A group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the
University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford have put together a site called Investigating Atheism. I haven't really explored it in depth yet, but here is one of the definitions they discuss.

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must
always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at
cross purposes. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines
atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1]

For him, negative atheism is simply
the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism...

read more»

A group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the
University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford have put together a site called Investigating Atheism. I haven't really explored it in depth yet, but here is one of the definitions they discuss.

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must
always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at
cross purposes. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines
atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1]

For him, negative atheism is simply
the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in
God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This
suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists
share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth
noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't
exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

Well I guess we're ALL Agnostics then? I have no real proof. Do you? Does anyone?

It's not really about proof. It's about whether what a person chooses to believe about the existence of a Divine being, by whatever definition, makes sense to them in terms of their own personal experience and outlook on life.

I don't have proof that a Divine exists. I see creation around me, all the unexplained wonderous things that nature does that science cannot yet explain but still happens. And the existence of some sort of higher power simply makes sense to me, so I choose to manifest that in a religious context. I don't really concern myself with "proof" for anyone else becau...

Well I guess we're ALL Agnostics then? I have no real proof. Do you? Does anyone?

It's not really about proof. It's about whether what a person chooses to believe about the existence of a Divine being, by whatever definition, makes sense to them in terms of their own personal experience and outlook on life.

I don't have proof that a Divine exists. I see creation around me, all the unexplained wonderous things that nature does that science cannot yet explain but still happens. And the existence of some sort of higher power simply makes sense to me, so I choose to manifest that in a religious context. I don't really concern myself with "proof" for anyone else because I don't need anyone else to believe what I do in order to have this personal opinion.

It's not really about proof.

Well, that's not exactly true. How about changing that to evidence? It's a fact that I can't prove one way or another that gods or a god exists yet the lack of evidence (any evidence at all) seems to point to god or gods not existing. It has nothing to do with making a decision on my part. If someone claims that they've invented a perpetual motion machine anyone would ask for evidence of that claim. If none exists then it would be strange for someone to still believe the claim for the existence of this perpetual motion machine. Continued belief in the non-existant machine would be viewed as a sign of gullibilty or ignorance (as ignoring the evidenc...

It's not really about proof.

Well, that's not exactly true. How about changing that to evidence? It's a fact that I can't prove one way or another that gods or a god exists yet the lack of evidence (any evidence at all) seems to point to god or gods not existing. It has nothing to do with making a decision on my part. If someone claims that they've invented a perpetual motion machine anyone would ask for evidence of that claim. If none exists then it would be strange for someone to still believe the claim for the existence of this perpetual motion machine. Continued belief in the non-existant machine would be viewed as a sign of gullibilty or ignorance (as ignoring the evidence) or a combination.

I see creation around me, all the unexplained wonderous things that
nature does that science cannot yet explain but still happens. And the
existence of some sort of higher power simply makes sense to me,

I too see wondrous things in nature. Many have been explained already and the ones that haven't I view as opportunities to find out the answers. No higher power needed. Some people refer to this type of theology as a God of the gaps. There is a logical disconnect though if one day we claim some sort of divine intervention for a natural event and the next day we find out the "real" reason.

And what gets me excited is the unknown. It is the food for inquisitive minds. Finding out the answers, though extremely difficult at times, is, to me, infinitely more satisfying than the "God did it" answer.

Well that's my 2 cents worth anyway.

Whether there is a higher power or not IS unknown. But simply believing
that the possibility makes sense to me, and I choose to honor that
idea, is not quenching the inquisitive mind. In fact, it stimulates me
to go deeper into the mysteries of life that I might not otherwise
contemplate.

WT, I have no problem at all with that. I suspect that you feel no need to make others accept your way of looking at things and wouldn't feel compelled to enact legislation to force people to adhere to your worldview.

As far as my outlook being based on a particular sect or tradition that's not exactly correct. I mention it and base my argumentation on it because the vast majority of peop...

Whether there is a higher power or not IS unknown. But simply believing
that the possibility makes sense to me, and I choose to honor that
idea, is not quenching the inquisitive mind. In fact, it stimulates me
to go deeper into the mysteries of life that I might not otherwise
contemplate.

WT, I have no problem at all with that. I suspect that you feel no need to make others accept your way of looking at things and wouldn't feel compelled to enact legislation to force people to adhere to your worldview.

As far as my outlook being based on a particular sect or tradition that's not exactly correct. I mention it and base my argumentation on it because the vast majority of peopole who feel the need to impose their view on others are of the "Abrahamic God stance". I view supernaturalism of all types to have little worth in the 21st century.

My experience has shown that pagans, buddhists, Jains and others are far less liable to feel the need to resort to coersion or force to push their dogma. While you and I have very different views I always enjoy our discussions. Viva la difference!