jj

I CONCLUDE that if a god exists, he, she or it has created the universe in such a way as to make it appear that she, she or it does not exist, and has given me absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suspect his, her, or its existance, given my own experiences with human beings, human witnesses, and expert subjects working in double-blind audio and image testing.

Since there is no evidence whatsoever, I do not conclude that such an entity exists.

You will notice that I have not phrased this as a belief. If you get to the bottom of this, you realize that the only belief required is the rejection of ultimate solipcism, which I do reject on a belief basis, that being all that is possible.

Now, am I an atheist or not?

I ate Pascal's Wafer

jj,

I think that you are an atheist. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a supernatural being (god). I'm new here, so I don't know if this is the agreed on definition here, but it's the one I go by. If you don't acknowledge the existence of a god then you are, by default, and atheist. You -lack- belief. You may not go so far as denying his existence, but you don't pray, worship, or accept that he exists, so that technically makes you an atheist. At least in my book it does. Again, this may or may not be the view of other people on the board, but I believe it to be true.

Nick

Technos

David, many Atheist (such as myself) disbelieve in ALL gods, not just specific gods. I, as a naturalist, not only have no need for gods and/or not believe in them, but literally disbelieve in all gods, including those I've yet to hear of. Maybe I take being a naturalist too seriously, but as a naturalist I rule out all things supernatural, which happens to include all gods.

emotional

I'm a 100% practical atheist. I prefer to be generous and give little godikins the benefit of doubt, but it would be actually worse if he really exists, because he'd be the biggest drip in the Universe. If he exists and is in control of history, then I hate him on 1) the collective level of killing 6 million Jews, including the whole family of my grandparents, and 2) the personal level of not doing the tiniest thing to communicate with me, although I tried talking to him for about two years.

If God does not exist, there's no-need to submit to him; switch case, else if, God does exist, then I hate him and refuse to submit to him. Damned and cursed be he for his mean, hateful, spiteful, nasty, horrid, miserly behaviour. I don't want this occult estupido, the revelation of the natural universe is enough for me.

(edited for a few repairs)

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: devnet ]</p>

Draygomb

I have a logical proof that the first cause can't be conscious, thus I'm Atheist 100% though I like to leave the door open so I'll only claim 99.9999...%

waxm

While I will admit that "first cause" has not been proven as a fact in my mind yet,
IE: Something had to have existed, which was not created, thus beyond my current understanding as of yet.
the question of my athiesm has nothing to do with this unknown.
The fact is, that it is the problem of theology which causes me to be athiest.
No theology that I have ever encountered is supportable by my cache of factual knowledge.

So in the end, I am much like the original poster, I can not argue that the concept of a God is incorrect, only that every established theology presented to me so far is.

cheetah

Great articulations of thought have been presented here. I think I can confidently call myself an atheist because 1) in the "common sense" the average joe would certainly call me that and to communicate with others (average American) and get a good meaning across, that's what I would call myself. 2) I am an atheist in regards to all gods I know about and 3) I am an atheist in the sense that I lack belief in a god, which is a good definition, even if I am not a strong atheist in the sense that I disbelieve in any possible god. The two sound the same, but are actually slightly different. And, like good science will only disprove the null hypothesis, not prove the null hypothesis, I, as an atheist, do not disprove any possible god, I only disprove (or disbelieve in) hypothesized gods.

vagrant

I have always had a little voice in the back of my head that says "you know you can't back that up" when I say "I'm an atheist".

From a purely logical standpoint, any argument regarding the existence of a diety can only come down the the prime mover and "who caused it" which cannot be logically surpassed as there is no way to know (at least currently) what "caused" the universe.

In pratical terms, I am a strong atheist as no evidence I have seen even slightly hints as to the existence of a diety.

[editted for clarity]

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: vagrant ]</p>

Philosoft

I tend to think in levels of certainty. I can be darn close to 100% certain that the major god-concepts are logically inconsistent and that the totality of the evidence does not suggest a god. It does not require metaphysical knowledge to make conclusions about current physical knowledge. What I can't be certain about is that our physical knowledge is complete to the extent that I can rule out additional logical means of incorporating a god-concept. God-concepts that are claimed to be 'outside' of logic or something similar I don't even bother with.

By the by, I call myself a skeptical atheist with philosophical tendencies.

Slayer Moon

Originally posted by cheetah:

<strong>For all those out there that consider themselves atheists, are you really? Consider the following, which has been my own thought process lately.</strong>

I think so! I see no possibility of god existing. And I am a positive atheist, that is, one who is certain that god doesn't exist.

[QB}I call myself an atheist because I do not believe in any of the gods that are believed in now, or in the past, by humans. All of the ones I have contemplated, the texts I have reviewed, the information I have learned, seem not to jive with common sense, scientific fact, or to be generally ludicrous. In addition, in learning about the scientific data available, which robustly supports evolution, and which points to the possibility of natural developments, or no intelligent design, I am comfortable with conclusions that a god isn't necessary for the creation of our universe. That, in combination with my conviction that the null hypothesis must be that there is no god, made me an atheist.[/QB]

Yup! You're an atheist. As for the "creation of the universe" though, common sense tells me that the universe was never created but always existed and will always exist. No matter how far back or forth in time you go, there's always gotta be something around.

<strong>However, now I am thinking: Can I really say I am an atheist? That I firmly believe that no higher power at all exists? No, I can't say that. All I can say is that I don't believe a higher power is necessary or a "given" with our current knowledge and that it is not incumbent upon science to prove that god doesn't exist.</strong>

So you'd be a negative atheist, one often mistakenly called "agnostic."

<strong>But, if I am saying I am an atheist, aren't I saying that I am very confident that not only is a god not necessary, but that no god exists? But, there are so many possibilities my little mind cannot even come up with, to say I am that sure is disingenuous. In that sense am I an agnostic? Can anybody really be an atheist or shouldn't we always qualify it by saying that we acknowledge there could be some heretofore unknown presence?</strong>

I do believe in the existence of a personal soul and in reincarnation, of all things. My awareness of myself tells me that I'm more than just an organic automaton, as many orthodox atheists would assert, and reincarnation is a great way to "recycle" souls. I'm from a Roman Catholic family, and my mother is a Buddhist, so that probably swayed my convictions. My mother doesn't believe in a god either, though, since Buddhism requires no such belief.

<strong>And true or false, I am analyzing this toooooo much? (True) It wouldn't change my way of life at all, but the thought just came round to me one day and has been nagging ever since...</strong>

I don't think so. Now and then we need to clarify our terminology so that we know what we're talking about.