I called myself an atheist not long ago and I still practically am. I just have come to include the position that just because there's no evidence of a deity now doesn't mean there won't be.

Now it's as likely that there would be evidence of a god as there would be evidence of Santa Claus. But that's only if we confine our understanding of a 'deity' to what religions think it is which, let's face it, comes up with some very wild and over the top ideas about deities. This is what makes evidence of a god as likely as Saint Nick.

But if it were ever discovered that the thing that set off the Big Bang had any awareness, that's probably the closest thing to a deity we could ever know. And that much broader idea of a deity, in my view, is more likely to be proven than its some bearded dude who sits on a throne and casts spells.

So to boil it down, I call myself agnostic now because I'm keeping myself open minded to the fact that there one day might be evidence even if there isn't any now. And if we don't confine our views about deities to what religions think they are, then it's a less of a stretch for evidence to emerge than say if we did confine ourselves. Does that make sense or am I losing my mind?

Evidence is stronger than beliefs or feelings. I like Freethinker myself.

I just don't think it's knowable whether there is a God or not. The more you read up about quantum mechanics, the more it shows that everything is pretty much perception. We live in an existence where we have nothing but our senses really. It's impossible to know what is "real" or not. If God came out of the sky how would we know for sure it's a God, or if it's just a more powerful and gifted being than us? Is it even possible for there to be an all knowing all powerful being who can do anything? There is no way of us knowing. I don't think there is a "perfect". We wouldn't even be able to know what perfect is. I'm a fan of Descartes. The only thing I can be sure of is that I'm a thinking being.

For those that say philosophy doesn't mix with science......it does.

Well the discussion about this is interesting. Truth is whatever word had been chosen some would prefer it and others wouldn't. I would have liked atheist.com but that's because I'm an atheist. And I get the distinction that people make when they say they prefer agnostic. Interesting that some think that the term atheist suggest a certainty that they are not comfortable with. Yet I agree with Dawkins on this point when he says I am not an agnostic about fairies, I just don't believe in them. Same for God. I think this will always be a point of difference amongst the non religious. Thanks.

The term atheist, for me, encompasses a degree of certainty. While I do not believe in a theistic deity, I am willing to consider different realities, which I cannot experience due to human limitations. Call it wishful thinking if you want, but I do not consider that aligned with staunch atheism.

(note: used YOU in the generic sense, not personal)

I just tried Atheist.com, got sent to a pop-up that wanted to install some software. I didn't want to allow that.

Well, it came up on the roulette wheel. I think a common theme among our members is a desire to have clarity based on evidence. One of the first steps for clarity is to be able to say "I wonder". We hope that promoting the term "Agnostic" become helpful when we interact with religious people as it shifts the conversation from one about "belief" to one about "evidence other than gut feelings". This being said, we are also looking at other domains to become a portal into this site. For example, humanist.com