All of the first three fit me. I'm not a theist, so I'm an atheist; I can't claim to actually know whether God exists, so I'm agnostic; and of course I can't dismiss the mere possibility that there's a guiding, purposeful intelligence behind nature.
What I've described is often called weak atheism, which doesn't seem to be a widely used definition of atheism, except among people who call themselves atheists. The average theist would probably call me "just agnostic," even though the lack of evidence certainly inclines me toward the "no God" option, and I find the falsehood of all revelation-based religions inherently more likely than the falsehood of all but one.
edit: To elaborate on the last point...
Most moderate/liberal Christians I know are basically Unitarian in spite of calling themselves Catholic or Methodist or whatever, so they really hesitate to accept my dichotomy of "accept no religion" vs. "accept one religion and implicitly reject all others," but I don't see how anything else is intellectually defensible. They might say, "Parts of Buddhism are true, parts of Judaism are true, parts of Mormonism are true," but that's plainly not the same as, "Buddhism is true, Judaism is true, Mormonism is true," and the problem of reconciling all conflicting religions leaves them with an even bigger mess on their hands than the problem of glossing over all the backwards-ass savagery in the Bible, and rationalizing why Genesis and Noah's Ark are clearly allegory while the Ressurection is literal history (I actually saw some clown on TV say it was the best proven fact in history, according to one Oxford professor), etc. etc.
But with all that aside, once you've accepted one religion as true and implicitly dismissed everything else, you essentially have proof that the vast majority of religions are explicable in terms of fluke/fraud and hardly a scrap of evidence that your religion is not (unless you're really persuaded by apologetics or experience).
edit 2:
Rather than try to cram all that into the "Religious Views" section of my Facebook profile, I just post the following URL: http://deanoc.ytmnd.com
What I've described is often called weak atheism, which doesn't seem to be a widely used definition of atheism, except among people who call themselves atheists. The average theist would probably call me "just agnostic," even though the lack of evidence certainly inclines me toward the "no God" option, and I find the falsehood of all revelation-based religions inherently more likely than the falsehood of all but one.
edit: To elaborate on the last point...
Most moderate/liberal Christians I know are basically Unitarian in spite of calling themselves Catholic or Methodist or whatever, so they really hesitate to accept my dichotomy of "accept no religion" vs. "accept one religion and implicitly reject all others," but I don't see how anything else is intellectually defensible. They might say, "Parts of Buddhism are true, parts of Judaism are true, parts of Mormonism are true," but that's plainly not the same as, "Buddhism is true, Judaism is true, Mormonism is true," and the problem of reconciling all conflicting religions leaves them with an even bigger mess on their hands than the problem of glossing over all the backwards-ass savagery in the Bible, and rationalizing why Genesis and Noah's Ark are clearly allegory while the Ressurection is literal history (I actually saw some clown on TV say it was the best proven fact in history, according to one Oxford professor), etc. etc.
But with all that aside, once you've accepted one religion as true and implicitly dismissed everything else, you essentially have proof that the vast majority of religions are explicable in terms of fluke/fraud and hardly a scrap of evidence that your religion is not (unless you're really persuaded by apologetics or experience).
edit 2:
Rather than try to cram all that into the "Religious Views" section of my Facebook profile, I just post the following URL: http://deanoc.ytmnd.com
