Atheist or really Agnostic

[Tartarus Sauce]

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God. A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it. In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position. They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

Hence why I identify as agnostic atheist. Anybody that claims to hold absolute proof about the non-existence of god is making just as hefty a claim as the gnostic theist.

I still think that gods are merely products of human invention since this is the conclusion the evidence presented to me has led me to, and therefore I lack a belief in deities. I'm not making an absolute truth claim on that though.

Oh and one more technicality, to truly be an atheist means to lack a belief in god, not to claim there is none. To lack a belief in one covers both agnostic atheism and strong atheism. To specifically claim that none exist as an absolute truth value statement only covers strong atheism.