I am an atheist.

[Moscow Mule]

Well I do not believe in God but I know there is a small chance I might be wrong, which would technically put me as an agnostic atheist.

But this is exactly the same as:

Well I do not believe in the tooth fairy but I know there is a small chance might be wrong, which would technically put me as an agnostic tooth fairyist.

Which is the same as:

Well you do not believe in Zeus but you know there is a small chance might be wrong, which would technically put you as an agnostic Zeusist(?).

Zeus-ism and toothism are both theologies (well, not really, but you get the point), so you're still a-theist.

I quite like apatheism as a way of thinking.

[MyUserName]

You've misunderstood. That the rules of arithmetic are consistent and will never lead to contradiction is something I believe to be true, but can be proved to be not provable.

It is absolutely impossible to prove that the rules of arithmetic will never lead to a contradiction. You cannot physically demonstrate it - it must be taken on (for want of a better word) faith..

Sorry I am not following, I thought that the laws of mathematics did exactly this?
How can you prove it is non provable?

My personal experience of encountering the divine gave me sufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of God.

How can you be sure that this experience was with the the God of the religion you follow?

[NotAllThere]

But religious people are forever going on about their proof such as wine at Holy Communion actually turns into the blood of Christ. God only speaks directly to the Pope who is infallible (which makes the job of PR for the church very difficult when they have to back-track that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe).
.

Again you're confusing religious with catholic. Not all catholics are religious, not all religious people are catholics. Religious muslims, buddhists, zoroastrans and protestants don't go on about transubstantiation.

And the catholic belief is not that the pope is infallible, rather that the pope can make statements that are infallible.

Please at least try to get your facts right.

[MyUserName]

Zeus-ism and toothism are both theologies (well, not really, but you get the point), so you're still a-theist.

Feel free to switch them for any theism that you do not believe in.

[Project Monkey]

The fact that anything exists is proof of her! Your claim, not evidence.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn caused the entire universe! Statement.
Where you think the universe came from? Question.
Where do you get your morality from? Question.
How do you explain the divergence of life, which is clearly designed? Opinion.
How do you explain the laws of logic? Mathematically? Boolean?
You are not really a Unicorn atheist anyway, at the most you are a strong agnostic!

Probably.

No evidence, try again.

[d000hg]

Yeah Paddy why the fascination with the Roman Catholics? I don't think I ever heard a RC say that transubstantiation was proof of anything anyway... like asking scientists to test if it's wine or blood.

[MyUserName]

Probably.

No evidence, try again.

It is conclusive evidence which is plain to see, I am sorry that you are so closed minded.
Deep deep down you probably believe in the Unicorn and just hate her. I hope that you can get over these issues before you eventually die (assuming the Unicorn thing has an afterlife, I am not sure).

[Mich the Tester]

Yeah Paddy why the fascination with the Roman Catholics? I don't think I ever heard a RC say that transubstantiation was proof of anything anyway... like asking scientists to test if it's wine or blood.

Transubstantiation is a waste of a glass of wine.

[NotAllThere]

Sorry I am not following, I thought that the laws of mathematics did exactly this?
How can you prove it is non provable?

Well, they don't. If you want to know the proof that consistency cannot be proved, which is a diagonalisation proof, if my memory serves, google "Gödel consistency mathematics". It's something to do with that if you could prove that arithmetic was consistent, it would lead to an inconsistency. Same as the halting problem in computer science. It's a long time since I did my degree, so I'm very hazy on the details.

There are supposed meta-mathematical proofs of the consistency of arithmetic, but the systems they are composed of suffer from the same flaw - they cannot be proved consistent either.

In any sufficiently complex logical systems, there exist theorems that are neither provable nor disprovable. Gödel showed that in such systems, consistency cannot be proved.

How can you be sure that this experience was with the the God of the religion you follow?

How can I not? Being certain about something comes from evidence and personal experience. I've not found any contradictions so far, but there certainly are things I don't understand. In any case, we all to an extent construct our own religion - however I accept and believe the main tenets of orthodox Christianity. Hence I describe myself as a Christian.

[d000hg]

Transubstantiation is a waste of a glass of wine.

It's normally special communion wine AFAIK, which is awful.