I too sort of miss being a believer. I’m not totally an atheist though. If asked in casual conversation I might say I’m agnostic, if I’m in a slightly deeper discussion I say I’m a seeker.
What would it be called if you don’t believe in “God” - in terms of an monotheistic religious dogma - but are open to the fact that, as humans, there is stuff out there we are simply incapable of comprehending with our human brains?
Whenever we think we’ve figured something out, the path of discovery takes an unexpected twist and stretches out even further ahead of us. Just when we puny humans think we have it figured out - the infinite complexity of the universe gets pointed out with some new discovery.
Note - I am in no way implying that there is a consciousness or an agenda or a specific attention paid to humans or Life as a byproduct of of this infinitely complex universe/system I think we are part of - i.e., I am not trying to rationalize a belief in God - I merely wish to point out that whenever Humans say “I understand” it merely means we haven’t looked hard enough to see the next layer of questions we can’t answer.
So what do you call it when you don’t believe in any specific God put forth by humans, and don’t wish to put implications or meaning on fate or karma or sin - but you also doubt the Human species’ ability to grasp the complexity of it all - and that the truths underlying our universe, as we learn ever more about them, will turn out to be far, far weirder and more wondrous than anything we’ve attempted through religion?
What would you call that school of thought?
Otherwise, regarding this overall thread, I am most aligned with **Czarcasm’s **wonderful post and those of like mind.
The only thing I miss about pretending* to be a theist is the community aspect.
Wait, that’s not true. I did often leave shul feeling like I wanted to be a better person. I liked that feeling of inspiration.
But the rest of the stuff? Meh. Even in my most delusional state of pretending to believe in god, I could never pretend to believe in an afterlife. I guess it’s a good thing I was pretending to be Jewish and not Christian, 'cause Jews don’t really bang on about heaven and hell very much.
*'Twas a phase. My whole family are atheists. This was my version of rebelling.
I don’t see any reason why someone with this view wouldn’t be called an atheist, except for not wanting the social stigma attached to the name.
You are talking about the limits of human understanding, or possibly of the human brain itself. Well, we all understand there are other beasties out there with less cognitive ability than ourselves, and I can imagine there might be beasties OUT THERE (points upward) with more than us. Your posts suggest that we are at the top of a scale, and the fact that we don’t (or can’t) understand everything means… what, exactly, to you?
Plus, I don’t see evidence that supports your basic premise. I see many cases where we don’t have sufficient information to understand, but relatively few where we have all the information we need, but just can’t comprehend it.
Every once in a while someone like Einstein comes along, and has an insight that completely revolutionizes what we think about the universe by a leap of insight. But just because he was the first to “get it”, doesn’t mean others were incapable of understanding. They understand it now, and someone else will come along some day with another brilliant insight to solve some mystery, and explain it to us, and we will say, “Why didn’t I see that?”
On the Straight Dope? 
But I meant specifically what happens to the person’s ‘being.’ What happens to the body isn’t any great mystery.
Interesting, I would have called it an agnostic. I’ve always just viewed the two terms as similar, but one is definitely sure there is no god, the other is unsure and not willing to commit to either side. It’s either out of our understand to comprehend or it’s simply indiscernible at the moment, but they are not willing to take the stance that there is truly nothing out there.
Is that the difference, or is there an actual belief system that agnostics tend to believe in vs. atheists?
Agnostics are not certain about the existence of a god.
Your post didn’t directly address that question, at least as I read it. It expressed uncertainty of certain facts or realities about the universe. And you have doubts about the human capacity to achieve such understanding.
If you are correct, and we humans can never understand the complexity of the universe, how does that involve the existence, or lack, of a god? IMO, that is an unrelated question. So I would say there was nothing in the post to negate the use of the word atheistic to describe those beliefs. And you went somewhat further, and specified that you don’t believe that these opinions require belief in a god.
So what do you want me to say? If you are implying that your post does indeed suggest a god, well then I would disagree, but in that case I would also say that the term ‘agnostic’ probably does apply.
Well, then, what’s the point? This intelligence isn’t interested in explaining itself to us, nothing we do can affect it, and if we ever climb to its level, it’ll be through our own efforts. God existing or not ends up making no difference.
The concept isn’t offensive in the least. It’s believing in the concept despite a lack of evidence, and in the face of a considerable amount of counter-evidence, and trying to mold the world to conform to this evidence-less belief that I find vapid, pointless and offensive.
Now, if there was evidence to support the concept…
The shoe industry is known to exist, at least. And if there is an ultimate meaning, I prefer humanity discover and define it than have it grudgingly revealed to us, or deliberately hidden from us because some entity has decided there are things we’re not meant to know. The masochism of loving and embracing something that seeks to keep you ignorant and in pain mystifies me.
There is no tree. There never was.
I was implying that an agnostic would state that CURRENTLY we humans cannot prove/understand the existence of god. As in- they would take the stance there may or may not be a God, but currently we are unable to definitely answer that question. While the Atheist would say “No there isn’t one.” and the Believer would say “Yes, there is one.” The Agnostic sort of fills in that middle ground.
I was merely asking is there an actual official difference between the Atheist vs. Agnostic than the way I had explained it (basically a “correct my understanding if I’m wrong” sort of a question).
I am an atheist, but I’m not willing to totally exclude the possibility that they may be a god. If I were pesented with overwhelming evidence that there is a god, I would believe it. I can’t say for certain what that evidence would be. Maybe a better distinction to make is that atheists don’t believe in things they see no evidence for. Agnostics are perhaps more doubtful as to what constitutes evidence, or more willing to believe something on sheer speculation.
I was raised Catholic, and became an athist around age 12. I don’t recall there was a middle ground when I doubted, but there probably was. OTOH, I think I disbelieved years earlier than that, but it took me until then to be bold enough to say so.
As I understand it, the classical meaning of agnostic is one who asserts that it is not possible for humans to know if there is or isn’t a god. (The bumper sticker motto being: “I don’t know, and neither do you.”)
As things stand, it seems to be used for “dunno.”
Not possible for now, or not possible for forever? I wouldn’t dispute that this has been used as a definition.
Whether or not there is a god, there will never be evidence that there isn’t a god. Just as there is no evidence that there are unicorns. We athists have to operate on evidence or the lack of it.
As I was taught, it was/is a philosophical position holding that it was not possible for us to resolve the question - not simply because one can’t prove a negative, but that it is outside of the reach of human reasoning and science. It’s not arguing whether or not there is a god, rather, whether or not we’d be able to know that. I think it’s defining “know” in some pretty concrete terms. It’s not talking about “knowing” in terms of “having faith”.
Which differs from the usual usage, whereby it’s more generally a personal statement of not knowing, rather than a claim that the existence of God is not something provable by Enlightment-era onward type “rational” argument.
So, the older definition is not so much, “Could be, maybe not…” as “Cite?”
Which is why I tend to regard agnosticism as basically a weaseling defense of the validity of theism; to pretend that it deserves to be taken seriously. Or just an example of people afraid to call themselves atheists. People aren’t “agnostic” about unicorns, or goblins; just God. If I said that we should be open to the possibility of unicorns * because we can’t absolutely disprove them, I’d be laughed at.
- I just have to add that when i first wrote that, I accidentally put down “unicrons”. I almost wish I had missed that typo.
I love being an atheist. It’s liberating. I don’t have have my life run by some hack in the Vatican. I set up my own moral code based on rational thinking. I don’t think being an Atheist is a pessimistic enterprise. I think we create our own meaning in life. I don’t need someone else to tell me what that is.
If scientific method proves to me there is a God I will be willing to change my mind. Until then, I like being an Atheist.
But, if there is a god, it’s conceivable , even likely there is evidence of it. And it’s conceivable that if there is not such evidence now, there will be in the future. A god would certainly have the power to reveal his existence.
Which is why I asked upthread, we cannot know now, or we cannot ever know?
Hmm - not sure if you and I are headed in the same direction - we may be; I am just not sure. While humans are at the top of the cognitive scale on Earth - and there is a possibility (I assume probability, IMHO) that there are other sentient species out there further along - I am not sure what the implications are.
My point is this: we are OF the universe. We lack the ability to separate ourselves from it and view it from an observer’s perch - and time and again, we’ve seen how the concept of a “removed observer” is a fallacy anyway.
Also you state:
That’s my point: Humans reach periods where we think we have all the information AND can comprehend it, only to be shown differently over time. Newtonian physics ruled for centuries - we thought we figured it out, but we have encountered relativity and now are dealing with a big tangle of stuff that seems way too complex. What I am trying to get at with my observation about Humans limitations to comprehend stuff is best captured by renowned physicist Niels Bohr:
Respected folks throughout time have stated that we’ve invented all the good stuff and there’s nothing left. The concepts of “sufficient information” vs. “all the information” to me don’t apply. Human beings will never understand more than a fraction of what is out there that is understandable - and will always filter it through a solipsistic “we are the center of things and the focus of our God’s existence” type of mindset - because it is our nature. Science, when done well, establishes a more neutral basis for processing our reality, but Human Nature seems to resist that direction when given a chance and colors how we process good science, bending it to our context and time.
For what it is worth, I have no problem being labeled, well, anything - so atheist may apply. But it is one thing to say I don’t believe there is a consciousness or a Supreme Being who has a Human-focused agenda, but quite another to say well, whatever IS out there may be far wackier that any stories we’ve created for our own comfort - and it is doubtful that we mere Humans will every appreciate more than the smallest fraction of that…but we should keep trying forever. IMHO 
Ok, I agree with this. Is the question of deism or agnosticism or atheism still relevant to this? IMO, it is, but only if your definition of godhood is simply “something beyond comprehension”. That’s not a definition that I find acceptable, but if it works for you, then ‘atheist’ is probably not the correct term for you.
I commend you for your honesty. I don’t think these feelings are at all uncommon, but I do think many people find it hard to admit to having them. I think most people live in some degree of denial - religious or not. Being a happy atheist requires a little bit of denial about this sort of existential nihilism. “It’s okay that I won’t live forever because I’ll live on in my loved ones’ memories” is just as much a comforting platitude as anything I’ve ever heard from a religious person…something you have to try not to think too hard about lest the comfort vanish.
Sometimes during happy moments I can’t help but feel a bit sad at the thought of the impermanence of everything in life and the universe. I’m only in my 20s but I already feel a little bit of wistful sadness at how quickly the years of my life have gone by, and how before I know it decades will have passed and my life will be over. When I’m snuggling with my boyfriend and thinking of my intentions to love him forever, it makes me sad to think about the harsh reality that “forever” really is just a figure of speech even if we are lucky enough to love each other the rest of our lives.
Life has its hard times and unfair moments, but overall I love my life and the world–heck, the universe–is an amazing place. I do find it very sad to think that I will not get to experience it as much as I would like to in the relatively short span of a human lifetime.
Personally, I take comfort in the thought of just how vast the universe is and the limits of human understanding. I like the idea there is “something” more to human existence than meets the eye, somewhere out there. Maybe that’s not rational, but it makes me happier, so who cares? 
Yep - that’s why I framed my first post to this thread as a question “is there a word for this?” - it is part of the conversation, but seems to be its own line of inquiry. To me it is more than just “godhood = something beyond comprehension” but I don’t need to weigh this thread down further with something that is not 100% on topic…