I just don't care enough.

It still gets me that so many people will say their minds cannot be changed on either side of the spectrum. It just seems like such a stupid thing to limit yourself like that. Atheist who's mind can be changed because I have enough sense to be one. Religion is currently not logically supportable but that doesn't mean it cannot be so in the future.

I believe in one moth, creator of Heaven and Moth

my mind can't be changed simply because I've not been adressed to any religious doctrine. I'm an atheist, stop.

There isn't a point to arguing till we gain more facts.

░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄░░░░▄ ░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▒▒▒▒▀█▄▐▐▌ ░░░░░▄▀▀▒▒▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▌▐▄▄▄ ░░░▄▀▒▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▌ ░░▄██▀▒▒▒▒▄▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░▀▄ ░░▀▄▀▒▒▒▒█▐▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█ ░░█▒▒▒▒▒█▒▌▌▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░▐▌ ░▐▌▒▒▒▄▐░▐▐░▐▒▀▀▀▐▄▒▒▒▒▒░░░▒█ ░█▒▒▒▒▒▌░▐▌░░▌▒▒▒▐▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▌ ░█▒▐▒▒▐▄▄░▌░░▐▒▄▄▐▒▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▌ ░▐▌▌▒▒▌██▌░░░░▀▄▒▐▀▌▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒█ ░░█▐▒▒▌▌█▌░░░░░▀▄▐▌▌▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▐▌ ░░░█▒▐▌▐░▌░░░░░█░▀█▌▒▒▒▐▐▒▒█ ░░░▐▌▐▌░▀░░▌░░░░▀▀░▌▒▒▒▐▒▄▐▌ ░░░░▐▐░░░░░░░░░░░░░▌▒▒▌▌▌▌█ ░░░░░▐█▄░░░░░▄▄░░░▐▒▒▐▐▒▀ ░░░░░░████▀▄▄▄▄░░██▒▄█▌ ░░░░░░░██▌▌░▄█▐░░▌▐▄▀▌ ░░░░░░░░█░▄▀▒▄▀▄▀▒▌▒▀▄ Ｐｏｓｔ　ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ　ｏｒｉｇｉｎａｌ．

My mind could be changed by evidence, but I think we all know they're never going to get any, so I voted for the fourth option.

Atheist, but there's a very remote possibility that I can change my mind if evidence of a god appears.

Im a major communist.

Atheist/Agnostic but my mind can be changed in the right circumstances.

Atheist. My mind can change if there is evidence for God.

The biggest problem with atheists in this world, is that most do not put as much thought into their belief as theists. I am an atheist myself however I am not a whimsical atheist who knows a few popular arguments against God and abuses them. In fact on this very site I have paraded as a theist, at least a deist many times; as suspected many who do not have a belief in God struggled with the formal religious arguments. The real trouble is that atheism seems so obvious too many, why is seemingly the only question needed to come to the conclusion God doesn't exist. I am not going to argue against this as the burden of proof argument is as strong as ever. However, as far as I can tell any considered atheist should (for lack of a better word) vote for option Four. The ontological argument even tried to provoke atheist's who would have voted for option two, claiming that If you can conceive of a god at all their must be one. This argument I believe is in fact a very good argument: until you realise that the argument proves a conception of God, moreover, your own conception of God. It doesn't specify any trait of the God but that it exists. In fact a friend of mine who argued for the ontological argument and concluded God must exist was 'enlightened' (Now I sound hideously cocky)when I pointed out his 'God' was synonymous with a cosmic coincidence, rather than prove God he had named the big bang God! This is my point, I am an atheist because the God that Christians and Muslims alike talk of has no reason to exist, nor any evidencing (that I believe is sound.) Moreover if any of this evidence became available, the commonly known construct of God would cease to exist. As best as I can explain now: If evidence to convince me appeared, then the parameters of God's being would have to change; so much so that this being would not fit our current labelling of what God is (By the vast majority of western theists). Thus if you ask can I believe in something greater/wiser/ a creator, yes. But that wouldn't be a God. This is where the difference lies. Those who vote two have the ability to change the parameters of the word God to fit something different than the classical theistic God, Those who vote four most likely feel like myself, that the being we know as God cannot exist, something could, but it wouldn't be God and thus they would remain an atheist. The word from "atheos" meaning "without gods" not without X soon to be named God. (Only look at the history of religion to see how Gods characteristics and practices change over time to meet the current sciences ideas. For reference see how the Torah talks of men from mud whilst it's latest incarnation (Islam) proposes water, which was realised at the time by scientists to be the most essential part of any living creatures life. In the same way I feel something dubbed God will always exist but know that I could only believe in it if it was so radically different from current ideas of what God is/can do that I would not refer to it as such. Always remember many south American tribes used to believe the sun itself was a God, and only a nihilist would say the sun doesn't exist!)

I picked two, because if solid proof did exist (Better proof than people chanting from a book) I would be open to changing my mind. Until that time, I will stay an atheist.

Atheist. Tolerant. Mind-Changable

Ss an atheist my beliefs are based upon evidence, and the lack of evidence supporting any sort of supreme deity leads me to my atheistic beliefs. When evidence surfaces that suggests otherwise, I will revise my position.

My mind cannot be changed by someone on the internet.

Telling poll results.