Quote Originally Posted by CountArach View Post
The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.
There is also concepts such as Metaphysical naturalism which readily get dismissed. [definition: see below]

So technicially, I would be more of an athiest-antitheist-metaphysical naturalist-ignostic as I ascribe to different thoughts at different levels, in form of a construct.

To explain this, I will explain the order of importance and thought.

Main fundamental aspect is the ignostic.
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
If god means wolves to those in that tribe, means the river in another, or means the king in that culture, and all those other definitions and examples, how can you actually talk about the existance of god? Also, that wolf is just a wolf, that river is just a river, that king is just a king. If they are something I term 'Massively Powerful Being', then they are just that, a massively powerful being, may it be an advanced Artifical Intelligence UFO at the centre of the galaxy which can manulipate things at a quantum level or otherwise. The application of 'god' to these things is seemingly and obviously meaningless.

Secondly, as some one with a background in science (Since I have a BSc and a MSc), I am a metaphysical naturalist.
Metaphysical naturalism regards nature as all that exists or can exist, and assumes that observable events in nature are explainable only by resort to empirically observable causes. Consequently, supernatural agency is discounted, as are some abstractions thought to be independent of the physical universe (e.g., numbers).
Though, if we cannot currently observe or measure events, I believe in that we can do in the future, thus nature is everything is that exists or can exist.

Due to these points, I tend to hold an antitheist opinion.
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The etymological roots of the word are the Greek 'anti-' and 'theismos'. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
Since organised religion conflicts with the first two points (plus the fact they are generally a means of control and power), I tend to have an antitheist element.

Finally, as god cannot be defined, and most definitions of god attempt to say he is supernatural, and as a naturalist, I am opposed to this, and the fact all these organised religions are obviously not correct. I take the final stance that there must not be a 'god;.
Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

I am not sure if the people who are selecting "atheist" agree with my reasoning or my points, for what reasons they have of their own. However, I think the underlying thinking and stance I sort of laid out above explains why I naturally conclude as I do.