What am I?

Lately I've been experimenting calling myself Agnostic, (weak) Atheist, or a free-thinker.
I honestly think I could consider myself any of these terms.

However, I noticed:
Free-thinker was most accepted by my Christian friends.
Agnostic didn't turn out so badly.
Calling myself Atheist? It radiated hostility to a lot of religious people. lol

I'm sort of reluctant to call myself atheist now, because most people assume all atheists believe "a god cannot exist", which is a strong atheist viewpoint, not a weak atheist viewpoint.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. I dont think there are varying degrees of atheism. Agnostics, however, believe that God may or may not exist, but they are unsure in whether they believe He exists or not. So I'd say, if you believe that there is no God, you should call yourself an atheist. Otherwise, Agnostic is a good thing to call yourself if you are unsure.

Theres also other terms which may better suit you-
Naturalist
Non-Religious Humanist
or just Non-Religious

Atheist is a very broad term. lol

I'll just stick with atheist, because I myself do not believe in a god because there has been no real evidence to prove one. I accept that there could be a higher power however.

I'm tired of a lot of prejudice I receive for calling myself an atheist. Not anymore though. It's my belief, and if someone hates me for it, then I really don't need to associate with them.

zzzzzzz I live in a city that's between 93% and 94% Christian. The rest are primarily Hindus and Jews.

Jews tolerate me well.

I like Jews.

i love this question, everybody asks this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_8yPap-k_s

great example.

zzzzzzz I live in a city that's between 93% and 94% Christian. The rest are primarily Hindus and Jews.

Try living in a STATE that is like, 95% Mormon, and then calling yourself an agnostic/athiest. It'll be tough when I have to admit it to my family. They'll all hate me for it.

From a religious studies standpoint- an atheist is one who doesnt believe that there is a God. Generally- the belief that a God may still exist would classify you as an agnostic- again, from a religious studies standpoint. The other terms i listed above are a more specific focuses on the groupings of agnostics, atheists, etc. Those may describe you better- but then again, you are allowed to call yourself whatever you want (unless its the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater >:O)

umm, not believing that there is a God is agnostic. believing that there is no God is Atheist.

its a logic thing

I believe A is correct
I believe A is not correct
I don't believe A is correct (agnostic)
I don't believe A is not correct (agnostic)

Personally I think that saying "there is not a god, and cannot be a god" is close-minded. However, I personally believe the genesis of the universe can be explained with science, and I don't believe there is really enough information to prove any sort of supernatural power whatsoever, and I can see why someone would say "there cannot be a god".

I do not believe there is a god, simply because there is no proof.
Atheist, yes?


My religion (or lack thereof) has been going through a metamorphosis: Christianity, Agnostic-Christianity, Agnostic-theism, Agnostic-Atheism, and now Atheism.

You are the same decomposing matter as everyone else.

We're all just a virus with shoes. That's all we are.

I'll just stick with atheist, because I myself do not believe in a god because there has been no real evidence to prove one. I accept that there could be a higher power however.

This makes you agnostic, not an atheist.

It's not the label that makes the religion (or lack thereof), in my opinion. What matters most is your beliefs, themselves. Sure, it may be harder to explain without a proper term, but it also allows you to express your exact thoughts.

One could say "Well I believe in the Judaic God, but I practice Buddhism." Is a term really needed for that?

You are Agnostic.

I am Atheist. There is no god, and there simply cannot be one. It is far from close-minded. It's simply being realistic. I believe that beings of higher power exist, but they had nothing to do with our conception, nor the creation of the universe.

It's not the label that makes the religion (or lack thereof), in my opinion. What matters most is your beliefs, themselves. Sure, it may be harder to explain without a proper term, but it also allows you to express your exact thoughts.

One could say "Well I believe in the Judaic God, but I practice Buddhism." Is a term really needed for that?

I don't believe, I have a good idea. Generally the closest to my theology is Agnostic Deism, which is a combination of, obviously, Deism and Agnosticism. It combines the idea that there is no proof of God with the idea that God, if it exists, does not interfere in mortal affairs (Not that it can't, it just doesn't, as it would hinder free will). Kindof like watching a science experiment that you can't change, else risk losing validity of results.

You are Agnostic.

I am Atheist. There is no god, and there simply cannot be one. It is far from close-minded. It's simply being realistic. I believe that beings of higher power exist, but they had nothing to do with our conception, nor the creation of the universe.

Close minded was the wrong term.

I honestly would like to say that I do not believe in any sort of thing supernatural. Unfortunately I use higher powers to explain what I can't understand.

The biggest thing that I can't understand is how did matter come into existence in the first place, since it cannot be created nor destroyed. Are there any valid theories on this?

I've come to the conclusion that I don't believe in anything supernatural, but my mind tricks me into thinking of the supernatural to fill in the gaps.

Close minded was the wrong term.

I honestly would like to say that I do not believe in any sort of thing supernatural. Unfortunately I use higher powers to explain what I can't understand.

The biggest thing that I can't understand is how did matter come into existence in the first place, since it cannot be created nor destroyed by methods known to man. Are there any valid theories on this?

I've come to the conclusion that I don't believe in anything supernatural, but my mind tricks me into thinking of the supernatural to fill in the gaps.

It's very possible that matter can be created or destroyed, but w as humans simply aren't advanced enough to be able to do so purposely.

It's very possible that matter can be created or destroyed, but w as humans simply aren't advanced enough to be able to do so purposely.

Ah, you got me there!

For the past 2 years my thoughts have been filled with ideas on how we came to be. @_@

Another idea that comes to mind is: what if there is a higher power, but this divine being is not a known god. This creator simply plays the sims and laughs at all our squalls over gods (s)he knows to be false.

Another idea: what if science eventually leads to supernatural finds?

Or maybe it's just all (dis)provable with science. Science seems a lot more likely to me. lol


Or perhaps the world will never know, and these futile discussions will continue perpetually.

Ah, you got me there!

For the past 2 years my thoughts have been filled with ideas on how we came to be. @_@

Another idea that comes to mind is: what if there is a higher power, but this divine being is not a known god. This creator simply plays the sims and laughs at all our squalls over gods (s)he knows to be false.

Another idea: what if science eventually leads to supernatural finds?

Or maybe it's just all (dis)provable with science. Science seems a lot more likely to me. lol


Or perhaps the world will never know, and these futile discussions will continue perpetually.

[color="#cc8899"]To an Ant, we humans are demi-gods. We can smite them, bring disease upon them, wipe out entire civilizations with minimal effort, are near-invulnerable to their assaults, and tower above even their highest structures. We can create incomprehensible structures, and can alter every aspect of their life. We are completely alien in behavior, looks, and abilities.

It's likely that what we may perceive as a diving being is simply the equivalent, something beyond our comprehension in our limited scope, but completely normal in its level of existence. Entire civilizations could live in the most infinitely small of places, or we ourselves may exist in a single incomprehensibly small unit of space compared to how reality may be.

Basically - nobody can say if what we perceive and know of is the ultimate, either in vastness or the opposite. We could be infinitely small or infinitely large in comparison to any number of planes of existence, and anything occupying a large plane of existence would naturally be perceived as a god or godlike being. Anything in our own plane that simply transcends what we can imagine would be a demi-god.[/COLOR]