I voted for two options: the second one and agnostic/other.

I call myself an atheist on the basis of the second option. No operational belief in any gods going on in me as near as I can tell and certainly no conscious belief either. On the other hand, it is pretty tough to know just what all might be included in the god category.

The boundless omni-ness of the Christian god seems an absurd notion and an easy one to reject. How do finite, limited we even take the measure of any god's power or knowledge or anything else? Would a creature with all the perceptual and physical abilities of every creature on earth qualify as a god? It would know things by way of smell about our emotional state which we ourselves can only guess at. It would be a lot more powerful than we puny humans. So is that godlike enough? If not, I wonder what exactly is the threshold of attributes by which we will recognize a god? Without an answer to this question it is hard to know really what is being asked. I can't see losing sleep over whether or not ... I don't know what ... exists.

I'm agnostic about a lot of things. I guess you could say I'm pro-agnostic. I have no desire to adopt a stance of complete certainty toward propositions for which I have only provisional support. At the same time I am willing to and indeed have no choice but to act on provisional beliefs all the time. Hell, I probably act all the time on beliefs so basic that I've never even considered how much justification I have for believing them.

I like being agnostic because it fits with what I know about what I know about the world. It also allows me to enjoy the company of more people in the world.

---

I forgot to mention my problems with "supernatural" as a category. If this is a category about what we know about what is in the world, then there should occasionally be movement from the supernatural to the natural category. But if gods are defined as necessarily supernatural then I'm closer to being certain they do not exist at all. For if gods are only supernatural then that is to say they have no place at all in the natural world. To my mind that is tantamount to saying they just don't exist - unless we are to suppose there are parallel dimensions. But if there is no exchange or influence possible between these hypothetical dimensions, how can it matter whether or not they exist? If God is thought of as existing in another dimension then it must be explained to me how He is capable of moving between dimensions and exactly what is existence consists in when He pays us a visit.

I don't like the wording of "[...]and believe that atheism [bla bla]".
We can't believe in the definition of a word. Either the word means the same for everyone, or it is useless.
And the word atheist means "person who does not believe in the existence of any form of divine entity".
So I should go in number 2, but since I didn't like the wording, I went with Atheist other (please explain)

I don't believe in anything.

I am yet to find or be presented with evidence that anything "supernatural" actually exists.

I am totally confused and I can't seem to fit into any category. I am a Christian, and quite devout too seeing that much of my life revolves round the church and I serve at the altar too. But I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't accept the existence of ghosts either and I am totally without superstition. I will happily give and happily given bits of my hair and bits of finger nail to a friend who knew a voodoo practitioner but I'm not the least bothered about the supernatural because I'm so sure it's all bunkum. Just as I don't accept ghosts and fairies, I don't believe in a supernatural God either and along with that, I dismiss all the heavenly hosts and God's retinue of supernatural attendants. I'm ok with seeing God as a cultural metaphor just as angels must be metaphorical - I think even diehard fundies don't believe angels exist.

It appears my dismissal of anything supernatural is even more complete that that of some atheists and yet I'm a devout Christian. It's neater if you divide people according to church affiliations. Things become clearer then.

(September 8, 2012 at 8:41 am)greneknight Wrote: It appears my dismissal of anything supernatural is even more complete that that of some atheists and yet I'm a devout Christian. It's neater if you divide people according to church affiliations. Things become clearer then.

I think that it has already been clearly established that you're a cultural Christian, not a devout Christian.

(September 8, 2012 at 8:39 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I don't believe in anything.

I am yet to find or be presented with evidence that anything "supernatural" actually exists.

I know what you mean. This Descartes guy says "he thinks, therefore he exists". I think it is I that think, but the jury's still out.

I'm an atheist and I don't like being given labels

I had to go with Atheism (other).

I have yet to fully convince myself that we even 'exist' (empirical data notwithstanding). Certainly god does not.

(September 8, 2012 at 10:20 am)IATIA Wrote: I have yet to fully convince myself that we even 'exist'

You can think can't you?

Surely that is existence right there?

My atheism is purely the absence of belief in a god or gods.
My atheism is a product of my skepticism.
My skepticism is the driving factor for my disbelief in the supernatural in general.

Atheism, by no definition I've ever heard, entails the complete rejection of the supernatural. I would have to guess that the vast majority of atheists also reject claims of the supernatural, but not necessarily.

I am also agnostic, but not just because I don't claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. But more importantly, because I don't believe that the existence of a god or gods is knowable, at least currently.