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?

[McCulloch]

I would like to tell you about my position.

"God exists" is a statement that cannot be proven in any objective way.
Because the definition of what god is is subjective.
Therefore, the negation statement "God does not exist" is also a statement that cannot be objectively proven.

That's why I define myself as agnostic.

When theists are asked about the god (or gods) that they believe in, various attributes and definitions of these deities are proposed. I can prove objectively for most of these definitions, the statement "God does not exist" is true.

That is why I also define myself as atheist. I do not believe that I can prove that there is no god without defining the term "god" but I do believe that there is no YHVH, Zeus, Odin, Father|Son|HolySpirit Trinity, Mazda, Allah, Siva etc. within the orthodox traditional definitions of each of these gods.

Answering the topic question, Atheist or Agnostic, I would ask, "How do you define the term 'god'?".

If your definition of 'god' is vague and far reaching, then I cannot, with certainty say that such a thing does not exist. If you definition of 'god' is specific to a particular religious tradition, then I can say with a high degree of certainty, this god does not exist. This answer is not entirely satisfactory, but it works for me.

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

You can see a subtle but philosophically important difference in the above statement, allowing me to fall into both camps.

[Alien]

Because the definition of what god is is subjective.

Agreed.
But, if we consider that all definitions have something in common, and we relate our considerations to that common denominator, then we have achieved a sort of "standardised thinking".
This common factor is that a god is an absolute supernatural entity that is the Prime Cause of the universe.

When theists are asked about the god (or gods) that they believe in, various attributes and definitions of these deities are proposed. I can prove objectively for most of these definitions, the statement "God does not exist" is true.
That is why I also define myself as atheist. I do not believe that I can prove that there is no god without defining the term "god" but I do believe that there is no YHVH, Zeus, Odin, Father|Son|HolySpirit Trinity, Mazda, Allah, Siva etc. within the orthodox traditional definitions of each of these gods.

Partially agreed.
I mean, you can surely prove objectively that some attributes to a certain god are illogical, but you cannot demonstrate anything about any absolute attribute, like existence of that specific absolute attribute.

I would ask, "How do you define the term 'god'?"

In my considerations, I am referring to the common factor that can be found in any god definition.
I am realising now that I have actually considered three common factors as attributes:

1. god is absolute
2. god is the Prime Cause
3. god is supernatural

It is surely possible to debate how much these three attributes are overlapping or not, but my position is that for any of these three attributes I must be agnostic because I cannot objectively demonstrate anything.

If your definition of 'god' is vague and far reaching, then I cannot, with certainty say that such a thing does not exist. If you definition of 'god' is specific to a particular religious tradition, then I can say with a high degree of certainty, this god does not exist. This answer is not entirely satisfactory, but it works for me.

I understand your position.
It would now be interesting for me to know what you (or others) think about the three attributes above. Are they vague or sufficiently defined?
I personally think that they are sufficiently defined to be categorised within specific boundaries, and therefore these boundaries are clearly located outside the scientific area. And, what lies outside science is by definition non-demonstrable and subjective.

[McCulloch]

Because the definition of what god is is subjective.

Agreed.
But, if we consider that all definitions have something in common, and we relate our considerations to that common denominator, then we have achieved a sort of "standardised thinking".
This common factor is that a god is an absolute supernatural entity that is the Prime Cause of the universe.

This is where the problem lies. Some Theosophist, Hindu and Buddhist concepts of god(s) are not an absolute supernatural entity.

[Alien]

This is where the problem lies. Some Theosophist, Hindu and Buddhist concepts of god(s) are not an absolute supernatural entity.

But this should not be a problem, in principle.

If we can identify and therefore separate the natural component from the supernatural component, then we should also be able to assess the two separately. The natural component can always be analysed with the scientific method.
The supernatural component can never be analysed with the scientific method. And for this reason, I am generally forced to be an Agnostic, more than an Atheist.