen" of course. Momentary mental lapse. Unfortunately, it's too late to edit it. It's one of those "Well, you know what I meant" situations. :)
you're definitely an atheist. most atheist is open to be corrected and will not rule out the possibility of a deity even though the thought of which is laughable to say the least(mainly because religion made deity a laughing matter).
Agnostics thinks they dont know. To me that says that they believe it is as likely that a god exist as it doesn't. don't know if that makes sense :( But anyway that's why I don't like them either. they will go on a neutral stance on anything you cannot prove/disprove.
But I agree with Doug Reardon. Define yourself any way you wish. :D