Am I atheist or agnostic?

[bigmrpig]

Ok, so this is my belief about God, essentially.

I do not believe God exists. I feel strongly that he doesn't.

I do not believe God can't exist, I find the idea remotely plausible, I just do not believe it to be true.

Sort of like an invisible goblin living on top of my computer. I strongly believe it does not exist. Can it exist? I don't see any reason why not.

So if I acknowledge that a God could, theoretically, exist, as the whole idea would be beyond my comprehension if it were true, but I strongly believe that no such God does exist, am I atheist or agnostic?

[bernee51]

Ok, so this is my belief about God, essentially.

I do not believe God exists. I feel strongly that he doesn't.

I do not believe God can't exist, I find the idea remotely plausible, I just do not believe it to be true.

Sort of like an invisible goblin living on top of my computer. I strongly believe it does not exist. Can it exist? I don't see any reason why not.

So if I acknowledge that a God could, theoretically, exist, as the whole idea would be beyond my comprehension if it were true, but I strongly believe that no such God does exist, am I atheist or agnostic?

Both...an agnostic atheist.

atheist = no belief in god
agnostic = no knowledge (of the existence, or otherwise, of god)

One who believes in god but does not know for certain he exists is an agnostic theist.

Let's say I do not believe that the Christian god exists. In fact, using logic, I can say that, given it is a logical impossibility, I know the Christian god does not exist. In this case I am a gnostic atheist. Otherwise known as a strong atheist.

As to gods in general - if I do not have a belief in god but do not know for certain that a god, of some yet to be defined form, exists somewhere inside or outside the universe I would be termed, as you are, an agnostic atheist.

Funny thing is, Christians, who do not believe in the existence of Zeus for example are atheist as far as Zeus is concerned.

[mrmufin]

Often, your position is considered weak atheism, though some may regard it as agnostic. As well, I do not rule out any or all of the gods; I just find their descriptions so fantastic and the evidences supporting the concepts so scarce that their existence is most likely limited to the minds of the believers. Slightly more plausible, in my opinion, is the notion of an impersonal, indifferent being... a disinterested, absentee landlord.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Vladd44]

lol

When you figure out what you are... let me know....

I have been calling myself an agnostic with a strong atheistic gut check.

Its absurd to adhere to either belief, that there is, or is not definitively a god. There is simply no way to prove either belief. So I find myself in the agnostic camp. However when it gets down to it, It is inconceivable to seriously entertain the idea of there being a god in any way remotely similar to the one religions teach.

[ST88]

Its absurd to adhere to either belief, that there is, or is not definitively a god. There is simply no way to prove either belief. So I find myself in the agnostic camp. However when it gets down to it, It is inconceivable to seriously entertain the idea of there being a god in any way remotely similar to the one religions teach.

This is agnosticism in the modern sense as I understand it from Thomas Huxley's point of view (who re-coined the term in the 19th century); that the question of whether or not there is a God is not even worth answering.

[starr]

It is inconceivable to seriously entertain the idea of there being a god in any way remotely similar to the one religions teach.

That is why I am atheist.

...I acknowledge that a God could, theoretically, exist, as the whole idea would be beyond my comprehension...

That is why I am a weak atheist.

"The weak atheist position does not need a justification - it is the default position. One should not accept a position unless there is some rational reason for supposing it true. For a weak atheist it is sufficient to say: "I don't know what a god is", or "I have never heard of a god". Unless theism can be proved in some way, the weak atheist position is the preferred position. This is often confused with agnosticism."

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism ... tions.html

[The Happy Humanist]

It is inconceivable to seriously entertain the idea of there being a god in any way remotely similar to the one religions teach.

That is why I am atheist.

...I acknowledge that a God could, theoretically, exist, as the whole idea would be beyond my comprehension...

That is why I am a weak atheist.

"The weak atheist position does not need a justification - it is the default position. One should not accept a position unless there is some rational reason for supposing it true. For a weak atheist it is sufficient to say: "I don't know what a god is", or "I have never heard of a god". Unless theism can be proved in some way, the weak atheist position is the preferred position. This is often confused with agnosticism."

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism ... tions.html

That is basically what I am, a "weak atheist." But I detest the term. In fact, I detest the whole self-labelling thing, because it gets so bogged down in philosophical minutiae, and even border disputes. We start looking like the Christians who fall all over themselves to define Christianity in such a way that they look like True Christians ("unlike that wacky church down the street")

So when the subject comes up in debate, I have taken to calling myself a non-theist. It says what I want to say, that I'm not one of the believing crowd. Whether I believe God does not exist, or do not believe he exists, or don't know, or don't care, doesn't matter (and it avoids having to explain the difference to some slack-jawed dunderhead). I have identified myself as being outside the set of "religious people," and that's all that really matters to me.

[Vladd44]

It is inconceivable to seriously entertain the idea of there being a god in any way remotely similar to the one religions teach.

That is why I am atheist.

While I believe I can rationally exclude clearly contrived material such as the bible or quran. I am unable to remove the possibility of there being a god out there somewhere. Improbable? YES, Impossible? No.

btw, Welcome to the discussion emblazingstar.

[starr]

btw, Welcome to the discussion emblazingstar.

Thank you :) I need to get my post count up haha.

[Alien]

I would like to tell you about my position.

"God exists" is a statement that cannot be proven in any scientific way. When I say "scientific", I mean "objective".
Therefore, the negation statement ~A, ie
"God does not exist"
is also a statement that cannot be scientifically/objectively proven.

That's why I define myself as agnostic.

I cannot acknowledge any demonstration about any of the attributes "existence" or "non-existence", and therefore I am an Agnostic.

If I would feel in a position to claim that the statement "God exists" can be demonstrated, I would be a Theist.
If I would feel in a position to claim that the statement "God does not exist" can be demonstrated, I would be an Atheist.
If I would feel that Faith comes into my spirit, then I would be a Believer: God exists because I believe it without any demonstration.

In summary, my analysis covers all four possibilities about the statement A = "God exists".

A can be demonstrated => Theist
~A can be demonstrated => Atheist
A (or ~A) cannot be demonstrated, but acceptal of it by faith => Believer
A (or ~A) cannot be demonstrated, and refusal of faith => Agnostic

Answering the topic question, Atheist or Agnostic, I would say

An Atheist believes that God does not exist
An Agnostic does not believe that God exists

I can see a subtle but philosophically important difference in the two: can anyone see it?