I honestly don't want to be offensive here, but why do you feel you have to call yourself an atheist here, as opposed to an agnostic? I accept you don't believe in any gods, but it sounds like you're not just keeping an open mind on the subject, but aggressively pursuing it.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines agnostic as
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
I don't believe the existence of god(s) are unknowable. I believe, based on my own personal analysis of history, politics, and psychology, that god(s) are a human product of wishful thinking and a coping mechanism to grapple with our own mortality. These conclusions combined with the complete lack of scientific evidence for god(s) brings me to my current position. I am not an agnostic. I am an atheist. I am an atheist who would desperately like to be proven wrong, but I am still an atheist.
To be agnostic, you must assert that because something is unknowable, neither party can be correct or have superiority over the other. But that is an intellectually dishonest position. We are all born atheists. We seek out faith when we realize we don't want to die. We seek out faith when we feel life should have a greater meaning or purpose. We are indoctrinated to faith when it is taught to us by our family and our society.
If the person who claims the existence of god(s) is ultimately unknowable is honest with him or herself, he or she must admit that the atheist position is the more logical and more likely choice. Most people do not believe in most of the gods worshipped over the course of human history. The atheist simply takes it one step further. Why would someone who admits there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) continue to sit on the fence? You don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, but you can't prove they don't exist any more than ghosts, UFOs, or god(s).
This is at the root of the atheist's comment from your original post.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 12:10 am (UTC)Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines agnostic as
I don't believe the existence of god(s) are unknowable. I believe, based on my own personal analysis of history, politics, and psychology, that god(s) are a human product of wishful thinking and a coping mechanism to grapple with our own mortality. These conclusions combined with the complete lack of scientific evidence for god(s) brings me to my current position. I am not an agnostic. I am an atheist. I am an atheist who would desperately like to be proven wrong, but I am still an atheist.
To be agnostic, you must assert that because something is unknowable, neither party can be correct or have superiority over the other. But that is an intellectually dishonest position. We are all born atheists. We seek out faith when we realize we don't want to die. We seek out faith when we feel life should have a greater meaning or purpose. We are indoctrinated to faith when it is taught to us by our family and our society.
If the person who claims the existence of god(s) is ultimately unknowable is honest with him or herself, he or she must admit that the atheist position is the more logical and more likely choice. Most people do not believe in most of the gods worshipped over the course of human history. The atheist simply takes it one step further. Why would someone who admits there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) continue to sit on the fence? You don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, but you can't prove they don't exist any more than ghosts, UFOs, or god(s).
This is at the root of the atheist's comment from your original post.