I guess my degrees of theism and atheism are those of a person’s actions. Do you live your life as an atheist or a theist? If you truly believe there is a god and your actions in this world determine your entrance into a life of perfect happiness and eternity of living in it, how can you not devote your every waking moment into the effort of qualifying for this most perfect of existences? If you walk around not considering this and just live a day to day life of working, living, and existing without the thought of this reward, maybe you’re leaning towards not really believing. Admittedly I have a ex-Christian’s point of view YMMV.
-
Get piece of paper and pencil, and write down the name of every single god you have ever heard of. All of em, even the weird ones listed in the 1st edition Deities & Demigods book.
-
Go down the list name by name, and mark an X next to each one that you believe actually exists in this reality.
-
Count up your X’s. If you have more than 0, you are a theist. If you have 0, you are an atheist.
Not believing in a god does not preclude changing your mind. I do not believe in any god I know of right now because I do have sufficient evidence to do so. If I was given sufficient evidence tomorrow, then that would change.
The logical problem we face is that God is not treated like any other subject, because it is the default position of a majority of people in the US. No one goes around parsing words to differentiate between different sorts of belief and disbelief in anything else.
I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. If it doesn’t, I will change my mind. Am I an a-solarist or an ag-solarist? It’s not really an interesting question.
What really, really drives me nuts are people who say “well there may be some sort of God that’s outside the universe and we would never know if he/she/it/them exists”. I guess, there may also be two of them. But if something exists that has no affect on our lives, and can in no way interact with our universe, then why does it matter if it exists or not?
As an example: let’s say I believe that everything in the world is multiplied by one every morning at 2:03 AM. Since it’s multiplied by one it all stays the same, but it really is happening. Prove it wrong. Can’t?, then you are an ag-multiplist. It is really no sillier than what I hear all the time from agnostics.
Forms of Buddhism are atheistic.
I wish the agnostics were as willing to entertain doubts about their preconcieved notions about the definition of “atheist”, as they are about the existence of the tooth fairy.
I’m an atheist. I’m sure there’s no god. But I’m not 100% certain - I admit the possiblity of various deities, starting with the FSM. You don’t like that? Too bad.
If you define both terms like that, you’re right. If not, maybe not.
I don’t accept that you have to be more “sure” about the non-existence of the generally posited gods to be an atheist than the general population is “sure” that there isn’t a santa claus.
By that definition, it’s possible to be both an atheist and a “technical agnostic”. And most self-described atheists full in that category.