Wait, Qin is Christian?!?
Guys, did you know this?
I’ve read the thread, and I also looked up the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. I think we may have a bunch of agnostics in this thread who mistakenly think they are atheists. 
How would you describe someone who finds no reason to believe in god, or especially any particular specific notion of god?
I’m not agnostic on the issue of whether the god of the bible exists, for example. The book and his followers make specific claims that you can test in the real world. God is claimed to interact with the real world in very real ways that should be observable. If god were interacting with the world in such frequent, substantial ways as the religion claims, we would be able to detect evidence of it. And if a giant hand in the sky scooped me up into the sky and told me they were god, I’d start believing. Any religion that makes specific claims about what a god does and has done no longer falls into the realm of unknowable. If god does stuff, then we can see that stuff.
But there’s simply no evidence for that god existing, so I find no use in believing in it, the same way I’d feel about the existance of thor, or leprechauns. I simply don’t believe those things exist because I have no reason to believe they exist, and I find it likely that if they did exist, there would be good quality evidence of that existance.
My view is not at all uncommon - it is most likely similar to the vast majority of views of atheists. Would you describe us as not being atheist, but rather being agnostic? Why?
Atheist.
Not anti-theist.
Not a ‘religious’ or ‘fundamentalist’ atheist, as there is no such thing.
I have seen no evidence to support the supernatural, and that includes god. Were such evidence to appear I would change my mind, but at this time I have seen no proof of a supernatural being(s), which includes god(s), unicorns, fairies and invisible pink dragons in my garage.
Fully agree and could not be more eloquent than SenorBeef - the reason atheists split hairs as to their degree and reasons for non-belief has everything to do with evangelical theists. I stopped arguing with them years ago and refuse to justify my non-belief to them. If they wish to incorrectly state what atheism is, then they shall continue in ignorance.
I think the average Christian church contains a bunch of hateful, self-deluded bigots who mistakenly think they’re Christians. The difference between you and me is that you are provably wrong, and I wouldn’t go into a church and say what I think.
No - it’s not about knowledge.
Again, I’m probably butchering Kirkengaard, but I think the idea was that you believe because it’s absurd. This makes faith an intellectually hard thing to do.
As Ayn Rand once said: “God knows, I’m an atheist.”
No shit? Hey, did you guys invent that Exploding Heart Punch thingie?
Up high, Rache! This part of your post warrants repeating.
I’d change the word ‘think’ to ‘know’ for the churches I used to attend, before I came out and broke my mother’s heart, which some members of my family still attend.
Now, a poll asking people to place themselves on this 7-point scale would be interesting.
You make a very strong point, although I do find a series of subjects bring up the same follicle filleting you’re point out.
Nonetheless, I would like to change my answer to strong apantisist (Bulgarian boxer/brief reformed).
Not at all (except in one way which I’ll elaborate on below). I think it’s pretty obvious that “unbeliever factionalism” comes from the challenges put to it by the theistic majority, rather than anything that would naturally come internally from it. But not blaming someone for the situation is not the same as denying the situation.
The one way in which I do blame atheists for that factionalism is for letting their opponents frame the debate: When confronted with, “you’re so arrogant for believing you know so much about this huge universe that you know there is no god anywhere in it”, a chunk of the atheist community instead of responding with, “that’s bullshit – you wouldn’t demand that level of certainty on any any other topic – quit trying to change the subject!”, responds with, “Uhm, no, we’re not arrogant because we’re really weak atheists or agnostics, instead of that big mean arrogant strong atheist type you’re talking about.”
Ask, and ye shall receive.
How so? We have two statements of the form:
(1) I don’t believe X
(2) I believe the negation of X
When X=“I am wearing pants”, or “Swiss neutrinos travel faster than light”, or “the US dollar is worth more than 70 euro cents”, the difference between statements (1) and (2) is trivial. But if X=“god exists” then all of the sudden there’s a huge gulf between the two.
I think that’s a result of a couple things. 1) Atheists are more likely to be anti-woo and pro-science, meaning logic in the area of spirituality is more highly prized by us than by the religious–hence the nerdy clarifications and desire to be exact. And 2) The religious are the majority and atheists are in the severe minority. Framing arguments is a majority privilege. In other areas or countries where atheists are in the majority (or even here on the Dope), religious people tend to feel persecuted instead.