I agree with practically everything (I'm an American, but wouldn't answer "of course!").xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Unlike Arael above, I find no spiritual strain with being an Atheist (I have no evidence of a spirit).  And am in no danger of losing my 'will to live'.
 
I do agree that to define oneself as an Atheist is counterproductive.  Why would you want to define yourself as a negative.  The term 'Atheist' refers to not believing in a concept without evidence that others believe in.  You don't call yourself an 'Asanta clauseist' do you?
 
That's why I like the term 'Rationalist'.  That says it all.  You base your understanding of reality on evidence and reason.  In fact, I like it so much that my 84 year old father and I are going to start a Rationalist society based in San Diego.  Let the revolution begin!

I agree with practically everything (I'm an American, but wouldn't answer "of course!").
 
Unlike Arael above, I find no spiritual strain with being an Atheist (I have no evidence of a spirit).  And am in no danger of losing my 'will to live'.

I do agree that to define oneself as an Atheist is counterproductive.  Why would you want to define yourself as a negative.  The term 'Atheist' refers to not believing in a concept without evidence that others believe in.  You don't call yourself an 'Asanta clauseist' do you?

That's why I like the term 'Rationalist'.  That says it all.  You base your understanding of reality on evidence and reason.  In fact, I like it so much that my 84 year old father and I are going to start a Rationalist society based in San Diego.  Let the revolution begin!

As I see it, religion is a set of rules for people to live by, supported by the unprovable (the divine). Definitely not everyone can handle the spiritual strain brought about by atheism - the tremendous amount of soul-seeking needed to find one's own meaning of life. For the meaning, or at least a purpose, must be present in order not to lose motivation and the will to live.

Some beliefs claim that humans are also part divine, part animal. I find it roughly overlapping with Freud's three parts of human psyche. Unfortunately, for the majority the id, or the animal, drives us to take the path of least resistance, and that is where the religion finds its place.

As for god/s, there are two definitions I am inclined to accept. The first one claims that "God" is actually a concept embodying the natural forces - and therefore, the natural laws governing the universe (e.g. the laws of physics). The rewards and punishments promised by most religions are not necessary, since every action violating these rules is eventually doomed to failure.

The second definition is a question of origin. Every entity has its origin in another. A human must have parents, or be the product of evolution (depending on how we choose to treat the problem). A work of art is made from basic materials, but the underlying idea (provided by a human) considered its important part. God, then, would be the only entity which as no origin; it would have to spontaneously come into existence, with no outside stimulus. Unfortunately, my meager human imagination fails me as to what would characterize such an entity. The answer, as usual, is mockingly religious: "God knows".