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?
Haha, you should try looking elsewhere for your answers, wikipedia may have general facts but it doesn't hold the answer to most questions. I have already read enough about the subjects... I'm more interested in people's opinions - but thanks for citing :)
People have their own definitions for any stance that they take... For eg, most people have mutually differing ideas about what agnosticism means... This inconsistency can only be resolved if we compare these ideas against a globally accepted definition of the idea... If we try to look for such a definition, we would find numerous differing websites on the Internet... We need a site that is secular, unbiased and citation demanding. Wikipedia fulfils this criteria. If you think that there is information missing on Wikipedia, why not try updating the articles? All you need is unbiased citations...
Because a lot of the times ideas are tied with personal experiences and if you really want to understand reality in my opinion is by creating an accepted definition of an idea based on others rather then taking the globally accepted definition of the idea. For example, God is globally - generally accepted by the majority - doesn't make it true :) Same thing applies with any idea. I don't think it's other people's job to globally decide an an accepted definition because that doesn't exist, only individuals opinions really exist.
I think most atheists are willing to entertain the possibility of a personal god provided there is credible evidence supporting that claim. Even Richard Dawkins refuses to claim 100% certainty that there is no god. When most atheists make the statement “there is no god,” we aren’t stating absolute knowledge, only that we see no evidence in support of any god’s existence. Granted we make our claims with a great deal of certainty, but there are few among us who would claim absolute certainty. Your self-description falls well within the realm of atheist, but whether or not you choose to adopt that label is up to you.
That is true, the idea of god only adds more questions if you're actually interested in the subject of reality. Most people don't really bother asking those questions. And as far as gods, it's more likely people created them to exploit other's weakness towards immortality/survival instinct for their own benefit then just to come up with an explanation.
But anyway, even if someone showed me convincing proof of the god modern religions talk about - I think the chances of me hallucinating they whole thing are still higher than it actually being real, haha!
Do you believe any gods exist? If the answer is 'no', then you are an Atheist. It doesn't matter how sure you are that no god exist. If you are not a theist, you are an Atheist. Atheism deals in belief and Agnosticism deals in knowledge. So you can be (and most are) both. I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist because I don't believe in any god, but also admit that I don't hold total knowledge in order to rule gods out entirely. Yet Agnostic doesn't automatically equal Atheist though. One could also be an Agnostic Theist. However, most theists usually claim to be Gnostic. That said, the vast majority of people that identify as Agnostic really are Atheist, but it can go the other way.
I think this is the cleanest definition. If you do not have a positive theistic belief, then you are by definition a- (not) theistic. Simple. It was George Smith in the classic "The Case Against God" who defined all newborn children as atheists. They (we) are not born with a theistic belief system, ergo ...
LOL ...and when I was a kid, I was taught that that was part of the Original Sin, being born in ignorance of God. I always thought it was weird considering the omnipotent being didn't bother to have us born in full knowledge of his existence. After all, when a crocodile exits its egg, it's in every sense a crocodile, only small. It will bite your finger while it's only half out of the egg.
I assume you're grouping the polytheists, monotheists, deists, etc, into the theist catagory
Correct. One god, any god, many gods = theist.
I would also add that by your second bullet there, you might be interested in the position of the Theological Noncongnitivist, sometimes referred to as "ignosticism." The very idea of "god" lacks sufficient definition to be a comprehensible proposition in the first place. Yes/no?