I'm definitely not an atheist tho.
I find/believe:
- theistic religions and their people are gullible and dangerously irrational (Christians, Jews, Muslims, ...);
- religions openly more philosophical are objectively great (Taoism, Buddhism, ...)
- atheism is mostly being willingly ignorant and closed-minded and feeling superior for it
- scepticism and accepting to not know things is the actually reasonable answer
Simple illustration: the origin of the universe.
The irrationally religious will directly talk about their God.
The irrationally atheist will talk about the Big Bang until you ask "what about before that" and they'll either explode or murder you.
The sceptic or agnostic will accept there was the Big Bang, and that there's possibly something before or more meta that we don't know about (yet).
sceptic or agnostic: I prefer sceptic, as it leaves a place for the (yet). But whatever, both are okay.
@CobaltVelvet i think would be more like, doesn't believe in any existing religion, and agnostic is there isn't enough evidence, the likely hood that eg Christianity is true, is comparable to the likelihood its not.
like its imposable to prove a lot of things aren't true, it doesn't mean we have to be undecided on any random idea unevidenced someone comes up with.
@radicalgraffiti actually yes, we have to :p
we can just put ideas aside as unlikely, but declaring them impossible isn't very truthful either
but I get your point
@CobaltVelvet well in theory maybe we should, but no one has time for that
it took me a long time to accept that atheist was the most accurate description of my ideas about religion, because of basically the same logic as you.
id never heard of sceptic and agnostic was unacceptable for giving to much credence to religion, so for ages i had no label for it at all
@CobaltVelvet oh fukc missed out "atheist" should be "i think atheist would be more like, doesn't believe in any existing religion, "