Hmmm, maybe the answer is to keep looking? That gotta be it :)

Find out for yourself, once you either choose to believe or disbelieve you'll know what to call yourself.

What doesn't impress you? Was I unclear somewhere? Atheism = lack of belief in gods. You lack belief in gods, so you are an atheist. Is there a language barrier?

I'm pretty sure a lot of us grew up in some sort of religious background. But we athiests had to think for ourselves and come to a conclusion about the belief ourselves.

I'm positive that isn't true.

Wet shoes is evidence that supports rain, but it's also evidence that supports the notion that somebody got too close to a sprinkler system. Without more evidence, there's no way of knowing which it is.

The definition sounded "sugar coated" in a way, at least i perceived it in such a way. As if you wanted to present atheism as some kind of "all in one" comfort zone, i dunno... Maybe that's the way you understand it and for the sake of ease of argument you have a point.

Definitely wasn't trying to sugar coat anything. A description of something is completely different from an opinion of that something. Descriptions must be accurate in order to form opinions on it, and I tire of the great amount of confusion and incorrect usage of terms in atheism vs theism discussions. As someone posted earlier, how can conversations even occur if people don't even know what the words mean? How can we talk about flurrgarzings if we aren't on the same page?

If you don't like my explanations for whatever reason, then I recommend reading various definitions of atheism, as well as talking to various atheists to see what their views are. That should at least give you an idea of how atheists use the term.

It's not sugarcoating to call you an atheist, it's actually being pretty blunt and straight forward.

We had a long debate on here years ago about when exactly agnostic turns into atheist. It was a pretty exhaustive and pointless discussion, as I recall.

There is something referred to as a "hard agnostic" which in essence means you realllllllly doubt there is a deity as we perceive it but you are not someone who acts like we're sure of things we can't be sure of. That would be me.

They would be wrong. From Merriam-Webster, Athiesm means one of two things currently:

1) a disbelief in the existence of deity
2) the doctrine that there is no deity

What you are describing is an agnostic.

If you are going to label yourself, at least use correct terminology. :)

I think atheists are ridiculous, personally, for they believe a negative (that there is no God or gods). It is impossible to prove, because it is a negative, yet they believe such on blind faith. At least religious sects actually belief in something and not its absence. Agnosticism makes far more sense to me, because there is am implicit admission of doubt.

Personally, I follow Existentialism.

People who don't believe in vampires - let me rephrase it : who believe that vampires don't exist for real - are ridiculous ?

Nope, try again.

Uh, yes. It does kinda sum up my beliefs.

It is the definition. If you disagree with Merriam-Webster, then find another respectable dictionary source to refute the definition I posited.

First of all, this is a strawman argument; vampires =/= divine deity. However, I do think that anyone that says that vampires don't exist in the entirety of the universe (or universes, if multiverse theory is their thing) with complete confidence is ridiculous. One may base one's life on the assumption that the negative is correct, but one shouldn't state beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is correct unless it can be proven such. One must always allow for the possibility of the improbable until it is proven to be unequivocally false.